Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 22 June 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

16 June 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

22 June 2017

 

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 25 May 2017................................................................................................ 7

6.       Council Minutes - 1 June 2017............................................................................................... 19

7.       Council Minutes - 8 June 2017............................................................................................... 31

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

8.       Enliven Places Projects Fund - Grant Approval - Resourceful Ōtautahi............................. 39

9.       Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 24 May 2017............... 45

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

10.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 7 June 2017............... 51

Finance and Performance Committee

11.     Maintenance Levels - Road Maintenance, Land Drainage, Water and Waste Water Maintenance Status Report................................................................................................... 59

12.     Parks Maintenance Status Report......................................................................................... 81

13.     Tuam Limited - Dividend payment...................................................................................... 135

14.     Development Christchurch Limited - Update Report........................................................ 141

15.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017......................................... 145

Regulatory Performance Committee

16.     Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Racecourse Area on New Zealand Cup Day 2017 151

17.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 June 2017............................................ 163

Social and Community Development Committee

18.     CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan........................................................................................ 169

19.     Draft Healthy Food Action Plan .......................................................................................... 181

20.     Approval for a Conservation Covenant Consent for 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch 191

21.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for part of the Duncan's Building, 143-157 High Street, Christchurch.......................................................................................................................... 199

22.     Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium the Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium.............................. 211

23.     Social and Community Development Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017...................... 225

Strategic Capability Committee

24.     Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 11 May 2017................................................... 233

STAFF REPORTS

25.     Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party............................................................................... 237

26.     Remuneration Authority Local Government Review Consultation Document - Draft Council Comment............................................................................................................................... 243

27.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 310  

 

 

 


Council

22 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

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 25 May 2017

Reference:

17/636398

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

9418581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 25 May 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 25 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 25 May 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 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

22 June 2017

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 1 June 2017

Reference:

17/636449

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

9418581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 1 June 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 1 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 1 June 2017

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 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

22 June 2017

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 8 June 2017

Reference:

17/609725

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 8 June 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 8 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 8 June 2017

32

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 24 May 2017

 

8.        Enliven Places Projects Fund - Grant Approval - Resourceful Ōtautahi

Reference:

17/576951

Contact:

Brindi Joy

brindi.joy@ccc.govt.nz

941 8316

 

 

 

 

1.  Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Approves a grant of $29,523 from the Enliven Places Projects Fund to contribute toward the operational and capital costs of Resourceful Ōtautahi Outdoor Craft Workshop green woodworking school in Christchurch.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Enliven Places Projects Fund - Grant Approval - Resourceful Ōtautahi

40

 

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Enliven Places Projects Fund - Grant Approval - Resourceful Ōtautahi

Reference:

17/360363

Contact:

Brindi Joy

brindi.joy@ccc.govt.nz

941 8316

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to seek Council approval for a grant of $29,523 from the Enliven Places Projects Fund (formally the Transitional City Projects Fund) to contribute toward the operational and capital costs of operating Resourceful Ōtautahi Outdoor Craft Workshop.

1.2       This project will foster the establishment of New Zealand’s only public green woodworking school. The school’s kaupapa is to use creativity to boost wellbeing and social connectedness by engaging the community in participatory arts, developing purposeful and meaningful work through creativity and in reusing discarded materials, at no cost to the participant.

Origin of Report

1.3       Applications to the Enliven Places Projects Fund are considered by an interdisciplinary assessment panel (‘the Panel’) of Council staff and a representative of Life in Vacant Spaces Charitable Trust. Decisions over $15,000 require Council approval.

1.4       In March 2017 Council granted $14,993.48 to support the first stage (stage I) of Resourceful Ōtautahi. The grant supported operational and capital costs to establish the school and test the workshop model within the community. The current application identifies a need for an additional $29,523 from Council to fund part of the total costs to deliver the project (stage II) through 2017.

2.   Significance

2.1       The recommendations in this report are of low significance in relation to assessment of criteria in the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is considered that there will be a localised positive impact in the communities in the city affected by this decision; the implementation of the Enliven Places Projects Fund is delivered through existing operational budgets; and no adverse environmental or cultural impacts have been identified by staff.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee endorse and recommend that the Council:

1.         Approves a grant of $29,523 from the Enliven Places Projects Fund to contribute toward the operational and capital costs of Resourceful Ōtautahi Outdoor Craft Workshop green woodworking school in Christchurch.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Resourceful Ōtautahi is a temporary project to engage Christchurch locals and visitors in a high quality free public green woodworking school on a vacant site in the central city.


 

4.2       Resourceful Ōtautahi began on 27 February 2017 and will run until end of 2017 on the former Convention Centre site at 95 Kilmore Street. The site is brokered by Life in Vacant Spaces. If demand for the project continues beyond the end of 2017, the project will seek to run longer term of up to 2 years while developing a workshop model/environment that has potential to relocate in the central city as required or desired over time, with the scope to eventually include the model in the East Frame.

4.3       Resourceful Ōtautahi received an Enliven Places Projects grant of $14,993.48 (33.1% of application value) in the 2016/2017 financial year for set up costs and the first two months of the school (stage I). The current application identifies an additional need for $29,523 (48.9% of application value) to fully establish Resourceful Ōtautahi (stage II).

4.4       The application to the Enliven Places Projects fund for $29,523 will support the costs for tutor fees, marketing for greater reach and a retractable canopy so workshops can continue through winter’s inclement weather. The foot traffic will provide support for the Peterborough Village including Peterborough Street Library, mobile food trucks and nearby regeneration efforts including Cultivate Christchurch.

4.5       The Panel reviewed this second application and recommends further funding in this financial year so the project can continue to deliver successful outcomes and noting the potential for added value, as reflected in points 5.13 and 5.15.

 

5.   Context/Background

 

Enliven Places Projects Fund

5.1       The Transitional City Projects Fund was established in 2012 to support the recovery by lowering barriers and encouraging light-touch projects that help bring life back into the city while development and tenanting decisions are made. Projects take place in vacant spaces. The Fund is unique to Christchurch and represents one of the successful recovery and regeneration investments initiated by Council in the aftermath of the earthquakes.

5.2       The Fund name changed in May 2017 to the Enliven Places Projects Fund to reflect the shift from recovery and transitional to regeneration.

5.3       Since 2014, the fund has seen a shift in applications away from small projects that require less funding ($0-$5k). Applicants are now delivering higher quality projects with greater community outcomes, and so funding requests often reflect this ($5-$15k+).

5.4       A budget of $150,000 was allocated to the Fund in the 2016/2017 financial year. The available balance of the fund for allocation at the time of this report is $89,661.50.

5.5       The total funding allocation recommended in this report is $29,523. As a result of funding this application the remaining balance of the Fund will be $60,138.50 for the 2016/17 year.

5.6       The Central City and Suburban Funds have been well utilised to date with total expenditure of 96% (Central City) and 72% (Suburban) since 2012, supporting projects that have included a Pacifica artists’ performance series from CoCA; artists including Michaela Cox, Gaby Montejo, Juliet Arnott/Rekindle, Tess Sheerin, urban farms Cultivate and Kākano, public theatre with Two Productions Ltd.

5.7       The Fund’s legacy is a wide range of projects that individually and collectively encourage a culture of creativity, innovation, experimentation and volunteering. This in turn means a wide range of short and long term outcomes for community wellbeing, our sense of place and the local economy.

Resourceful Ōtautahi

5.8       Resourceful Ōtautahi is a temporary project to engage Christchurch locals and visitors in a staffed public green woodworking school on a vacant site in the central city. Resourceful Ōtautahi provides free and inclusive practical engagement and learnings to communities and individuals using creativity to improve wellbeing, social connectedness and to support purposeful and meaningful work. The application to the Enliven Places Projects Fund is for assistance with operational and capital costs to run the high quality free public workshops in Christchurch.

5.9       Resourceful Ōtautahi is co-led by Juliet Arnott and Trent Hiles. Both have extensive experience and networks within Christchurch and have committed to remaining in Christchurch to work toward establishing Christchurch as an exemplar for resourcefulness and wellbeing.

5.10    Juliet is the project founder with a 20 year career in Occupational Therapy, which will support the engagement practices around Resourceful Ōtautahi to ensure this is as inclusive, welcoming and safe. Juliet Arnott learned craft traditions in the UK over a 9 year period, and related crafts in Aotearoa. These provide an authentic foundation based on various regional traditions to share with the public in Ōtautahi. Juliet founded Rekindle in Auckland in 2011.

5.11    Trent Hiles brings a wealth of experience in high quality creative projects, public engagement, transitional projects and all round resourcefulness. Amongst many his many practical skills, Trent has a Bachelor of Teaching and Learning, has worked as a teacher and as a Learning Advisor at Unlimited Paenga Tawhiti and Discovery 1. He is a founding co-creator of and educator at Seven Oaks, an independent school based in Opawa. He was a Gap Filler project coordinator from 2011 to mid-2015.

5.12    Resourceful Ōtautahi operates from the vacant former Convention Centre site at 95 Kilmore Street, Central City. Council granted $14,993.48 (33.1% of application value) in the 2016/2017 financial year for set up costs and the first two months of the school (stage I). The current application identifies a need for $29,523 (48.9% of application value) to fully establish the Resourceful Ōtautahi infrastructure and ensure the continuation of the free to the public woodworking school for the remainder of the calendar year (stage II). The applicant seeks funding to cover the costs of additional amenity to ensure classes can operate during winter, costs for tutors to continue workshops and increase their frequency, and costs to increase Resourceful Ōtautahi’s reach through marketing. Total Council contribution to this project in the 2016/2017 financial year would be $44,516.48 (42% of the total project value).

5.13    During the eight weeks of grant funded activity Resourceful Ōtautahi has hosted casual visitors, public workshops, evening and weekend upskilling workshop series, regular group meet-ups and site visits from local and international educational groups. Workshops provided training and resources for all ages and levels of practitioners. A wide range of over 400 participants have visited and/or taken part in the workshops from locals to tourists, university students, visiting academics and homeless. The workshops have also resulted in the training and upskilling of individuals who may in turn become tutors to take the workshops further out into the city.

5.14    Attendance to date has been limited by stretches of inclement weather as well as marketing reach limited to social media and word of mouth. Additional grant funding will help these moving forward.

5.15    The applicant has requested $29,523. The Panel supports the application for Resourceful Ōtautahi and recommended funding to support the school for the remainder of the financial year and the purchase of a retractable canopy. The Panel noted that the programme meets the Enliven Places Projects criteria and that the development of New Zealand’s only public green woodworking school offers an outward facing programme with considerable added value that supports the local community, as reflected in the programme Aims:

·    To connect with the public of Ōtautahi and offer them an experience where they feel resourceful and skilful using material resources that are free, from a regenerative source, and occur in abundance in the city

·    To engage and draw in the public of Ōtautahi and offer them an experience where they feel connected to others in their community

·    To attract and draw visitors to the central city to spend time in a memorable and meaningful way that gives them a unique and local experience (please note, there is no other public green-woodworking school in Aotearoa)

·    To demonstrate and make real the vital role resourcefulness plays in relation to addressing the ongoing well-being of individuals and communities, and relate this to often used terms such as: Zero Waste, Resilience and Sustainable Christchurch. This unique focus on resourcefulness in Ōtautahi will portray this city as innovative and genuine in its dedication to a truly healthy city

5.16    While offering significant intangible benefits to the community, wellbeing and connectedness, Resourceful Ōtautahi also offers excellent return on Council investment. The total request of $44,516.48 for both stage I ($14,993.48) and stage II ($29,523) to the Enliven Places Projects Fund grant represents 42% of the total estimated $105,731.22 to deliver the project. Partnership is demonstrated with remaining requirements met and planned to be met through a mix of volunteering (24%), sponsorship (28%) and other non-Council grant funding (6%).

Red Cross

5.17    The project has a collaborative relationship with Red Cross and new Red Cross-funded project to be delivered in the Peterborough Library. The Red Cross team will utilise Resourceful Ōtautahi as an extension of their creative workshops, i.e. referring members of the public to Resourceful Ōtautahi.

95 Kilmore Street – Current and Future Use of the Site

5.18    Following demolition of the Convention Centre in 2012, the site was leased to Life in Vacant Spaces (LiVS) to facilitate temporary activities (http://livs.org.nz/). Since that date approximately 40% of the site has been consistently activated and has proven a high-quality addition to the Central City and to the existing and evolving temporary uses of the former Convention Centre site. The balance of the site has been used by the general public as an unsanctioned car-park.

5.19    The site is currently activated by temporary activities from a range of organisations, including Resourceful Ōtautahi (RŌ) Outdoor Craft Workshop, Gap Filler’s Sound Garden, Michaela Cox’s Faux Arcadia artwork and mobile food carts. This critical mass of temporary activity better supports visitation to the nearby temporary regenerative projects including LiVS’ brokered Cultivate Christchurch, Kākano Café and Cookery School as well as the Peterborough Library.

5.20    In April 2017 Council proposed to transfer three properties to Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL), including 95 Kilmore Street. Public consultation for these land transfers closed 5 May 2017.

5.21    No date is set for a formal land transfer. DCL has indicated it will undertake site specific consultation and engagement prior to making final decisions on the future use of the site and current temporary projects can remain in place until the end of 2017, with the possibly of a later date.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Brindi Joy - Transitional Projects Advisor

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

9.        Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 24 May 2017

Reference:

17/587075

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 24 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 Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 24 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 24 May 2017

46

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

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

Reference:

17/627884

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 7 June 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 7 June 2017.

 

Secretarial Note:  The Council considered the Part A matter Item 8:  Proposed Christchurch City Biodiversity Fund at its meeting on 20 June 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 7 June 2017

52

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

11.    Maintenance Levels - Road Maintenance, Land Drainage, Water and Waste Water Maintenance Status Report

Reference:

17/572029

Contact:

Mark Pinner

Mark.pinner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8578

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the Report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Maintenance Levels - Road Maintenance, Land Drainage, Water and Waste Water Maintenance Status Report

60

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Maintenance Levels Service for Report on Maintenance Levels for Roads, 3Waters for Finance and Performance Committee

69

b

Transport Contract Management - Updated Business Case (Elaboration) - Presentation for Maintenance Levels report on Roads and 3 Waters May 2017

80

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Maintenance Levels - Road Maintenance, Land Drainage, Water and Waste Water Maintenance Status Report

Reference:

17/508130

Contact:

Mark Pinner

Mark.pinner@ccc.govt.nz

8578

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1   The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to be informed as to the current levels of service provision concerning Road Maintenance, Land Drainage, Water and Waste Water maintenance contracts and future opportunities.

Origin of Report

1.2   This report staff generated for the Finance and Performance Committee.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1      The level of significance was determined as no decision is required.

2.1.2      No community engagement and consultation is required for this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the Report,

 

 

4.   Key Points

Summary

4.1   The maintenance contracts are the cornerstone for the delivery of the activities that are aimed to keep the asset in service and meeting the appropriate levels of service. The effective planning and delivery of these operational and maintenance activities cannot be undervalued as they are the actions that interface on a day-to-day basis with every resident and ratepayer. Non optimisation of maintenance and operational activities can lead to reduced performance, lower reliability, increased overall life-cycle costs for the failure to meet key levels of service such as safety and the protection of public health.

4.2   Maintenance is both predictive and reactive. One of the key challenges of maintenance is ensuring the balance between the two, delivers the optimum in the reduction of asset deterioration and the delivery of serviceability within the allocated price envelope.

4.3   The initiatives outlined in this report indicate the direction taken within the maintenance contracts to deliver on this optimisation.

 

4.4   The Council delivers maintenance of the city’s roads, footpaths, landscapes and waterways through maintenance contracts which are tendered on a cyclical basis (mainly a five year period). The maintenance contracts total $44.5 per annum and include:

4.4.1      All Roads maintenance (5 years) $21m per annum

4.4.2      Road landscapes maintenance (6 years) $2.5m per annum

4.4.3      Land Drainage maintenance (2012-2019) $6m per annum

4.4.4      Water and waste water maintenance (2010 -2020) $15m per annum

4.5   The road maintenance and road landscapes maintenance contracts are currently in the market for retendering, with a contract commencement date of 1 October 2017.

4.6   Council has agreed (4 May 2017) to roll over the Land Drainage Maintenance contract for a further 2 year period until 30 June 2019.

4.7   The Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract currently has a completion date of 30 June 2020.

Current levels of service

4.8   Road Maintenance Levels of Service.

4.8.1      There are ten Levels of Service that are delivered via the road maintenance contract:

·   16.0.2 Maintain road condition

·   16.0.6 Maintain road marking to required standard

·   16.0.7 Undertake channel sweeping, rubbish and litter collection to agreed standards

·   16.0.8 Maintain the condition of footpaths

·   16.0.9 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition

·   16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city

·   16.0.13 Respond within appropriate timeframes

·   16.0.16 Response times for damaged regulatory signs

·   16.0.17 Sumps inspected

·   16.0.19 Maintain Road infrastructure

We are meeting eight of the ten Levels of Service.

4.8.2      The following Levels of Service are currently predicting that targets will not be met:

·   16.0.2 Maintain road condition:

The current target is that the average quality of the sealed local road network, as measured by smooth travel exposure is >=71%.  The roughness measure was carried out in November 2016 and the result achieved was 67%. The maintenance programmes for the remainder of the year have focussed on (amongst other targets) improving smooth travel experience for the road user.  This will be re-measured in November 2017 and we do anticipate a significant improvement.

·   16.0.7 Undertake channel sweeping, rubbish and litter collection to agreed standards:

The current target requires a reduction in Customer service requests from a baseline of 4400 per annum.  Actual figures to the end of April are 4040.  Given increased likelihood of leaf Customer Service Requests (CSR’s) (not complaints, but requests to pick up), it is expected that the level will be above the baseline at year end.  There has been a greater focus on this activity in recent months. The rebuild programme has resulted in a large increase in the volume of detritus on city streets which has limited the ability to achieve the performance measure within existing cycles of cleaning. There is a current spike in April (499 CSRs), slightly earlier than the last few years, due to leaf collection being requested.  The public are calling in sooner than perhaps they have in the past.  This could be a mix of previous under reporting and an increase in public expectations that Council will resolve. For more information on this Level of Service please see Attachment A.

4.8.3      Road Landscape Maintenance Levels of Service.

There is one Level of Service that is delivered via the road landscape maintenance contract:

·   16.0.12 Maintain street landscapes:

This Level of Service is being met.  This is measure by the number of CSR’s that are received per year.  This level or service covers berm maintenance, weed control, berm mowing and shrub maintenance.  Councils target is less than 2000 CSR’s per year and as at 25 May 2017 we have had 1780.

Councillors will also be aware of another level of service that we do not meet and this is street tree compliance with the electrical regulations.  Our target is 99% compliance and we currently meet 96.4%, which equates to 533 non-compliant trees.  This service is delivered independently of these maintenance contracts and we are working with the Parks Arborist to find solutions where possible.

4.9   Land Drainage levels of service

4.9.1      In Land Drainage there are two key indicator levels of service that serve as a proxy for meeting customer expectations. The first is the annual customer satisfaction survey, and the second are the number of complaints received. These are detailed below.

4.9.2      Level of Service 14.0.3 - Customer satisfaction with Stormwater Drainage Management: >=70%

·   Currently signalling AMBER

 

4.9.3      From the annual customer satisfaction surveys there was a linear downward trend post-quake that bounced back slightly last year. While we appear to have 'turned the curve' it would be very surprising to see this year's result back to the target of pre-quake levels.

4.9.4      Level of Service 14.0.12 - Number of complaints received by the Council about the performance of the stormwater system, per 1000 connected properties: 8.5

·   Currently signalling AMBER

4.9.5      So far this year to the end of April there have been 1717 calls made, with 1010 customer service requests (inferred complaints about network performance) processed. With approximately 151,218 properties connected we are currently running at: 8.0

4.9.6      Last year’s reported end of year was 8.4 complaints per 1000 connected properties against a target of 9.0.

4.9.7      While these are both hopefully going to come in under the target figures, a real improvement is expected to come in the short term as we use our condition and criticality data to plan and deliver proactive maintenance on a priority basis, which should reduce complaints, improve customer satisfaction and optimise the performance of the land drainage and stormwater network. Again, this should see continuing improvements from next year.

4.10 Water and Wastewater levels of service

4.10.1    The services carried out under this contract include, but are not limited to, the regular and reactive maintenance associated with water and waste water assets. This includes Water supply systems, Waste water collection and transporting systems, maintenance of storm water pumping stations and operation and maintenance of Banks Peninsula waste water and water treatment plants. There are a number of key indicators which help serve the customer expectations (Reactive maintenance) associated with the various water and waste water assets i.e. repairs are to be completed within the time agreed when the work was requested

4.10.2    The following level of service is the main non complying one. Level of Service 11.0.5 – Minimise number of Dry Weather (DW) sewerage overflows – number of overflows from the Council’s sewer system per 1000 connected properties per year: 0.7  To help minimise these the contractor has very strict response requirement as follows;

·     Urgent Category Zone 1 (Christchurch, Lyttelton and Governor’s Bay) – Contractor response within 1hr.

·     Urgent Category Zone 2 (Banks Peninsula) – Contractor response within 2hrs.

·     One day Category – investigated and assessed within one working day.

·     Three day Category – Investigated and completed within three working days.

4.10.3    Key performance Indicators (2016/17 - May) so far have been encouraging as we are beginning to embrace the SCIRT legacy and what that will bring in the coming months and years. The majority of the Levels of Service are Green Lights with only the Dry Weather overflows currently an Amber light.

4.10.4    It is only been in the past 2 years that Dry Weather overflows have been part of a mandatory Level of Service and been measured this way. It is currently an Amber light because it is close to the limit (0.7 DW overflows per 1000 connected properties). However if we continue to have a “good month” in May then the Amber light will probably be turned to Green.

 

 Minimise the number of Dry Weather sewage overflows -

4.10.5    FY 2016/2017 (July – May) - There have been a total of 87 DW overflows from the Council’s waste water reticulation due to various issues (tree roots entering the pipes or structural failure etc.)

4.10.6    All notifiable (reaching water bodies) DW overflows are measured against Low Service Damages which attract a penalty for the contractor – Approx. $6K per DW overflow). Please note there has only been 3 notifiable DW overflows for which City Care Limited (CCL) has incurred Low Service damages.

4.10.7    City Care have been targeting these known overflow sites and other potential DW overflow locations by using CCTV/root cutting and pipe repairs etc. This is money well spent and the Council/CCL will continue with this work.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current issues

5.1   Road maintenance issues

5.1.1      Key metrics for road maintenance that are visible to the customer (i.e. road repairs, and footpaths) are generally improving. This is a sign that the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) works are concluding and that good management of the basics by the Roading Team and its Contractors is being undertaken. The focus has been on dealing with safety issues, ensuring good asset management and increased auditing.  There are a number of legacy issues that hinder progress, these include:

·   Maintenance of the currency of citizen’s CSRs.  Contact centre updates are not completed or maintained.

·   Non-standard systems and processes.

·   Lack of clear reporting metrics and easily visible reporting for contract and asset maintenance management.

5.1.2      The following are a representation of the type of increased operational issues that are putting pressure on funding envelopes and resources:

·   Street sweeping is increasing in CBD as areas re-open and frequency needs to increase to meet higher LOS.

·   Rubbish collection expectation is increasing from public. This is often on private property.

·   On road/off-road cycling facilities require additional sweeping/inspections.

·   Significant lengths of (<30m) lengths of non-functioning drainage, i.e. water beyond channel.

5.2   Land drainage maintenance issues

5.2.1      Operational maintenance in Land Drainage, as opposed to Infrastructure Asset maintenance and repairs, includes a number of areas such as planned and reactive litter/debris collection, weed harvesting and bank cutting in waterways. These are areas of ‘visible’ maintenance where issues are directly or indirectly clear to residents. As such they generate a number of complaints each year that are reacted to, but which also serve to inform our future planned, or proactive, approach to operational maintenance.

 

5.3   Water and Waste maintenance issues

5.3.1      The main source of complaints from residents is planned water shutoffs i.e. City Care replacing a leaking water valve or leaking pipe etc. on part of the city water reticulation. Owners sometimes do not receive/read the WSO (Water shut off – date/approx. time water will be off) notice which is delivered to each affected property 48hrs before their water is turned off.

6.   Improvements Implemented

6.1   Road maintenance improvements

6.1.1      Results for the current financial year are showing an improvement over previous years. Some examples are:

·     Street and footpath maintenance improvements - better response to pothole repairs, lower numbers reported.

·     Prioritising pavement repairs more robustly (based on road demand, location in road (wheel path vs edge of road) and assessment of deterioration) has decreased repeat CSR’s from customers about similar sites/issues (anecdotal).

·     Better response to urgent and high priority customer and asset needs – improvement of using funds only where needed and at the right time. For example, not sealing parking lanes of carriageways when resealing, to ensure the money covers longer lengths where people drive over has meant we have resolved more issues.

·     Increased focus on customer, i.e. treating rough/ride issues by carrying out more “smoothing” and service cover adjustments.

·     Increase in kerb and channel repairs to minimise amenity loss/environmental and safety issues to public living adjacent to or driving through.

6.1.2      The new road maintenance contracts that are currently being tendered have focused on proactive and customer centric results.  Some of these key drivers include:

·     Increase control and visibility of service and outcomes to meet the Council’s Levels of Service targets and community expectations.

·     Collaborate with strategic partners to provide the best service at the best value for citizens.

·     Standardise systems and processes enabling common reporting across all transport projects, increasing flexibility in staffing and reducing technical debt.

·     Reduce administration costs.

·     New areas defined with one specifically concentrating on the central city

 

6.2   Land drainage maintenance improvements

6.2.1      We will be continuing to become more proactive and less reactive with our approach to operational maintenance. To this end:

·     it was decided by the Council on 4 May 2017 that the Council will extend the term of the current Waterways and Land Drainage Maintenance contract by two years to allow time complete the capture and update of asset data in the Asset Management System to include the extent, condition and criticality of assets in order to cost effectively manage these now and to get best value from future maintenance contracts.

·     We will review the criticality ratings, frequency and Levels of Service for scheduled items.

·     We will review our Reactive Work over the last three years in order to move a target of 80% of this work to a more cost-effective rolling Planned Maintenance Schedule.

 

6.2.2      As well as being more cost-effective, it is expected that the new contract will better meet customer expectations and as a consequence the Council will receive fewer complaints and see increased levels of customer satisfaction.

6.2.3      Improving maintenance levels in our waterways is a priority and we have been working on a number of fronts in this regard. Some examples are:

·     We received positive feedback from the organisers of the ‘Mother of all Cleanups’ held on 13 May 2017, with only 7.5 Tonnes of rubbish collected, compared to last year’s 20 Tonnes. Proposals being developed for litter booms for both the Avon and the Heathcote should provide further benefits for downstream areas and the Estuary.

·     We have taken care to keep litter collection to a high level in areas of the Bank Cutting Trial where we have left the grass to grow for ecological reasons. This, coupled with an extensive public information exercise, has kept complaints to only a handful.

·     In areas not within the trial, bank mowing confusion between contracts has led to complaints and Councillor concerns over occasional ‘mohawks’. A recent Memorandum to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee dated 24 April 2017 explained that council staff have been working to align Land Drainage, Parks and Roading maintenance contracts to avoid this occurring in future.

·     Weed growth in the Styx, Avon and Heathcote is another source of complaints as this can have significant effects on river water levels, and therefore actual and perceived flood risk. A review was carried out last year into weed harvesting operations and an optimised programme that is still responsive to seasonal variations has been created. The cutting season was also extended by a month.

6.2.4      The new maintenance contract when fully operational later this year will change operations from a reactive to a pro-active basis, with more work prioritised and directed towards condition and criticality. Also, as the Land Drainage Recovery Programme increasingly delivers capital projects on the ground it is hoped that this will help improve customer satisfaction. Focus and expectations are more on next year's increase.

6.3   Water and Waste maintenance improvements

6.3.1      As the main source of complaints from residents is planned water shutoffs, we have been working to try and improve public awareness and understanding. City Care and the Council have developed a web based programme which automatically updates a web page (Location plan) on the the Council’s public web site showing the whereabouts of the repair etc. and the approximate number of properties affected. It will also tell you the time the water was shut off and when the water is turned on. This way the public can go to the website first to check for possible reasons why their water is off before calling the Call Centre. We aim to carry on improving the data information over the coming months. We are also developing web based information pages for the public website to inform/show via a plan when the Council/CCL chlorinates reservoirs (as required by our maintenance procedures) and what areas/properties the chlorine may affect. With regards to waste water reticulation repairs or over pumping and the like we will also thinking of ways to capture the information which may be relevant to the property owner and add it to another web based page for the public to see.

6.3.2      One “positive” from having a contract with three years still to run, is that the contract is a “Living document” which allows the Scope of Service to be adjusted to accommodate the ever increasing number of pump stations or having to maintain new high tech treatment plants. Once the annual running costs of each treatment plant or pump station has been agreed between both parties the item is added to the Council/CCL contract.

6.3.3      Meetings with City Care to discuss the water reticulation, pump stations and reservoirs are held every month which allows both CCL and the Council to be proactive in maintaining the various plant and equipment associated with the water and waste water reticulation.

7.   Innovations and opportunities

7.1   Innovations in how we deliver

7.1.1      Across a number of our maintenance contracts numerous innovations are being trialled. They include;

·     Integration of GPS to track routine works versus schedules

·     Integrate auditing into workflow

·     Possible use of smart technology, currently we are establishing a trial on smart refuse bin technology

·     Use of GIS to plot activity hotspots

·     Analysis of fault finding versus spend – better understanding of backlog

·     Real time programming and reporting in new road maintenance contract 1 October 2017, see detail in Attachment B.

7.2   Future opportunities

7.2.1      The maintenance contracts are of a form that does not exclude further opportunities to be delivered either as an add-on or as substitutions.  There are also some key legislative opportunities for the Council to review various aspects of the maintenance contracts.  They include but are not limited to the following:

·     Review the levels of service as part of the approvals of the Service plans leading into the LTP

·     Linking capital with asset performance, ratepayer/resident cost and maintenance costs e.g. roughness, smooth travel exposure

·     Repackaging of contracts or tasks within contracts

·     Integrated performance

·     Localism/social enterprise/citizenship activities

·     Green versus black versus blue optimising contracts across activities

·     Section 17A review – review of service delivery arrangements

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Maintenance Levels Service for Report on Maintenance Levels for Roads, 3Waters for Finance and Performance Committee

 

b 

Transport Contract Management - Updated Business Case (Elaboration) - Presentation for Maintenance Levels report on Roads and 3 Waters May 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Mark Pinner - Manager City Streets Maintenance

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Carolyn Gallagher - Programme Director – Strategic Support

Timothy Joyce - Team Leader Operations Land Drainage

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

12.    Parks Maintenance Status Report

Reference:

17/572158

Contact:

Andrew Rutledge

Andrew.rutledge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8682

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Requests staff to provide advice to the Council on increasing maintenance resourcing, to be considered as part of the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.       Receives the information in the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Parks Maintenance Status Report

82

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Parks Maintenance Reports

91

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Parks Maintenance Status Report

Reference:

17/519733

Contact:

Andrew Rutledge

andrew.rutledge@ccc.govt.nz

(03)941 8682

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to be informed as to the current levels of service provision in respect to Parks maintenance and to provide information in respect to specific questions raised by members of the Finance and Performance Committee.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to questions raised by Councillor Johanson regarding the current levels of service and performance in relation to those levels of service.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined as no decision is required.

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation is required for this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Questions raised specifically relating to the Parks Unit are:

“Also was there any performance measures on the maintenance of our parks and greenspaces?”

4.2       The following are the Levels of Service regularly reported against in Councils monthly performance   reports. This is measured by several levels of service these are detailed within the current Activity Management Plans for the Councils operative long term plan. The most relevant in respect to parks related maintenance are below.

·        ≥ 95% of contract technical specifications pertaining to neighbourhood parks are met

·        ≥ 95% of contract technical specifications pertaining to sports parks are met

·        ≥ 95% of contract technical specifications pertaining to garden and heritage parks are met

·        ≥ 95% of contract technical specifications pertaining to cemetery’s are met

4.3       The second question relevant to the Parks Unit is as follows:

“Can I please get a more detailed explanation about what is failing and what specific parks this relates to?”

 

4.4       The information request related to information over the past 3 years. Note that detailed information in respect to quantity of work has only been available since the introduction of a new service contract regime and the associated B2B programme that commenced on the 1st of July 2016. Prior to that from the 1st of July 2014 until the 30th of June 2015, Information only related to the quality of the work achieved against the stated KPI’s.  All of the quality inspection information included in this report is a result of independent auditing programmes.

4.5       City Wide Programmed Work Results

The following chart plots the end of year results for the past three years against the performance criteria listed above, citywide. Note that at the time of generating this report, the May 2017 results were not confirmed, therefore all results illustrate finalised results up to the end of the April period. 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 illustrates the quality of work achieved as assessed by independent auditing. The auditing is completed following receipt of notification from the contractor that work is complete and to the specified standard. Note that substantive failures to meet targets in the latter quarter of 2016, will mean that, the contracted service delivery will most likely not meet expectation for 2017.

Appendix 2 illustrates the quantity of work achieved. This is a measure of completion of the agreed programme of work required to maintain the asset in a fit for purpose manner. The data is extracted automatically from council’s financial system on a daily basis.

It is clear from that analysis the both the consistency of service standards and the overall quality of the community based contract model has improved with the introduction of the new contract model. Following the mobilisation process the performance across the city in respect to the quality of the completed work has been meeting expectations 44% of the time and in the high performing band 56% of the time. This compares to the previous citywide contract where the quality of work completed met expectations 58% of the time and failed to meet expectations 42% of the time.

 

 

 

4.6       Detailed analysis of programmed Work by Ward

The chart in Appendix 3 details the quality of work to date for each Electoral Ward. As detailed in the background of this report quality scores fit 3 key bands, above 90%, 85-90% and below 85%. The KRA model explained in the background section uses these independently assessed scores to establish whether or not a contractor retains the contract term, gains and extension of 1 year or for below acceptable performance standards, loses 1 year off the contract.

Appendix 4 details the quantity information in the same way. For quantity of work achieved the minimum standard is 90% of the agreed programme. Failure for two consecutive months results in a year deleted form the contract term.

4.7       Detailed Analysis of Historically Not Completed Programmed Work by Service Agreement Specification

Appendix 5 The information contained within this section lists the work that was not achieved on a location by location basis.

4.8       Detailed Analysis of Historically Not Completed Programmed Work by Ward by Specification

Appendix 6 provides a list of all incomplete tasks in a numerical format under the relevant specified tasks. The last column details the total percentage of tasks.

The total number of Jobs specified citywide per annum is 71,605. The total for the period ending April was 59,438 with the total not completed as at the end of the April Period being 3,303 or 5.6 %. Of the work not completed 2050 or 3.4% were not completed in October and November 2016. This corresponds with the service providers losing a year off the total term of the contract for not meeting the agreed performance standards.

4.9       Unscheduled Work Citywide with a Breakdown by Ward

Appendix 7 provides a summary analysis of all of the parks maintenance related Customer Service Requests (CSR) received for the period 1 July 2015 up until the production of this report.

It also details the clearance rate against the jobs received. The cost for this work to date is $304,104. This consumes 100% of the available budget $ 15,000 per month, for reactive maintenance. Reactive maintenance tasks are selected following weekly meetings with staff and the service provider to prioritise the most critical jobs. Prioritisation of the reactive work is based on criticality. The key determinant is health and safety first.

4.10    Trend Analysis of complaints received from Citizens

Appendix 8 details the complaints received form citizens. The most notable trend here is that the peak in complaints at the latter end of the 2016 calendar year coincide with the peak in incomplete programmed work as detailed in section 4.8.

Whilst spring was wetter than previous years and essentially broke a 3 year period of drought like conditions, it was by no means historically significant. The lack of performance was attributed to unpreparedness of the contracted service providers.

4.11    Detailed List of Historically Not Completed Tasks by Park and Reserve Name.

Appendix 9 is presented to answer the question raised by Councillor Johanson in respect to

“Can I please get a more detailed explanation about what is failing and what specific parks this relates to?”

 

The information provides a full list of incomplete tasks by the location and the frequency of not performed tasks.

4.12    Key Issues

Analysis of customer provided information as well as ongoing discussions with contractors and frontline staff would indicate that the key issues are threefold.

1.    Firstly our ability to fund a greater proportion of CSR driven activity. It will never be affordable to manage every request, however a higher target would seem appropriate.  As we always have more demand than capacity, labour is provided at a fixed rate via 3 x 2 person response teams, essentially 1 per contract.

2.    Secondly regular annual budget cuts, accumulatively 9% over the 3 years spanning 2014 through to 2016 inclusive, has limited the council’s ability to proactively maintain fixed assets such as park furnishings outside if required health and safety checks. Note the Parks budget was increased for the current financial year by $1.9m to compensate for the increased cost associated to removal of glyphosate week killer.

These cuts have meant that decisions not to proactively maintain non green assets have had to be made. This materialises for example as, visible wear and tear, chipped paint and poor presentation of assets.

3.    Lastly and possibly the most telling risk is the lack of front line personnel within the parks team. The Urban Park Ranger team is limited to 3 persons covering the entire city and Banks Peninsula. The staff’s ability to trouble shoot and work collaboratively with service providers is limited to reactive responses. Extra front line staff would improve council’s ability to work closely with citizens to provide a more balanced approach to local needs, particularly in high demand seasons. Internal analysis would indicate that this team should increase from three personnel to six.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Key Result Area (KRA) Model

5.1       The following KRA Model is utilised for the management of quality assurance processes associated to the contracted work force.

5.2       The KRA Model is a key element of the X20 Performance Provisions. The inputs for the KRA Model are the Contractor’s performance in three component areas, namely:

·    Business Practice;

·    Quantity Delivered; and

·    Quality Delivered.

Each of the Business Practice, Quantity Achieved and Quality Achieved components (the components) provide a gateway to the next component. The outcome of the KRA Model impacts on the duration of the service period of the contract. There are three possible impacts on the service period, namely:

·    An increase in the service period by one year;

·    No change to the service period; and

·    A decrease in the service period by one year.

5.3       Source Data

The source data for the:

·   Business Practice component is both the Contractor and the Employer.

·   Quantity Delivered is Council’s SAP system.

·   Quality Delivered is the Independent Inspection provider.

 

5.4       Independent Inspection – Operation and Calibration

The Independent Inspection services will be provided by a third party. The Independent Inspection services will operate throughout the service period with reports provided at the end of each assessment interval. From the source data, reports will be generated for the Contractor, the Employer and the public.

 

For the purpose of calibrating the Independent Inspection service, at the end of each assessment interval during the Transition Period only, the Contractor may document for the Service Manager any areas where it believes the Independent Inspection provider has incorrectly measured its performance and/or misinterpreted the KPI’s.

 

From the information provided by the Contractor, the Service Manager in their sole discretion may amend or not the reports of the Independent Inspections provider and/or amend the KPI’s to provide clarity.

 

At the end of the Transition Period, further discussion will be at the sole discretion of the Employer. 

 

5.5       Performance Standards and High Performing Zone

The components have pass/fail performance standards with the Quality component also having a high performing zone.

 

The performance standards and high performing zones are greater than or equal to:

·    Business Practice – 80%

·    Quantity Delivered – 90%

·    Quality Delivered – 85%

·    Quality Delivered: High Performing – 90%

5.6       Calculating Annual KRA Scores and Time in the Zone

The KRA’s will be monitored and assessed monthly and calculated annually.

Additional to meeting the performance standards, Contractors must also maintain the performance standards for a minimum of 10 out of 12 months in any contract year with the allowable fails, if any, not being in consecutive months.

 

The continuity of achieving this “time in the zone” is an important principle of the KRA Model.

 

5.7       Operation of Component 1 - Business Practice

 

There are four sub components within Business Practice, namely:

(a)    Health and Safety

·    Evidence of compliance to: the statutory requirements; the Contractor’s own policies and operating procedures; and the application of lessons learnt.

 

(b)    Customer

·    Response Team – 90% of prioritised work orders are completed and closed

·    Customer complaints are recorded, categorised, and actioned and lessons learnt identified and implemented.

·    85% of the Specification’s Standard Operating Procedures are delivered to standard.

 

(c)    Environment

·    Evidence of compliance to: the statutory requirements; the Contractor’s own policies and operating procedures; and the application of lessons learnt.

 

(d)    Financial and Administration

·    Forward works programme and forecasts are submitted to the specified methodology and standards (including on accurate, on-time and complete)

·    Claims are submitted to the specified methodology and standards (including on accurate, on-time and complete)

·    Reports submitted in specified formats

·    Evidence presented of training needs and development planning.

 

Monthly within five working days of the latest date for submission of the claim the Contractor submits a Business Practice Report to the Service Manager detailing the Contractors performance against all the Business Practice performance criteria.

 

The Employer acting reasonably will within five (5) days of receipt of the Business Practice Report review the Contractors submission and accept or amend the scores.  The Employers scores are final and not open to dispute.

 

To meet the performance standard the Contractor must achieve greater than or equal to 80% for 10 out 12 months in any contract year with the allowable fails, if any, not being in consecutive months.

 

If the Contractor meets the standard they progress to the next component.

 

If the Contractor fails to meet the standard their service period decreases by one year.

 

5.8       Summary of the Process

A summary of the process follows:

 

 

5.9       Operation of Component 2 – Quantity Delivered

The Quantity Delivered performance standard is calculated monthly by the Employer by dividing the number of work orders completed and claimed for by the Contractor as a percentage of the total of that months programmed work.

 

To meet the performance standard Contractors must achieve greater than or equal to 90% for 10 out 12 months in any contract year with the allowable fails, if any, not being in consecutive months.

 

If the Contractor meets the standard they progress to the next component.

 

If the Contractor fails to meet the standard their service period decreases by one year.

 

5.10    Operation of Component 3 – Quality Delivered

The Quality Delivered performance standard is calculated monthly by the Independent Inspection provider based on the sample of work complete inspected in that month.  The percentage is calculated by dividing the number of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) (KPI’s are documented in the Volume 3 - Technical Specifications) passed as a percentage of the total possible KPI’s inspected in that month.

 

If the Contractor achieves greater than or equal to 90% and never less than 80% for 10 out 12 months in any contract year with the allowable fails, if any, not being in consecutive months their service period increases by one year.  This is Quality Band 1.

 

If the Contractor does not achieve Band 1, but achieves greater than or equal to 85% for 10 out 12 months in any contract year with the allowable fails, if any, not being in consecutive months their service period remains unchanged.  This is Quality Band 2.

 

If the Contractor does not achieve Band 1 or 2, but achieves greater than or equal to 75% for 10 out 12 months in any contract year their service period decreases by one year.  This is Quality Band 3.

 

If the Contractor does not achieve either Quality Band 1 or 2 or 3 the Employer may at its sole discretion terminate the contract.  This is Quality Band 4.

6.   Unit Contract management Methodology

6.1       The parks Unit manages its service delivery through a mixed model. In house staff provide maintenance services to the Botanic Gardens and Hagley Park, the inner city Avon River Precinct, once handed back from Otakaro Ltd, and components of the Regional Parks.

6.2       Contracted service  providers are utilised for the provision of   

·    Local, sports park and cemetery maintenance

·    Sexton Services

·    Tree maintenance

·    Park Building maintenance.

6.3       Of these services the parks maintenance contract is the largest component both physically and in terms of financial commitment from the City’s ratepayers. As at July 2105 the city has been maintained utilising 3 Community based contracts. These contracts are managed via an IT driven Business to Business (B2B) solution. The B2B tool allows the contractor and the Councils It systems to connect in a real time environment and enables a cost to asset management approach. Appendix 10 illustrates a chart that council staff monitor daily to track progress of the contractor on a daily basis. This enables a degree of proactive communication to occur.

6.4       In addition to Council staff viewing the completed task information the independent auditor also receives a daily download of all completed tasks. From this the auditor selects random jobs to audit both the validity of the financial claim that the work is complete as well as assessing the quality of the work against the specified Key Performance Indicators (KPI).  Appendix 11 provides an illustration of the information available to both the council and the service providers illustrating the quality scores as assessed by the independent inspections.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Parks Maintenance Reports

 

 

 

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

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 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


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

13.    Tuam Limited - Dividend payment

Reference:

17/572219

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.Christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Note that the future need to retain Tuam Limited as a separate legal entity is still being determined.

2.         Approves the payment of a cash dividend of $814,374 to the Council on 28 June 2017. Noting that:

a.         this dividend is considered a major transaction under section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 which requires shareholder approval.

3.         Delegates to the Chief Executive and the General Manager Finance and Commercial the authority to sign the shareholder resolution approving the dividend on behalf of the Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Tuam Limited - Dividend payment

136

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Tuam dividend shareholder resolution

139

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Tuam Limited - Dividend payment

Reference:

17/502901

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 Finance and Performance Committee to recommend to Council that it approve the payment of a cash dividend by Tuam Limited (Tuam) to Council in accordance with the major transactions provisions of the Companies Act 1993.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, taking into consideration the possible costs/risks to Council, ratepayers and the wider community of carrying out the decision.

2.1.2   Given the low significance of the decision and the commercial nature of the decision community engagement in relation to these decisions is not considered appropriate.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note that the future need to retain Tuam Limited as a separate legal entity is still being determined.

2.         Approves the payment of a cash dividend of $814,374 to the Council on 28 June 2017. Noting that:

a.         this dividend is considered a major transaction under section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 which requires shareholder approval.

3.         Delegates to the Chief Executive and the General Manager Finance and Commercial the authority to sign the shareholder resolution approving the dividend on behalf of the Council.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Tuam Limited indicated in its 2017 Statement of Intent (SOI) that it intended to pay a $46 million cash dividend to Council in July 2016. In determining the amount of the dividend the Tuam directors were mindful of ensuring that there was sufficient cash retained to meet the company’s liabilities and estimated future costs.

4.2       Tuam Limited did not provide Council with a draft 2018 SOI on the basis that an assessment of its future had been undertaken and an amalgamation with another group company was to be proposed to Council. Council staff are still considering an appropriate entity for Tuam to amalgamate with. As this decision is expected to be made within the next year it is considered appropriate to pay an additional dividend to Council of the surplus cash. Tuam is a non-trading entity and it is proposed that it be added to the exempt council controlled company list when the annual plan is approved in June.

4.3       At 27 June 2017 it is forecast that Tuam will have a surplus cash balance of $814,374 after allowing for expected future costs and the directors have recommended that this be distributed to Council by way of a cash dividend.

4.4       Section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 requires a company to obtain shareholder approval prior to entering into a major transaction. For the purposes of the Companies Act a major transaction is one which affects more than 50% of a company’s assets. It is forecast that immediately prior to the payment of a dividend Tuam Limited will have net assets of $822,565 and as the major transaction threshold is met and shareholder approval is required.

4.5       Subject to shareholder approval this dividend will be paid on 28 June 2017.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Tuam Limited is owned 100% by the Council. Prior to the earthquakes it owned the former Council offices in Tuam Street and a number of smaller buildings opposite on the south side of Tuam Street. These buildings were sold to the CCDU as part of the blueprint for the city.

5.2       The final sales price for these transactions was agreed in February 2016, when the Council settled its insurance claims arising from the earthquakes.

Dividend

5.3       At 27 June it is forecast that Tuam will have net assets of $822,565. Allowing for future costs a cash dividend of $814,374 can be paid.

5.4       The Companies Act 1993 provides that a company cannot enter into a transaction in which it will acquire or dispose of assets which are more than 50% of the value of the company’s assets prior to the transaction without a special resolution of the shareholders approving the transaction.

5.5       An $814,374 dividend represents 99% of Tuam’s asset value prior to the payment of the dividend.

5.6       The shareholder resolution approving the dividend is at Attachment A. The solvency of Tuam immediately after payment of the dividend has been assessed and the company will have sufficient cash to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Tuam dividend shareholder resolution

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

14.    Development Christchurch Limited - Update Report

Reference:

17/572265

Contact:

Rob Hall

Rob.Hall@dcl.org.nz

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the update report from Development Christchurch Limited.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Christchurch Limited - Update Report

142

 

No.

Title

Page

a

DCL 31 May 2017 Finance and Performance Report

143

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Development Christchurch Limited - Update Report

Reference:

17/496762

Contact:

Rob Hall

Rob.Hall@dcl.org.nz

 

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide the Finance and Performance Committee with an update on the activities of Development Christchurch Limited, and requests the Committee’s recommendation that the Council receives the report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the update report from Development Christchurch Limited.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The report from Development Christchurch Limited is attached as Attachment A. It contains an update on the following projects:

3.1.1      New Brighton

3.1.2      Peterborough Quarter

3.1.3      Christchurch Adventure Park

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

DCL 31 May 2017 Finance and Performance Report

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

15.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017

Reference:

17/572395

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 31 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 Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 31 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 31 May 2017

146

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 June 2017

 

16.    Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Racecourse Area on New Zealand Cup Day 2017

Reference:

17/595317

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

Evangeline.emerenciana@ccc.govt.nz

941 8579

 

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Resolves it is satisfied that:

a.         There is evidence that the area to which the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) applies has experienced a high level of crime or disorder and that this can be shown to have been caused, or made worse, by alcohol consumption in the area; and

b.         The Bylaw, as applied by the resolution:

i.          is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

ii.         can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

2.         Resolve to impose a temporary alcohol ban in the area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely:  both sides of the streets being Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road; Epsom Road to Racecourse Road; Buchanans Road to Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (see Attachment A – map) from 7am to 12 midnight on 18 November 2017 (New Zealand Cup Day).

3.         Request that a Public Notice be placed in the newspaper and signage be provided in key public places covered by the alcohol ban.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Racecourse Area on New Zealand Cup Day 2017

152

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Map showing the proposed Riccarton Racecourse temporary alcohol ban area

161

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Racecourse Area on New Zealand Cup Day 2017

Reference:

17/496701

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

Evangeline.Emerenciana@ccc.govt.nz

8579

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to recommend that the Council introduce a temporary alcohol ban in surrounding areas of Riccarton Park on 18 November 2017, New Zealand Cup Day, from 7am to 12 midnight.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council’s resolution (CNCL/2017/00141) on 11 May 2017 meeting:

Direct staff to investigate a temporary liquor ban being applied in the immediate area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road, Epsom Road to Racecourse Road, Buchanans Road to Masham Road and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road for its Cup Day on Saturday 18 November 2017 from 7am to 12midnight, and to report back to the Council by July 2017, through the Regulatory Performance Committee.

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 low level of significance was determined by the relatively small group of people affected, or with an interest in the decision of the Council.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation undertaken included emails and telephone calls to identified as potentially affected local residents, local alcohol on- and off-license premises, other businesses, residents associations, Community Neighbourhood Support groups, schools, and face-to-face meetings with the Tri-agency Licensing group, including the New Zealand Police, and Canterbury Racing management.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Resolve it is satisfied that:

a.         There is evidence that the area to which the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) applies has experienced a high level of crime or disorder and that this can be shown to have been caused, or made worse, by alcohol consumption in the area; and

b.         The Bylaw, as applied by the resolution:

i.          is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

ii.         can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

2.         Resolve to impose a temporary alcohol ban in the area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely:  both sides of the streets being Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road; Epsom Road to Racecourse Road; Buchanans Road to Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (see Attachment A – map) from 7am to 12 midnight on 18 November 2017 (New Zealand Cup Day).

3.         Request that a Public Notice be placed in the newspaper and signage be provided in key public places covered by the alcohol ban.

 

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: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 (preferred option) – impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban on New Zealand Cup Day in the designated area (see Attachment A) around Riccarton Racecourse on 18 November 2017 from 7am to 12 midnight.

·     Option 2 – Do not impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban on New Zealand Cup Day in the designated area (see Attachment A) around Riccarton Racecourse on 18 November 2017.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     New Zealand Police can control and monitor the inappropriate drinking of alcohol in public places around Riccarton Racecourse prior on New Zealand Cup Day event.

·     Lessening disorder and offensive behaviour caused by people preloading in public places.

·     General safety for all visitors to the New Zealand Cup Day event and local residents will be improved.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are some cost implications for the Council if the ban is approved i.e. public notices and ban signs. 

·     Alcohol bans reduce choices for responsible alcohol consumers.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council, at its 11 May 2017 meeting, adopted the recommendations from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board regarding the Temporary Alcohol Ban in the vicinity of the Riccarton Racecourse area on 18 November 2017.  The Council resolved to have staff investigate the possibility of another temporary alcohol ban being applied in the immediate area of the Riccarton Racecourse on New Zealand Cup Day 2017 event from 7am to 12midnight, and to report back to the Council by July 2017, through the Regulatory Performance Committee.

5.2       The Community Board’s recommendations to the Council for an investigation were made following correspondence received at its 11 April 2017 meeting from the management of the Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing requesting for a temporary alcohol ban for the Riccarton Park Racecourse areas on New Zealand Cup Day, Saturday, 18th of November this year.  It is their opinion that the continuation of alcohol ban will provide safer environment for the public and residents surrounding the Riccarton Park.

5.3       A similar alcohol ban request was made in 2015 and 2016 by the management of the Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing to the Riccarton-Wigram Community Board through deputation on 4 August 2015, and correspondence received by the Board at its 14 April 2016 meeting, respectively.

5.4       New Zealand Police monitored the crowd at the New Zealand Cup Day for the last two years. They note that several thousand more people attend Riccarton Park races on the Saturday than attend Addington on the Tuesday. The figure noted by Police in 2014 was well excess of 20,000 spectators, about 20,000 in 2015, and 15,000 in 2016.

5.5       The Council imposed a temporary ban of alcohol consumption in public areas surrounding the Riccarton Racecourse on New Zealand Cup Day in 2015 and 2016 to address the preloading problems and reduce the risks associated with inappropriate levels of alcohol consumption.

5.6       Since the ban was imposed two years ago, the Police note the level of antisocial behaviour has improved. They reported that the percentage of people drinking in and around the Cup Day venue was less in 2015 compared to previous years when no ban was in place.  In 2016, while the levels of intoxication were still unacceptable, compliance rates to the alcohol ban continued to improve as fewer empty bottles were found, and feedback received from local residents was positive.

5.7       New Zealand Police expect that as people get familiar with the ban, preloading will eventually reduce and peoples’ behaviour before they get to the event will improve.   They cited successes around the implementation of the Central City Alcohol Ban in February 2011 where assaults have declined at a compounding annual rate of 6% over a number of years. In 2014, at Addington Cup Day, Police detected only 23 people breaching the ban in the immediate area outside the main gates – as a result of the introduction of a similar ban and high police visibility outside the venue.

5.8       The Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 will be reviewed in 2018 as part of the regular bylaw review programme and a permanent ban in Riccarton Racecourse on New Zealand Cup Day could be included in the reviewed bylaw. 

6.   Option 1 - Impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban from 7am to 12 midnight on 18 November 2017 New Zealand Cup Day (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council imposes a Temporary Alcohol Ban in the immediate area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely both sides of the streets being Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road, Epsom Road to Racecourse Road, Buchanans Road to Masham Road and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (refer to Attachment A – map) on 18 November 2017 New Zealand Cup Day, Saturday from 7am to 12 midnight.

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 low.  Stakeholders were contacted to inform them of the proposed ban through face to face meetings, emails, and phone calls.

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       Local residents and businesses, community groups and residents’ associations, Tri-agency Licensing Group, New Zealand Police, Halswell-Hornby- Riccarton Community Board , and event organisers  are specifically affected by  the alcohol ban due to the impact of the alcohol related problems or preloading on Racecourse Cup Day and consulted. All those who provided feedback support the alcohol ban.

6.6       Of 65 stakeholders contacted, 20 provided inputs and expressed support for the proposed temporary alcohol restrictions. Their views are as follows.

6.6.1   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommended the Council direct staff to investigate the practicality of another alcohol ban for this year’s Cup Day with similar conditions to those imposed in 2015 and 2016.

6.6.2   The Tri-Agency Group, including New Zealand Police support the continuation of the ban in Riccarton Racecourse area on Cup Day 2017 event. They express that while there was still excessive preloading resulting in numerous breaches and fines at the 2016 event, the level of intoxication compared to 2015 had improved. 

6.6.3   Staff consulted New Zealand Police to ascertain their support for another alcohol ban and enforce the ban.  New Zealand Police support another ban and note that while the number of violations to the Bylaw at the 2016 Cup Day is still significant, they have not received negative feedback in relation to alcohol consumption from neighbours.

6.6.4   The Council Licensing Inspector and Community and Public Health Licensing Officer support for another temporary alcohol ban put in place for the 2017 Cup Day event. They believe that making this ban permanent on a yearly basis will assist in reducing nuisance behaviour associated with alcohol consumption to protect local residents and visitors to the event.

6.6.5   Staff consulted eight alcohol licenced businesses (three on-licence, three off-licence and two both on- and off-licence premises) located around the proposed ban area. One licenced alcohol supports the ban for this year’s Cup Day and agrees that it should be made permanent. No response was received from the other seven licenced premises.

6.6.6   Staff also consulted 18 other businesses in the area. One business Licensee strongly supports a yearly ban as empty bottles were still found in carpark left by intoxicated young people in 2016 Cup Day. 

6.6.7   Seven local residents submitted their comments and expressed support to a yearly ban. Two local residents noted that the 2016 enforcement arrangement worked excellently with fewer problems compared with previous years.

6.6.8   Five community groups and residents’ associations support the alcohol ban on New Zealand Cup Day as a good move to keep the neighbourhoods safe. They expressed the view that the ban should be made permanent for every Cup Day. One neighbourhood support group noted that while problems associated with drinking alcohol are still evident, the ban has helped significantly in Peerswick Street and Avonhead areas. Another neighbourhood support group suggest that alcohol restrictions should be made 24 hours on New Zealand Cup Day to lessen inappropriate behaviour of rowdy crowds.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – The approximate cost of $3000 (public notices, updating previous signage, and signs installation and removal) will be covered from existing budgets. 

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the cost of enforcement rests with the New Zealand Police under powers in the Local Government Act 2002.

6.10    Funding source – Strategic policy and planning budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    Before making a resolution, using the Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009  (the Bylaw), the Local Government Act 2002 (s147b) requires that the Council must be satisfied that –

(a)          There is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

(b)          The bylaw, as applied by the resolution, -

(i)            Is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

(ii)           Can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

The information that covers these matters is included in 6.12.

6.12    The Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in the Bylaw allows the Council to put a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area in place by resolution.  Clause 5 of the Bylaw specifies a number of matters the Council must consider before it imposes a Temporary Alcohol Ban – that the resolution must describe the specific area of the Temporary Alcohol Ban Area and the times, day or dates during which the alcohol restrictions apply to any public places in the area.

6.12.1 In accordance with Clause 5(1) of the Bylaw, the proposed resolution describes the specific area to which the Temporary Alcohol Ban will apply and the times and date that will apply.  The specific area is outlined in Attachment A.  The ban will apply on 18 November 2017 (New Zealand Cup Day 2017) from 7am to 12 midnight.

6.12.2 With respect to the consideration in Clause 5(2) of the Bylaw, the following is noted:

·        Clause 5(2)a – whether the proposed bans relate to events

The proposed temporary alcohol ban relates to New Zealand Cup Day event at Riccarton Park Racecourse.  The Cup Day is an iconic event on ‘Show and Cup Week’ calendar for many Cantabrians.  Over the last few years, it has attracted around 18,000 to 21,000 visitors.

The crowd numbers have historically exceed 20,000 visitors. In 2016, this number reduced to around 15,000 due to poor weather on Cup Day.

·        Clause 5(2)(b) – the nature and history of alcohol-related problems usually associated with the areas, together with any anticipated alcohol-related problems

The Riccarton Park and Canterbury Racing management host race meetings throughout the year but only on Cup Day is there significant evidence of alcohol related harms in public places.  

Preloading is endemic to this event. In 2014 the New Zealand Police noted large crowds of spectators arriving en-masse and consuming alcohol which created an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the surrounding streets. The preloading drinking associated with alcohol-related disorder occurring at the event in the afternoon has been the source of complaints from local businesses and residents in the Riccarton Park area.

On the 2015 Cup Day when the alcohol ban was first imposed, significant number of people still violating the ban conditions with high levels of intoxication.  The number of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour, however, has reduced.

On 2016 New Zealand Cup Day, there was evidence that some people still had too much alcohol to drink, and broken bottles on footpaths were seen. The New Zealand Police noticed that the rain in the morning kept young people away until afternoon between 2pm to 3pm when an influx of young people, showing noticeable signs of intoxication, started coming to the event venue. Most people apprehended for breaching the alcohol ban had preloaded and as a consequence more people were turned away at the gate compared to previous years.

New Zealand Police consider disorderly and antisocial behaviour as the biggest issue as a result of the inappropriate consumption of alcohol.

·        Clause 5(2)(c) – whether the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions the resolution would impose on local residents and other people, including those who may be attending any events, in the area covered by the resolution.

Alcohol bans tend to assist operators of licensed premises to moderate behaviour outside licensed premises. New Zealand Police say bans work well when there is high Police visibility and enforcement. 

Compliance rates have continued to improve on Cup Day as the alcohol ban is becoming part of the event.  Police experience shows that it takes some years and a consistent marketing and enforcement strategy to get significant reductions in offending.

With the positive feedback received, it is apparent that many residents in the area consider the benefits of an alcohol ban outweigh the restrictions.

New Zealand Police express that this temporary alcohol ban should be made permanent ban on New Zealand Cup Day on a yearly basis.  This view is also held by the Alcohol Licensing Officers of the Council and Community and Public Health.

·    Clause 5(2)(d) – any information from the Police and other sources about the proposed dates, the event or the area to be covered by the resolution

The Tri-agency Licensing Group, including the New Zealand Police believe that the proposed alcohol ban area as described (see Attachment A) should remain unchanged. The alcohol ban from 7am to midnight on 18th of November 2017 New Zealand Cup Day covers the event without unduly restricting day to day activities of those residents who are caught by the ban.

The New Zealand Police recommend that the Council adopts a further temporary alcohol ban for 2017 New Zealand Cup Day.

6.12.3   Any other information the Council considers relevant

The management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing support making the proposed temporary alcohol ban a permanent ban in2018.  The event organisers will continue to ensure that alcohol ban information reaches the general public through newsletters, press releases, online ticketing sales webpage, social media, or other marketing portfolio to increase ban compliance level.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.13    Not all visitors aware of the alcohol ban conditions put in place on Racecourse Cup Day – undermines the effectiveness of ban.

6.14    This could result in continued alcohol-related nuisance and failure to meet the objective of the ban.

6.14.1 Treatment: The Council and event organisers ensure good communication and wider reach of information (i.e. social media, etc.), media release provided to stakeholders.  Police could also increase workforce visibility in the immediate areas outside the venue.

6.14.2 Residual risk rating: The risk is assessed as low.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - New Zealand Police have powers to enforce the Bylaw, including the power to search containers and vehicles in public places for alcohol, seize and remove alcohol, and arrest any person who is found to be breaching the Bylaw.  The alcohol restrictions apply to public places such as streets, reserves and walkways over which the Council has control.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – If the Council resolves to impose  a temporary alcohol ban, Council staff have 16 weeks to implement the decision (including media release, public notice, putting alcohol ban signs, and ban enforcement).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16.1 The advantages of this option include:

·     New Zealand Police can control and monitor the inappropriate drinking of alcohol in public places around Riccarton Racecourse prior on New Zealand Cup Day event.

·     Lessening disorder and offensive behaviour caused by people preloading in public places.

·     General safety for all visitors to the New Zealand Cup Day event and local residents will be improved.

6.16.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are some cost implications for the Council if the ban is approved i.e. public notices and ban signs. 

·     Alcohol bans reduce choices for responsible alcohol consumers

7.   Option 2 - Do not impose Temporary Alcohol Ban on Racecourse New Zealand Cup Day 2017

Option Description

7.1       The Council resolves not to impose a temporary alcohol restriction in designated ban areas at Riccarton Park Racecourse on 18 November 2017 New Zealand Cup Day event.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is relatively low, consistent with the analysis as per the Significance and Engagement Policy.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low for stakeholders who will be directly affected with the risks associated with excessive alcohol consumption by individuals or groups attending the Racecourse Cup Day event.

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       Local residents, businesses, residents associations, community groups, Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing managements are specifically affected by this option due to the potential problems associated with alcohol-related behaviour and were consulted.

7.6       While this option would mean no ban, all stakeholders consulted and responded support a temporary alcohol ban and agreed to making the ban permanent on Cup Day event on a yearly basis.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – No cost is required for this option

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.10    Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.11    No legal implications as the Council does not impose a temporary ban.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.12    By not imposing an alcohol ban on New Zealand Cup Day there would be alcohol-related risks to local residents and businesses in Racecourse and neighbouring areas as well to other Cup Day visitors.

7.13    There is a risk that local residents and businesses will continue to feel unsafe, and that littering and other nuisance behaviour increase on New Zealand Cup Day. Increased alcohol preloading behaviour, and the New Zealand Police would have little control on people drinking alcohol in the immediate areas surrounding the New Zealand Cup Day venue.

7.13.1 Treatment: Police may be able to manage some of the behaviour although minus the ban being a key tool they say in making valuable contribution to policing.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

7.16.1 No implementation costs to the Council as no communications or signs need to be put up on Cup Day.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

7.17.1 Alcohol-related problems will continue in the Riccarton Racecourse area on New Zealand Cup Day.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment A - Map showing the proposed Riccarton Racecourse temporary alcohol ban area

 

 

 

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

Evangeline Emerenciana - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

17.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 June 2017

Reference:

17/595350

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 7 June 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 7 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 7 June 2017

164

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

18.    CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

Reference:

17/590698

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

evangeline.emerenciana@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Consideration

 

The Committee commented on the possible need for receptacles for cigarette butts to be available outside bars, a campaign about picking up cigarette butts, and communications with multicultural community groups.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Recommends that the Council:

a.         Supports the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025

b.         Agrees to the proposed Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

2.         Notes that the Council will implement the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in partnership with Community and Public Health (Canterbury District Health Board) and the Cancer Society.

3.         Notes that staff will provide the Social and Community Development Committee with annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. 

 

3.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.            Supports the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025.

2.         Agrees to the proposed Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.

3.         Notes that the Council will implement the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in partnership with Community and Public Health (Canterbury District Health Board) and the Cancer Society.

4.         Notes that staff will provide the Social and Community Development Committee with annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. 

5.         Requests staff to give consideration to a campaign to address the disposal of cigarette butts in public places, in support of environmental health, and to report back to the Social and Community Development Committee.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

171

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

177

b

The CCC smokefree initiatives (2008 to 2016)

180

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

Reference:

17/155131

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

Evangeline.Emerenciana@ccc.govt.nz

941 8579

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks the Social and Community Development Committee’s recommendation to the Council that it approves the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. 

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 engagement and consultation carried out comprises meetings with the Canterbury District Health Board, Community and Public Health, the Cancer Society, and internally with relevant Council units.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Recommends that the Council:

a.         Supports the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025

b.         Agrees to the proposed Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

2.         Notes that the Council will implement the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in partnership with Community and Public Health (Canterbury District Health Board) and the Cancer Society.

3.         Notes that staff will provide the Social and Community Development Committee with annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. 

 

 

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: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 (preferred option)– Agree to the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan (Attachment A)

·    Option 2 -  Do not agree to the proposed Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

1.1.1               4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·     It demonstrates the Council’s support of the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025.  

·     It provides a holistic approach for the Council to implement smokefree initiatives with smokefree partners.

·     It provides opportunities for the Council to implement a plan to promote positive role modelling to children and youth through behaviour change by smokers.

·     It helps with the denormalisation of smoking in public places.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some residents and visitors who smoke may not support the initiatives under the action plan.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       In 2009 the Council approved a Smokefree Public Places Policy.  Under this policy, the Council encourages people to not smoke at Council playgrounds, parks and reserves; and promotes smokefree events.  Compliance by individuals with the policy is voluntary.  The policy has been updated as follows:

·    2014 – integrated smokefree conditions into social housing tenancy agreements

·    2015 – extended the smokefree policy to principal entrances and exits of Council-owned buildings and facilities, including bus passenger shelters

·    2016 – adopted the Creating a Smokefree Auahi Kore Workplace policy

·    2016 – provided support to Community and Public Health and the Cancer Society’s Fresh Air Project pilot (voluntary smokefree outdoor dining areas).

5.2       The Council’s smokefree initiatives over the last nine years are summarised at Attachment B.

The national smokefree goal

5.3       In 2011 the Government adopted the smokefree 2025 goal for New Zealand – the term smokefree being aspirational and the goal to reduce smoking levels to five per cent or less by 2025.  The goal is to be achieved by:

·    protecting children from tobacco marketing and promotion

·    providing the best possible support for quitting.

5.4       According to the 2013 Census in Christchurch, the prevalence of regular smoking (i.e. one or more cigarettes per day) was approximately 13.5 per cent among adults (15 years of age and older).  This compares with Wellington’s rate of 9.5 per cent, Auckland’s rate of 11.6 per cent and the national average of 13.7 per cent.

5.5       The Ministry of Health is the main organisation responsible for implementing the smokefree target nationwide.  The national smokefree 2025 goal is reliant on government agencies, local governments, and non-government organisations to help reduce smoking rates.

5.6       Local government can help achieve the national target through organising a Worldwide Smokefree Day event (31 May annually), encouraging smokefree community facilities, and promoting smokefree workplaces.

Local governments supporting smokefree goal

5.7       A number of councils in New Zealand including Wellington City, Auckland City and Central Otago District Councils have adopted a smokefree action plan and policy as part of their commitment to the country’s smokefree 2025 goal.

5.8       In the Canterbury region, five district councils – Ashburton, Hurunui, Kaikoura, Waimate, and Westland – have endorsed the Smokefree New Zealand 2025 goal.

 

The Christchurch City Council proposed smokefree action plan

5.9       Community and Public Health and the Cancer Society are committed to continue working on a vision for a smokefree city with the Council.  They have emphasised the important role of local Councils in helping achieve the goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025. The partners have encouraged the development of a Council-led action plan. 

5.10    To enable the Council to further support the national goal, a Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan has been prepared (see Attachment A).

6.   Option 1 – Agree to the ‘CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan’ (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council adopts the proposed Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in support of the national goal of a Smokefree Aotearoa by 2025.

6.2       The Smokefree 2025 Action Plan focusses on promoting the Council’s voluntary smokefree policy and further extending its ‘no smoking environment’ in Council-owned public spaces.  The plan will commence in 2017.  Initiatives include:

·    Investigating voluntary smokefree outdoor dining in Council leased footpaths

·    Support a smokefree campaign on World Smokefree Day (31 May annually)

·    Integrate Council smokefree policy information in the Employee Induction Pack

·    Training for Council’s frontline staff on ways to best communicate and encourage a ‘no smoking environment’.

6.3       Staff will create an internal Council Smokefree Action Plan Group to oversee implementation of the action plan.  

6.4       The action plan group will provide annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan to the Social and Community Development Committee.

6.5       The plan will be implemented in partnership with Community and Public Health and the Cancer Society.  These organisations have offered assistance with a range of action plan initiatives, for example providing briefings on issues like E-cigarettes, vaping, and smokefree outdoor dining.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       Staff consulted Community and Public Health and the Cancer Society on the proposed Action Plan.  The smokefree partners support the Action Plan and welcome it as a clear demonstration of the Council’s commitment to working collaboratively to becoming a smokefree city.  The partners also stressed that the action plan provides the opportunity for the Council to actively communicate its smokefree policy to the public.

6.9       Relevant Council staff were consulted. They support the plan and agree to include the relevant actions in their respective work programmes and to deliver within the timeframes specified.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    This option is consistent  with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular the Smokefree Public Places Policy

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – There will be costs in terms of staff time and for smokefree signage.  These costs will be absorbed by the relevant Council units. 

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No maintenance cost are required at this time.  There may be costs required for replacement of smokefree signs, which if needed will come from existing budgets of the relevant Council units.

6.13    Funding source – Relevant Council units have confirmed they will accommodate the planned activities in their work programmes and within their budgets.

Legal Implications

6.14    There are no legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.15    There are no anticipated risks.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies – If approved by the Council the action plan will be implemented by the relevant Council units/teams.  An internal smokefree group will oversee implementation. 

6.17    Implementation timeframe - If approved, activities will be rolled out based on the timeline reflected in the Action Plan over the next nine years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   It demonstrates the Council’s support of the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025.  

·   It provides a holistic approach for the Council to implement smokefree initiatives with smokefree partners.

·   It provides opportunities for the Council to implement a plan to promote positive role modelling to children and youth through behaviour change by smokers.

·   It helps with the denormalisation of smoking in public places.

6.19    The disadvantage of this option include:

·   Some residents and visitors who smoke may not support the initiatives under the action plan.

7.   Option 2 – Do not agree to the proposed ‘Smokefree 2025 Action Plan’

Option Description

7.1       The Council does not adopt the proposed Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Smokefree partners believe that the Council has a great opportunity to formalise its leadership in making contribution to the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand by 2025, and to the vision of a smokefree city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – not applicable

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       There are no legal implications with this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    The Council may be perceived by Community and Public Health and the Cancer Society as not fully supporting the smokefree initiatives and the inter-agency partnership. 

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not maximising the opportunities provided by working in partnership to achieve wider smokefree initiatives.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

 

b 

The CCC smokefree initiatives (2008 to 2016)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Evangeline Emerenciana - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

19.    Draft Healthy Food Action Plan

Reference:

17/590817

Contact:

Debbie Hogan

debbie.hogan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8994

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Draft Healthy Food Action Plan

182

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Healthy Food Actions - Final Draft Healthy Food Action Plan 2017_05_11

186

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Draft Healthy Food Action Plan

Reference:

17/404284

Contact:

Debbie Hogan

Debbie.Hogan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8994

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to recommend that the Council adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2016/00444 to champion a healthy city approach that supports the Food Resilience Policy 2014.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the action plan being low cost focusing on encouraging education and community awareness of healthy food. 

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation has been undertaken.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan 2017.

 

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: 17.0.29 Support the implementation of the Council's food resilience policy and action plan

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan (preferred option)

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improving access to healthy food for Christchurch citizens.

·     Building on existing successful Council projects and activities, introducing these into communities where access to healthy food may be limited.

·     Implementing the Council’s desire to champion a healthy city approach that supports the Food Resilience Policy 2014 and its outcomes, including people being able to more easily access low cost, healthy, fresh fruit and vegetables.

·     Complement the work of external organisations in Christchurch involved in promoting and facilitating the uptake of healthy food and healthy lifestyles.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The action plan may be viewed by some citizens as not being part of Council’s core business.

·     Additional Council resource may be needed to undertake actions.

4.4       This report only contains one option in relation to the Healthy Food Action Plan.  This preferred option directly responds to the Council’s resolution CNCL/2016/00444, which directed staff to report back with a draft schedule of actions to demonstrate that the Council champions healthy options.

 

5.   Context/Background

Champion a healthy city approach

5.1       On 22 September 2016 the Council resolved (CNCL/2016/00444) to champion a healthy city approach that supports the Food Resilience Policy 2014, along with a number of supporting actions.  This report responds to the direction that staff report back in eight months with a draft schedule of actions to demonstrate that the Council champions healthy options. 

5.2       As a champion of healthy options/city, the Council contributes towards creating, and contributing to, environments that support and encourage healthy lifestyles for citizens.  This is done through the provision of clean water, provision of urban green spaces and facilities for recreation.  The Council also facilitates community gardens, plants fruit and nut trees on public land and provides funding for community initiatives. 

5.3       Undertaking other non-regulatory actions to improve the availability of healthy food within Christchurch and encourage healthy choices will also contribute towards a healthy city.  This will assist to reduce lifestyle related health conditions are on the increase, such as obesity, type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.  According to the Ministry of Health Annual Update of Key Results 2015/16, obesity in children increased from 8.4% in 2006 to 11 % in 2016 while in adults it has increased from 27% to 32% over the same time period. 

5.4       The draft Healthy Food and Drink Policy is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.  The draft Healthy Food and Drink Policy is an action under the Healthy Food Action Plan, to promote a healthy food environment.

Development of Healthy Food Action Plan

5.5       A project team was established to explore development of a schedule of actions for healthy options.  The project team included staff from the Parks, Recreation & Facilities, Three Waters and Waste and Strategic Policy Units along with the Principal Advisor-Sustainability and the Community Recreation Advisor for Linwood-Central-Heathcote. 

5.6       Actions explored focused on expanding existing Council non-regulatory activities or projects to improve citizens access to healthy food, identifying opportunities where there may be gaps and opportunities to utilise existing partnerships.  Actions also needed to complement initiatives undertaken by the Canterbury District Health Board and other key organisations working in Christchurch to promote and improve healthy food choices.

5.7       The Canterbury District Health Board has provided input into the development of the Healthy Food Action Plan. 

Purpose of Healthy Food Action Plan

5.8       The Healthy Food Action Plan (Attachment A) establishes 18 actions that the Council can facilitate, support and implement to improve access to healthy food within Christchurch, making healthy food choices easy. 

5.9       Actions include increasing the number of community gardens and edible planting on public land, mapping all edible trees on public land, expanding the Edible Garden awards and trialling community fridges and other sharing/gifting economy initiatives.

5.10    The Healthy Food Action Plan adopts a collaborative approach involving multiple Council units, local community boards and existing partnership networks such as the Food Resilience Network.  A number of actions can be implemented by local community boards, providing opportunities for active citizenship.   

5.11    The Healthy Food Action Plan will be implemented under the Food Resilience Policy.  This will support priorities of the Food Resilience Policy to increase the availability of fresh, healthy food and support community education and knowledge. 

5.12    The Healthy Food Action Plan will be published on the Council website.  The Healthy Food Action Plan will be a living document, reviewed in mid-2019 to measure progress and to refresh the actions. 

6.   Option 1 – Adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option adopts the Healthy Food Action Plan.  The action plan is a non-statutory document that will be implemented by the Council, local community boards and build on existing partnerships and networks.  Such partnerships include the Food Resilience Network, which is a collaboration of organisations, including the Council, supporting local food resilience. 

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement for this level of significance is not required.

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       This option implements the Food Resilience Policy, which was consulted on when developed.  Community support is increasing for local food resilience and for healthy food choices, which was demonstrated by the delegation to Council in August 2016 from the Linwood community on fast food outlets.

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 – Some actions are able to be absorbed into existing budgets, while others will rely on facilitating community groups to access grant funding.  Any additional support and resourcing needed will be sought separately through the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan process.  This is estimated to be low cost.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs –  Funding for ongoing costs will be sought separately through the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan process. 

6.9       Funding source – Relevant units with responsibility specified in the draft action plan.

Legal Implications

6.10    There are no legal implications with adopting the Healthy Food Action Plan.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the option.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - nil

6.13    Implementation timeframe – It is proposed that most actions will be implemented by early 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Improving access to healthy food for Christchurch citizens.

·     Building on existing successful Council projects and activities, introducing these into communities where access to healthy food may be limited.

·     Implementing the Council’s desire to champion a healthy city approach that supports the Food Resilience Policy 2014 and its outcomes, including people being able to more easily access low cost, healthy, fresh fruit and vegetables.

·     Complement the work of external organisations in Christchurch involved in promoting and facilitating the uptake of healthy food and healthy lifestyles.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The action plan may be viewed by some citizens as not being part of Council’s core business.

·     Additional Council resource may be needed to undertake actions.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Healthy Food Actions - Final Draft Healthy Food Action Plan 2017_05_11

 

 

 

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

Debbie Hogan - Senior Policy Planner

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

20.    Approval for a Conservation Covenant Consent for 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/590941

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for the repair and upgrade works to 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch and covered by RMA/2017/407, subject to the following condition:

a.      That a full photographic record be made of each of the fireplaces before deconstruction commences.  Photographs should be labelled with location, date and photographer’s name, and submitted with a plan showing photograph locations.  These should be submitted to the Christchurch City Council’s Heritage Team on a computer memory stick, or electronically by either email or via the website: https://wetransfer.com/ to heritage@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Approval for a Conservation Covenant Consent for 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch

192

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance, 53 Gloucester Street

195

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Approval for a Conservation Covenant Consent for 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/299909

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request that the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council to approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for works to the building at 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been generated by a request from the building owner as part of their earthquake repair process.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is considered as 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 status of the building and the nature of the works proposed.

2.1.2   There is no community engagement and consultation required by the decision sought in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for the repair and upgrade works to 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch and covered by RMA/2017/407, subject to the following condition:

a.      That a full photographic record be made of each of the fireplaces before deconstruction commences.  Photographs should be labelled with location, date and photographer’s name, and submitted with a plan showing photograph locations.  These should be submitted to the Christchurch City Council’s Heritage Team on a computer memory stick, or electronically by either email or via the website: https://wetransfer.com/ to heritage@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A Full Conservation Covenant is registered on the title of the property at 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch. The owner of this property wishes to undertake repair and upgrade works as part of earthquake repairs and upgrades for the building. They are requesting a Conservation Covenant Consent for the works as outlined below and as covered in part under RMA/2017/407.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Brief History of Mildenhall

5.1       Mildenhall is a Spanish Mission-style two storey block of flats, designed in 1935 by the architect William Trengrove for the Owen family.  It is a ‘Significant’ scheduled heritage item in the proposed Christchurch District Plan (pCDP). Please see attached Statement of Heritage Significance. In consideration of the payment of a Heritage Incentive Grant of $12,800 to assist with reroofing and re-painting, the owner entered into a Heritage Conservation Covenant with the Christchurch City Council in 2010 for a period of ten years.  Under this covenant, the owner is not permitted to demolish or remove any part of the heritage fabric of the building.

5.2       Mildenhall sustained moderate damage in the Canterbury Earthquakes, including the loss of the three external plastered brick chimney tops.  The owner intends to undertake a programme of repair, alteration and upgrade.  This programme includes the removal of the remaining interior portion of the brick chimneys and ten associated fireplaces.  The chimney tops above the roofline are to be reconstructed to original form and appearance in lightweight materials.  Although it is intended that interior detail will also be reinstated following full relining, this reinstatement does not include the fireplaces and interior elements of the chimneys.  The void left by the removal of the chimneys is to be repaired and the replication of surrounding detail will include rimu flooring to match the original. 

5.3       The owner has applied for resource consent for the reconstruction of the external chimney tops - which is a Controlled Activity under the pCDP.  The removal of the internal chimneys and fireplaces does not require resource consent because it is part of the interior fabric of the building and the interiors of heritage buildings are generally not protected under the current pCDP.  This does not however preclude the owner from the requirement to obtain Conservation Covenant Consent for that portion of the works.

5.4       The owner has justified the full demolition of the chimneys primarily for reasons of structural safety.  The visible brick fireplaces and chimney breasts are integral to the full chimneys and therefore must also necessarily be fully deconstructed to meet engineering requirements.  Council staff support this approach, given that the fireplaces are functionally redundant, are not major architectural features, and their removal will provide valuable additional living space in these relatively small flats. This will make the flats easier to let and enhance the economic viability of the building for future use and retention. In addition, the replication of the chimney tops provides some mitigation for the loss of the chimneys within the building.  It is recommended therefore that the heritage Conservation Covenant Consent be granted, subject to the following condition:

That a full photographic record be made of each of the fireplaces before deconstruction commences.  Photographs should be labelled with location, date and photographer’s name, and submitted with a plan showing photograph locations.  These should be submitted to the CCC Heritage Team on a computer memory stick, or electronically by either email or via the website: https://wetransfer.com/ to heritage@ccc.govt.nz 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Statement of Significance, 53 Gloucester Street

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

21.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for part of the Duncan's Building, 143-157 High Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/590982

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That Council:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive grant of up to $362,675 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 143-157 High Street, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a full conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property titles.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for part of the Duncan's Building, 143-157 High Street, Christchurch

200

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Duncan's Building Statement of Significance

207

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for part of the Duncan's Building, 143-157 High Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/394916

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to recommend Council approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 143-157 High Street, Christchurch. This grant approval request is for eight units of the total of sixteen units of the Duncan’s Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the owner of the eight units of the building.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council to:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive grant of up to $362,675 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 143-157 High Street, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a full conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property titles.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature in the street scene and townscape of Christchurch.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to a single building however the sum will be spread across a number of property titles and along a substantial length of street frontage.

·     A commitment will be required from the following years funding but this will still leave substantial sums for other grant applicants.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The entire Duncan’s Building between 135 and 165 High Street, is listed as a Group 2 ‘Significant' building in the new Christchurch District Plan. The building is also registered Category II by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) registration number 1864. Refer to Attachment A "Statement of Significance" for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the eight units of the building from 143 to 157 and applicant for the grant is ‘Duncan’s Lane Limited’. This particular cluster of eight units within the building has not been collectively the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

Photograph, 1980’s (prior to street trees)

Brief History of the Duncan’s Building, High Street

5.3       The building occupies the south-western side of High Street between St Asaph and Tuam Street. It is made up of what initially were sixteen individual commercial and residential units. Each unit was two storeys high and contained a ground floor retail or workshop space with a storage space, office or living space above. The substantial ground floor to ceiling heights resulted in unusually long timber staircases. Over the years the original sixteen units have been changed with some being amalgamated and most being extended at the rear. The shop front portions have all been changed to suit the changing needs of small commercial operations which included cafés, restaurants and retail space. The main street first floor brick façade was largely intact prior to the earthquakes with only relatively minor and reversible changes.

5.4       The construction of the sixteen unit building was from simple unreinforced brickwork for the structural walls and timber for floors and roof structure. The main street façade was formed with a continuous line of brickwork punctuated with grand arched sash windows and topped with a parapet which included decorated pediments. This part of the façade also includes decorated bands of plastered brickwork and this brickwork part of the street façade has high heritage and architectural value. Over time this basic structure had been enhanced in some units with seismic upgrades which generally consisted of internal steel columns bolted to the solid brick party walls and the external walls. Diaphragms were installed on some units and floor, roof and wall connections were strengthened. Different ownership however, lead to sporadic upgrading across the entire building and there was no coherent strategy for the entire building.

Earthquake Damage

5.5       The entire Duncan’s building sustained significant damage in the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Numbers 163-165 in particular were very badly damaged as a result of the upper levels of the adjacent four storey ‘Billen’s’ Building collapsing onto them. It is likely that these two end units will be at least partially demolished as part of further make safe works. The façade of Number 135 also collapsed and has not been repaired by the owner. The units at 137 -139 have been repaired as have the units at 159-161. It is believed that these units performed better in the earthquakes than some of the other units due to significant seismic upgrade works that had already been completed.

5.6       The eight units of the building from 143 to 157 sustained structural damage throughout but particularly to the rear where numerous ‘ad hoc’ extensions had been added over the years in unreinforced brickwork. There are many substantial cracks and buckled arches above openings which are clearly visible from the laneway to the rear of the building. It is likely that similar substantial structural damage has occurred internally in the masonry walls. Rather than attempt to repair these rear portions of the building the new owner has elected to focus repair efforts on the street facing façade. The rear portions will be dismantled and the masonry components will be reused in the construction of a new continuous building behind the retained façade. A resource consent application has been submitted for this partial demolition and alteration works (RMA 2017/670).

 

6.   Option 1 - Heritage Incentive Grant of 50% of the cost of the repair and maintenance works (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The building owner has submitted a breakdown of cost estimates for the proposed stabilisation and rebuild works for the High Street façade as summarized in the table below. These figures do not include demolition costs and the costs for new items on the façade such as the new verandah, shop front glazing and doors. These items will be new contemporary elements designed to be complementary to the retained masonry façade. The figures also do not include the costs of the new buildings required to the rear of the facade. A three metre deep portion of the new building has been included as this is required to permanently support the retained original High Street façade at ground, first floor and roof level.

 

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Steel propping and façade support work

$90,000

New foundations including excavation by hand below facade

$116,000

New steel support frame to façade brickwork

$50,000

New concrete ground floor as part of façade support (3m deep)

$42,000

New concrete first floor as part of façade support (3m deep)

$42,000

New steel roof structure as part of façade support (3m deep)

$30,000

Refurbishment of façade sash windows

$32,000

Brick pointing and plaster repairs to main facade

$172,500

Scaffolding for main facade

$25,000

Resource consent and other preliminary and general costs

$125,850

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$725,350

 

6.2       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building facade has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of façade works)

$362,675

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1      Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

6.6.2      Christchurch District Plan

6.6.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.6.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.6.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$15,589

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250

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

$3,312

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326

Approved grant to 63 Savills Road, Tiptree Cottage

$117,480

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$55,931

Proposed grant to 143-157 High Street

$362,675

Commitment from 2017/2018 funding year

$76,734

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$0

 

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

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

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature in the street scene and townscape of Christchurch.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant to a single building however the sum will be spread across a number of property titles and along a substantial length of street frontage.

·   A commitment will be required from the following years funding but this will still leave substantial sums for other grant applicants.

7.   Option 2 - A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($217,605) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$15,589

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250

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

$3,312

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326

Approved grant to 63 Savills Road, Tiptree Cottage

$117,480

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$55,931

Proposed grant to 143-157 High Street

$217,605

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$68,336

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects. However, the end of the financial year is approaching and any funds remaining unallocated will not be carried forward for other projects next year.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Duncan's Building Statement of Significance

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 31 May 2017

 

22.    Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium the Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium

Reference:

17/591041

Contact:

John Clemens

john.clemens@ccc.govt.nz

941 7589

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Consideration

 

Committee discussion was held about inviting Mr Metcalf and his family to the Council meeting when this report was discussed, to celebrate the event.

 

2.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Approve that the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named “The Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium”.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium the Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium

212

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 to 17/510843 Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium

219

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium the Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium

Reference:

17/510843

Contact:

John Clemens

John.clemens@ccc.govt.nz

941 7589

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to consider recommending to Council that the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named the “Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium”.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the low cost (nil except minor signage), the specialised nature of the facility and the fact that the Botanic Gardens Herbarium is open to the public only for bona fide botanical and horticultural study and reference, e.g. by members of the Friends of the Botanic Gardens and botanical and horticultural societies.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Approve that the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named “The Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium”.

 

 

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 – That the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named “The Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium” (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – That the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium continue to have no name associated with its past, present and future activity.

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Inexpensive and overdue recognition: highly appropriate, and inexpensive, acknowledgement of a former City Council Botanic Gardens employee who had the vision, skills and determination during the 1960s and 70s to develop the Botanic Gardens and specifically its herbarium, and who currently goes unrecognised by Council.

·     Favourable association: Association of the City Council and its Botanic Gardens with a highly respected and well-known horticulturist and author of botanical books on New Zealand plants in cultivation.

·     Enhanced profile: raising the profile of a facility that has recently enjoyed a revitalisation by installing modern storage equipment donated by the Friends of the Botanic Gardens in the new Botanic Gardens Visitor Centre.

·     Enhanced engagement: naming would encourage staff and volunteers to become engaged in continuing the work of documenting Botanic Gardens and City plants initiated by Lawrie Metcalf, supporting the Council’s ability to found botanical decisions on a reference source of reliable information.

·     No effect on official abbreviation: as named in the recommendation, the herbarium would continue as a member of the New Zealand National Herbarium Network and would retain its official abbreviated title “CHBG”.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no disadvantages

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background to the herbarium

5.1       The Christchurch Botanic Garden Herbarium is a participating member of the New Zealand National Herbarium Network and bears the official abbreviation “CHBG”. It has a unique collection of about 5000 dried, mounted and catalogued specimens of cultivated and wild plants from the Botanic Gardens, Canterbury, and elsewhere.

·   This horticultural and botanical reference collection is used by staff and members of the public with a bona fide interest, such as members of the Friends of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.

·   The specimens are stored in the environmentally-controlled vault of the herbarium in new mobile shelving units purchased thanks to a generous donation by the Friends of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.

·   New specimens are continually being added, e.g. of rare local plants and new pest plants, and staff refer to the specimens when providing levels of service associated with the Botanic Gardens.

Support for the recommended naming of the herbarium

5.2       In the weeks following the installation of the new shelving and reorganisation of the specimens, spontaneous discussions between staff and the Friends of the Botanic Gardens led to the suggestion to name the Herbarium after its effective founder Lawrence James Metcalf, known to staff and the gardening public as Lawrie Metcalf.

Lawrie’s contributions are considerable:

·   Lawrie Metcalf set the Herbarium on a growth path from when he first worked as an apprentice at the Botanic Gardens during the 1940s when there might have been no more than 100 specimens in total.

·   Appointed Assistant Curator in 1955, he initiated a sweeping programme to improve the Botanic Gardens plant collections and their documentation, including making a sustained effort to build up reference specimens in the Herbarium.

·   He personally lodged at least 1,780 new specimens from throughout New Zealand (including Stewart Island) and New Caledonia during the following decades, helping to create the environment in which others joined with him in extending the herbarium collection.

·   By the end of the 1970s, Lawrie Metcalf had contributed over half of all specimens in the Herbarium.

·   Since his retirement in 1977 the Herbarium collection has continued to grow although it is estimated that even today about 45% of all specimens are attributed to Lawrie’s collecting.

·   Lawrie Metcalf has also authored numerous botanical and horticultural books, a well-known one being The Cultivation of New Zealand Trees and Shrubs.

 

Precedents for applying names to New Zealand herbaria

5.3       Other New Zealand herbaria have been named after a person who has made an overwhelming contribution to their past development, for example:

·   the Allan Herbarium at Landcare Research, Lincoln

·   the HD Gordon Herbarium, Victoria University of Wellington

·   the Dame Ella Campbell Herbarium, Massey University.

 

Absence to date of recognition of service for Lawrie Metcalf

5.4       Lawrie Metcalf’s contribution to the development of the Botanic Gardens and especially the Herbarium over many years is not currently recognised in any feature, lawn, place, or facility. Naming the herbarium would recognise his years of successful service.

 

Consultation with the Linwood – Central – Heathcote Community Board

5.5       In March 2017 all board members were emailed to gain an understanding of their views on whether or not they supported the naming of this important Botanic Gardens facility. Responses were received from the following board members:

·    Sally Buck (Chairperson)

·    Alexandra Davids

·    Yani Johanson

·    Deon Swiggs

·    Darrell Latham

All of these members expressed support for the proposal.  Councillor Johanson had a query regarding the consultation process.  The herbarium is not a publically accessible facility. Its purpose is to enable staff and other agencies to conduct research and for reference purposes.

Consultation was undertaken with relevant stakeholders who have an interest in this facility and are listed in the Option 1 analysis (Section 6 below).

 

6.   Option 1 - That the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named “The Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium” (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Following precedents at other herbaria in New Zealand, the herbarium in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens (comprising specimen preparation rooms and a specimen storage vault adjacent to the Library in the new Visitor Centre) be named after Lawrence James (known as Lawrie) Metcalf, a former apprentice and long serving staff member who developed the herbarium.

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 consultation with botanical and horticultural groups who know about and have an interest in the Botanic Gardens herbarium, namely:

·    Canterbury Museum

·    Canterbury Botanical Society

·    Allan Herbarium, Landcare Research, Lincoln

·    Canterbury Horticultural Society

·    Friends of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens

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       No communities in the wider public arena are specifically affected by this option. The views of specialist botanical and horticultural groups that were consulted are unanimously in favour of the recommended naming (Attachment A).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

6.6.1   No policy in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Management Plan 2007 refers to the naming of a feature or facility in the Botanic Gardens after an employee who has made an outstanding contribution to the Botanic Gardens’ development. The recommendation is therefore not contrary to the Management Plan.

6.6.2   The names of former employees have been applied to features in the Botanic Gardens in the past, e.g. the Armstrong Lawn for the former Head Gardener / Curator.

6.6.3   No policy in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Management Plan 2007 dictates that naming of features or facilities in the botanic Gardens shall be restricted to people or organisations making substantial donations, although this has happened in the past and shall be explored when fundraising for major capital works in the future.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – minor (<$500 for signs)

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source – operational budget

Legal Implications

6.10    nil

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    nil

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - nil

6.13    Implementation timeframe – 3 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Inexpensive and overdue recognition: highly appropriate, and inexpensive, acknowledgement of a former City Council Botanic Gardens employee who had the vision, skills and determination during the 1960s and 70s to develop the Botanic Gardens and specifically its herbarium, and who currently goes unrecognised by Council.

·     Favourable association: Association of the City Council and its Botanic Gardens with a highly respected and well-known horticulturist and author of botanical books on New Zealand plants in cultivation.

·     Enhanced profile: raising the profile of a facility that has recently enjoyed a revitalisation by installing modern storage equipment donated by the Friends of the Botanic Gardens in the new Botanic Gardens Visitor Centre.

·     Enhanced engagement: naming would encourage staff and volunteers to become engaged in continuing the work of documenting Botanic Gardens and City plants initiated by Lawrie Metcalf, supporting the Council’s ability to found botanical decisions on a reference source of reliable information.

6.15    There are no disadvantages of this option.

7.   Option 2 - That the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium continue to have no name associated with its past, present and future activity.

Option Description

7.1       Continue with the facility functioning as the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is nil as there would be no change.

7.3       No engagement requirements.

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       No communities in the wider public arena are specifically affected by this option. The views of specialist botanical and horticultural groups that were consulted are unanimously in favour of the recommended naming (Attachment A).

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 - nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – nil

7.9       Funding source - nil

Legal Implications

7.10    nil

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    nil

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - nil

7.13    Implementation timeframe - nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   nil

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Missed opportunity for Council to realise the advantages stated for Option 1, namely for an inexpensive and overdue recognition of a former distinguished staff member, favourable association of the Botanic Gardens with this well-known horticultural author, enhanced profile of a newly revitalised herbarium facility, and enhanced engagement for staff and volunteers.

·     Disappointment for members of the Friends of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, which is an important support group that recently facilitated the revitalisation of the herbarium storage shelving by its donation, and that provides ongoing financial and voluntary support for Botanic Gardens operations.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment 1 to 17/510843 Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium

 

 

 

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

John Clemens - Manager Conservation and Sustainable Development

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

23.    Social and Community Development Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017

Reference:

17/591427

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social and Community Development Committee held a meeting on 31 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 Social and Community Development Committee meeting held 31 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social and Community Development Committee - 31 May 2017

226

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

24.    Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 11 May 2017

Reference:

17/519759

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Strategic Capability Committee held a meeting on 11 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 Strategic Capability Committee meeting held 11 May 2017.

 

Secretarial Note:  The Council considered the Part A matter Item 5:  Christchurch Economic Development Strategy at its meeting on 1 June 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Strategic Capability Committee - 11 May 2017

234

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

25.    Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party

Reference:

17/366957

Contact:

Brent Pizzey

Brent.Pizzey@ccc.govt.nz

9415550

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to re-establish a decision making process for determining whether the Council will continue to permit baches to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake and Boulder Bay. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by this being a report on process for decision making rather than the substance of the decision. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

          That the Council:

1.         Resolve to establish a working party:

a.         To recommend to the Council, as land owner, whether to authorise, or on what terms to authorise, baches to continue to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake, Boulders Bay and Maori Garden; and

b.         Comprising Deputy Mayor Turner as Chairperson, three other Councillors and two Community Board Chairpersons or members; and

c.         Direct the working party to meet and undertake the investigations necessary in order for the working party to report back to Council by 30 September 2017.

 

 

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: 17.0.2 Strategic policy and planning advice is provided internally within the Council to support operational planning and service dlivery

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – re-establish a working party to make a recommendation to the Council on these matters.

·     Option 2 – Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of re-establishing a working party

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It is more efficient than the whole of Council investigating the matter;

·     It is an effective means to investigate the issues;

·     It provides a course that may lead to resolution of a long-standing issue.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The members of the working group will need to devote time to investigate issues;

·     The working group will not have delegated authority to make a decision.

 

 

 

5.   Background

The situation

5.1       There are baches at Taylors Mistake and Boulder Bay that are on unformed road land that is owned by the Christchurch City Council.

5.2       The Council has for several decades addressed questions about whether the Council should permit that continued private occupation of Council land.

5.3       The legal basis for the baches to remain, and be used for holiday or permanent occupation, requires decision making under both the Resource Management Act (RMA) and as land owner under the Local Government Act (LGA).

5.4       Under the RMA, the baches are not a permitted activity in the new District Plan (and were not permitted under the old City Plan). Many of them have proven existing use rights under the RMA, so do not need resource consent. The ones that do not have proven existing use rights may be able to prove that right if the Council requires them to do so.

5.5       Regardless of whether the baches have existing use rights, the Council has a role as land owner to decide whether to allow that continued occupation of Council land.

5.6       The Council decision as land owner under the LGA involves considering the views of the community (bach owners, others in the local community, and the wider community) and issues including: health and safety; natural hazards; landscape; heritage; amenity values; public access; private occupation of Council land; legal issues.

Previous Council decision making

5.7       There has been Council attention to whether the baches should be permitted to remain for several decades. The matter remains unresolved.

5.8       In the 1970s the Council granted temporary “licences” for the baches to occupy Council land. Those licences expired in the 1980s. In the 1990s the status of the baches was a live issue for the first District Plan under the RMA. The provisions in the City Plan in relation to the baches were decided by the Environment Court in 2000. Those rules set up a “bach zone” that the City Plan envisaged the baches being moved to.

5.9       Those rules in the City Plan for moving the baches were not given effect to.

5.10    The Council was again considering these issues in 2010 when the earthquakes resulted in a change in priorities. A number of the bach owners then obtained existing use certificates under the RMA.

5.11    The most recent time that this was before Council was on 11 December 2014, when the Council resolved to establish a working party as follows:

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the Council appoint a working party to:

5.1       Progress resolution of the Taylors Mistake, Boulder Bay and Maori Gardens bach issue and to recommend options for determining the future of the baches, including the option of granting  licences to occupy Council-owned land; and

5.2       When required to meet District Plan Review process deadlines, provide advice to the District Plan Review Committee on the Council's response to submissions on the phase 1 and recommendations for new provisions as part of phase 2 of the District Plan Review.

5.3       That the Working Party be made up of Councillors Lonsdale, Johanson and East, along with Community Board Chairpersons Sara Templeton and Paula Smith and that Councillor Turner be appointed as the Chair. 

5.4       That Working Party met and then decided to wait to see what the Independent Hearings Panel decided for the content of the Replacement District Plan. The Panel’s decisions relevant to the baches were not finished until late in 2016. The Council elections then resulted in the working party dissolving.

6.   Option 1 – Re-establish a working party (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       A working party of elected members, with staff assistance, will make a recommendation to the Council on its decision as land owner regarding whether the Council should continue to allow baches to occupy its land.

Significance

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

6.3       No engagement is required for this level of significance.

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 bach owners and interested members of the local community are specifically affected by this option due to it leading to a finalised Council decision. Their views are that they expect the Council to make a decision.

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 is staff and possibly consultant time to advise the working party.

6.8       Funding source – strategic planning budget.

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.10        There are no risks.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - Working party members will be required to devote time to this role and Council staff will need to provide comprehensive briefings.

6.12    The proposed resolution sets a reporting timeframe to ensure that the matter is progressed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·        It is more efficient than the whole of Council investigating the matter;

·        It is an effective means to investigate the issues;

·        It provides a course that may lead to resolution of a long-standing issue.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The members of the working group will need to devote time to investigate issues;

·   The working group will not have delegated authority to make a decision.

 

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       The Council does nothing to resolve whether baches should be permitted to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake, Boulder Bay and Maori Garden.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium which differs from section 2 of this report due to the risks that arise from not investigating the possible issues.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The bach owners and interested members of the local community are specifically affected by this option as it would not lead to a finalised Council decision. Their views are that they expect the Council to make a decision.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – it would be a failure to perform a decision making function.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – none.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none.

Legal Implications

7.9       The Council would be failing to perform its decision making function.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    Risk of complaint to the Ombudsman or legal challenge regarding not making a decision on private occupancy of Council land.

7.11    If there are unacceptable natural hazard risks to users of some of the baches, and the Council does not as land owner limit or end that use, then there could be criticism of the Council’s inaction.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - none.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – none.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council would not be deciding a matter that needs determination.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brent Pizzey - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

26.    Remuneration Authority Local Government Review Consultation Document - Draft Council Comment

Reference:

17/591352

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to enable the Council to adopt its comment (Attachment A) to the Remuneration Authority Consultation Document Local Government Review, Part two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the draft comment as attached for submission to the Remuneration Authority.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Remuneration Authority (Authority) contacted all Councils in May 2017 with a consultation document on Local Government Review (Attachment B), seeking comment from local government on proposals for immediate changes (Part two) and Longer Term Proposals (Part three).

3.2       Under the Local Government Act the Remuneration Authority sets the base remuneration for all elected members of local authorities including community boards.  It also sets allowances and expenses.  In undertaking its duties, the Authority is obliged to have regard to the need to minimise potential for behaviour distortion, maintain fair relativity with other levels of remuneration elsewhere, be fair to both elected members and ratepayers, and attract and retain competent persons.  The Remuneration Authority document on Remuneration Setting for Local Authorities is attached (Attachment C). 

3.3       The Remuneration has noted that it is seeking the views of Councils on the proposals, not of individual elected members or staff.

3.4       Part two – Proposed Immediate Changes (2017 Determination)

·        The Authority is seeking the views of local government (territorial authorities, unitary councils and regional councils) on proposals that will be related the 2017 determination, affecting elected mayors, chairs and councillors and part of it also affecting community board members.

·        Feedback from councils has been requested by 19 June 2017.  The Authority agreed to the Christchurch City Council providing its views by 22 June, to allow the Council to consider the draft comment at this meeting.

3.5       Part three – Longer Term Proposals

·        The Authority is seeking the views of local government on longer term proposals that will affect elected mayors, chairs, councillors and community board members from every council except Auckland.

·        Feedback from Councils has been requested by 20 October 2017.

3.6       The consultation document and information relating to the Remuneration Authority was sent to all elected members with an invitation to provide feedback on the matters raised in Part two of the consultation document and the key questions posed by the Authority. 

3.7       The key themes of the responses provided and information relating to the Council processes and policies have formed the basis of this comment on Part two of the consultation document.

3.8       In providing feedback on the proposals within Part two of the Authority’s document, several elected members made comment on a number of remuneration matters not related to Part two of the document.  These matters have not been included in this draft comment but have been noted for inclusion as appropriate in Part three of the consultation document.

3.9       The process for seeking the input of all elected members in preparation of the Council’s comment on Part three – Longer Term Proposals is being developed.  Staff are reviewing the proposals within the document and will provide a summary of the proposed significant changes to current arrangements. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Christchurch City Council Feedback - Remuneration Authority Consultation Document Local Government Review

245

b

Consultation Document - Local Government Review

250

c

Remuneration Setting for Local Authorities

280

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

22 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 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


Council

22 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

 

 


Council

22 June 2017

 

 

27.  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

22 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

28

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 25 May 2017

 

 

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

 

29

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 1 June 2017

 

 

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

 

30

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 8 June 2017

 

 

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

 

31

Creative Industries Support Fund Recommendations for Final Signoff

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Commercially sensitive lease negotiations

Opening of Metro Sports Facility

32

Public Excluded Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 24 May 2017

 

 

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

 

33

Transport Contract Extension of Term

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The withholding of information is necessary to allow for a commercial negotiation to be conducted.

2 October 2017

End of the service period extension being sought. 1 October 2017

34

Transport Contract Extension of Term

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The witholding of information is necessary to allow for a commercial negotiation to be conducted.

2 October 2017

End of the service period extension being sought.

35

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 7 June 2017

 

 

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

 

36

Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017

 

 

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

 

37

Development Christchurch Limited - May Update Report

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Development Christchurch Limited are conducting commercial negotiations that need to remain confidential until the negotiations are concluded.

Conclusion of negotiations

38

Provision of Council Finance System

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The document contains commercially sensitive information

Full report on completion of the agreement; A redacted version at the conclusion of the contract negotiations.

39

Council Controlled Organisations - 31 March 2017 Performance Report

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Discusses the commercial activities of the entities

When the information is publicly available

40

Public Excluded Social and Community Development Committee Minutes - 31 May 2017

 

 

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

 

41

Approval for additional Central City Landmark Heritage Grant funding for the buildings of New Regent Street

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The report is proposing a grant for works that have not yet been competitively tendered. Confidentiality is required due to the need to retain the ability to get a competitive market price for these proposed works

On acceptance of a competitive tender.

42

Public Excluded Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 11 May 2017

 

 

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

 

43

Report from Christchurch City Holdings Limited

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Commericial in Confidence

Once the informaton release will no longer prejudice the commercial position.

44

2017/18 Insurance Renewal

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations

Negotiations with prospective insurers must proceed on a confidential basis due to the commercial sensitivities involved.

An announcement may be made once the Council makes a decision and wording is agreed with the other parties involved.

45

Regenerate Christchurch - Final Draft Accountability Documents:   Statement of Intent, 2018/19-2020/21 and Statement of Performance Expectations, 2018/19

s7(2)(f)(ii)

Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

To allow any further consideration to be given to the content of the documents prior to them being formally accepted.

 Tabling of the documents in Parliament by the Crown.