Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 3 August 2017

Time:                                    10am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

28 July 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

03 August 2017

 

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

5.       Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress................................................ 5

6.       Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 26 July 2017............ 171

Regulatory Performance Committee

7.       Review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and proposed new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 (for consultation).................................................... 177

8.       Review of the Stock Control Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)......................................................................................................................... 219

9.       Review of the General Bylaw 2008...................................................................................... 265

Strategic Capability Committee

10.     Living Wage........................................................................................................................... 277

STAFF REPORTS

11.     Water Management Zone Committees' Updates............................................................... 291

12.     Urban Development Indicators - Quarterly Monitoring Report....................................... 297

13.     Community Outcomes and Strategic Priorities.................................................................. 339

14.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 346  

 

 

 


Council

03 August 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

03 August 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 26 July 2017

 

5.        Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress

Reference:

17/808045

Contact:

Tom Parsons

tom.parsons@ccc.govt.nz

941 8978

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Proceed with the preferred option (Option 1) which is to progress the multi-hazard analysis by completing further technical studies and developing floodplain management plans.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Proceeds with the preferred option (Option 1) which is to progress the multi-hazard analysis by completing further technical studies and developing floodplain management plans.

a.         Notes that the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) will be returning to the Heathcote Community in October 2017.

b.         Notes that the LDRP will be reporting to Council on the options for short term measures for the Southshore Estuary Edge. 

c.         Notes that the Recovery Plan will be prepared following the recent flooding events and will include Community engagement.

2.         Writes to the Minister for the Environment requesting that given recent serious flooding events in Christchurch and the South Island that the guidance to local government on sea level rise and the National Policy Statement on Natural Hazards be progressed with urgency.

 

Secretarial Note: The Council resolved recommendation two at its meeting on 27 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress

6

 

No.

Title

Page

a

LDRP 97 Multi-Hazard Gap Analysis Report (Final)

17

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress

Reference:

17/734918

Contact:

Peter Kingsbury

peter.kingsbury@ccc.govt.nz

027 599 4615

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1   Update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the development of a multi-hazard assessment approach, and specifically the gap-analysis assessment, for supporting the development of floodplain management plans for Christchurch.

1.1.2   Request approval to proceed with additional technical studies for the purpose of satisfying identified information gaps and progressing floodplain management plans using a multi-hazard approach.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  However, it follows from a report (Ref. 16/644382) to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) on the 12 July 2016.  The July 2016 report stated that the gap-analysis report would be presented to ITE and approval sought to proceed to the next stage of the multi-hazard assessment.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of medium significance with regard to the Christchurch City Council’s (the Council) Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined through consideration of community interest in natural hazards, potential implications for the Council regarding implementation of floodplain management plans, and potential interactions with future uses of the Residential Red Zone.

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation has not been undertaken on the general scoping and development of the project.  A decision to progress the multi-hazard assessment is supported by public engagement on natural hazards as part of the review of the Christchurch District Plan.  If the Council supports the recommendation to progress with the additional multi-hazard technical studies, future engagement with communities will be on all natural hazards and will also include engagement on broader hazard and risk management concepts, including community adaptation.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Proceed with the preferred option (Option 1) which is to progress the multi-hazard analysis by completing further technical studies and developing floodplain management plans.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

And also supports:

4.1.2   Activity: Natural Hazards Policy and Planning

Level of Service: 17.0.23 Development of new policies, strategies and plans.

4.1.3   Activity: Co-ordinate civil defence readiness, response and recovery

Level of Service: 2.5.1 Council is prepared for and maintains an effective response capacity to manage civil defence emergencies.

4.1.4   Activity: Public education to increase community awareness and preparedness

Level of Service: 2.5.4 Improve the level of community and business awareness and preparedness of risks from hazards and their consequences.

4.2       The following options are considered in this report:

·     Option 1 - Progress with additional technical studies to address the information gaps identified in the gap-analysis required for completing a multi-hazard analysis (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Do nothing. 

4.3       The key findings of the technical information gap-analysis work are:

4.3.1   There is a lack of information and understanding of some natural hazards and their association and relationship to one another.

4.3.2   Significant parts of Christchurch are subject to more than one (multiple) hazard (i.e. co-location of hazards).

4.3.3   Individual hazards can interact (i.e. co-incidence of hazards) to create increased risks.

4.3.4   Some hazards have enduring effects (e.g. earthquake induced land settlement) that can exacerbate other hazards (e.g. flooding).

4.3.5   Predictably, the area with the highest co-location and co-incidence of natural hazards is the Residential Red Zone (RRZ).  However, there are other parts of Christchurch subject to several individual natural hazards and/or high combined hazard risks.

4.4       Option 1 Summary - Advantages and disadvantages (preferred option)

4.4.1   The advantages of Option 1 include:

·     A thorough and robust all-hazards basis for preparing floodplain management plans.

·     A fuller understanding of hazard exposure, impact and consequences, providing an improved understanding of total combined risk, and greater clarity for the community regarding long-term planning and hazard management decisions.

·     Greater transparency and robustness in decision-making, and greater confidence and certainty for the community.

·     A reduction in the risk to the community from natural hazards, both in the short- to medium-term, and for future generations in the long-term.

·     Improved Civil Defence Emergency Management response capability based on realistic hazard risk scenarios.

·     The opportunity for sustainable planning and development decisions that are appropriate for both current and future generations.

·     Prudent and responsible use of the Council’s funds for the development of effective, long-term and sustainable hazard management approaches.

4.4.2   The disadvantages of Option 1 include:

·     Greater cost and an extended timeframe for implementing hazard mitigation options.

·     Additional community apprehension from some individuals resulting from the uncertainty associated with the potential findings of the multi-hazards analysis, the cost, and the time required to complete the work.

 

5.   Context/Background

Earlier Report

5.1       On 12 July 2016 the ITE committee received an information report (Ref. 16/644382) Land Drainage Recovery Programme and a Multi-Hazard Approach.  The report outlined the need for and background to a multi-hazard approach to floodplain management.  For the purpose of this report, pertinent extracts from the July 2016 report are reproduced below.

This report [Ref. 16/644382] details progress towards investigations into a multi-hazard assessment approach that considers a wide range of hazards and their interactions to inform decision making on floodplain management in a particular locality.

5.1.1   A multi-hazard assessment approach for long term planning and informing decision-making on future infrastructure planning and construction is proposed.  This approach would consider a range of hazards holistically and promote effective, long term sustainable interventions to reduce risk to the community.

5.1.2   The approach will be used to answer the question: How do we make a decision on flood management in a multi-hazard environment?  A multi-hazard assessment of flood defence, and other management options will help to inform decision making on the most appropriate way to manage floodplains, now and in the future.

5.1.3   Some parts of Christchurch are subject to multiple hazards, particularly the areas adjacent to the lower reaches of our rivers. Many of these areas have been significantly impacted by the effects of the 2010 - 2016 Canterbury Earthquakes ('the earthquakes') that significantly altered the profiles of other hazards.  Long term planning decisions and more immediate infrastructure repair/remediation decisions would be better made in the context of the overall risk posed by all of these hazards.

5.1.4   A 'multi-hazard' assessment approach considers the range of hazards which may affect an area. A multi-hazard assessment approach will provide a full picture of the total risk including likely physical damage, disruption, economic loss, and where appropriate, injuries and deaths.  The current, 'single-hazard' approach considers options for management of individual hazards and ignores costs and benefits associated with management of other hazards.  This approach may 'tie council into' considerable future additional costs for management of additional hazards, and call into question the original decision, for example if a decision was made to defend against a single hazard then subsequent decisions on other hazards could be influenced by the cost of implementing the original hazard defences.  A potential consequence of focusing on only one hazard is that actions taken to mitigate the effects of that one hazard may increase vulnerability/exposure to other hazards.

5.1.5   Effective risk reduction from natural hazards is only possible in Christchurch if all relevant threats are considered.  The natural system needs to be considered as a whole in an all-hazards approach.  Parts of Christchurch are vulnerable to a level of risk that for some hazards is undesirable and potentially, unacceptable.  A multi-hazard assessment would contribute significantly to a better understanding of consequences.

Progress

5.2       The Land Drainage Recovery Programme was established to identify and address the change in flood risk following the earthquakes. Floodplain management options for the lower catchments and coastal margins need to consider the risks of other natural hazards that affect these areas. A detailed gap-analysis of technical information for the multi-hazard assessment was completed in July 2017 (Attachment A – LDRP 97 Multi-Hazard Analysis Gap Analysis Report). 

5.3       The report identifies that a significant number of relevant technical studies are currently available.  However, there is additional technical information that is required to improve the multi-hazard analysis, and inform the development of floodplain management plans.  There are seven areas of work that require further study:

·   The significance of the co-incidence of flooding, extreme weather, coastal erosion and coastal inundation.

·   The significance of elevated groundwater levels to flooding from rainfall run-off/percolation.

·   The consideration of more frequent tsunami events; more frequent than the typically used ‘worse-case scenario’.

·   The nature and likelihood of further vertical ground displacements from future earthquakes.

·   The sediment budget and its contribution to coastal erosion and accretion (sediment deposition).

·   Information on the nature, location and value of Council assets for the economic analysis of the multi-hazard assessment.

·   Specific design guidance for Council infrastructure in floodplains.

5.4       Project briefs are currently being prepared for each of these seven subject matters.  These briefs will define the scope and likely cost of each study.

5.5       The gap-analysis report also presents the existing hazard information and identified areas of co-location and co-incidence of hazards. Predictably, the area with the highest co-location and co-incidence of natural hazards is the Residential Red Zone (RRZ).  However, there are other parts of Christchurch subject to a large number and/or high combined intensity of hazard impacts.  The gap-analysis assessment clearly indicates the importance of considering all hazards before considering the engineering, planning and policy options to address the associated risks. 

5.6       A decision is required from this meeting to progress the multi-hazard assessment project to Stage Two and Stage Three. Stage Two will be to commission the additional technical reports to satisfy the gaps in Council’s knowledge for stage three (the multi-hazard assessment).  Stage Three is the multi-hazard approach to be applied to the tidal reaches of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, the estuary of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, Sumner and the Styx River.  The results of the multi-hazard assessment will inform the development of the floodplain management plans for these areas.

5.7       The floodplain management plans will identify a range of options which will be used as a basis for community engagement and consultation.  Technical reports and drawings, but also non-technical summaries and easily understood graphics and other media will be prepared to enable effective communication and engagement with the wider community.


 

6.   Option 1 - Progress with Undertaking a Multi-Hazard Analysis (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Completing further technical studies on individual and ‘cascading’ hazards, and progressing the development of floodplain management plans using a multi-hazard approach.  The floodplain management plans will support decisions on how we manage land subject to flood risk, and where applicable, inform decisions on the future use of the Residential Red Zone.

6.2       Council staff are working closely with Regenerate Christchurch on a range of initiatives and all the results of the multi-hazard work will be made available to Regenerate Christchurch to help inform decision-making in the Residential Red Zone.  The multi-hazard information will also be used for any other regeneration plans or other relevant Council projects.

6.3       Extending the multi-hazard assessment approach to floodplain areas upstream of the tidal reaches of the Avon, Heathcote and Styx Rivers will be considered in the future.

6.4       A peer review panel will be formed to ensure that the multi-hazard analysis is technically sound for the purpose for which it is being developed.

6.5       The proposed scope of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme is to develop options for floodplain management, that is, managing the risks of flooding. The project will not develop options for reducing the risk from other hazards (e.g. liquefaction or tsunami). 

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of Option 1 is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.7       Community engagement will be an integral part of preparing the floodplain management plans.  Regenerate Christchurch will lead, with the support of Council, public engagement in the Residential Red Zone areas. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       Option 1 does not directly 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.  However, the development of floodplain management plans will require close consultation and engagement with Ngāi Tahu.

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       Many Christchurch communities have a strong interest in natural hazards, with this interest having increased following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.   Recent community engagement experience indicates that communities appreciate and respond positively to technically well-informed processes, and widely accessible and comprehensible information.  Initial discussions with Regenerate Christchurch suggest that there will be a range of favourable opportunities for joint public consultation and engagement on Residential Red Zone areas. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    The July 2016 ITE report (Ref. 16/644382) outlined the regulatory, policy and strategic framework within which a multi-hazard analysis would need to be developed. 

6.11    Option 1 is consistent with various Council plans and policies, and its natural hazard work programmes generally, and in particular the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.  Goal 4 Understanding of the Plan clearly states the need to understand our risks to be better prepared for future challenges.  Under Goal 4 there are three programmes of action that the Council and other organisations will focus on.  These are improve community understanding and acceptance of risk, manage the risks we face, and secure our future in the eastern parts of Christchurch.

Option 1 is also consistent with the Council’s role and involvement in the Regional Hazards Management Works Programme, and in particular the parts of the programme on regional research, and communication and engagement.  The programme of work was developed in 2015 under the Canterbury Policy Forum which is led by a multi-disciplinary Risk Reduction Working Group.

Selection of Option 1 would mean that the Council would be fulfilling its leadership role in developing knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, and implementing risk reduction measures.

Financial Implications

6.12    The technical information gap-analysis work, funded from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme operational budget, has cost about $220,000.  This includes Council staff costs.  The remainder of the project will also be funded from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme operational budget.

6.13    Seven additional studies have been identified as being required for the purpose of completing a multi-hazard assessment.  Accurate costings for the additional studies will not be known until a brief has been prepared for each study.  However, it is estimated that the additional studies will cost about $500,000 in total.  This cost includes Council staff costs.

6.14    Standard Council procurement processes will be followed for engaging consultants to complete the studies.  Approvals for each of the seven projects will be sought under current financial delegations.

6.15    The third stage of the project, which is the multi-hazard analysis and the preparation of floodplain management plans, is likely to cost about $500,000 additional to the studies in 6.13 above.  The total project cost, allowing for contingencies and staff costs, will be about $1.6M.

Legal Implications

6.16    The Council needs to meet its legal obligations for managing natural hazards under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, and Local Government Act 2002.  Current Council Land Drainage Recovery Programme work meets the relevant provisions of these statutes, and the multi-hazard assessment project will ensure that the Council continues to meet the statute provisions and to a high standard.

6.17    The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 introduces a significant change in respect of natural hazards.  The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a new matter of national importance in section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991.  This means that the risks from natural hazards must be recognised and provided for as part of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In contrast, the obligation to have particular regard to certain matters in section 7 requires those matters to be given genuine attention and thought, although they may still be ultimately rejected.  In short, when faced with competing considerations local authorities can now place greater weight on the management of significant risks from natural hazards.  It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the term “significant risk” in detail. However, the term is not defined in the Resource Management Act 1991 and is likely to be the subject of debate in the future.  Clarity may be provided through the new National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards which has an indicative date for completion of 2018.

6.18    A multi-hazard approach will also meet the requirements of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) and specifically Policy 4:

Provide for the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment, and activities that affect the coastal environment.  This requires: … c. particular consideration of situations where: … v. significant adverse cumulative effects are occurring, or can be anticipated.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    The delivery of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and specifically the development of floodplain management plans for the tidal reaches of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, the estuary of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, Sumner and the Styx River, are likely to be hindered if there are delays in completing the additional technical gap-analysis studies.  This may expose some communities to the existing level of flood risk for a longer period.

6.19.1 Treatment: dedicated project management and regular programme reviews will be required to ensure timely delivery of the additional technical studies and subsequent project activities.

6.19.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium as the risk may not eventuate within the period of the LDRP due to the unpredictability of high intensity and/or long duration rainfall events, and/or any other contributing natural events.

6.20    Applying a multi-hazard framework to floodplain management planning is likely to lead to a more informed and appropriately engaged community, as well as better long-term decision-making.  However, the multi-hazard approach being undertaken will require extensive and innovative communication and engagement approaches.  Engagement with the community will be undertaken on the options developed within each floodplain management plan.  Attempting to achieve a consensus within respective floodplain communities may prolong the implementation of flood hazard mitigation decisions or even stymie any measures being implemented.

6.20.1 Treatment: when Council engages with communities on the Land Drainage Recovery Programme floodplain management plans the discussion will emphasise the multi-hazard approach rather than focusing only on the flood risk.

6.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high as some members of some communities are likely to be ‘disengaged’ from the outset because of lack of confidence in the Council and general distrust resulting from a long period of uncertainty. Others are likely to find the multi-hazard assessment approach complex and difficult to understand.

Implementation

6.21    The multi-hazard assessment project is reliant on the timely delivery of the technical studies (Stage Two) required to satisfy the gaps in the Council’s understanding of various hazards and related matters. It is anticipated that it will take about six months to complete the additional studies, and that Stage Three (the multi-hazard assessment) and the floodplain management plans is planned for completion by December 2018.

6.22    A contract is in place (with separable parts) to deliver the three stages of the multi-hazard project. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of Option 1 include:

·     A thorough and robust all-hazards basis for preparing floodplain management plans.

·     A fuller understanding of hazard exposure, impact and consequences, providing an improved understanding of total combined hazard risk, and greater clarity for the community regarding long-term planning and hazard management decisions.

·     Greater transparency and robustness in decision-making, and greater confidence and certainty for the community.

·     A reduction in the risk to the community from natural hazards, both in the short- to medium-term, and for future generations in the long-term.

·     Improved Civil Defence Emergency Management response capability based on realistic hazard risk scenarios.

·     The opportunity for sustainable planning and development decisions that are appropriate for both current and future generations.

·     Prudent and responsible use of the Council’s funds for the development of effective, long-term and sustainable hazard management approaches.

6.24    The disadvantages of Option 1 include:

·     Greater cost and an extended timeframe for implementing hazard mitigation options.

·     Probable additional community apprehension resulting from the uncertainty associated with the potential findings of the multi-hazards analysis, the cost, and the time required to complete the work.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Discontinue the multi-hazard assessment project and the preparation of the proposed floodplain management plans. 

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of Option 2 is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.3       No community engagement would be required as there would be no floodplain management plan options to discuss.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       Option 2 does not directly 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       Significant parts of Christchurch were subject to flood risk prior to the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.  Parts of Christchurch are now subject to greater flood risk as a result of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.  Coastal communities in particular have expressed concerns about the impact and consequences of natural hazards, and principally flooding, and have requested the Council to address both immediate post-Canterbury Earthquake Sequence exacerbated flood risk and longer-term flood risk.   Option 2 would not address these concerns.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       Option 2 is inconsistent with various Council plans and policies, and its natural hazard work programmes, and in particular the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.  Goal 4 Understanding of the Plan clearly states the need to understand our risks to be better prepared for future challenges.  Under Goal 4 there are three programmes of action that the Council and other organisations will focus on.  These are improve community understanding and acceptance of risk, manage the risks we face, and secure our future in the eastern parts of Christchurch.

7.7       Option 2 is also inconsistent with the Council’s role and involvement in the Regional Hazards Management Works Programme, and in particular the parts of the programme on regional research, and communication and engagement.  The programme of work was developed in 2015 under the Canterbury Policy Forum which is led by a multidisciplinary Risk Reduction Working Group.

7.8       A do nothing approach would mean that the Council would be failing in its leadership role in developing knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, and implementing risk reduction measures.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of implementation - none

7.10    Maintenance / ongoing costs - none

7.11    Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.12    While there is no requirement for the Council to prepare ‘floodplain management plans’, the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 introduces a significant change in respect of natural hazards.  The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a new matter of national importance in section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991.  This means that the risks from natural hazards must be recognised and provided for as part of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.  Option 2 is inconsistent with the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

7.13    The Council also needs to meet its legal obligations for managing natural hazards under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, and Local Government Act 2002. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    If the Council does not complete the additional technical studies and the multi-hazard assessment it will not have the knowledge required to prepare defendable floodplain management plans.  Although the preparation of floodplain management plans is not entirely conditional on a multi-hazard assessment, given the significant contribution of ‘other’ natural hazards to flood risk in parts of Christchurch, it would be remiss of the Council not to complete a multi-hazard assessment.

7.15    Significant investigations are required to develop a strong technical natural hazard information base to help inform decision-making.  Applying a 'single-hazard' approach within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme could possibly lead to poor decisions and perverse outcomes.  The cost of locating Council infrastructure in areas subject to high flood hazard risks may be financial (e.g. inappropriate engineering design, third party legal costs and cost of failure from another hazard), as well as reputational, political, economic, environmental and social.  Selecting the ‘do nothing’ option would not treat or manage this considerable risk. 

7.15.1 Treatment: No treatment is proposed.  Given the significance of the flood risk and intrinsic relationship of flooding with other natural hazards, preparing floodplain management plans without a multi-hazard assessment is considered highly undesirable.

7.15.2 Residual risk rating: Not applicable.

7.16    There is also a likely risk that the Council will not meet legislative requirements under various statutes.  This could present a wide range of significant implications for Council.

7.16.1 Treatment: As above.

7.16.2 Residual risk rating: As above.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies  - none

7.18    Implementation timeframe - immediate

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council avoids immediate and significant costs associated with undertaking the multi-hazard assessment, and the development of the floodplain management plans.

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Potential for inadequate floodplain management decisions leading to inappropriate infrastructure investment, and incompatible planning and development decisions.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

LDRP 97 Multi-Hazard Gap Analysis Report (Final)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons - Surface Water Engineering Consultant

Peter Kingsbury - Principal Advisor Natural Resources

Ian Wright - Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Sylvia MacLaren - Project Manager

Approved By

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

03 August 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


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 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


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

6.        Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 26 July 2017

Reference:

17/808474

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 26 July 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 26 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 26 July 2017

172

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 26 July 2017

 

7.        Review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and proposed new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/803325

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941 5574

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report relates to the reviews of both the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking 2008, and the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 (the current bylaws)

b.         the review of the current bylaws has resulted in the development of a draft replacement bylaw (incorporating the speed limits bylaw): the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

c.         in order to complete the reviews, Council needs to approve the replacement bylaw and to consult the public on the proposed replacement bylaw.

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report (Attachment A).

3.         Commences the special consultative procedure in relation to the proposed draft bylaw in Attachment B and notes that subject to any changes as a result of the consultation process the proposed replacement bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the Act, in that:

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

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

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

4.         Adopts:

a.         a ‘statement of proposal‘ and that the consultation process will give effect to the consultation requirements of section 83 of the Act and

b.         that public consultation is planned for late August to late September, with public hearings around mid-October 2017.

5.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and proposed new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

179

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 section 155 and clause by clause analysis

184

b

Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

203

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

Review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and proposed new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/730590

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

Ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941 5574

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to consider the review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and to recommend the proposed replacement bylaw (Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017) to Council for adoption for public consultation.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

2.2       Staff recommend that the consultation process for the replacement bylaw follows the special consultative procedure under the LGA, including public notification of the bylaw, written submissions and a public hearing.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report relates to the reviews of both the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking 2008, and the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 (the current bylaws)

b.         the review of the current bylaws has resulted in the development of a draft replacement bylaw (incorporating the speed limits bylaw): the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

c.         in order to complete the reviews, Council needs to approve the replacement bylaw and to consult the public on the proposed replacement bylaw.

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report (Attachment A).

3.         Commences the special consultative procedure in relation to the proposed draft bylaw in Attachment B and notes that subject to any changes as a result of the consultation process the proposed replacement bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the Act, in that:

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

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

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

4.         Adopts:

a.         a ‘statement of proposal‘ and that the consultation process will give effect to the consultation requirements of section 83 of the Act and

b.         that public consultation is planned for late August to late September, with public hearings around mid-October 2017.

5.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Act requires that all bylaws are reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.  In terms of assessing options, each bylaw clause has been examined, and new issues have been identified and assessed, and this, in essence, provides the analysis of options. This analysis is contained in the ‘section 155 report’ (Attachment A).

4.2       The review of the current bylaws is intended to make the Council’s traffic, parking and speed limit controls more effective, easier to administer and enforce, and to reflect current circumstances.

4.3       Some of the changes in the proposed replacement bylaw reflect changes in legislation and legal interpretation. Currently some offences (e.g. breaches of heavy vehicle movement restrictions) can be enforced only by way of a prosecution in the District Court, whereas enforcement officers will be able to issue infringement notices (instant fines) under the proposed bylaw for these offences. The proposed replacement bylaw removes the schedules and retains the relevant information in registers. This removes duplication and improves processes for updating the information.

4.4       The proposed bylaw also takes into account changes to the practice of traffic management and to street design; for example the proposed bylaw provides for shared zones and paths (clauses 19 and 20) and for the new ‘hard’ landscaping on inner city streets (clause 11).  Table 1 of Attachment A includes an outline of each of the new bylaw clauses and describes the amendments made to the current bylaw clauses together with the rationale for these changes.

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

4.5.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.6       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 - Review the current bylaws and recommend an updated, replacement bylaw. Undertake a special consultative procedure on the proposed replacement bylaw.

The LGA 2002 requires that all ‘reasonably practicable options’ are assessed (section 77). In this case, only one structural option has been presented in this report – reviewing and replacing the bylaws.  This is because revoking the bylaws, or keeping the existing bylaws, are not reasonably practicable options as a result of the review. 

·    Technically the Council must have a speed limits bylaw to set certain speed limits in the district.

·    Revoking the bylaws would also reduce the tools that the Council has to manage the problems identified in the review, and result in a lack of regulatory options to manage issues.

·    Keeping the existing bylaws is not a reasonably practicable option either, as improvements and alignments with current practice have been identified through the review, and it would be inadvisable to maintain the status quo when known improvements have been identified.

The Level of Service for bylaws requires reviewing them to meet changing needs.  Within the bylaw review process itself, each clause has been examined, and new issues have been identified and assessed, and this, in essence, provides the analysis of options. This analysis is attached as the ‘section 155 report’. Section 155 of the LGA 2002, which is specific to bylaws, requires an assessment of whether regulating the identified issues via bylaw is appropriate.

4.7       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

The advantages of this option include:

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

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

There are no identified disadvantages of this option. 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Purpose and coverage of the bylaw

5.1       Currently the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 regulates and controls traffic and parking, balancing the competing demands on the road space while maintaining a safe and efficient infrastructure. The Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 allows the Council to set the speed limits, or designate urban traffic areas on roads under its jurisdiction.

Review of the current bylaw and clause by clause analysis of the replacement bylaw

5.2       The proposed replacement bylaw is attached to this report. The clause-by-clause and issues analysis (section 155) report is also attached. This analysis evaluates each clause in the current bylaw, the reason for any changes, and then identifies new issues, explores whether regulation via bylaw is appropriate and sets out the proposed changes and rationale for the replacement bylaw clauses. 

5.3       Information and evidence for the clause-by-clause and issues analysis was sought from staff with operational involvement in traffic operations, asset protection, parking compliance, as well as the Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC). All Community Boards were consulted on the review.

Relationship with other Council bylaws

5.4       The proposed replacement bylaw has some minor overlaps with the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016. There are no inconsistencies between the bylaws, and a consequential amendment to the Parks and Reserves Bylaw is proposed.

Consultation process on the proposed replacement bylaw

5.5       The Act requires councils to consult the public on new bylaws and bylaw amendments using either the special consultative procedure (sections 83 and 86) or 'other' consultation (section 82).  For proposals of low to medium significance, section 82 'other' consultation is generally considered appropriate.  However Staff recommend that the Council follow a special consultative procedure given the wide ranging nature of these reviews. The proposed consultation process will include: public notices in relevant newspapers; sending a statement of proposal including summary of the proposed changes and proposed bylaw to identified stakeholders, inviting written comments; and making copies available on the website and in libraries for anyone with an interest; and holding public hearings. 

5.6       Consultation is scheduled for late August to late September, with public hearings around mid-October 2017. The Council should be able to consider the final form of the bylaw in November, with the replacement bylaw coming to force in December.

6.   Option 1 -  recommend the proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Review the current bylaws – Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 – and recommend an updated, replacement Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Undertake public consultation on the proposed replacement bylaw.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

This report concerns the adoption of a proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation.  Views will be sought through the public consultation process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.5       There will be some policy amendments or revocations necessary if the replacement bylaw is adopted. Notably:          

6.5.1      The revocation of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008; and

6.5.2      The revocation of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010.

Financial Implications

6.6       Public consultation and hearings on the proposed replacement bylaw are business as usual costs.

Legal Implications

6.7       The Legal Services Unit has considered both the section 155 analysis, and the proposed new bylaw.  It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the proposed replacement bylaw is within the authorising provisions of the LGA 2002 and the Land Transport Act 1998, and is certainly reasonable.  It is also the view of the Legal Services Unit that the attached section 155 analysis report shows how the Council has considered its section 155 obligations for the purposes of the review of the bylaw (together with assessing options under section 77 of the Act in relation to the various clauses). 

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

6.9       The recommendations in this report reflect the requirements of section 155 and 160 of the Act, as well as section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.10    The risks of consulting on and then adopting some form of the proposed replacement bylaw for are low. The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 section 155 and clause by clause analysis

 

b 

Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 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

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 26 July 2017

 

8.        Review of the Stock Control Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/803363

Contact:

Teena Crocker

teena.crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report concerns the review of the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 (the current bylaw)

b.         the review of the current bylaw has resulted in the development of a replacement bylaw, the Christchurch City Council Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (the proposed replacement bylaw)

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

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report.

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

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

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

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

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

5.         Adopts the proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation.

6.         Notes:

a.         that staff will prepare consultation information and undertake consultation in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

b.         that public consultation is planned for late August to late September, with public hearings around mid-October 2017.

7.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Stock Control Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

221

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017

231

b

Section 155 and clause by clause analysis

242

c

DRAFT - Register of Restricted Roads (Under Separate Cover)

261

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

Review of the Stock Control Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/686702

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to consider the review of the Stock Control Bylaw 2008, and to recommend the proposed replacement bylaw, the Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017, to Council for adoption for public consultation.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the limited number of people likely to be affected by the changes and the alignment of the changes with other requirements already in place, including the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and traffic legislation.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report concerns the review of the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 (the current bylaw)

b.         the review of the current bylaw has resulted in the development of a replacement bylaw, the Christchurch City Council Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (the proposed replacement bylaw)

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

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report.

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

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

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

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

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

5.         Adopts the proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation.

6.         Notes:

a.         that staff will prepare consultation information and undertake consultation in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

b.         that public consultation is planned for late August to late September, with public hearings around mid-October 2017.

7.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Strategic Planning and  Policy

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

The LGA 2002 requires that all ‘reasonably practicable options’ are assessed (section 77). In this case, only one structural option has been presented in this report – reviewing and replacing the bylaw.  This is because revoking the bylaw, or keeping the existing bylaw, are not reasonably practicable options as a result of the review. 

·    Revoking the bylaw would reduce the tools that the Council has to manage the problems identified in the review, and result in a lack of regulatory options to manage issues.

·    Keeping the existing bylaw is not a reasonably practicable option either, as improvements and alignments with current practice have been identified through the review, and it would be inadvisable to maintain the status quo when known improvements have been identified.

The Level of Service for bylaws requires reviewing them to meet changing needs.  Within the bylaw review process itself, each clause has been examined, and new issues have been identified and assessed, and this, in essence, provides the analysis of options. This analysis is attached as the ‘section 155 report’. Section 155 of the LGA 2002, which is specific to bylaws, requires an assessment of whether regulating the identified issues via bylaw is appropriate.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

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

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

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None.

 

5.   Context/Background

Purpose and coverage of the bylaw

5.1       The movement of stock along or across rural roads is a necessary part of farming activities and, although it has not been identified as a significant or frequently occurring road safety issue in the district, it does necessarily occur to some degree from time to time.

5.2       The bylaws (current and proposed) regulate the movement of stock on roads.  There is potential for harm to road users, those droving stock, and the stock, as well as damage to the road surface, if stock movements are not undertaken with due care and best practice. 

5.3       New Zealand Transport Agency indicates that, although there are relatively low numbers of accidents involving stock under control on roads generally, the two contributing factors in related road crashes are insufficient warning distance, and inconsistent forms of warning.  The proposed replacement bylaw sets out warning distances and standard forms of warning (such as signs), following best practice guidance.

5.4       The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) places responsibilities on a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU).  It generally requires PCBUs to take all reasonably practicable steps to eliminate, minimise or manage risk, and places responsibility on the PCBU to protect themselves and those that may be affected.  Both farmers and the Council are considered PCBUs under the HSWA and have responsibilities to manage risk.

5.5       Generally, the responsibility for farmers is to protect themselves, any staff or helpers, their stock, and any road users from coming to harm as a result of using the road to move stock. 

5.6       The Council (as the Road Controlling Authority) generally gives permission for activities on the road that follow best practice, and where the risks are adequately managed.

5.7       Existing legislation, the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, already covers some aspects relating to animals on the road. The Rule covers driver responsibilities and conduct towards animals on the road (both driven and ridden), together with some aspects of the responsibilities and obligations of those moving untethered animals, or riding or leading animals, along or across roads (parts 7.22, 11.14 and 11.15, respectively). The bylaws (current and proposed) do not seek to replicate this. 

5.8       The proposed replacement bylaw covers roadside grazing (and temporary fencing), and the installation, maintenance and removal of cattle-stops. It also contains some exemptions that apply during emergencies (such as fire) and extreme weather events (such as snow or flooding).

5.9       There is a greater risk from uncontrolled stock on roads (such as escaped or wandering animals) than from stock that are being driven along or across a road in a controlled way, and the proposed replacement bylaw also seeks to complement the coverage of the Impounding Act 1955 in this regard.  It contains a new provision on keeping boundary fences in good condition so that they adequately confine stock and do not allow animals to escape onto roads.

Review of the current bylaw

5.10    The Council has a bylaw regulating activities associated with the stock on roads – the Stock Control Bylaw 2008. Legislation requires that bylaws are reviewed within certain timeframes –normally at least once every ten years (section 159 of the LGA 2002). The review concludes that a bylaw is still needed and a proposed replacement bylaw has been drafted – the proposed Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (attachment A).

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

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

5.13    When the replacement bylaw (in its final form, after consultation) is considered by Council, the report will also seek to revoke:

·   the Banks Peninsula District Council Wandering Stock Signs Policy 1990; and

·   section 5.2 (Cattlestops and Gates) of the Banks Peninsula District Council Roading Policy 1998.

5.14    A new policy on the installation, maintenance and removal of cattle-stops will be developed by staff and will complement the coverage of the proposed replacement bylaw.

Bylaw-making powers and enforcement options

5.15    The proposed new bylaw would be made under the LGA 2002 as well as the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA 1998). 

5.16    Sections 145 and 146 of the LGA 2002 :

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

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

5.17    The proposed new replacement bylaw would also be made under the LTA 1998, section 22AB, including:

·   Section 22AB(1)(u): prohibiting the driving of loose horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, or other animals along any road, otherwise than at the times and by the routes so prescribed, except with the permission of the Minister or of the relevant road controlling authority, as the case may be, and on the conditions that the Minister or the relevant road controlling authority, as the case may be, thinks fit:

·   22AB(1)(zk): regulating any road-related matters not addressed by paragraphs (a) to (zj), including (but not limited to) enhancing or promoting road safety or providing protection for the environment.

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

5.19    There is no infringement regime available at this time for breaching a bylaw made under the LGA 2002. However, there is a range of enforcement options and tools available in that Act (for example, seizing offending equipment, applying for injunctions in the District Court, or recovering costs from damage). Council enforcement officers may enforce the bylaw using these tools.

5.20    The parts of the proposed replacement bylaw made under the LTA 1998 may be enforced by enforcement officers appointed under the LTA 1998. In this context, enforcement officers are members of the Police. However, the infringement regime only applies with respect to vehicles, and staff consider that in most cases, breaches of the bylaw will be directly related to the control of stock by the stock owner rather than the use of vehicles. If the Police bring a prosecution under the LTA 1998, on conviction there is a maximum fine of $500.

Coverage and exclusions

5.21    The proposed replacement bylaw would apply to all roads where the Council is the Road Controlling Authority. 

5.22    The proposed replacement bylaw would not apply to:

·   roads where the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is the Road Controlling Authority, such as State Highways (except where the NZTA has delegated its functions and powers as a Road Controlling Authority to the Council); or

·   private roads, unformed roads and roads that are not maintained by the Council; or

·   stock that is being transported in a vehicle, or that is being ridden or led.

5.23    Some requirements in the bylaw do not apply to roads or sections of unfenced road where there are cattle-stops and stock are able to wander freely over the road (and where there is signage to warn road users of this). There is also some flexibility in emergency conditions and extreme weather events, where the welfare of stock is threatened.

Best practice guidance

5.24    Information for the best practice guidance in the proposed replacement bylaw is from a several sources, including:

·   The Road Controlling Authorities (RCA) Forum document, produced in conjunction with New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Stock under control (crossing and droving), produced in April 2015, which sets out best practice for stock-related warning distances and forms of warning.

·   The Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM), which sets out best practice generally for all forms of temporary traffic management across New Zealand.

Changes between the current bylaw and the proposed new bylaw

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

5.26    Information and evidence for the clause-by-clause and issues analysis was sought from staff with operational involvement in traffic operations and roading maintenance, and animal management, as well as the Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC).  All Community Boards were involved in the review, particularly the Banks Peninsula Community Board.

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

·   Standard conditions for moving stock along or across roads – these standard conditions have had some minor changes, including high visibility clothing, not placing any obstruction on a road to control or direct stock, avoiding anticipated busy times on roads, and not moving stock in reduced visibility conditions.

·   Standard conditions for moving stock across roads – the use, type and location of signs, and the optional use of flashing amber beacons.

·   Standard conditions for moving stock along roads – requirements for pilot vehicles, including distances from the stock, and the use of signs and flashing amber beacons.

·   Temporary roadside fencing – requires the permission of the Council, covers temporary stock races, and requires temporary fencing to have frangible posts and not be located within two metres of a waterway.  The other fencing conditions remain the same.

·   Movement of dairy cows - the section setting out the conditions for the movement of dairy cows has been removed.  All movements of dairy cattle now come under the clause on assessments (see below).

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

·   Restricted roads – a new approach to managing stock on roads has been added, where roads, sections or categories of road are listed in a Restricted Roads Register. These roads are associated with higher risks for the movement of stock.  A person must apply for an assessment before moving stock on these roads. Staff will table a draft Restricted Roads Register at the Committee meeting on 26 July.

·   Assessments – a new approach to managing risk has been added, where for the movement of stock on Restricted Roads, or for the movement of dairy cattle or non-standard stock, an assessment is required on a case-by-case basis to ascertain the specific risks and appropriate risk mitigation measures.  This may result in a permit with conditions or the need for a traffic management plan.

·   Non-standard stock - This term has been used to describe stock that are not cattle or sheep, and where there are different risks to be managed. Different requirements are also in place for dairy cattle. The use of any road for both non-standard stock and dairy cattle requires an assessment, as above.

·   Cattle-stops – Although there is some regulatory coverage relating to cattle-stops in the Local Government Act 1974 that is still in force (section 344), there are issues that remain unclear or discretionary. The inclusion of a clause prohibiting the installation, maintenance or removal of cattle-stops without the permission of the Council will be accompanied by a policy that is connected with the bylaw (but is not part of the bylaw) that sets out relevant matters.

·   Escaped or wandering stock – a new clause has been added to require every person who owns stock to take all reasonable steps to prevent the stock from wandering on roads, including ensuring fences are able to adequately contain the stock.

·   Contamination of or damage to the road surface – a new clause has been included setting out that the Council can direct the owner of stock to clean the road surface of mud or faeces to its satisfaction, or will clean the road and recover costs from the stock owner. Similarly, the Council may repair any damage caused to a road and recover the costs from the stock owner. 

5.29    There are no substantial changes to the coverage of:

·   Many of the standard conditions for moving stock along or across roads remain the same.

5.30    The proposed replacement bylaw is attached to this report.  The clause-by-clause and issues analysis (section 155) report is also attached, and sets out all the clauses in the current bylaw, the reason for any changes, and the wording in the proposed replacement bylaw in more detail.

Relationship with other Council bylaws

5.31    The proposed replacement bylaw has some minor some overlaps with proposed new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, in that they both relate to roads. There are no inconsistencies between the bylaws.

Consultation process on the proposed replacement bylaw

5.32    The LGA 2002 requires councils to consult the public on new bylaws and bylaw amendments using either the special consultative procedure (sections 83 and 86) or 'other' consultation (section 82). For proposals of low to medium significance (this includes situations where the Council considers that there is not or there is not likely to be a significant impact on the public), section 82 'other' consultation is generally considered appropriate. When carrying out consultation that gives effect to the requirements of section 82, the Council must comply with the requirements of section 82A (which relates to information required for consultation). 

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

·   public notices in relevant newspapers; and

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

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

·   holding public hearings. 

5.34    Consultation is scheduled for late August to late September, with public hearings mid-October 2017. The Council should be able to consider the final form of the bylaw in November, with the replacement bylaw coming to force in December.

6.   Option 1 - Recommend the proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Review the current bylaw and recommend an updated, replacement bylaw. Undertake public consultation on the proposed replacement bylaw.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       This report concerns the adoption of a proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation.  Views will be sought through the public consultation process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6       There will be some policy amendments or revocations necessary if the replacement bylaw is adopted. Notably,

·   the revocation of the Banks Peninsula District Council Wandering Stock Signs Policy 1990, and section 5.2 (Cattlestops and Gates) of the Banks Peninsula District Council Roading Policy 1998; and

·   the development of an operational policy on the installation, maintenance and removal of cattle-stops.

Financial Implications

6.7       Public consultation and hearings on the proposed replacement bylaw are business as usual costs. 

6.8       There will be some cost implications for stock owners wanting to use the road to move stock under the proposed replacement bylaw. 

6.9       The requirements in the bylaw align with the requirements in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to some degree, meaning some of the equipment required by the bylaw may already be being utilised to meet those legislative requirements.  The HSWA requires taking all reasonably practicable steps to eliminate, minimise or manage risk, and places responsibility on the business operator to protect themselves and those that may be affected.

6.10    Costs for those moving stock along or across roads may include:

Item         

Cost indication / estimate

Total cost estimate

High viz vests (per person)

$20 +gst

$23 per vest

Amber beacons - different types

(need x2 for pilot vehicles)

Ranging from $50 - $300 +gst

$57.50 - $345 per beacon

Temporary warning sign – orange with a cow or sheep silhouette

(may need several signs)

Sign only $95+gst

$109.25 per sign

Vehicle mounted, towball mount $250+gst

$287.50 per sign + mount

Foldable sign + post $290+gst

(installation extra)

$333.50 per sign + post

Sign stand and base $175+gst  

$201.25 per sign + stand

 

6.11    The costs for amber beacons and temporary warning signs are largely one-off costs, as the equipment should last for many years if it is well cared for.

6.12    Traffic management plans may be one-off or for a series of events. However, they are only valid for a maximum of one year.


 

 

Item         

Cost indication

Total cost estimate

Traffic Management Plan

$140+gst TMP design (assuming relatively simple and easy to produce)

$161

 

Legal Implications

6.13    The legal considerations relating to a review have been identified in paragraphs 5.10 to 5.12 of this report.

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

6.15    The Legal Services Unit has considered both the section 155 analysis, as well as the proposed new bylaw. It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the proposed replacement bylaw is within the authorising provisions of the LGA 2002 and the LTA 1998, and is certain and reasonable. It is also the view of the Legal Services Unit that the attached section 155 analysis report shows how the Council has considered its section 155 obligations for the purposes of the review of the bylaw (together with assessing options under section 77 of the LGA 2002 in relation to the various clauses). 

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

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

Risks and Mitigations   

6.18    The risks of consulting on and then adopting some form of the proposed replacement bylaw are low. The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017

 

b 

Section 155 and clause by clause analysis

 

c 

DRAFT - Register of Restricted Roads (Under Separate Cover)

 

 


 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Andrew Hensley - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 26 July 2017

 

9.        Review of the General Bylaw 2008

Reference:

17/803377

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941 5574

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         In relation to its review of the Christchurch City Council General Bylaw 2008:

a.         Determines that amending the 2008 General Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing any problems with the bylaw; and

b.         That the amended 2008 General Bylaw (Attachment A) is considered to be the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c.         Does not give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is not inconsistent with the NZBORA.

2.         Publicly notifies the proposal to amend the General Bylaw.

3.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed amended bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the General Bylaw 2008

266

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed General Bylaw (amendments for consultation)

269

b

S155 report-General Bylaw amendments

275

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

Review of the General Bylaw 2008

Reference:

17/139263

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

Ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941-5574

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to recommend to the Council that it consult the general public on proposed amendments to the Council's 2008 General Bylaw.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Council has an agreed ten-year timetable for co-ordinating the review of bylaws.  This report has been prepared to ensure that the review will comply with legislative requirements.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         In relation to its review of the Christchurch City Council General Bylaw 2008:

a.         Determines that amending the 2008 General Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing any problems with the bylaw; and

b.         That the amended 2008 General Bylaw (Attachment A) is considered to be the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c.         Does not give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is not inconsistent with the NZBORA.

2.         Publicly notifies the proposal to amend the General Bylaw.

3.         Recommends that a hearings panel hears submissions on the proposed amended bylaw, deliberates on those submissions, and reports back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - to amend the General Bylaw 2008 (preferred option)

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The General Bylaw sets out the administration clauses common to all Council bylaws – having a general bylaw is more efficient and effective than repeating identical clauses in each bylaw. 

·     Updates the General Bylaw to take into account changing circumstances and legislation e.g. by providing for the electronic service of documents.

·     Removes provisions which are covered by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) – for example clause 14 ‘Names and addresses to be supplied’ is not required because section 178 of the LGA empowers enforcement officers to require people to give their name and address.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no identified disadvantages.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council's General Bylaw 2008 is purely an administrative and technical bylaw.  It contains provisions that are common to all Council bylaws and applies to all present and future bylaws. 

5.2       This review is being undertaken to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) to review periodically all bylaws.  Staff have analysed the General Bylaw and completed a 'Section 155 report' on the bylaw (Attachment B).

6.   Option 1 – Amend the General Bylaw 2008(preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To amend the General Bylaw for public consultation.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  It is proposed that this bylaw review will be publicly notified at the same time as the reviews of the Traffic and Parking and Stock Control bylaws and that the submissions and hearings process will happen concurrently.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Because of the purely administrative role of the bylaw staff have not identified any members of the community who would be affected or have a specific interest in the bylaw.  However the staff recommend that the review is publicly notified so that those people who do have an interest in the bylaw can make submissions on the review and be heard on their views.

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

Financial Implications

6.6       The cost of reviewing the bylaws is covered by existing budgets.

Legal Implications

6.7       None identified.  The legal services unit has drafted the amendments to the bylaw.

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       There are no identified risks in amending the bylaw.  The amendments are drafted to ensure that the bylaw remains fit for current and future circumstances.

Implementation

6.9       Not Applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.10    The advantages of this option include:

·   The general bylaw is updated to meet current and future requirements

6.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed General Bylaw (amendments for consultation)

 

b 

S155 report-General Bylaw amendments

 

 

 

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

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 11 May 2017

 

10.    Living Wage

Reference:

17/808371

Contact:

Emma Davis

emma.davis@ccc.govt.nz

941 8907

 

 

 

 

Note: this item was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 27 July 2017.

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee discussed and debated the Living Wage report; however, when the Committee voted on the resolutions the vote was tied and the Committee are therefore not recommending an option to the Council and Council should consider the original recommendations in the report.

2.         The Committee suggested that staff should brief all Councillors on this report prior to it being considered at a Council meeting.

3.         Staff advised the Committee that the report will be considered in public and that the staff report will be amended to remove the confidential information contained in the report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Strategic Capability Committee;

a.         Considers, and recommends to Council, an option for adopting the Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.

b.         Approves that the report to be submitted to Council will be in the open public Council session and will therefore not include commercially sensitive information (especially the CCHL appendix)

 

 

3.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Due to a tied vote, the Committee are not making a recommendation to Council and the Council should consider the original options contained in the report:

 

1.         Option 1 – Fully adopt the current living wage

2.         Option 2 – Partially adopt the living wage

3.         Option 3 – Not adopt the living wage.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Living Wage

278

 

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

Living Wage

Reference:

17/345753

Contact:

Emma Davis

emma.davis@ccc.govt.nz

941 8907

Confidentiality

Section under the Act:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Sub-clause and Reason:

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

Plain English Reason:

Prejudice Commercial Position

Report can be released:

Report will be public for full council with commercial information removed

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to consider and recommend to Council an option for adopting the Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.

1.2       At the August 2016 meeting of the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee it was resolved that the Committee recommends to the incoming Council that consideration be given to moving towards the "Living Wage" rate (excluding Vbase), working within the existing budget for wage and salary increases. Staff were requested to prepare a report that takes into account a range of options, together with costings, for onwards submission to the incoming Council.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being provided to fulfil the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee resolution.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the level of public interest and the potential cost of the options.


 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Strategic Capability Committee;

a.         Considers, and recommends to Council, an option for adopting the Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.

b.         Approves that the report to be submitted to Council will be in the open public Council session and will therefore not include commercially sensitive information (especially the CCHL appendix)

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025) under Level of Service 13.0.13 Human Resources Activity Management Plan as it potentially introduces a new and materially important remuneration consideration (that was not part of the 2015 Activity Management Plan). 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fully adopt the current living wage

·     Option 2 – Partially adopt the living wage

·     Option 3 – Not adopt the living wage.

4.3       These options are set out in detail below in sections 6, 7 and 8.

4.4       The Living Wage campaign was launched in 2012 by Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand with the aim of reducing inequality and poverty in society by lifting wages of the lowest paid. The Living Wage is defined as ‘the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life’.[1] The Living Wage is currently set at $19.80 per hour compared to the minimum wage rate of $15.75 legislated by the Government.  The Living Wage rate will increase to $20.20 per hour from 1 July 2017.

4.5       Based on data from January 2017, there are 470 staff (excluding approximately 600 Vbase staff but accounting for seasonal summer staff) paid less than $19.80 per hour, representing 16.5% of the total staff of 2840 in the analysis. Of those staff earning less than the Living Wage, 44% are employed as casuals (mostly employed in seasonal roles in the Sport and Recreation Unit), while 22% are employed in permanent no fixed hours/seasonal or fixed term roles.  34% are full time or part time permanent staff. Only 16 staff earning less than $19.80 are permanent full time employees.

4.6       The majority of staff paid below the Living Wage are employed as lifeguards, swim instructors and customer service assistants in the Recreation and Sport Unit. Typically those who are paid less than the Living Wage are younger staff in their twenties and late teens (67%) and staff who have worked at Council less than two years (63%).

4.7       This report outlines three options for adopting a Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications. Option 1 is to adopt the Living Wage for all direct Council employees (excluding Vbase) at the rate of $20.20 which would cost a minimum of $775,000 annually.  The second option is to adopt a Living Wage policy based on a stepped approach similar to that taken by Wellington City Council who currently pay $18.63 per hour based on the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 with an annual adjustment taking CPI into consideration. This option is estimated to cost $285,000 annually. Both these options exclude Vbase staff recognising that Vbase will again become a standalone organisation.  The third option is that Council decides not to adopt the Living Wage at the current time given our current and future financial constraints and the uncertain productivity benefits, but we make a commitment to increasing the wages of the lowest paid staff through regular collective bargaining and remuneration adjustment strategies.

4.8       One of the major considerations of adopting the Living Wage is the ongoing future costs. The current estimates are based on current staffing levels but don't take into consideration future market increases, additional hours, relatively adjustments, other entitlements and future increases to the Living Wage rate and therefore it is not possible to forecast the full future costs of adopting the Living Wage.

4.9       Depending on the preferred option and the funding model, there is a risk, depending on future market movements that the costs of maintaining the Living Wage - and at the same time meeting the market movements for all employees - becomes financially unsustainable.   This risk is greatest for option 1 (as it has the greatest financial impact).  If this risk were to eventuate it would impact on the attraction and retention of staff, particularly in those professions where there is a skill shortage and high demand. If by adopting the Living Wage now, Council is unable to maintain market relativity for the remainder of staff and pay people what they are worth, then there is a potential risk that Council is unable to attract and retain a capable and high performing workforce.

4.10    It is recommended that Council consider and decide upon one of the three options to adopt the Living Wage taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications. 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Living Wage campaign was launched in 2012 by Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand with the aim of reducing inequality and poverty in society by lifting wages of the lowest paid. The Movement includes around 200 community/secular, union and faith-based groups. It proposed in 2012 that employers be encouraged to ‘opt in’ if they were able and willing to implement the Living Wage policy of $18.40 per hour for employees. There are now around 70 employers listed as accredited Living Wage employers across New Zealand.[2]

5.2       The Living Wage is defined as ‘the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life’.[3] The groups considered that a Living Wage for all households is ‘a necessary and important step in the reduction of poverty in New Zealand’. The original Living Wage rate of $18.40 was set through independent research by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit and was based on a wage required by a family of two adults and two children[4]. The household is assumed to have two income earners, one working full time and the other half-time. The methodology used doesn’t take account of the personal circumstances of a worker including living arrangements, regional variations and skill set. Since its initial calculation, the Living Wage has increased to its current rate of $19.80 per hour and will increase to $20.20 on 1st July 2017. In comparison, the minimum wage rate provided for in legislation is $15.75 per hour.

5.3       The Council first considered whether to adopt the Living Wage for Council staff in February 2014 where Council resolved that a feasibility study be conducted examining the implications of implementing the Living Wage. A confidential feasibility study of adopting the Living Wage was presented to the December 2014 meeting of the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee.  This report outlined the arguments for and against the Living Wage and examined the financial costs for Council to adopt the Living Wage for all Council staff as well as Council controlled organisations and contractors. The report examined the domestic and international experience and research of adopting the Living Wage. The report also discussed the organisational data on turnover and engagement in terms of improved productivity versus financial cost.

5.4       Two further confidential reports were presented to the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee in May and August 2015 which provided further analysis of the considerations and impact of adopting the Living Wage for Council employees, excluding Vbase staff, recognising that Vbase will again become a standalone organisation. The papers also proposed a set of guiding principles for remuneration as the basis of a remuneration policy that is equitable across the organisation. The resolution from the latter meeting was that the Council continue to work towards Accredited Employer Status rather than formally adopt the Living Wage at that time and staff report back in 2016 with updated data.

5.5       In August 2016, staff reported back on progress to increase the pay rates of the lowest paid staff in the organisation. This report outlined that good progress has been made in reducing the number of employees paid less than the Living Wage rate through intentional and targeted strategies. In the year from August 2015 to August 2016, the number of Council employees (excluding Vbase staff) paid less than the 2015 Living Wage rate of $19.25 reduced by 32% from 481 to 328 employees. Taking into account that the Living Wage rate increased to $19.80 in 2016, the number of the staff paid less than the current Living Wage was 375, a reduction from 18.7% of total staff in 2015 to 14.1% of current total staff included in the analysis. The decision from this meeting was that staff prepare a report outlining options for a future Living Wage policy to be considered by the incoming Council.

5.6       Arguments in favour of introducing the Living Wage largely focus on the opportunity to improve economic prosperity and improve the quality of life of communities. Advocates argue that business benefits such as staff retention and brand recognition also serve as incentives for organisations to adopt the Living Wage. The evidence from literature is mixed[5]. There is evidence of both positive and negative effects of its implementation.

5.7       The criteria for an Accredited Living Wage Employer requires that all directly employed staff and all indirectly paid workers employed by contractors on a regular and ongoing basis are on the current Living Wage rate. The likely mechanism for achieving this latter aspect would be the adoption of procurement practices that require successful contractors to pay their employees a Living Wage.  This could most realistically only be achieved at the time contracts are being renewed (or otherwise significantly renegotiated).  The costs of requiring indirectly paid workers (i.e. all contractors and sub-contractors to Council) are likely to be significant and are likely to be borne by the Council via increased cost of contracts for service. We have not attempted to model the cost of adopting the Living Wage for indirectly employed staff. 

5.8       However, in 2013 the Council asked CCHL to report back on the feasibility of applying a Living Wage requirement to the CCHL group of companies. This report was completed and sent to Council in February 2014. The report recommended against adoption of the Living Wage. At that time, based on the information available from some subsidiaries, the total impact within the CCHL group was identified as $7.2 million of additional costs including maintaining relativity and the cost of requiring sub-contractors to adopt the Living Wage, with by far the biggest impact being in respect to City Care.

5.9       CCHL updated this report in November 2016 with current information from their subsidiaries, outlining the financial impact on the CCHL group. This report concludes that in view of the complexities which would be created in the commercial relationships and the impact on competitiveness for CCHL subsidiaries, CCHL would not recommend to apply the Living Wage concept to Council CCTO’s. The report states that if the Living Wage is applied to companies in the group which are competing in the marketplace then these companies will be uncompetitive and the returns from the companies will be affected so long as the competitors are not obliged to use the same wage regime. The report also makes the point that several of the companies have noted that a high percentage of the employees earning less than the Living Wage are trainees or apprentices. The companies put considerable time into the training of these staff and there could be a tendency away from taking on trainees if the employment rates are increased. Many of the staff employed at City Care who earn less than the Living Wage have been employed within the last 12 months and are receiving ongoing on-job training, suggesting that ‘’through our training efforts, the majority of staff move beyond the Living Wage, by virtue of their increased productivity, in a relatively short time”.

5.10    Amongst Councils, to date, we understand that Wellington City Council and Wellington Regional council have adopted Living Wage policies. Wellington City Council initially introduced the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 for direct employees and have increased this annually to the current rate of $18.63. Last year, Wellington City Council extended this to selected contractors however neither the Wellington City Council or Wellington Regional Council are accredited Living Wage employers. However, Wellington City Council councillors voted to support the official Living Wage rate in the draft annual plan and will seek to obtain Living Wage accreditation within the three year electoral term.[6]

5.11    Auckland City Council have recently voted to introduce the Living Wage policy which will be phased in with all staff to be paid at least $18 an hour from September, increasing each year till 2019. Lower Hutt City Council are also considering options for implementing a Living Wage policy. There is limited information on organisations in Christchurch who have adopted the Living Wage. However, two other large local employers, the University of Canterbury and Canterbury District Health Board have explicitly declined to adopt the Living Wage. The Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the Living Wage.

5.12    The Government’s preferred approach is to keep increasing the minimum wage over time to protect the real incomes of low-paid workers, while minimising job losses. The Government maintains that it has no plans to increase the minimum wage to Living Wage levels, citing the support it already provides in the form of interest-free student loans,  the accommodation supplement or allowances, various health and tax packages e.g. Working for Families.

5.13    The Treasury released a report to the Minister of Finance in 2014 on the Living Wage proposal based on an analysis of the Household Economic Survey.[7] This report concluded that the Living Wage proposal is an ineffective way to help families with low incomes because many low income earners are people below the age of 30 who are single or are couples without children. The report concluded that the Living Wage is likely to have negative economic impacts on employment and inflation and the overall impact of poverty levels is likely to be small, but it would represent a change of focus from supporting families with children to supporting young, single people. However, advocates of the Living Wage are critical of the Treasury report saying it is based on a number of unfounded assumptions and is seriously flawed.[8]

5.14    To summarise, and as noted earlier, reports on the effectiveness of the Living Wage are mixed. 

 

Christchurch City Council Employee Demographic Information

5.15    Based on personnel figures from January 2017, there are 470 employees (excluding Vbase)[9] paid less than the Living Wage rate of $19.80. This is an increase of 95 staff compared to August 2016 and reflects the increase in casual and seasonal staff (i.e. a timing / seasonal difference); Lifeguards, Swim Education Instructors and Parks Field workers employed over the summer period. 36% of employees paid less than the Living Wage are paid between $17.00 - $18.00 with 30% paid between $19.00 - $18.00 per hour and 21% between $19.80 and $19.00 per hour.

5.16    Of those staff earning less than the Living Wage, the majority (44%) are employed as casuals and 22% are employed in permanent no fixed hours/seasonal or fixed term roles. Council has no staff on zero hour contracts. 34% are full time or part time permanent staff while only 16 staff earning less than $19.80 are permanent full time employees. The majority of staff paid below the Living Wage are employed as lifeguards, swim instructors and customer service assistants.

5.17    The Treasury report noted that those who would benefit most under a Living Wage policy are workers without dependents including teenagers and workers in their twenties. While Council does not hold information on whether staff have dependents or not, our analysis shows that the majority of staff paid less than the Living Wage are typically younger employees with less than two years tenure at Council.  Two thirds of staff paid below the Living Wage are in their twenties or younger and 63% have worked at Council less than two years. 27% of staff are under the age of twenty and 29% are between 20-24 years of age. Nearly half (46%) have been at Council for less than a year and 17% are in their second year of employment at Council. Only 24% of staff earning less than the Living Wage have been employed at Council for longer than three years.

 

5.18    Another consideration in adopting the Living Wage at Council is the complexity of the employment environment given the number of different collectives and agreements and the various employment provisions within all these agreements.  The Council currently has staff employed on eight agreements with five unions, as well as those employed on individual employment agreements. Given the number of agreements, there are a wide range of terms and conditions which need to be taken into consideration in implementing a remuneration strategy to ensure an equitable outcome. This means that a Living Wage policy would need to take into consideration the varying agreement provisions such as leave entitlements, overtime and other service allowances which will impact on the overall remuneration package.

6.   Option 1 - Fully Adopt the Current Living Wage

Option Description

6.1       Option 1 is that Council adopt the Living Wage rate of $20.20 for all staff paid below this rate based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised.

6.2       The adoption of the Living Wage rate of $20.20 for all direct Council staff (excluding Vbase) is calculated at a minimum cost of $775,000 annually. This estimated cost is a minimum due to the high number of casual and seasonal staff who may work extra hours over and above the hours used for the calculations. The costs also exclude kiwi saver, overtime, penal rates and any other allowances affected by pay increases.

6.3       One of the major considerations of adopting the Living Wage is the ongoing future costs. The current estimates are based on current staffing levels but don't take into consideration future market increases, additional hours, other entitlements and future increases to the Living Wage rate and therefore it is not possible to forecast the full future costs of adopting the Living Wage. However, given that the majority of staff below the Living Wage work in Recreation and Sports, as new pool facilities open, there would be an increase to the operating costs over and above what has been forecasted to pay these employees the Living Wage.

6.4       In the past few years, the market movement for wages/salary rates has been relatively stable with increases around 2% - although some very recent commentary based on the latest inflation figures, is starting to suggest a period of higher inflation / wage growth. 

6.5       The risk of adopting the Living Wage based on the current financial and market data, is that the future costs of maintaining the Living Wage and meeting the market movement for all staff, becomes financially unsustainable (and Council is therefore required to provide additional funding to avoid the risk eventuating).  If this risk is not addressed and does eventuate, then it will impact the attraction and retention of staff, particularly in those professions where there is a skill shortage, high demand, or where Council is materially falling behind the market movement.  This would in turn impact on future collective and individual agreement negotiations, potentially increasing the risk of industrial action and/or future remuneration increases above the rate of CPI to make up for lost relativity to the market.

6.6       The cost of adopting the Living Wage at $20.20 is estimated at $775k annually. This is currently not funded on an ongoing basis within the existing salary/wages budget.

6.7       The Council is not able to afford the Living Wage under option 1, without any overall increase to salary budgets. 

6.8       Under option 1, and assuming settlement of other Collective and Individual Employment Agreements roughly consistent with recent market movements, it is likely that the Council will need to fund approximately an additional $400-500k per annum (i.e. the existing budgets can absorb approximately $300-$400k of further cost). This would be less in the FY17/18 depending on implementation timeframes.  Future increases may also be required depending on Living Wage movements (which have historically been slightly higher than CPI at 2.5%) and other market movements.    

6.9       There is also the consideration that were Council to adopt the Living Wage this could impact on external labour market movements.  For example, if the Council was to pay staff well above the industry market, this could impact on commercial operators in the same industry, as they won't be able to match Council wages, potentially putting jobs at risk.  This risk is especially relevant in sectors where the Council has a significant market share such as recreation and sport, and can therefore heavily influence the viability of smaller market players. 

6.10    The decision to adopt the Living Wage and base remuneration on a set rate irrespective of performance, competence, job role and responsibilities, or market data may also impact on employee's perceptions of how they are valued (especially for those employees paid just above the Living Wage threshold).  In the case where there are no relativity adjustments between existing roles and between levels, this may also create tension in the medium and long-term with staff feeling that the experience/knowledge required and additional responsibilities of their roles are not recognised. This is more of a consideration the higher the living wage rate is set.  This, in turn, could lead to increased turnover and difficulty recruiting to fill those positions.

6.11    There is also the broader consideration with regards to the relative roles of central government and local government. Central government has responsibility for establishing national settings around minimum wages and other related social policies and financial support mechanisms.  The consideration for local government is what role it plays in addressing the objectives behind the Living Wage and whether this type of policy should sit at a macro, national level or with local government.

7.   Option 2 - Partially Adopt the Living Wage

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 is that Council decides to adopt a Living Wage policy based on a stepped approach for example at a rate of $18.63 per hour as Wellington Council has done (which is based on the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 plus an annual adjustment). Similarly with Option 1, this would be based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised. The adoption of the Living Wage rate of $18.63 for all direct Council staff (excluding Vbase) is estimated at a minimum of $285,000 annually excluding kiwi saver, overtime, penal rates and any other allowances affected by pay increases.

7.2       This approach recognises a commitment to raise the wages of the lowest paid but also takes into account what is affordable and other factors related to relativity both internally and externally with the market.

7.3       This approach would raise the wages of 310 employees which represents two thirds of those paid below the Living Wage as well as providing flexibility to adopt a remuneration strategy that takes into account performance, competencies and market information. Regardless of whether Council sets a rate of $18.63 or $19.80, Council would not meet the criteria to be an accredited Living Wage employer as it has not applied the rate to Vbase staff who are directly employed by Council or contractors (including CCHL and all external indirectly employed staff). 

7.4       Option 2 would represent a reduced risk in terms of affordability as compared to option 1.  Over the short to medium term – and subject to no unusual remuneration circumstances – Council could absorb the additional cost of $285,000 (increasing annually) incurred through partially adopting the Living Wage. 

7.5       There would still be increased risk of relativity differences and difficulty in meeting the market movement for all employees, however, on balance, these are considered manageable.  If this situation changes, and for example, industrial action occurs due to the inability to meet reasonable market movements, then we would of course give Council options on additional funding at future budget rounds (Annual or Long Term Plans).    

7.6       Adopting option 2, while minimising the affordability risk, does still incur the external labour market / relatively risks detailed under option 1 (para 6.9). 

8.   Option 3 - Not Adopt the Living Wage

Option Description

8.1       The third option is that Council decides not to adopt the Living Wage at the current time given its current and future financial constraints and the uncertain productivity benefits, but makes a commitment to increasing the wages of the lowest paid staff. The benefits of this approach are it provides a fair and consistent methodology for setting remuneration in partnership with unions (via collective agreements), and supports a strategy to attract and retain an engaged and productive workforce.  It provides a stepped approach to increasing the lower wages based on competencies, performance and market rates through future collective bargaining and remuneration adjustment strategies, however, may not achieve the outcomes sought to raise the wages of the lowest paid staff as quickly as Options 1 or 2.


Summary of Three Implementation Options and potential benefits and risks and Costs

Options

Potential Benefits

Potential Risks

Cost

Option 1 – Fully Adopt Living  Wage for employees (excl Vbase)

·    Increased wages for some staff

·    Greater motivation & morale

·    Reduced turnover

·    Higher productivity

·    Reputation as fair and equitable employer enhanced

·    This option becomes unaffordable without further funding

·    High risk that Council cannot maintain market rates for all staff  leading to a failure to attracting and retaining highly skilled, top performing staff

·    Increased wages not tightly targeted at those sectors experiencing unmet demand

·    Distorts labour market and some workers not able to compete for higher paid positions

·    Benefits prove to be not enduring

·    Judicial challenge that paying the living wage is not the most effective way to provide a service under the LGA.

·    Increased cost of $775k annually

·    Additional opex funding of $400k-500k annually is required.

 

Option 2 – Partially adopt Living Wage for employees (excl Vbase)

·    Partial increase in wages for some staff

·    Greater motivation & morale

·    Reduced turnover

·    Higher productivity

·    Reputation as fair and equitable employer enhanced

·    Some risk that increasing costs reduces budget to maintain market rates for all staff  leading to a risk of not attracting and retaining highly skilled, top performing staff

·    Increased wages not tightly targeted at those sectors experiencing unmet demand

·    Benefits prove to be not enduring

·    Increased cost of $285k annually

·    No additional opex is currently required as it is proposed to fund this cost from within existing baselines.

Option 3 – Not adopt Living Wage (Status Quo)

·    Provides a stepped approach to raising wages based on job role, market data and performance

·    Supports a national policy of setting wage rates

·    Maintains a consistent approach for all staff irrespective of where staff are employed in Council.

·    Slower approach to increasing the wages of the lowest paid staff

·    Higher turnover

·    Lower motivation

·    No direct impact on current budget/costs

·    Secondary costs on increased turnover

9.   Legal and Financial Considerations

9.1       Section 10, clause (b) of the Local Government says the purpose of local government is to “…meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.” In making a decision regarding the introduction of a Living Wage policy the Council would need to demonstrate that this change in the way it delivers services is the most cost-effective for households and businesses. This may take the form of better staff engagement and morale, greater expertise, greater organisational commitment, all of which lead to greater productivity.

9.2       It has been argued that the LGA 2002 is a barrier to adopting the living wage as it may contradict section 10(b) in that paying staff who currently receive less than the living wage more than the market rate would not be “cost effective”. However, a legal opinion provided to the Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Group by Dr Matthew Palmer[10] concludes it is not a barrier and bases his opinion on material that explains the economic justification of a living wage in terms of associated productivity gains and that pursuing such a policy would be consistent with the purpose of local government. 

9.3       As noted earlier, the estimated cost of Option 1 is $775k p/a. This is currently not funded within the existing salary/wages budget and some additional funding (of $400k-$500k p/a) would need to come via a rates increase to fund this on an ongoing basis.  The remainder of the funding could be absorbed within existing budgets through a tightening of remuneration budgets / future Collective and Individual Employment settlements.  The impact of part funding this from within the current salary/wages budget at a level of $300-$400k would still reduce the budget for other wage groups, impacting on our ability to maintain parity with the market which is likely to have an adverse impact on attracting and retaining quality staff.

9.4       Option 2 is estimated to cost $285k annually, which based on the market movements in the past two years, would have a lesser impact on the overall salary/wages budget, and on balance, is considered more affordable.  If this option was implemented there would still be a reduction in the overall budget available for other collective and individual employment agreement increases (i.e. we may fall behind overall market movements).  While this would be manageable within existing budgets for the short to medium term (i.e. no rates impact from implementation), over the long term, employees would generally expect the Council to maintain parity with market movements.  Additional future funding may therefore be required for Option 2 in future years.    

9.5       The other consideration when applying the Living Wage is relativity, both between existing roles who are currently on different pay rates and between supervisory levels. In the event that the wages of the lowest paid staff are increased to the Living Wage, other wage groups such as the one up team leader or other roles within a unit may need to be scaled upwards to maintain internal relativity. Any further cost needed to retain relativity is difficult to determine, and would be subject to negotiation and agreement with the unions. However, the higher the rate adopted, the greater the impact is on relativity implications.

Implementation

9.6       If the decision was made to adopt the Living Wage (either in part or full), this would need to be negotiated into future collective agreements or agreed to in a variation to current agreements. The majority of union staff are covered by the City Services Agreement which expires 30 September 2017.  A factor for consideration in union negotiations will be how adopting the Living Wage impacts on the relativities between roles under coverage of the unions.

9.7       If Options 1 or 2 are adopted, the next step would be to develop an implementation plan with an effective target date for implementation of 31 October 2017.  Under either Options 1 or 2, the rate would be based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised with the rate set around the midpoint of the band.

9.8       If options 1 or 2 are adopted, it is proposed that staff would report back to a committee of Council on progress towards giving effect to this by 30 November 2017 (therefore taking into account the upcoming City Services collective agreement negotiation).   

10. Recommendations

It is recommended that Council consider the options to adopt the Living Wage taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for 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

Emma Davis - Head of Human Resources

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

11.    Water Management Zone Committees' Updates

Reference:

17/665406

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report updates the Council on the activities of the three water management zone committees within the district.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy zone committees’ reports.

2.         Note the Selwyn freshwater workshops.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The three water management zone committees whose zones include portions of Christchurch – Banks Peninsula, Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn-Waihora – provided their annual reports at the Council’s 6 April 2017 meeting.

3.2       Attachment A provides the latest bi-monthly update from the three zone committees.

3.3       The Selwyn-Waihora zone committee is sponsoring a series of water seminars at Lincoln University (Attachment B).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

zone committee updates July 2017

292

b

Poster_Lincoln-Water-sessions FINAL

295

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

12.    Urban Development Indicators - Quarterly Monitoring Report

Reference:

17/745087

Contact:

Adele Radburnd

adele.radburnd@ccc.govt.nz

941 5170

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to receive and endorse the first quarterly Urban Development Indicators Quarterly Monitoring Report prepared under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, and to agree the process for future reporting and publication of the quarterly reports.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil resolution GCPC/2017/00009 of the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee which was to endorse the report and refer it to the Partners for their consideration and publication as appropriate.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment against the Significance and Engagement Policy criteria.  Endorsement and publication of the monitoring report would not adversely affect any individual or community or impose any costs on Council or the community.

2.1.2   No community engagement or consultation has been undertaken, however it is noted that the Greater Christchurch Partnership is seeking general feedback from targeted stakeholders as part of its continuous improvement process.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive and endorse the first Urban Development Indicators Quarterly Monitoring Report.

2.         Agree that the quarterly reports be published on the Greater Christchurch Partnership website with a link to the report added to the Council’s “Stats, Facts and Figures” public webpage.

3.         Agree that the framework established for the first monitoring report shall form the basis for future reports, with partner staff and the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee approved to make adjustments to the report as appropriate, unless Council directs or decides otherwise.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The report supports the Council’s Long Term Plan (2015-2025):

·    Level of Service: 17.0.1 (non-LTP) Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City.

4.2       Council has a statutory responsibility to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC).

4.3       The NPS-UDC requires local authorities to begin monitoring a range of market indicators on a quarterly basis from June 2017.  Local authorities are encouraged to publish the monitoring results and it is good practice to prepare a report that interprets and analyses the results.

4.4       Staff of the Greater Christchurch Partnership have worked collaboratively to prepare this first quarterly monitoring report, included as Attachment A to this report.

4.5       The report utilises existing data from a range of sources but highlights the need for improvements in both the range and quality of data available at the local level.  At this stage, little of significance can reliably be gleaned from the indicators but the intention is to build on the quality, breadth and understanding of the indicators over time. 

4.6       Whilst each Council is ultimately responsible for undertaking this monitoring, given that it is being undertaken and reported collaboratively with partner Councils, staff consider it efficient if Council agrees to the general framework as a basis for future reports, with staff and the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee approved to make adjustments to the report as appropriate, unless Council directs or decides otherwise.

4.7       The alternative option would be for Council to endorse the monitoring reports every quarter which will be more cumbersome and slower.

 

5.   Context/Background

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity

5.1       The NPS-UDC came into effect in December 2016.  It directs local authorities to provide sufficient feasible development capacity for housing and business growth to meet demand in the short (3 years), medium (10 years) and long term (30 years). 

5.2       Key deliverables and timeframes required by the NPS-UDS are:

·   Quarterly monitoring of a range of market indicators (commencing June 2017);

·   A Housing and Business Land Capacity Assessment (by December 2007);

·   Setting minimum targets for housing in Regional Policy Statements and District Plans (December 2018);

·   Prepare a Future Development Strategy to demonstrate sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term (by December 2018).

Urban Development Indicators Monitoring Report

5.3       Staff of the Greater Christchurch Partnership have worked collaboratively to prepare this first quarterly monitoring report, included as Attachment A to this report.

5.4       The purpose of the monitoring is to ensure that Councils are well-informed about demand for housing and business development capacity, urban development activity and outcomes. 

5.5       The monitoring complements and informs the three-yearly Housing and Business Land Capacity Assessments by providing a time series of market trends and an “early warning” of trends that may affect the sufficiency of development capacity.

5.6       Indicators to be monitored include house prices and rents, housing and business land by location and type, consenting activity, and housing affordability measures.

5.7       Partner staff have used data made available by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Statistics New Zealand, local authority and other sources.  The report highlights disparate data availability and quality for the Greater Christchurch area and the need for more time to test the reliability of datasets and analyse trends. 

5.8       At this stage, little of significance can reliably be gleaned from the indicators but the intention is to build on the quality, breadth and understanding of the indicators over time. 

5.9       Notwithstanding the data limitations, staff consider it appropriate to endorse and publish the monitoring report, as encouraged by the NPS.

Future Reporting of Indicators Monitoring Reports

5.10    It is proposed that the monitoring reports will be published quarterly on the Greater Christchurch Partnership website with a link to it from Council’s “Facts, Stats and Figures” public webpage. 

5.11    Whilst the requirements of the NPS-UDC are being undertaken collaboratively through the Greater Christchurch Partnership as part of the Settlement Pattern Review project, the requirement to monitor indicators still rests with the relevant territorial authorities. 

5.12    To ensure that Council’s obligations under the NPS are being met, it is recommended that the Council agree the general framework for quarterly reports whilst enabling partner staff and the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee to make adjustments to the report as appropriate, unless Council directs or decides otherwise.  Staff understands that Environment Canterbury officers are recommending a similar approach.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urban Development Indicators - Quarterly Monitoring Report

300

 

 

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

Adele Radburnd - Senior Policy Planner

Brent Pizzey - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Ivan Thomson - Team Leader City Planning

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 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


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

13.    Community Outcomes and Strategic Priorities

Reference:

17/808185

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

Note: this item was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 27 July 2017.

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks Council approval of the draft Strategic Framework detailed in Attachment A and for that framework to be used as the strategic foundation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves the proposed Strategic Framework to be used as the strategic foundation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28.

2.         Notes that community engagement on the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 (including the Strategic Framework) will commence shortly, and will be visibly led out starting with a Mayoral document in approximately August / September 2017.

3.         Notes that staff are preparing a work programme that will implement the Council’s Strategic Priorities and which will be presented to the Council.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

Strategic Framework

3.1       The Council has worked with the Executive Leadership Team, community board chairs and staff to prepare a new strategic framework to be used as the strategic foundation for work programme planning for the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28. The framework clearly articulates the Council’s intended direction over the coming three years and beyond.  It does not seek to replicate programmes of core work – such as road repairs, or infrastructure rebuilds – that are part of Council’s core day to day business.  

3.2       The strategic framework (detailed in Attachment A) has four levels:

·    Council vision statement – conveys the essence of Christchurch and links with the Christchurch Story narrative.

·    Community outcomes – statements of how we want the city to be. The community outcomes have been reviewed resulting in a more streamlined set of 16 statements – down from the previous 64. This will enable a more flexible approach to identifying linkages between community outcomes and work programme levels of service to be developed and promote more tailored approaches to monitoring progress.

·    Strategic priorities – the Council has identified the areas of Council business where a focus on improvement and/ or transformational change is sought. These are not exclusively the most important aspects of the Council’s business and the organisation will still be required to complete all its usual functions.

·    Targeted strategies – the Council has approved a number of strategies that provide detailed plans for change. These support achievement of community outcomes and strategic priorities to varying degrees. Further work will be undertaken to better align the suite of strategies with the community outcomes and strategic priorities.

3.3       The strategic framework includes a set of guiding principles that the Council identified and used to inform its preparation of the framework. The Councils intends to apply these principles to its direction setting and decision making processes over the current triennium.

3.4       The strategic framework has been refined following requests made at the Strategic Capability Committee meeting where it was first proposed. Specifically the changes have been:

·    Addition of a whaka toki to highlight the relationship between the Council and the papatipu runanga with mana whenua within the district

·    Addition of the “trust” supporting principle

·    Addition of the community outcome “21st century garden city we are all proud to live in” under the Liveable City outcomes group

·    Inclusion of the Council’s Multicultural Policy and Housing Policy as examples of the planning documents used by the Council to provide direction to giving effect to community outcomes and strategic priorities.

Implementation

3.5       By agreeing to the strategic framework to guide the preparation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28, and be included as a draft framework in that Plan, the Council is providing the opportunity for community engagement about what the strategic direction for Christchurch and the Council should be.

3.6       The Mayor’s office is developing a ‘leading statement’ to promote strong community engagement on the draft Long Term Plan. This is expected to be available in approximately August/September and will outline the critical issues and choices we face as a city, and the intergenerational implications of these choices.  This is an important document to ensure that the public understand the state of the city, our current challenges and opportunities, and the decisions that we need to make during the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan period.   

3.7       To support Council and the Mayor, the Executive Leadership Team has formed a ‘Strategic Alignment Steering Group’ to oversee implementation of the strategic priorities and community outcomes. The steering group will ensure the strategic priorities are given appropriate focus and support within the organisation; look beyond business as usual responses; and promote the change being sought.  

Timeline

3.8       The following is the expected timeline from Council agreement to use the strategic framework (post 2017 Annual Plan approval which occurred in June 2017) as the foundation of the Long term Plan 2018-28 through to adoption of a final framework and Plan.

1.    Council endorses the strategic framework

July 2017

2.    Officers present Council with an implementation model

September 2017

3.    Mayor’s office publishes ‘leading statement’

September 2017

4.    Officers use the strategic framework as the foundation for the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28

July – January 2018

5.    Council adopts draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 including the strategic framework

23 February 2018

6.    Draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 community engagement including strategic framework via public Consultation Document

March/ April 2018

7.    Council considers all feedback and written and oral submissions on the draft Long Term Plan

May 2018

8.    Council adopts final Long Term Plan 2018-28 – including final strategic framework

21 June 2018

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Strategic Framework 2017

342

b

Report from Strategic Capability Committee - 8 June 2017 (pre workshop)

344

 

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Acting Team Leader

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

03 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

14.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

03 August 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

15

Award of City Wide Road Maintenance Contracts

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

This report is of a sensitive commercial nature.

Following contract award.

16

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 26 July 2017

 

 

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

 

17

Greater Christchurch Settlement Pattern Review - process options

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

The report contains legal advice

The report is likely to remain confidential in perpetuity due to the possibility of judicial proceedings.

18

Section 17A Service Delivery Reviews

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Section 17A reviews may lead to the Council carrying out commercial negotiations, and public exclusion will avoid prejudicing the Council in regard to any possible future negotiations for the provision of services.

Following sign-off of the LTP 2018-28

 

 



[1] www.livingwage.org.nz

[2] www.livingwage.org.nz

[3] www.livingwage.org.nz

[4] Report of an investigation into defining a Living Wage for New Zealand, Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit December 2012.df

[5] A Literature Review on the Effects of Living Wage Policies published by Auckland Council August 2013.

[6] www.livingwage.org.nz

[7]  Refer November 2013 Treasury release www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/livingwage.

[8] Living Wage Aoteroa New Zealand, The Living Wage in the People-Centred, Smart Capital of Aotearoa/NZ

[9] Based on Dec 2016 figures, 594 staff employed at Vbase earn less than the Living Wage

[10] Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand, The Living Wage in the People-Centred, Smart Capital of Aotearoa/New Zealand