Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 20 December 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

15 December 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

20 December 2017

 

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 6

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 6

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 6

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 6

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 6

4.       Presentation of Petitions......................................................................................................... 6

Council

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

6.       Council Minutes - 7 December 2017...................................................................................... 27

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

7.       Thorrington School, Centaurus Road - School Patrol......................................................... 43

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

8.       Endorsement of the Final Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.............................................. 55

9.       Development Contributions Rebate - Social Housing......................................................... 87

10.     Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 November 2017........................................................ 99

11.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 6 December 2017 105

Finance and Performance Committee

12.     Regenerate Christchurch - Annual Report for year ending 30 June 2017 and Quarterly Performance Report for quarter ending 30 September 2017........................................... 115

13.     Annual Reports for year ended 30 June 2017 for Council-controlled Organisations .... 179

14.     Performance Reporting for October 2017.......................................................................... 197

15.     LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter................................................................................ 209

16.     Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017 237

17.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 6 December 2017................................. 243

Audit and Risk Management Committee

18.     Asset Management Improvement Programme Update..................................................... 249

19.     Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017................... 261

20.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 29 November 2017......................... 283

Development Forum

21.     Central City Residential Programme................................................................................... 289

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

22.     Central City:  Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations............................................. 301

23.     Avon River Precinct: Victoria Square- Armagh and Colombo Streets............................. 313

24.     Three Waters and Waste bi-monthly report - October/November 2017........................ 329

25.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 December 2017. 359

International Relations Working Group

26.     Adelaide Sister City 45th Anniversary Visit 20 - 22 September 2017............................... 411

Regulatory Performance Committee

27.     Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw.......................................... 457

28.     Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014............................................................... 465

29.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 13 December 2017................................. 489

Strategic Capability Committee

30.     Central City Regeneration: Tackling Barrier Sites - Project Update................................. 495

31.     Policy Register Review Results ............................................................................................ 507

32.     Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 22 November 2017........................................ 533

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

33.     Nga Hau E Wha National Marae Charitable Trust - Development Contribution Remission Application............................................................................................................................ 539

34.     Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy......................................................... 555

35.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 16 November 2017... 573

36.     Creative Industries Support Fund: Funding Recommendation For Sign-off.................... 579

37.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 8 December 2017...... 605

STAFF REPORTS

38.     New Resource Management Act Fees................................................................................. 609

39.     Urban Development Indicators - Quarterly Monitoring Report....................................... 623

40.     Proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village area.............................................. 653

41.     Events Policy Framework..................................................................................................... 667

42.     Major Events Strategy - ChristchurchNZ............................................................................ 679

43.     Progress Report on the Tsunami Implementation Plan.................................................... 711

NOTICES OF MOTION

44.     Notice of Motion................................................................................................................... 813

45.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 814  

 

 

 


Council

20 December 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

20 December 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 23 November 2017

Reference:

17/1445931

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 23 November 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 23 November 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 7 December 2017

Reference:

17/1458479

Contact:

Christopher Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 7 December 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 7 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 7 December 2017

28

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 8 December 2017

 

7.        Thorrington School, Centaurus Road - School Patrol

Reference:

17/1458050

Contact:

John Dore

John.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8815

 

 

 

 

1.  Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original staff recommendation accepted without change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council authorises the head teacher of Thorrington School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the Centaurus Road crossing point as shown on Attachment A, located at a point more or less 27 metres southeast of its intersection with Holliss Avenue.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Thorrington School, Centaurus Road - School Patrol

44

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

51

b

Location Plan

52

c

Consultation Plan

53

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Thorrington School, Centaurus Road - School Patrol

Reference:

17/1241207

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to seek approval from council to install a School Patrolled Crossing on Centaurus Rd as shown on Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B. A school patrol crossing includes swing out stop signs on a marked zebra crossing point.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated following concerns raised by Police and community.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommends to Council that:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council authorises the head teacher of Thorrington School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the Centaurus Road crossing point as shown on Attachment A, located at a point more or less 27 metres southeast of its intersection with Holliss Avenue.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users – minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a school patrol crossing on Centaurus Road as shown on Attachment A.

·     Option 2 – Pedestrian Refuge Island or Signalised Crossing

·     Option 3 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Centaurus Rd before and after school.

·     Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

·     Improves visibility of crossing during busy pedestrian periods.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No known disadvantages.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Thorrington Primary School staff, community members and Police have raised concerns regarding the current operation of the existing pedestrian crossing outside 55 Centaurus Road. Concerns include; traffic not stopping for pedestrians, traffic braking late, and occasionally drivers overtaking stopped vehicles.

5.2       The existing location, and a slight crest in the road, is causing difficulty for driver’s visibility of the crossing on the westbound approach.

5.3       Council staff have undertaken investigations into possible improvement options to achieve the below objectives:

·   Improve visibility of painted pedestrian crossing for westbound vehicles

·   Provide an improved level of service for pedestrians and drivers

·   Reduce the risk of a pedestrian crash

5.4       The preferred option as shown on Attachment A includes the below features:

·   Infrastructure for a school patrol

·   Street lighting upgrade

5.5       A patrolled crossing provides an improved level of safety for pedestrians before and after school, meets the objectives and provides value for money.

5.6       Christchurch City Council can approve the installation of school patrolled crossing points , provided the crossing comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 (the rule).

5.7       NZTA traffic note 29 revision 2 provides guidance on how the rule should be applied including the range of vehicle and pedestrian volumes where a kea crossing is effective (Warrants).

5.8       The site complies with the Rule and meets the lower threshold and is within the upper warrant threshold. The NZ Police are also comfortable with operating a school patrol at this location.

Observations, Traffic Data and Warrants

5.9       General observation is a zebra crossing is not expected within the road environment given no shops, schools, parks or playgrounds nearby.

5.10    The crossing is well used by pedestrians on route to Thorrington School.

5.11    Poor forward visibility of the painted crossing was noted on the westbound approach, and is not satisfactory for vehicles travelling at the posted speed limit or higher.

5.12    Centaurus Road from Colombo St to Port Hills Rd is classified as a minor arterial and has an average weekday traffic volume of approximately 10,000.

5.13    Sloane Tce, Hollis Ave, Landsdowne Tce and Bowenvale Ave are all classified as local roads will relatively low daily traffic volumes.

5.14    The surrounding land is residential and the section of Centaurus Rd from Sloan Tce to Major Aiken Dr is bound along its northern boundary by the Heathcote River.

5.15    Thorrington School is close by and can be accessed via Sloan Tce. A high number pedestrians cross Centaurus Rd on route to Thorrington School. Other smaller pedestrian generators in the immediate area include:

·   Walking and cycling access to Bowenvale Valley via Bowenvale Ave

·   Recreation use of the Heathcote River and access to walkways on the Heathcote

5.16    This section of Centaurus Road is a popular recreational cycle route.

5.17    Council staff completed pedestrian count surveys in April 2017 on a weekday during school time.

5.18    From 2:45pm to 3:30pm a total of 50 pedestrians were recorded crossing. It is noted that this count was completed on a wet day and that may have mis represented pedestrian numbers. It was also noted that approximately 20 of the recorded pedestrians were from a pre school, this may not have been typical on a school day.

5.19    Strong survey demand of 20 pedestrian per hour was also recorded from 4pm to 6pm.

5.20    A second pedestrian survey was undertaken on 26 June 2017, a total of 29 pedestrians (20 children, 9 adults) were recorded from 8:30 am to 8:50 am.

5.21    A traffic counting tube located outside 34 Centaurus Road to the east of the site in 2003 recorded the below speeds and traffic volumes:

·   Mean speed of 51km/h

·   85% speed of 56.5km/h

·   From 8-9am, 1000 vehicles

·   From 2-3pm, 600 vehicles

·   From 4-6pm, 1000 vehicles

5.22    The NZTA crash database reports four crashes on Centaurus Rd between Holliss Ave and Landsdowne Tce from 2007-2017. None of the accidents involved the existing pedestrian crossing or pedestrians.

5.23    The four accidents resulted in one serious injury and 2 minor injuries.

5.24    Two accidents involved failing to give way at driveway or priority controlled intersections, two accidents suspected alcohol, and vehicles colliding with parked cars.

5.25    From road safety risk mapping software based on NZTA KiwiRap methodology, Centaurus Rd has a Low medium collective corridor risk, and low collective intersection risk at Holliss Ave, Sloan Tce and Landsdown Tce.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install School Patrol Crossing (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install a school patrol crossing for Thorrington School on Centaurus Rd as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The Thorrington School Board of Trustees (BOT), have formally agreed to the establishment and operation of a school patrol.

6.5       The NZ Police community constable has been consulted and agrees that a school patrol can be operated in the proposed location and children/staff be trained to operate.

6.6       An adjoining residential property owner and council staff have discussed the possibility of trimming back an existing hedge.

6.7       No other parties have been consulted, the proposal has no effect on surrounding properties. The proposal is an improvement to the existing crossing location.

6.8       The original scheme consulted on with Thorrington School and NZ Police included coloured surfacing on approaches to the crossing, aimimg to improve visibility of the crossing on approaches. This scheme is shown on Attachment C.

6.9       This part of the scheme has been removed in the interim due to the level of pavement repairs required to ensure a reasonable design life of the red surfacing. Red surfacing will be considered again when maintenance work is scheduled in this area. The School Patrol will provide a significant improvement to visibility during busy pedestrian times, red surfacing supports visibility improvements when the patrol is not operating.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $40,000 to design, install the school patrol crossing equipment and street lighting improvements.

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - approved Council Maintenance budget.

6.13    Funding source – Traffic Operations Capital Budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.15    None identified.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - dependent on approval by Council to legalise the school patrol operation and training of the school patrollers and staff by the Police Community Education Officer.

6.17    Implementation timeframe –. Plan to complete installation of street lighting and school patrol crossing equipment by May 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Centaurus Rd before and after school.

·   Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

·   Improves visibility of crossing during busy pedestrian periods.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No known disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - Pedestrian Refuge or Signalised Crossing

Option Description

7.1       Widen road to accommodate a pedestrian refuge or construct signalised pedestrian crossing.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The reasons for discounting these options were discussed with Thorrington School staff and the BOT. The BOT support a school patrol and associated work as shown on Attachment A.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Approximately $100,000 for a Pedestrian Refuge and approximately $300,000 for signalised pedestrian crossing.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.8       Funding source – No applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.10    Ongoing concern from school about road safety.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   A signalised crossing provides the best level of pedestrian service.

·   A pedestrian refuge shortens the crossing distance and breaks the crossing into two, providing a safe place to wait in the centre of the road.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Relatively high costs to install signals, other sites across the city are a higher priority for signals and this site may never be a priority when there is a suitable alternative.

·   Traffic may not be used to stopping at signals in this location due to the lower pedestrian demand between school peaks. If signals are not activated regularly drivers can develop the expectation that pedestrians will not be crossing, leading to safety issues.

·   A pedestrian refuge island works best when not on a painted pedestrian crossing so that it is clear that vehicles have right of way, and pedestrians need to wait until there is a suitable gap to cross. When a pedestrian refuge island is installed on a painted pedestrian crossing, motorists may expect a pedestrian to wait at the refuge and not stop, while pedestrians expect to have the right of way. This can create conflict and safety issues.

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       No changes to existing road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       This option is inconsistent with the school request and concerns raised by the community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – $0

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

8.8       Funding source – No applicable

Legal Implications

8.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.10    Ongoing concern from school about road safety.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

8.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not respond to the needs of the school community.

·   Does not address the noted visibility issues of the existing crossing.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Preferred Option

 

b 

Location Plan

 

c 

Consultation Plan

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

8.        Endorsement of the Final Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

Reference:

17/1451452

Contact:

Gail Payne

gail.payne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8051

 

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee considered the final version of the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.

 

2.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

 

1.         Receive and endorse the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Endorsement of the Final Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

56

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

58

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Endorsement of the Final Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

Reference:

17/1233131

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood
Gail Payne

ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz
gail.payne@ccc.govt.nz

941 5744
941 8051

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that Council receive and endorse the final version of the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

 

1.         Receive and endorse the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan has now been finalised for endorsement by the three partner agencies involved in its development– the Council, the NZ Police and the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB).

3.2       The purpose of the Action Plan is to provide a collective vision and programme of actions aimed at achieving a sustained reduction in alcohol-related harm across Christchurch. The three partner organisations will lead the programme of actions alongside other interested and invested parties to achieve the collective vision.  The Action Plan will be a dynamic resource that expands to incorporate and support other groups and organisations committed to improving public health and safety through the reduction of alcohol-related harm in Christchurch.

3.3       The programme of actions in the Action Plan builds upon and complements existing activity. It identifies areas where agencies can gain efficiencies and effectiveness through collaboration and service delivery.  In terms of financial implications the cost of the Council’s contribution towards developing and implementing the Action Plan will be met within current budgets.  It includes a statement that the plan does not commit any agency or its resources in any way other than a good faith commitment to successful implementation.

3.4       The Action Plan offers Christchurch:

·    A strong unified and coherent voice in alcohol harm reduction

·    A co-ordinated approach to the effective reduction of alcohol-related harm

·    An increased profile for alcohol-related issues in the community

·    A process for monitoring and measuring progress.

3.5           The Health Promotion Agency has provided funding to support a co-ordinator role for the first (current) year of implementation.  Key priorities for this first year include:

·    Development of an implementation plan

·    Development of indicators framework to monitor and measure success

·    Building of relationships, co-ordination and collaboration across sectors.

 

Background

3.6       In 2013 the Council undertook consultation on a draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) which elicited more than 4000 submissions.  A large number of submitters raised concerns and suggested initiatives outside the scope of a LAP to address alcohol related harm.  Consequently the Council resolved (October 2013) to “Undertake an Alcohol Strategy and/or other collaborative initiatives, as a wider means of minimising alcohol-related harm in the community".  In 2014 the newly elected Council endorsed the development of an Alcohol Strategy and including the development of an inter-agency collaborative Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy.

3.7       The development of the draft Action Plan had progressed significantly by mid-2017 and on 19 June 2017 the Social and Community Development Committee of the Council received a memorandum and briefing on progress.  The Committee resolved to:  Endorse and continue to support the work being carried out by staff on the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.  

3.8       Subsequently the Safer Christchurch Inter-Agency Group has endorsed and committed to championing the Action Plan.  The Group will to receive quarterly reports on implementation. 

3.9       The Action Plan is aligned with ‘Healthy Christchurch’ and is identified as part of the joint work programme for the Council and Canterbury District Health Board partnership.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

9.        Development Contributions Rebate - Social Housing

Reference:

17/1451525

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee considered a report on development contributions rebates for social housing.

2.         The Committee asks for further advice on the process required for, and advantages and disadvantages of, including Council social housing in the criteria.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Recommends to the Council:

a.         That it agrees to a development contributions rebate scheme for social housing developments (as detailed in Attachment 1) being established under the Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy; and

b.         That the scheme be established as soon as practicable.

 

3.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Agree to a development contributions rebate scheme for social housing developments (as detailed in Attachment 1) being established under the Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy.

2.         Agree to establish the scheme as soon as practicable.

3.         Request staff to investigate options for Housing Plus to be included to receive a Development Contributions rebate.

4.         Request staff to investigate options for Nga Hau E Wha National Marae Charitable Trust to be included to receive a Development Contributions rebate.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Contributions Rebate - Social Housing

89

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Social and Affordable Rental Housing Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria

98

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Development Contributions Rebate - Social Housing

Reference:

17/1029589

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941-8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to the Council that a development contributions rebate scheme be established for social and/or affordable rental housing development.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report fulfils an agreement from the former Housing Taskforce for a report examining the establishment of a development contributions rebate for social and/or affordable rental housing.

1.3       This report is also provided to fulfil a deliverable included in the Council’s Housing Policy to “Develop consenting, rating and development contributions assistance policies to support social and affordable housing.”

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined based on:

·    the expected cost to the Council – low impact

·    the effect on the wider community - low impact

·    the effect on the development community – low impact

·    the effect on developers of community housing – medium positive impact

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Recommends to the Council:

a.         That it agrees to a development contributions rebate scheme for social housing developments (as detailed in Attachment 1) being established under the Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy; and

b.         That the scheme be established as soon as practicable.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Housing

·     Level of Service: 18.0.11 Support the development of affordable housing

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Establish a development contributions rebate scheme for qualifying social and/or affordable rental housing developments.

·     Option 2 - Establish a development contributions deferral scheme for qualifying social and/or affordable rental housing developments.

·     Option 3 – Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (of option 1)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reducing the cost of developing new social and/or affordable rental housing will help encourage more provision of these housing types by community housing providers.

·     There is a shortage of social and affordable rental housing for low income households in Christchurch and any additional provision will have positive benefits for residents requiring that type of housing.

·     A rebate scheme can sit within the framework provided by the Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Rebates would need to be rates funded – in effect, the cost of the loss of revenue (otherwise payable by developers) would need to be met by all rate payers.  

 

5.   Context/Background

Social housing

5.1       The Council’s Housing Policy uses a housing continuum to identify where there are housing challenges and barriers. This leads on to what options, resources and agencies are needed to address them to achieve the best social and economic results.

5.2       These options range from direct provision and support in emergency and social housing, working with others to develop affordable housing, through to the encouraging and enabling of market housing supply.

5.3       The Council’s Housing Policy defines Social housing as:

Not-for-profit housing programmes that are supported and/or delivered by central or local government, or community housing providers, to help low income households and other disadvantaged groups to access appropriate, secure and affordable housing (on the Housing Continuum, includes Emergency Housing and Supported Rental).

Provision of social housing in Christchurch

5.4       The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has established the Community Housing Regulatory Authority to oversee registration of Community Housing Providers (CHPs). CHPs are then able, among other things, to receive government assistance to help fund social housing provision through rent subsidies.  To register, a CHP must have ‘as one of its objectives the provision of social rental housing and/or affordable rental housing’.  There are currently nine CHPs registered as operating or seeking to operate in Canterbury, with Christchurch clearly being a key focus.

5.5       The number of tenantable social housing units in Christchurch continues to be fluid following the earthquakes as units move in and out of repair and maintenance programmes. Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) is the largest owner of social housing units in Christchurch with 5,900 followed by the Council with 2,478 units (mostly managed by the Otautahi Community Housing Trust).  The number of units directly owned by community housing providers (including the Otautahi Community Housing Trust) is approximately 350 based on Community Housing Aotearoa and local estimates.  In all, a total of 8,728 units of social housing.

5.6       Based on current policy settings the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) is seeking approximately 350 additional units of social housing in Christchurch by 2020, and is in early discussions with CHPs in relation to a portion of this amount.  The CHP sector in Christchurch has approximately 30 units of social housing planned to be built.

5.7       It is estimated that the local CHP sector could grow by between five to ten percent in any one year, thus delivering an additional 17 to 35 units of social housing per year.

Demand for social housing in Christchurch

5.8       New Zealand is facing a housing crisis, particularly at the social housing and affordable housing parts of the housing continuum. As house prices and rents have become more expensive the demand for both social and affordable rental housing has increased.

5.9       Taking into account demographic, tenure, and welfare trends, several sources (Salvation Army forecasts, MBIE’s 2013 housing market assessment, and a draft Greater Christchurch housing demand report) have estimated that the demand for social housing over the next twenty to thirty years will steadily and significantly increase.  Demand for social housing will continue to out-strip supply. 

5.10    This increase in demand for social housing has come at a time when Christchurch is recovering from the effects of the 2010/11 earthquakes.  The total number of social housing units post-earthquake is largely the same as it was pre-earthquake.  However wider housing issues are indicated in levels of homelessness, and from the MSD housing register wait list for social housing (averaging 460 for Christchurch over the last twelve months).

Rationale for supporting Community Housing Providers

5.11    The new Labour-led government has pledged to significantly increase HNZC’s social housing development. However, much of this development is likely to be needed in Auckland to relieve the chronic shortage of housing. While there will almost certainly be increased development by HNZC in Christchurch, this is unlikely to be sufficient to meet demand for social housing in the city.

5.12    CHPs are emerging as an essential component of a broader social housing delivery strategy, with access to government rental subsidies.  Encouraging both CHP social and affordable rental housing development is expected to increase the sector’s development activity at a time when extra housing is needed both now and into the future. Using the MBIE registration requirement of CHPs needing to provide social and/or affordable rental housing would be a consistent approach to supporting the sector, and ensure a broad range of rental housing aimed at low income households is encouraged.

 

6.   Option 1 - Establish a development contributions rebate scheme for qualifying social and/or affordable rental housing developments

Option Description

6.1       A rebate scheme is established with criteria detailing the terms on which accredited community housing providers can apply for a rebate of development contributions for social and/or affordable rental housing. The Council already has a development contributions (DC) rebate policy which allows for specific rebate schemes to be established within the parameters of the policy.

6.2       The proposed rebate scheme criteria defines a qualifying social or affordable rental housing development and a qualifying developer (registered community housing providers, or those CHPs registered as charitable trusts whose purpose is to provide social and/or affordable rental housing). The rebate would be available for qualifying developments located anywhere in the Christchurch district.

6.3       The rebate scheme would be open to any qualifying developer (i.e. a CHP) so long as some form of legally binding notice that the amount is due under certain conditions is lodged on the title – for example, if the developed housing is sold to a non-CHP or no longer used for social or affordable rental housing purposes.

6.4       The rebate would be assessed for the normally applicable development contributions. The rebate would then be credited via an internal transaction. This ensures the cost of each rebate and cumulative cost of the scheme are tracked and ensures other developers are not charged the development contributions that would have been paid by the rebated developer. This method is exactly the same as is being used for the Council’s other rebate schemes.

6.5       It is recommended that the Council includes funding and temporal envelopes for the scheme –$1.5 million in total over a five year period. This would enable the Council to review the scheme at the end of the initial term or when the initial funding is fully allocated. Alternatively the scheme could be open-ended until revoked by the Council at some point in the future.  This latter approach is not recommended as the costs (or lost revenue) would not be capped or time-limited.  

Significance

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

6.7       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are working with relevant stakeholders to implement the Initiative.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       Community housing providers of social and/or affordable rental housing are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to receive a rebate of development contributions.  The local network, Te Wai Pounamu Community Housing Providers, are supportive of the proposal.  Recent expressions of community views have found overall support for the Council to work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of affordable housing. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    This option is consistent with the Council’s Housing Policy and Action Plan. The Housing Policy includes a specific action for the Council to “Develop consenting, rating and development contributions assistance policies to support social and affordable housing.”  Given these pre-existing Council commitments, on balance, this option (option 1) is preferred.

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – There is no upfront cost to establish a rebate scheme. The costs of the scheme are detailed in the maintenance and ongoing costs item below.

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the cost of the rebate is by way of development contribution revenue that is foregone – in effect, ratepayers are paying the development contribution invoice, rather than the developer. This ratepayer cost is borrowed for and repaid over 30 years, in the same way as other rates-funded debt.

6.13    Based on the proposed Rebate fund of $1.5m, the impact on rates would be around $120,000 (i.e. principal and interest payments on a $1.5m borrowing), which equates to a rates increase of around 0.02% (i.e. the difference between 5.50% rates increase and a 5.52% increase).

6.14    Funding source – the rebates would be funded from rates as described above. This has not been budgeted and Long Term Plan 2018-28 budgets would need to be adjusted to reflect the slightly higher rates requirement each year.

Legal Implications

6.15    Rebate recipients would be required to have an encumbrance or similar legal instrument placed on the property title that requires the property to be used only for social and/or affordable rental housing purposes.  If the property ceases to be used for this purpose the Council will charge the property owner the development contributions amount rebated.  Note, this is an approach that has not been applied to the rebate schemes already in place.

6.16    Council's legal team will advise on the exact terms for the definitions and form of encumbrance in these cases. The cost of preparing and lodging the encumbrance will be met by the developer.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.17    Risk of developments not being used for social and/or affordable rental housing.  This will result in assessed developments not being used for their intended supported purpose.

6.17.1 Treatment: The scheme would require an encumbrance or similar legal instrument to be applied against the title of the property requiring the development contributions to be paid in full if the property ceases to be used as social housing. 

6.17.2 Treatment: Council could also require an annual declaration from community housing providers that their developments are being used for social and/or affordable rental housing.

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

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies  - none

6.19    Implementation timeframe – immediate upon approval by Council

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reducing the cost of developing new social and/or affordable rental housing may help encourage more provision of these housing types by community housing providers.

·   There is a shortage of social and affordable rental housing for low income households in Christchurch and any additional provision will have positive benefits for residents requiring that type of housing.

·   A rebate scheme can sit within the framework provided by the Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The rebate would need to be rates funded in the first instance.  This would impose a cost on all other rate payers rather than the developer.

7.   Option 2 – Establish a development contributions deferral scheme for social and/or affordable rental housing

Option Description

7.1       A deferral scheme is established with criteria detailing the terms on which recipients can apply for a deferral of development contributions for social and/or affordable rental housing.

7.2       A development contribution deferral would apply for the duration that the unit/home is owned by a CHP (registered with MBIE, or a registered charitable trust whose purpose is to provide social housing and/ or affordable rental housing, so as to capture small providers) and operated as either social and/or affordable rental housing.  This is in line with the MBIE registration requirement of CHPs, and works to support a broad range of CHPs providing low cost rental accommodation across the housing continuum.

7.3       With a deferral, a legal instrument can record the dollar value of the DC amount that has been deferred, and it can remain deferred (unpaid) so long as the unit/home is used for social and/or affordable rental housing, with an associated encumbrance on the property.  When it is no longer being used for these purposes, or if it is sold to a non-CHP, then the deferred DC amount becomes due and payable to the Council.  The amount could either remain fixed or increase each year by an index such as CPI.

7.4       The option to defer (as opposed to rebate, or not have a scheme) has greater implementation challenges and complexities.

Significance

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

7.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are working with relevant stakeholders to implement the deferral scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.8       Community housing providers of social and/or affordable rental housing are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to receive a deferral of development contributions required.  The local network, Te Wai Pounamu Community Housing Providers, are supportive of the proposal.  Recent expressions of community views have found overall support for the Council to work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.9       This option remains consistent with the Council’s Housing Policy and Action Plan. The Housing Policy includes a specific action for the Council to “Develop consenting, rating and development contributions assistance policies to support social and affordable housing.”

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation - There is no immediate upfront cost to establish a deferral scheme. The costs of the scheme are detailed in the maintenance and ongoing costs item below.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - the cost of the deferral is by way of development contribution revenue that is foregone in the short term for infrastructure development. This means that development contribution revenue that would normally be available to apply to loan funding costs of capital expenditure is not available. The cost of the deferral (estimated to be at least $400,000 per annum) is therefore funded from rates over the 30 year period of the capital expenditure loans

7.12    Funding source - the development contributions deferred would be funded from rates as described above. This has not been budgeted and Long Term Plan budgets would be adjusted to reflect the slightly higher rates requirement each year – estimated at an average annual cost of capital of 10 percent - to be an additional $40,000 per year. This represents a small variation from the Council’s forecast annual development contributions revenue which is around $20 million per year.

7.13    Introducing the scheme immediately would not materially impact on budgets as the annual revenue from development contributions is never certain. The very minor impact associated with a rebate or deferral will simply become a slight change between estimated revenue versus actual revenue.

Legal Implications

7.14    Deferral recipients would be required to have an encumbrance placed on the property title that requires the property to be used only for social and/or affordable rental housing purposes. If the property ceases to be used for this purpose the Council will charge the property owner the deferred development contributions amount.

7.15    Council's legal team will advise on the exact terms for the definitions and form of encumbrance in these cases. The cost of preparing and lodging the encumbrance will be met by the developer.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.16    Risk of developments not being used for social and/or affordable rental housing.  This will result in assisted developments not being used for their intended supported purpose.

7.16.1 Treatment: The scheme would require an encumbrance or similar legal instrument to be applied against the title of the property requiring the development contributions to be paid in full if the property ceases to be used as social housing. 

7.16.2 Treatment: Council could also require an annual declaration from community housing providers that their developments are being used for social and/or affordable rental housing.

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

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies  - none

7.18    Implementation timeframe – immediate upon approval by Council

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council can record the amount of the deferral as a receivable or contingent (loan) asset

·   Reducing the immediate cost of developing new social and/or affordable rental housing may help encourage more provision of these housing types by community housing providers.

·   There is a shortage of social and affordable rental housing for low income households in Christchurch and any additional provision will have positive benefits for residents requiring that type of housing.

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Deferral would need to be rates funded in the first instance. 

·   A deferral could remain on the Council’s financial accounts indefinitely.

·   The complexity of managing and accounting for DC deferrals over a long period of time are likely to be complex and challenging.   

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       Do not implement a development contribution deferral or rebate for social housing.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Community housing providers of social and/or affordable rental housing are specifically affected by this option.  The local network, Te Wai Pounamu Community Housing Providers, is supportive of the introduction of a rebate or deferral for qualifying developments.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – does not promote the achievement of outcomes sought in the Council’s Housing Policy

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

8.10    N/A

Risks and Mitigations   

8.11    The Council may be viewed by the community housing sector as not providing support implied through the Council’s Housing Policy.

8.12    Risk of reputation caused by not delivering on a policy direction.  This will result in some loss of confidence in the Council’s ability to contribute in this space.

8.12.1 Treatment: Keep communicating with the sector and seek other ways to collaborate effectively.

8.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.14    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to the Council

·   No additional cost to other rate payers.

·   Costs effective “fall where they lie” for property developments that incur a DC.

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   May reduce the number of social housing units that would otherwise be developed

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Social & Affordable Rental Housing Residential Unit Rebate Criteria

 

 

 

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

Gavin Thomas - Team Leader Policy

Paul Cottam - Principal Advisor Social Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Gill Robertson - Finance Business Partner

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

10.    Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 November 2017

Reference:

17/1451323

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

 

 

1.   Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received the Housing Subcommittee minutes of 10 November 2017.

2.         The Committee noted under item 10 of the minutes the need for the continuation of the Build Back Smarter programme and for the Council to consider the programme as part of the Long Term Plan deliberations.

 

2.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Considers options for a Build Back Smarter service as part of the Long Term Plan deliberations.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 November 2017

100

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Housing Subcommittee - 10 November 2017

101

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 November 2017

Reference:

17/1375218

Contact:

Elizabeth Hovell

elizabeth.hovell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8637

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Housing Subcommittee held a meeting on 10 November 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for its information.

2.   Key Points

The Chair wishes to highlight the Housing Subcommittees desire (under item 10), that the Council reaffirm the Build Back Smarter Programme and ensure its continuity going forward

 

 

3.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 10 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Housing Subcommittee - 10 November 2017

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Adviser

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

11.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 6 December 2017

Reference:

17/1484190

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 6 December 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 6 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 6 December 2017

106

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

12.    Regenerate Christchurch - Annual Report for year ending 30 June 2017 and Quarterly Performance Report for quarter ending 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1450844

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarter 1 2017 (1 July – 30 September) performance; and

2.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Regenerate Christchurch - Annual Report for year ending 30 June 2017 and Quarterly Performance Report for quarter ending 30 September 2017

116

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch - joint report from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Council staff on Regenerate Christchurch's progress and performance.

119

b

Regenerate Christchurch Annual Report 2016/17

126

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Regenerate Christchurch - Annual Report for year ending 30 June 2017 and Quarterly Performance Report for quarter ending 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1230634

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that the Council notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Annual Report for 2016/17 and Quarterly Report of performance for the first quarter of 2017/18 (1 July – 30 September 2017).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following receipt of Regenerate Christchurch’s annual report for 2016/17 and its quarterly performance report for Quarter 1 2017. 

2.   Significance

2.1       The noting decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decisions on the Council and the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarter 1 2017 (1 July – 30 September) performance; and

2.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

Quarter 1 2017/18 Performance Report

4.1       Staff from the Council and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet jointly report to shareholders on Regenerate Christchurch’s performance on a quarterly basis.  The report is based on targets set in Regenerate Christchurch’s Statement of Performance Expectations for 2016/17. 

4.2       The performance report for Quarter 1, 2017/18 is at Attachment A.  Against its target milestones, Regenerate Christchurch has mostly delivered on time and within budget. Financial performance for the quarter is presented in the table on the following page.

2017/18

profitability

$000

SOI target profitability

$000

Comments

Profit (non-taxable)

2,673

Profit (non-taxable)

2,248

Expenditure has been applied to Residential Red Zone $1.5 million and Regeneration Planning $0.8 million.  Each output class is around $0.2 million below budget which reflects some small delay in progress, and the replacement of higher consultancy costs with permanent staff.

The overall surplus reflects the receipt of the Council’s funding payment at the beginning of the year, instead of progressively over the course of the year. 

 

4.3       The Letter of Expectations from shareholders to Regenerate Christchurch dated 14 April 2016 proposed that Regenerate Christchurch prioritise work on the evaluation of progress and provision of advice on what is required to increase momentum and support regeneration of the central city.  We understand this report will be submitted to shareholders in February 2017.  This report is likely to provide critical information that will inform decision making in relation to the regeneration of the central city.  Council staff consider it is important that this report is delivered in accordance with the Regenerate Christchurch-projected February timeline.

Annual Report for year ended 30 June 2017

4.4       Regenerate Christchurch’s Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 is at Attachment B.  The key financial and performance information is noted below.

Table 1:  Regenerate Christchurch’s financial performance in 2016/17

2016/17

profitability

$000

2015/16

profitability

$000

SOI target profitability

$000

Comments

Profit (non-taxable)

 

 

1,302

Profit (non-taxable)

(3 months of operations)

1,318

Profit (non-taxable)

 

 

1,413

The reduced expenditure arose as a result of a delay in Regenerate Christchurch acquiring senior staff following its establishment.  This in turn delayed development of its 5 year work plan.  The surpluses in the current year, and in the three months of operation in the 2015/16 year have led to the transfer of $2.6 million to the 2017/18 financial year to meet the costs of accelerated activity.

Direct operating expenditure was applied to the Residential Red Zone of $1.9 million and Regeneration Planning of $1.2 million.  Indirect operating and overhead costs were $3.7 million.

 

4.5       We note that the Annual Report presents signposts of future work to be delivered in the near term.  This is a useful addition to the report which is likely to be well received by the community.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Regenerate Christchurch - joint report from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Council staff on Regenerate Christchurch's progress and performance.

 

b 

Regenerate Christchurch Annual Report 2016/17

 

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

13.    Annual Reports for year ended 30 June 2017 for Council-controlled Organisations

Reference:

17/1450862

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes the 2016/17 performance of its Council-controlled organisations - Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust, Tuam Ltd, Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust, Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust, World Buskers Festival Trust, Transwaste Canterbury Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Annual Reports for year ended 30 June 2017 for Council-controlled Organisations

180

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Council-controlled organisations - performance summary reports

184

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Annual Reports for year ended 30 June 2017 for Council-controlled Organisations

Reference:

17/1285343

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941.6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note the 2016/17 performance of the following Council-controlled Organisations - Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust, Tuam Ltd, Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust, Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust, World Buskers Festival Trust, Transwaste Canterbury Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of receiving the final audited financial statements and annual reports for the Council’s CCOs. 

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 because the information in the report is in the public domain.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes the 2016/17 performance of its Council-controlled organisations - Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust, Tuam Ltd, Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust, Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust, World Buskers Festival Trust, Transwaste Canterbury Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Performance reports for each of the CCOs that were included in the Council’s Annual Report for 2016/17 are appended to this report (refer Attachment A).  The reports provide profitability information against Statement of Intent targets and the 2015/16 year’s performance.  They also provide an assessment of the CCO’s performance against non-quantifiable performance targets.

4.2       A summary of the reports is provided in the table over the page.

Table 1:  CCO financial performance in 2016/17

Entity

2016/17 profitability $000

2015/16

profitability

$000

SOI target profitability

$000

Comments

Civic Building Ltd

Profit (Loss) after tax

(946)

Profit (Loss) after tax

(886)

Profit (Loss) after tax

(860)

In 2016 there was a one-off insurance payment of $57,000 received. Lower property expenses have resulted in lower recoveries of those expenses, with a net $32,000 impact.

Tuam Ltd

Profit after tax 69

Profit after tax 27,028

Profit after tax 6

The company received $27m of material damage insurance recoveries in 2015/16, which was distributed to the Council during the year.  Tuam Ltd is no longer trading.

Vbase Ltd

Profit (Loss) before tax

(40,669)

Profit (Loss) before tax

(58,572)

Profit (Loss) after tax

(48,461)

Actual Profit (Loss) after tax

(40,199)

(Vbase does not set a profit before tax target).

Variance of $18m between the actual results in 2016/17 and the prior year reflects a one-off impairment charge in 2015/16.

The variance between target and actual for 2016/17 largely reflects a $10m lower demolition charge for the AMI Stadium at Lancaster Park, due to a delay in demolishing the stands.

Transwaste Canterbury Ltd

Profit after tax 29,971

Profit after tax 16,698

EBIT 19,301

Actual

EBIT 19,924

(Transwaste does not set a before or after tax target).

Better result against last year ($10m dividend from subsidiary Burwood Resource Recovery Park) and against target (increased sales of high density demolition-related waste at the Kate Valley landfill). 

Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust

(non-taxable)

Profit (Loss) (0.278)

Profit (Loss) 0.040

Profit (Loss)

(0.701)

The Trust’s losses reflect the payment of grants, against funding that it holds in reserves.  The grants made in 2016/17 are lower than expected and will be paid out in later periods.

Riccarton Bush Trust

(non-taxable)

Profit (Loss) (0.215)

Profit (Loss) 0.092

0

Additional income from higher than expected sales from food and beverage ($10,000) were offset by lower donations, and a variety of additional costs, including historic house maintenance, higher salaries, a one-off fee for recruiting a new manager, work on restoring the Ranger’s House among others.


 

Entity

2016/17

profitability

$000

2015/16

profitability

$000

SOI target profitability

$000

Comments

Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

(non-taxable)

Profit Loss (0.132)

Profit (Loss)

(0.106)

55.6

Revenue has decreased as a result of interest accruing on a lower trust fund balance each year as the balance reduces, offset by higher hut revenue, and reduced costs mostly from fewer minor projects being undertaken and fewer grants paid to its partners.

Against target, the main differences were higher revenue on investments which had been conservatively forecast, as well as a $50,000 receipt from sale of land to the Josef Langer Trust.  A further commitment of grants to a partner was decided and advanced during the year.

World Buskers Festival Trust

(non-taxable)

Profit (Loss)

5

Profit (Loss)

(0.115)

2.5

The Trust had reduced income of $128,933 against budget, and $249,545 over the prior year as a result of the loss of strategic partnerships, grants and donations and door donations and food and beverage sales.  Across almost all categories of expenditure, reductions have been made, the most notable being production and technician costs of $175,000.

Central Plains Water Trust

(non-taxable)

Profit (Loss)

0

Rev/Exp 0.050

Profit (Loss)

0

Rev/Exp 0.056

The Trust does not provide targets.

-

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Council-controlled organisations - performance summary reports

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 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

20 December 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

14.    Performance Reporting for October 2017

Reference:

17/1450872

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8137

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the attached appendices.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Performance Reporting for October 2017

198

 

No.

Title

Page

a

LTP Level of Service Exceptions

199

b

LTP Level of Service Forecast Delivery Graph

206

c

Appendix to "LTP Level of Service Exceptions" - Changes to Levels of Service from Annual Plan 2017-18

207

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Performance Reporting for October 2017

Reference:

17/1382388

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.Ryan@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8137

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note an update on LTP level of service performance.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached appendices.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Staff forecasts as at 31 October 2017 indicate a high level of achievement (91%) which is in line with historical trends.

3.2       Individual level of service exceptions are set out in the attached appendix.

3.3       Levels of Service relating to Rural Fire Management is now managed by Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and no longer sit with the Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

LTP Level of Service Exceptions

 

b 

LTP Level of Service Forecast Delivery Graph

 

c 

Appendix to "LTP Level of Service Exceptions" - Changes to Levels of Service from Annual Plan 2017-18

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sung Jun Park - Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

15.    LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter

Reference:

17/1450892

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8137

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter.

2.         Authorises the Mayor to sign the Audit Engagement Letter on behalf of the Christchurch City Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter

210

 

No.

Title

Page

a

LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter, sent 22 November 2017

212

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter

Reference:

17/1426652

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.Ryan@ccc.govt.nz

03-941-8137

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Finance and Performance Committee about the content of the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter, and to recommend the Mayor authorise the Audit Engagement Letter on behalf of Christchurch City Council.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter.

2.         Authorises the Mayor to sign the Audit Engagement Letter on behalf of the Christchurch City Council.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There is an obligation under the Local Government Act 2002 for the draft and final Long Term Plans to be audited and an audit opinion issued with each document. The agency conducting these reviews is Audit New Zealand.

3.2       Audit NZ has supplied Christchurch City Council with an Audit Engagement Letter, outlining the financial terms involved in the audit of the LTP 2018-28 (Attachment A). These are in line with past terms, and costs are covered by planned budget. Page 8 of the Audit Engagement Letter also seeks clarification on when the various documents that will make up the draft LTP 2018-28 (Consultation Document, Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy and underpinning information) will be available for their review. 

3.3       This is an important issue for both parties. It is essential that Christchurch City Council prepares a draft that accurately reflects its priorities, and the outputs and budgets that will make them possible. Equally, the period from January-March is peak workload for Audit NZ, who have other local government clients to manage at the same time. It is essential that the dates agreed in the Audit Engagement Letter are met so that both parties have clarity and can avoid scheduling conflicts.

3.4       The dates set out in the letter have been discussed in meetings between the Chief Executive, GM Finance & Commercial, Head of Performance Management, Head of Financial Management and Audit NZ representatives. They represent the best balance between the needs of the various stakeholders and align with key milestones in the LTP Project Plan.  It is recommended that the Mayor authorise the Letter of Engagement on behalf of Christchurch City Council, and that CCC senior management be issued with clear communications about which components are to be supplied and the deadlines involved for each.

3.5       It is further recommended that the Performance Management Unit (in its project management
co-ordination role) be the central point of contact for Audit NZ in terms of document supply, in order to avoid any issues around version control, assisting with further enquiries etc. This is in keeping with previous practice.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

LTP 2018-28 Audit Engagement Letter, sent 22 November 2017

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Monika De Neef - Senior Business Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 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

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 6 December 2017

 

16.    Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017

Reference:

17/1450909

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Development Christchurch Ltd’s progress update report for October/November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017

238

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017

240

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017

Reference:

17/1403048

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend to the Council that it notes Development Christchurch Ltd’s (DCL) progress update report for October and November 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of receiving DCL’s progress update report.

2.   Significance

2.1       The noting decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by assessing the likely impact on the community of the noting decisions.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Notes Development Christchurch Ltd’s progress update report for October/November 2017.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       An opening event is planned for the New Brighton Playground on 20 December.  DCL notes that the project development costs at completion for both the Hot Salt Water Pools and the Playground remain within budget.

4.2       The ‘quick wins’ budget that was capped at $100,000 for the New Brighton regeneration project has now been exhausted.  DCL’s report provides a list of all the initiatives undertaken with a view to creating momentum for regeneration.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update Report for October/November 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

17.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 6 December 2017

Reference:

17/1451168

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 6 December 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 6 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 6 December 2017

244

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 29 November 2017

 

18.    Asset Management Improvement Programme Update

Reference:

17/1444334

Contact:

Wendy Walker

Wendy.Walker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8179

 

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received the information in the report and, noting the technical nature of the language in the report, requested that staff prepare a plain-English summary to carry forward into a planned workshop for Councillors.

2.         The Committee made recommendations to Council regarding requesting further reporting on the asset management improvement programme.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Request staff to prepare a plain-English summary of the information in the report.

 

4.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Request that staff report on the asset management improvement programme to the Finance and Performance Committee on a six-monthly basis.

2.         Request that there is reporting to the Audit and Risk Management Committee following the July risk maturity assessment.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Asset Management Improvement Programme Update

251

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2017-04-03 ELT Meeting - Summary of Recommendations from the Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report

256

b

Asset Management Business Change Board Programme Report October 2017

258

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Asset Management Improvement Programme Update

Reference:

17/697980

Contact:

Wendy Walker

Wendy.Walker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8179

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Audit and Risk Management Committee about the Asset Management Programme and in particular about the progress of the Asset Management Maturity Assessment recommendations as per Council Resolution CNCL/2017/00104.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

3.   Overview

3.1       In March 2017 the Audit and Risk Management Committee received the Christchurch City Council Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report.  The assessment was compiled using the NZ Treasury Asset Management Assessment Tool.

3.2       The review findings showed, that as at December 2016, the Council had an overall average asset management maturity of Intermediate, and that the Council has not attained the appropriate level of practice (Advanced) to optimise the business benefits of more advanced asset management.

3.3       The report identified key recommendations to address the gap between the current level of maturity and appropriate level of maturity for a council with this asset base.  The Asset Management Governance Board (AMGB) monitors these recommendations and the Asset Management Improvement programme which addresses the recommendations (see Attachment B). Further regular review is ongoing throughout the year with the assessor working closely with the AMU team(s) to ensure the right outcomes and improvements are aligned to the maturity assessment.

3.4       This report will give an update on the recommendations monitored by the Audit and Risk Management Committee and progress towards bridging the gap between current maturity levels and appropriate maturity levels for asset management practice within Council.

 

4.   Asset Management Maturity Assessment Recommendations (See Attachment A)

4.1       Quality Management Recommendation - Develop the scope of an asset management business system development project (using ISO 55000 as guidance) for consideration by the Governance Board.

4.1.1   Progress to date – Collaborative work with business unit representatives is underway to develop an agreed organisation-wide Asset Lifecycle Blueprint. Work to date has shown that there is not one Asset Lifecycle approach within Council and that this limits the organisation’s ability to further optimise our renewal programme if this work is not completed.

The Asset Lifecycle Blueprint will support and provide the framework for the AM Business System project.  This project will commence with the arrival of the incoming Business Analyst Practice Lead (BAPL).

4.1.2   Next Steps –The Asset Lifecycle framework will be further refined by capturing roles, policies, Key Performance Indicators (LOS), processes and workflows, data and decision criteria that are required at each phase of the lifecycle in upcoming workshops with the business. 

The output from the Asset Lifecycle Framework Blueprint will inform the scope development of the Asset Management Business System.  It is anticipated that the BAPL role will be filled in time to progress this work in the New Year.

4.1.3   Challenges and Opportunities.  The BAPL role is a specialist position and there is a risk that this permanent role does not attract a candidate with appropriate skills and experience due to current marketplace constraints.

4.2       Operational Planning and Reporting Recommendation - Develop a coordinated approach across activity areas for development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for all Asset Management (AM) practices. Consider the use of Promapp, as the risk module of this system already exists within Council, and this system is used successfully by a number of New Zealand Councils for asset management procedure mapping.

4.2.1   Progress to date - There are a number of Continuous Improvement initiatives that have been identified to address this recommendation and the Continuous Improvement (CI) Reporting Framework (see below) is providing visibility to AMGB and Business Change Board (BCB)/Executive Leadership Team (ELT) of these initiatives.

A technical Levels of Service Dashboard for City Services is in development to support the further development of LOS management for the AM teams.

The Business Analysis and Process Capture Enablement project has been paused until the New Year (February) when internal resource will have more capacity (due to Long Term Plan and Asset Management Plans (AMP) activity being completed).

4.2.2   Next Steps Investigate level of Promapp (process mapping tool) capability within business units in order to understand number of licenses and training required.  Progress documenting the Long Term Plan Standard Operating Procedure within Promapp. Support and encourage capturing all AM related processes within the business units.

4.2.3   Challenges and Opportunities Resourcing and current Long Term Plan focus has saturated the teams work load.  Therefore this will potentially be more of a focus in 2018.

4.3       Service Delivery Recommendation - Investigate and report on the opportunities for the staged rationalisation of all the current contract models within all asset intensive activities, with the aim of producing better contract outcomes for Council, contractors and the community, in line with the procurement policy objectives.

4.3.1   Progress to date The Transport Contracts Management project has highlighted the benefits to Council, contractors and the community of focusing on collaborating to improve contract models and associated systems and processes. 

During the development of the Contract Management project scope and stakeholder interviews an existing programme was identified: ‘Maintenance Management Excellence’. Piers Lehmann will join the associated steering group to progress contract management and service delivery improvement opportunities by providing a conduit to the Asset Management Improvement Programme.

A review of specialist AM training has commenced and will link with the Asset Lifecycle Blueprint outcomes to ensure best practice in AM related areas of procurement and contract management.

4.3.2   Next Steps Capture learnings from Transport Contract Management project.  In the New Year begin scoping out service delivery improvement opportunities for a Three Waters and Waste Contract Management Project in line with the maintenance contract renewal due in 18 months’ time. 

Progress the review of specialist AM training for procurement and contract management by working collaboratively with HR and procurement and contract teams.

4.3.3   Challenges and Opportunities Funding is going to be the challenge as CAPEX and OPEX budgets are under pressure.  This is likely to be more of a 2018/19 FY focus.

4.4       Improvement Planning - Instigate the capture of all asset management improvement items from asset management plans, independent reports, and other reviews. Map the improvement items against the identified maturity gaps, across all activities, and look for commonality. Forward the items to the CFE for triage into the asset management improvement programme

4.4.1   Progress to date - All asset management improvement items have been captured from asset management plans, independent reports, reviews and workshops with business unit staff members.  The AMU Centre for Excellence has carried out scope definition and created a framework for determining whether improvement items are projects, continuous improvement or business as usual. In collaboration with business unit representatives the ‘projects’ and ‘continuous improvement’ have been prioritised and programmed addressing dependencies and interdependencies as well as resource capacity.

A Continuous Improvement Framework has been developed and reporting across all units is underway with the first reports being received at the end of October.  A SharePoint page has been developed to provide guidance and tools to support the delivery of CI activity. 

4.4.2   Next Steps Continue to support the business units to embed the CI reporting framework as the primary method of AM improvement monitoring by AMGB.

4.4.3   Challenges and Opportunities Ensuring the business engage and provide quality overviews of CI activity.  Managing dependencies across the multiple activities and having resource availability to deliver.

4.5       Business as Usual Recommendation - Prepare a white paper for discussion on the future state of ‘business as usual’ asset management at Council, (taking into account all other recommendations within this report) and develop, with the involvement of staff, a road map to support the journey towards it, in the most effective manner.

4.5.1   Progress to date – A number of items have been developed with the involvement of business unit staff to provide a roadmap of the journey towards the new ‘business as usual’.  This includes the Building Block diagram and the programme roadmap.

                                     

4.5.2   Next Steps – A meeting has been scheduled for this month to plan out the white paper. Drafting the white paper will follow. 

4.5.3   Challenges and Opportunities.  This requires a shift in outlook from recovery mode to business as usual.  While this is commencing it will take time and requires support from senior leaders to enable teams to evolve and to improve their practice.

5.   Asset Management Maturity Assessment Attribute and Recommendation Linkages

 

5.1       Quality Management Attribute

 

There are three projects and five continuous improvement items planned for this FY that when completed will contribute to achieving full Core level.  A specific project output is the development of an LTP Standard Operating Procedure.  A CI example is the Asset Lifecycle Blueprint.

 

5.2       Operational Planning and Reporting Attribute

 

There are four continuous improvement items planned for this financial year that when completed will contribute to achieving gains in the Intermediate level.  Examples include three Waters Asset Assessment Intervention Framework project and the Technical Levels of Service Dashboard for City Service AM teams.

 

5.3       Service Delivery Attribute

 

There are two projects and one continuous improvement item planned for this financial year that when completed will contribute to achieving gains in the Intermediate level. Examples include the Transport Contracts Management project and in Continuous Improvement Contract Management Efficiencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.4       Improvement Planning Attribute

 

There is one project and one continuous improvement item planned for this financial year that contribute to achieving top of the Intermediate level. These are the Asset Management Improvement programme project and the Continuous Improvement Reporting Framework.

 

6.   Asset Management Maturity Assessment and Reporting Timelines

6.1       The next progress report to Audit and Risk Management Committee is scheduled for May 2018.

6.2       The next Asset Management Maturity Assessment is planned for July 2018 with a report following before year end.  It is anticipated that an improvement in maturity scores of the AM attributes will be detected as the benefits of the inflight projects and continuous improvement initiatives will have become embedded.  However, it should be noted that as the Building Block diagram shows the key focus, at present, is on building a solid AM practice foundation with ‘competency at the core’ of all AM activities in 2017-18.  Further advances in asset management maturity will be possible in future years once a secure foundation is laid.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2017-04-03 ELT Meeting - Summary of Recommendations from the Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report

 

b 

Asset Management Business Change Board Programme Report October 2017

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Walker - Senior Asset Management & Programme Advisor

Rachel Shaw - Project Manager Asset Management (Cont)

Approved By

Piers Lehmann - Head of Asset Management

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 29 November 2017

 

19.    Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017

Reference:

17/1444350

Contact:

Mushe Shoko

Mushe.Shoko@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313

 

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee accepted the staff recommendations without change.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Management Report and management’s response to these; and

2.         Recommend to Council that it receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Management Report and management’s response to these; and

2.         Recommend to Council that it receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

4.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017

263

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 from Audit New Zealand

265

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017

Reference:

17/1383001

Contact:

Mushe Shoko

Mushe.Shoko@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the 30 June 2017 Annual Report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Management Report and management’s response to these; and

2.         Recommend to Council that it receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Management Report is attached as Attachment A.

3.2       The Management Report sets out Audit New Zealand’s findings from their audit of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2017. The report draws attention to areas where the Council is doing well or where Audit New Zealand has made recommendations for improvement.

While we received a modified audit opinion, the modifications relate to the 2016 comparative information only.

3.3       The key points in the Management Report are:

3.3.1   Roading network and stormwater system

The auditors acknowledge the progress made on the programme of infrastructure asset valuations during the year. As a result they were able to get comfort that infrastructure assets were fairly stated. The previous qualified audit opinion in respect of the roading network and stormwater system has been removed for 2017.

3.3.2   SCIRT work in progress balances

The auditors were satisfied of the work done to analyse completed SCIRT projects and the transfer of previous work in progress balances to completed assets. They were also satisfied that costs that were operating in nature were appropriately recognised in surplus and deficit. Consequently for 2017 they have removed the qualified audit opinion in respect of capital work in progress.


 

 

3.3.3   Future Focus Areas for Audit New Zealand

Procurement and contract management

As Council is currently in a period of unprecedented capital spend, mainly due to the delivery of the capital programme, Audit New Zealand considers procurement and contract management to be areas of focus for both management and the Audit and Risk Committee.

Long term plan 2018-28

Audit New Zealand acknowledges that while the overall process established by Council in preparing the Long Term Plan appears thorough and robust, the timetable between now and the adoption of the Consultation Document in February 2018, does not allow for any slippage in the timetable. There are key milestone dates identified in the programme plan that will need to be met to ensure the timetable is not compromised.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 from Audit New Zealand

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

20.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 29 November 2017

Reference:

17/1444448

Contact:

Mark Saunders

Mark.Saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 29 November 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 29 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 29 November 2017

284

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Development Forum  – 29 November 2017

 

21.    Central City Residential Programme

Reference:

17/1429074

Contact:

John Meeker

John.meeker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8690

 

 

 

1.      Consideration

 

The Development Forum received presentations from Keith Tallentire and John Meeker on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, and Central City residential development.

 

The Forum discussed issues relevant to Central City residential development including the price of land, Urban Design and planning rules, and cleanliness and maintenance of city streets. The Forum also noted that there is strong demand for Central City residential properties.

 

Staff advice and suggested amendments to the Development Forum’s recommendations are below.  An annotated version of the presentation given to the Development Forum is attached (Attachment A).

 

 

2.      Staff Advice

 

The attached Central City Residential Programme presentation (Attachment A) is an annotated version of that given by the City Council’s Principal Advisor, Urban Regeneration to the Development Forum on 29 November 2017.

 

The presentation gave information on an emerging work programme that aims to support housing development in the central city.  This is a key action of the Council’s recently agreed strategic priority: Maximising Opportunities to develop a Vibrant, Prosperous and Sustainable 21st Century City.

 

The Central City Residential Programme is still in development but intends to take a more active approach to the delivery of new housing.

 

At this stage it is intended that the programme is coordinated by Council, but its overall success will be dependent on collaborative working and a range of partnerships.  Activities will include supply side measures, particularly those that tackle barriers to delivery, and demand side measures aimed at sustaining interest and confidence in the central city as a place to live.  The programme is likely to comprise a combination of streamlining current work and investigating new areas of action.

 

Staff suggest the following amendments to the Development Forum resolution, to:

 

·    Better capture the current status of the programme; and

 

·    Reflect the five, currently proposed, focus areas of the programme while maintaining reference to key matters identified by the Development Forum

 

 

3.      Development Forum Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council as a matter of priority:

1.         Strongly endorses the approach set out in the Central City Residential Program, which is designed to:

a.         Identify the barriers to residential development in the Central City.

b.         Accelerate the delivery of the Council’s goal for Central City residential development.

c.         Improve the street maintenance and living environment of the Central City.

d.         Coordinate marketing of the benefits of Central City living.

2.         Requests advice from staff on:

a.         The appropriate Governance reporting and monitoring arrangements.

b.         Progressing the requirement for Regenerate Christchurch to immediately review the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

c.         Whether a regeneration plan could provide new mechanisms for increasing residential development opportunities in the Central City.

d.         Land-banking in the Central City.

e.         The opportunities to work with Central Government on a coordinated approach.

Alternative Staff Recommendations

 

That the Council as a matter of priority:

 

1.         Notes that a Central City Residential Programme is currently in development and is intended to accelerate delivery of Central City residential development.

2.         Strongly endorses the five the emerging aims of the Central City Residential Programme which focuses on:

a.         Identifying the barriers to residential development and recommending interventions and tools to support housing delivery in the Central City.

b.         Encouraging new and more diverse housing models. 

c.         Enhancing the central city living experience, including improving the standard of street maintenance.

d.         Coordinating marketing of the Central City as a place to live.

e.         Site specific and neighbourhood scale enabling of central city housing.  

3.         Requests advice from staff on:

a.         The appropriate Governance reporting and monitoring arrangements.

b.         Progressing the requirement for Regenerate Christchurch to immediately review the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

c.         Whether a regeneration plan could provide new mechanisms for increasing residential development opportunities in the Central City.

d.         Land-banking in the Central City.

e.         The opportunities to work with Central Government on a coordinated approach.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Central City Residential Programme Presentation

292

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 13 December 2017

 

22.    Central City:  Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Reference:

17/1478693

Contact:

Brenda O’Donoghue

Brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8583

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee accepted the staff recommendations and also noted a request for the bus passenger shelter adjacent to the Washington Way skate park to have a street art treatment, providing that there is evidence that this reduces graffiti.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         38 Moorhouse Avenue (Attachment A); and

b.         Moorhouse Avenue adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park (Attachment B).

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         38 Moorhouse Avenue (Attachment A); and

b.         Moorhouse Avenue adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park (Attachment B).

c.         Notes a request for the bus passenger shelter on Moorhouse Avenue adjacent to the Washington Way skate park to have a street art treatment, provided that there is evidence that this reduces graffiti.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Central City:  Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

303

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Bus Passenger Shelter Plan for Approval - 38 Moorhouse Avenue

311

b

Bus Passenger Shelter Plan for Approval - Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park

312

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Central City:  Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Reference:

17/1381230

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8583

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend that the Council approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at existing bus stops located by 38 Moorhouse Avenue (Champion Flour Milling Ltd), and on Moorhouse Avenue adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park, that have received no objection by the owner or occupier of the adjacent properties. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. Where no objection (either by approval or no feedback) to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board or Committee for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         38 Moorhouse Avenue (Attachment A); and

b.         Moorhouse Avenue adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park (Attachment B).

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.4 Ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

·     Level of Service: 10.4.10 Improve the accessibility of bus stops via targeted review and improvement programme.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install two bus passenger shelters.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter,

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport,

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

·     During the peak times of public transport usage, the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.  

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with the owner and/or occupier of the property adjacent to the proposed shelters.  Only a shelter where the owner or occupier of the adjacent property has provided feedback indicating approval or where there was no response received to the consultation is included within this report.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop locations presented in this report due to the average weekday passenger boardings (ave.pax/weekday), as indicated in the following list. 

·   33 ave. pax/weekday for 38 Moorhouse Avenue, and

·   30 ave. pax/weekday for Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent the Washington Way Skate Park.

5.2       The location of the bus stops, and hence the proposed shelters, relative to their surrounding locality is indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Bus stop locations

5.3       Council staff propose to install a shelter in the location outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plans (refer to Attachments A to B). 

5.4       Environment Canterbury (ECan) is responsible for providing public transport services.  The Christchurch City Council is responsible for providing public transport infrastructure.  The installation of this shelter is supported by ECan.

5.5       Under s339 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public transport passengers or taxi passengers provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road.  The Council is required to give notice in writing to the occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and shall not proceed with the erection of the shelter until after the expiration of the time for objecting against the proposal or, in the event of an objection, until after the objection has been determined.

5.6       Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road, as a result of the proposed shelter installations.

5.7       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for 38 Moorhouse Avenue occurred from Thursday 6 April to Thursday 27 April 2017.  The consultation period of Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent the Washington Way Skate Park, occurred Tuesday 7 November 2017 to Tuesday 21 November 2017.  No feedback to the proposals have been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers.

5.8       The proposed bus passenger shelter to be installed on Moorhouse Avenue, by Washington Way will be a council shelter. The image below is an example of what the shelter will look like.

 

Note: The inclusion of a rubbish bin is a separate process, and a responsibility not held by the Traffic Operation team.  The above image includes a rubbish bin as there was already on on-site, and overall this staff are quite happy with how this particular bus stop and bus passenger shelter looks to provide it as a good example of a bus passenger shelter installation. Variation may occur to the type of shelter installed, due to site constraints and stock availability.


 

 

5.9       If Adshel NZ Ltd are agreeable to the provision of a bus passenger shelter by 38 Moorhouse Avenue the image below is an example of what the shelter will look like. If Adshel NZ Ltd do not wish to provide a shelter at this location, a council shelter will be provided as per the image in 5.8 above.

Note: The wind break side panel will extend to ground level, to ensure blind or vision impaired pedestrians with a walking cane can detect the structure.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Option Description

6.1       Install two bus passenger shelters.  All proposed shelters are adjacent to an existing bus stop.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance includes the consultation with occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter.  Consultation notice and a feedback form was provided to the owner or occupier (or their representative) of each property listed below, requesting feedback of approval or objection to the bus passenger shelter.  The consultation period for 38 Moorhouse Avenue occurred from Thursday 6 April to Thursday 27 April 2017.  The consultation period of Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent the Washington Way Skate Park, occurred Tuesday 7 November 2017 to Tuesday 21 November 2017.

·   38 Moorhouse Avenue shelter (Champion Flour Milling).

·   Moorhouse Avenue shelter, adjacent the Washington Way Skate Park (Christchurch City Council).

6.5       Where the proposed shelter is adjacent land owned by Christchurch City Council, staff have contacted the relevant department within Council to seek and confirm their approval. 

6.6       As indicated in section 5.7, no feedback to the proposal have been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Staff professional services costs - $1,500, which covers planning, consultation and approval process incurred irrespective of the Community Board’s decision or recommendation.

6.9       Cost of Implementation – The supply and installation of the bus passenger shelters, in addition to other bus stop remedial work is estimated to cost $24,000.  The capital cost might reduce to $12,000, if Adshel NZ Ltd are agreeable to the provision of a bus passenger shelter that incorporates advertising.  If an advertising shelter is provided it will be installed at the bus stop adjacent to 38 Moorhouse Avenue.  Staff do not recommend an advertising shelter to be installed on Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent the Washington Way Skate Park.  This is due to concerns about vandalism to an advertising style shelter at this bus stop.  This not as much of a concern with the provision of a standard council shelter.

6.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Costs will be met from the Passenger Transport Maintenance budget.

6.11    Funding source - The cost will be met from the Passenger Transport Infrastructure budget available for the installation of shelters.

Legal Implications

6.12    Where no objection to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area generally has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.  However, within the Central City Area marked on Plan A of the Delegations Register the Community Board does not have delegated authority for bus shelters and reports must be directed to Council for a decision. 

6.13    Both proposed shelters are on Moorhouse Avenue, which forms the boundary of the Central City Area marked on Plan A of the Delegations Register.  Consistent with previous reports and decisions, both sides of the Moorhouse Avenue deemed to be within the Plan A area, hence only Council may make a decision on the matters pertaining to this report. 

6.14    The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has delegated authority for parking matters within the Central City Area marked on Plan A of the Delegations Register.  These delegations do not extend to bus shelters. 

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    The shelter is not installed, leading to a poor level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

6.16    Increased street clutter. Where street clutter has been identified through site assessments (e.g. rubbish bins located by the kerb edge (i.e. in less than ideal locations), excess number of public transport related poles, etc.), these footpath obstacles will be relocated to an appropriate location in close proximity to the shelter (e.g. the rubbish bin), and the number of poles reduced by maximising the use of the shelter (e.g. attaching the Real Time Information device 'bus finder' to the shelter).  This will help provide a de-cluttered footpath environment by the bus stop and improve the level of service for pedestrians passing the shelter and for passengers waiting for a bus.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, but the shelter should be installed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport,

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

·   During the peak times of public transport usage, the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.


 

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       No bus passenger shelter is installed at the location identified in section 3 of this report.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  As there is no bus passenger shelter proposed, the engagement requirements for this level of significance does not involve any consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Not applicable

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus passengers will not be provided shelter to wait for a bus

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - No amendment needed to the Council's Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Staff professional services costs - $1,500, which covers planning, consultation and approval process incurred irrespective of the Community Board’s decision or recommendation.

7.7       Cost of Implementation – not applicable

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable

7.9       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    The existing passenger waiting facilities remain, leading to no improvement to the level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

7.12    It may reduce bus patronage on wet days, as passengers may choose another mode of travel as there is no shelter provided at the bus stop.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable

7.14    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Option 2 has no clear advantages.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is inconsistent with Council's Plans and Policies.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Bus Passenger Shelter Plan for Approval - 38 Moorhouse Avenue

 

b 

Bus Passenger Shelter Plan for Approval - Moorhouse Avenue, adjacent to the Washington Way Skate Park

 

 

 

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

Brenda  O'Donoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 13 December 2017

 

23.    Avon River Precinct: Victoria Square- Armagh and Colombo Streets

Reference:

17/1478743

Contact:

Steve Dejong

Steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Revoke the Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 111 metres east its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

2.         Revoke the Special Vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

3.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Armagh Street located at a point approximately 105 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a width of 3 metres.

4.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Colombo Street located at a point approximately 118 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street (measured along the eastern side of Colombo street) and extending northerly direction for a width of 5 metres.

5.         That a shared Cycle/Pedestrian path be installed across Victoria Square traversing the Square generally in a semicircle commencing from the proposed Colombo Street signalised crossing and extending to the proposed Armagh Street signalised crossing for a following the alignment of the Avon River for an a total distance of 186 metres.

6.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the Victoria Square: Colombo and Armagh Streets as per paragraph 5.6 of the report.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolve the following, subject to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the parking and stopping restrictions related to the Victoria Square: Colombo and Armagh Streets, as per paragraph 5.6 of the report:

a.         Revoke the Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 111 metres east its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

b.         Revoke the Special Vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

c.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Armagh Street located at a point approximately 105 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a width of 3 metres.

d.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Colombo Street located at a point approximately 118 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street (measured along the eastern side of Colombo street) and extending northerly direction for a width of 5 metres.

e.         That a shared Cycle/Pedestrian path be installed across Victoria Square traversing the Square generally in a semicircle commencing from the proposed Colombo Street signalised crossing and extending to the proposed Armagh Street signalised crossing for a following the alignment of the Avon River for an a total distance of 186 metres.

2.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the Victoria Square: Colombo and Armagh Streets as per paragraph 5.6 of the report.

 

 

Secretarial Note:  The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions related to the Victoria Square: Colombo and Armagh Streets on 15 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Avon River Precinct: Victoria Square- Armagh and Colombo Streets

315

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Victoria Square Plan Master

324

b

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 1

325

c

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 2

326

d

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 3

327

e

Summary of responses- Vic Square Armagh & Colombo Streets

328

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Avon River Precinct: Victoria Square- Armagh and Colombo Streets

Reference:

17/1211310

Contact:

Steve Dejong

Steve.Dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee that Council approve new traffic controls on Armagh Street and Colombo Street.  Changes are proposed to these streets as part of the Te Papa Ōtākaro / Avon River Precinct project at Victoria Square, led and delivered by Ōtākaro Limited. 

Origin of Report

1.2       The Avon River Precinct project is being delivered by Ōtākaro.  Ōtākaro seeks a decision from Council to give legal effect to revised traffic controls for the scheme on Armagh Street and Colombo Street in the vicinity of Victoria Square. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing the factors relating to the decisions against the criteria set out in the Council’s significance and Engagement Policy

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Revoke the Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 111 metres east its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

2.         Revoke the Special Vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) currently located on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

3.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Armagh Street located at a point approximately 105 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a width of 3 metres.

4.         Approve that a mid-block shared pedestrian and cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals  be installed across Colombo Street located at a point approximately 118 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street (measured along the eastern side of Colombo street) and extending northerly direction for a width of 5 metres.

5.         That a shared Cycle/Pedestrian path be installed across Victoria Square traversing the Square generally in a semicircle commencing from the proposed Colombo Street signalised crossing and extending to the proposed Armagh Street signalised crossing for a following the alignment of the Avon River for an a total distance of 186 metres.

6.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the Victoria Square: Colombo and Armagh Streets as per paragraph 5.6 of the report.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve New Traffic Controls on Armagh and Colombo Streets to Support Implementation of Avon River Precinct (preferred) (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Not Approve New Traffic Controls on Armagh and Colombo Streets to Support Implementation of Avon River Precinct

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·     Integration of Armagh Street and Colombo Street frontages with adjacent projects

·     Parking restrictions consistent with Councils Parking Strategy (2003) and in support of adjacent land use

·     No cost incurred by Council

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None Identified

 

5.   Context/Background

Avon River Precinct: Victoria Square- Armagh and Colombo Streets

5.1       The ‘Christchurch Recovery Plan’ identifies the Avon River Precinct and Christchurch Convention Centre as key Anchor Projects. Both of which are identified on the Blueprint, which is central to the Recovery Plan. 

5.2       The Avon River Precinct and Christchurch Convention Centre are projects that Ōtākaro has the responsibility for delivering under the cost share agreement between the Crown and Council. 

5.3       Changes are required to Armagh Street and Colombo Street to integrate these street frontages with the Avon River Precinct at Victoria Square as well as the Convention Centre and other developments.  This report seeks approval of traffic controls on Colombo Street and Armagh Street for items where Council has not delegated its responsibilities. 

5.4       Council approves all Traffic Control Devices as a formal record that the control was legally established.

5.5       Attachment A shows Armagh Street and Colombo Street in relation to Victoria Square. 

5.6       Some of the street changes affect parking, for which the Council has delegated its decision making powers to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.  A separate report to the Parking Restriction Subcommittee has been prepared recommending the following resolutions associated with the scheme:

·    Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 111 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction to a point 22 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

·    Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to a point 48 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

·    Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the west side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in an southerly direction to a point 22 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street be revoked.

·    Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in an southerly direction to a point 22 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street be revoked.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at the intersection of Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction  for a distance of 133 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to mobility card holders only for a maximum period of 120 minutes at any time on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 92 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, 9am till 11pm, 7 days (other times P5) on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 80 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes, at any time on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 70 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction  for a distance of 70 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction  for a distance of 22 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction  for a distance of 22 metres.

·    Approve that a Loading Zone restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes at any time be installed on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 22 metres east of its intersection with Colombo street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction  for a distance of 42 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes, at any time on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 42 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to coaches and shuttles only for a maximum period of 30 minutes on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 54 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 44 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Armagh Street commencing at a point 98 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction  to its intersection with Oxford Terrace.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the west side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 153 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes Monday to Thursday 9 am to 5 pm and Friday 9 am to 8.30 pm and Saturday and Sunday 9 am to 6 pm and further controlled by parking machines or any other means of approved payment, on the west side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 153 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the west side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 171 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes At Any Time on west side of Colombo Street Commencing at a point 196 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the west side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 207 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

·    That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes Monday to Thursday 9 am to 5 pm and Friday 9 am to 8.30 pm and Saturday and Sunday 9 am to 6 pm and further controlled by parking machines or any other means of approved payment, on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 38 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 52 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 90 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 66 metres.

·    That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes Monday to Thursday 9 am to 5 pm and Friday 9 am to 8.30 pm and Saturday and Sunday 9 am to 6 pm and further controlled by parking machines or any other means of approved payment, on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 156 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

·    Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to mobility card holders only for a maximum period of 120 minutes at any time on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 192 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in an northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

·    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 210 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

6.   Option 1 – Approve New Traffic Controls on Armagh and Colombo Streets to Support Implementation of Avon River Precinct (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Refer to the following attachments that outline the components of the scheme in relation to Colombo Street and Armagh Street:

·     Attachment B – Armagh Street

·     Attachment C –  Colombo / Armagh Intersection

·     Attachment D – Colombo Street

6.2       Signalised pedestrian & cycle crossings are provided on Colombo Street and Armagh Street.  The crossings are located on desire lines and provide connectivity between the shared zones of the wider Avon River Precinct project and paths through Victoria Square. Signalisation of the crossing points is consistent with the treatment of major crossing facilities throughout the Avon River Precinct. 

6.3       The existing cycle lanes on each side of Armagh Street are to be removed. This will allow for narrower vehicular lanes to provide greater amenity to pedestrians by providing wider footways.  This is also congruent with an environment that achieves 30kph operating speeds or lower. The removal of the cycle lanes will also help promote more cycle routes that avoid the tram tracks. 

6.4       Allocation of parking has been determined in accordance with Council’s Parking Strategy (2003) and to meet the specific requirements of developments in the immediate vicinity.  The Strategy priorities mobility, public transport, loading and short stay parking in commercial areas. 

6.5       The Vanilla Ice Cream vendor stall is retained in its original position on the north side of Armagh Street adjacent to Victoria Square.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       Delivery of the Avon River Precinct is a significant project for Ngai Tuahuriri and Ngai Tahu.   The River and surrounding landscape is highly valued, and was an area of diverse habitats rich in natural resources.  Victoria Square itself was a place of connection and trading between tangata whenua and early european settlers.  Ōtākaro Limited has collaborated with Ngai Tuahuriri (through the Matapopore Trust) on design and implementation of this proposal.  

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       Community engagement on the proposed changes was undertaken 7 January to 24 February 2017.  Engagement material describing the proposal was made available by post, email, and in person to all adjacent landowners, businesses and residents, and other key stakeholders such as the Taxi Federation, Blind Foundation, Spokes, Central City Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, Community Board and residents association.  The material was also uploaded to the Ōtākaro website.

6.9       For a full description of comments and response from Ōtākaro, refer Attachment E. 

6.10    The community and stakeholders were invited to provide feedback (forms were provided).  A drop-in session was held from 11am to 1pm on Thursday 16 February2017, and Ōtākaro personnel met individually with several landowners and stakeholders as requested individual meetings.

6.11    Fourteen submissions were received in total:

·   One of these submissions was submitted on behalf of twelve central city business/landowners.  This group expressed concerns about car parking in the central city.  

·   Apollo Power Yoga and Tailorspace Limited opposed removal of any carparks on central city streets.

·   The Property Council NZ, Anthony Gough and Central City Business Association supported the creation of a safe pedestrian environment, but noted that safe, effective and efficient parking was needed, and adequate loading bays for tour buses.

·   The CDHB supported the inclusion of a mobility park in this area.

6.12    In response to feedback a new mobility park is proposed on the northern side of Armagh adjacent to Victoria Square and opposite the Christchurch Convention and Exhibition Centre. 

6.13    The proposed loading and taxi bays will serve both hotels and the Christchurch Convention and Exhibition Centre.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – All costs associated with this proposal will be met by Ōtākaro Limited.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered by Councils operational maintenance budgets

Legal Implications

6.17    Council recently approved the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.  This bylaw does not come into effect until 1 Mach 2018.  Decisions in this report are made under the provisions of the existing 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw. 

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

6.19    Part 1 clause 5(3) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and parking Bylaw 2008 states;        ”The Council may by resolution impose standing and stopping restrictions on any road or any part of any road or any other area controlled by the Council whether by way of a time restriction, a restriction to a specified class or classes or description of vehicle (for example, Bus Parking), a total prohibition or a combination of these.

6.20    The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of parking restrictions within the area Central City relevant to this report. 

6.21    Council has not delegated its powers to approve special vehicle lanes or traffic signals. 

Risks and Mitigations   

6.22    There are no identified risks to this project

Implementation

6.23    Implementation dependencies – Project led and delivered by Ōtākaro. 

6.24 Implementation timeframe – Construction dependent on Ōtākaro programed timeframes

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·   Integration of Armagh Street and Colombo Street frontages with adjacent projects

·   Parking restrictions consistent with Councils Parking Strategy (2003) and supporting adjacent land use

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Not Approve New Traffic Controls on Armagh and Colombo Streets to Support Implementation of Avon River Precinct

Option Description

7.1       Do not approve the traffic controls on Colombo Street and Armagh Streets associated with the Avon River Precinct in the vicinity of Victoria Square. 

7.2       Under this option there are no pedestrian crossing facilities on Armagh Street or Colombo Street to connect Avon River Precinct shared spaces with pathways within Victoria Square. 

7.3       Existing parking restrictions remain which supported now out of date land uses.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is low and is consent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       Refer Paragraph 6.7.

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       See section 6.8 through to 6.13 above.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7.1   Inconsistency – This option is inconsistent with the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – Current traffic configuration of Armagh Street and Colombo Street fronting Victoria Square does not support the Avon River Precinct and Convention Centre projects.  Both of which are identified as Anchor Projects on the Blueprint in the Recovery Plan. 

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – If this option is adopted, it is unclear who would be responsible for determining an alternative solution and funding its implementation.  Council has not allocated funding for this purpose under its Long Term Plan. 

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered by Councils operational maintenance budgets

Legal Implications

7.10    See section 6.17 to 6.21 above

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    N/A

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages this option

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Traffic controls being incompatible with Avon River Precinct and do not support adjacent land use

·   Any traffic controls delivered by Ōtākaro for Colombo and Armagh Streets may not have legal effect

·   Possible changes and delays to Ōtākaro’s programme for the Avon River Precinct.  

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Victoria Square Plan Master

 

b 

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 1

 

c 

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 2

 

d 

Victoria Square Resolution Plan 3

 

e 

Summary of responses- Vic Square Armagh & Colombo Streets

 

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 13 December 2017

 

24.    Three Waters and Waste bi-monthly report - October/November 2017

Reference:

17/1478875

Contact:

John Mackie

john.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

941 6548

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received the Three Waters and Waste bi-monthly report (October/November 2017).

2.         The Committee requested a report on the bank cutting trials, including the feasibility of not mowing all of the riparian areas of the river banks and information of the demarcation of the land drainage and parks.

3.         In addition, the Committee recommended that the Council oppose any government directive to compulsorily chlorinate the urban areas of Christchurch City secured water supply and write to the appropriate government minister to inform them of this position, advocating for exemption if required.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.       Receive the information in the Three Waters and Waste October/November 2017 report attached.

2.         Request a report on the mowing of river bank trials, including the feasibility of not mowing all of the riparian areas of the river banks, unless specified otherwise. This should include information of the demarcation of the land drainage and parks.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Oppose any government directive to compulsorily chlorinate the urban areas of Christchurch City secured water supply and write to the appropriate government minister to inform them of this position, advocating for exemption if required.         

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Three Waters and Waste bi-monthly report - October/November 2017

331

 

No.

Title

Page

a

3 Waters and Waste bi-monthly report October - November 2017

333

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Three Waters and Waste bi-monthly report - October/November 2017

Reference:

17/1413608

Contact:

John Mackie

John.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

941 6548

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee of the activities undertaken by the 3 Waters and Waste Unit, who are responsible for the planning, asset management, operations, maintenance and capital project delivery for all 3 waters and waste infrastructure. This includes drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, land drainage and solid waste services within the city.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to keep them up to date with the current status of the Three Water activities in Christchurch.

2.   Significance

2.1       There are no decision(s) sought in this report and therefore the significance is low in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Three Waters and Waste October/November 2017 report attached.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Overview of 3 Waters and Waste Operations. 

4.2       Monitoring, bore testing and drinking water standards in reservoirs and wellheads.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

3 Waters and Waste bi-monthly report October - November 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

25.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 December 2017

Reference:

17/1479957

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 13 December 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 13 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 13 December 2017

360

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

20 December 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


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from International Relations Working Group  – 15 December 2017

 

26.    Adelaide Sister City 45th Anniversary Visit 20 - 22 September 2017

Reference:

17/1481455

Contact:

Linda Paterson

linda.paterson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8775

 

 

 

 

 

1.   International Relations Working Group Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the reports on the Adelaide Sister City Visit 20 – 23 September 2017. 

2.         Invite Christchurch City Council Smart Cities Programme Manager to connect with the Smart City Director.

3.         Invite ChristchurchNZ, in consultation with the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Entrepreneurship, to explore whether a Thinclab connection would be useful as a co-working environment to increase the potential to commercialise great ideas.

4.         Request the Mayor write to the University and ChristchurchNZ in support of the partnership with the University of Adelaide.           

5.         Support the development of a Children’s University through a partnership between the University of Canterbury and the University of Adelaide.

6.         Request the Mayor write to the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) Wellbeing and Resilience Centre with a view to connect the city and the Canterbury District Health Board to their work.

7.         Note that the Christchurch Adelaide Sister City committee has commissioned the scoping and design of a new art work by Karen Genoff to replace the art work in the Christchurch Sister City garden that was stolen.

8.         Refer the question of the possibility of a Sister City golf tournament in Christchurch as a trial for an ongoing golfing exchange to the Sister City Committee.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Adelaide Sister City 45th Anniversary Visit 20 - 22 September 2017

413

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Adelaide Sister City Visit Itineray

415

b

Adelaide Sister City Visit Report Mayor Dalziel

426

c

Adelaide Sister City Visit report Councillor East

436

d

Adelaide Sister City Visit report Peter Cottrell - Sister City Committee Chair

439

e

Adelaide Beaches Trial by Storm

451

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Adelaide Sister City 45th Anniversary Visit 20 - 22 September 2017

Reference:

17/1398383

Contact:

Linda Paterson

Linda.paterson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8775

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the International Relations Working Group to receive the attached the reports of the Adelaide Sister City Visit 20 – 23 September 2017 and recommend to the Council that it receive the same reports.

1.2       Reports are attached which have been prepared by: Mayor Hon Lianne Dalziel, Christchurch Adelaide Sister City Committee Chair Peter Cottrell with Civic and International Relations, Councillor David East and an associated report from about Adelaide’s beach management.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the International Relations Working Group:

1.         Request that the Council receive the reports on the Adelaide Sister City Visit 20 – 23 September 2017. 

2.         Request that the Council direct staff to initiate work to progress the opportunities outlined below relating to Smart Cities, ThincLab, Children’s University, SAHMRI, a new Sister Cities Garden Art Work and a golf exchange.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Christchurch and Adelaide Sister City relationship was formed in 1972 and was the first of Christchurch’s Sister City Relationships. The Mayor of Christchurch, Hon Lianne Dalziel, led a delegation to Adelaide to mark the 45th anniversary of the relationship between the two cities from 20 September to 22 September 2017.  She was accompanied by Councillor David East, Sister City Committee Chair, Peter Cottrell, Acting Manager of Civic and International Relations, Linda Paterson and three delegates from the University of Canterbury - Professor Ian Wright, Professor Catherine Moran and Dr Rachel Wright.

3.2       A Civic Reception was held at the Adelaide Town Hall to celebrate 45th anniversary which was attended by 80 invited guests.  The reception was hosted by the Lord Mayor Martin Haese and Mayor of Christchurch, Hon Lianne Dalziel. Chris Seed, NZ High Commissioner to Australia also attended.

3.3       Mayor Dalziel made an official thank you to the University of Adelaide for hosting and supporting Canterbury students after the Canterbury earthquakes

3.4       As a result of this visit the following have been identified as possible opportunities

Invite Christchurch City Council Smart Cities Programme Manager to connect with the Smart City Director.

Invite ChristchurchNZ, in consultation with the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Entrepreneurship, to explore whether a Thinclab connection would be useful as a co-working environment to increase the potential to commercialise great ideas.

Support the development of a Children’s University through a partnership between the University of Canterbury and the University of Adelaide.

Develop a relationship with the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) Wellbeing and Resilience Centre with a view to connect the city and the Canterbury District Health Board to their work.

Note that the Christchurch Adelaide Sister City committee has commissioned the scoping and design of a new art work by Karen Genoff to replace the art work in the Christchurch Sister City garden that was stolen.

Explore the possibility of a Sister City golf tournament in Christchurch as a trial for an ongoing golfing exchange

3.5       The cost of the Mayor’s travel to Adelaide are outlined in the following table:

 

Adelaide Sister Cities 45th Anniversary Trip

CHCH-ADL

Flights

20/09/2017

$297.08

 

ADL-CHCH

Flights

23/09/2017

$515.14

 

Adelaide

International Hotel - Ibis Adelaide

20/09/2017-23/09/2017

$39.49

(Breakfast charge)

 

Adelaide

International Hotel - Ibis Adelaide

20/09/2017-23/09/2017

$599.89

(3 nights)

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Adelaide Sister City Visit Itineray

 

b 

Adelaide Sister City Visit Report Mayor Dalziel

 

c 

Adelaide Sister City Visit report Councillor East

 

d 

Adelaide Sister City Visit report Peter Cottrell - Sister City Committee Chair

 

e 

Adelaide Beaches Trial by Storm

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Linda Paterson - Manager Civic & International Relations

Approved By

Murray Dickson - Director of Office of Chief Executive

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 13 December 2017

 

27.    Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Reference:

17/1474661

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Defers the full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015; and

2.         Notes that staff have reviewed the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw and consider there is insufficient evidence to justify amending the bylaw at this time; and

3.         Notes that staff review and adjust operational activities in relation to the Freedom Camping Bylaw every year as required; and

4.         Notes that a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw is scheduled for 2020, as required by the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

458

 

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Reference:

17/202371

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 staff to update the Regulatory Performance Committee on the performance of the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report responds to Council resolution to review the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 after two years of operation, resolved on 13 August 2015.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Defer the full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015; and

2.         Note that staff have reviewed the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw and consider there is insufficient evidence to justify amending the bylaw at this time; and

3.         Note that staff review and adjust operational activities in relation to the Freedom Camping Bylaw every year as required; and

4.         Note that a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw is scheduled for 2020, as required by the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The bylaw, in its current form, provides adequate tools to address existing concerns.

4.2       The bylaw is relatively new, has already been amended once, and needs time to settle in.  Reviewing and amending the bylaw every summer in response to specific activities and impacts over the previous summer is unsustainable.  It can also be confusing for freedom campers if the requirements keep changing. The bylaw is scheduled to undergo a full review, to comply with legislative requirements, in 2020.  

4.3       All known issues associated with freedom camping generally, can be addressed through operational activities. 

4.4       The operational management of the bylaw (and associated issues) is reviewed every year.  Freedom camping impacts and issues vary season by season, and being flexible and responsive is important. Monitoring and enforcement activities include both proactive monitoring of high risk sites, and reactive investigation of complaints.  This operational annual review process is refining and improving the Council’s responses to freedom camping.

4.5       Freedom camping challenges are occurring nationwide.  Key responses at the national level include:

·    the amendment to the New Zealand Standard (NZS 5465:2001) for self-containment certification for motor caravans (relating to on-board toilet facilities)

·    Department of Internal Affairs work on freedom camping, and the release of the report  Managing Freedom Camping in Public Places (November 2016), which looks at ways to reduce harms associated with freedom camping, including bylaws

·    the national tourism strategy, Tourism 2025 – Growing Value Together, is intended to support regions to respond to and benefit from increasing visitor numbers.

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

1.1.1     Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Freedom Camping Act 2011 and freedom camping bylaws

5.1       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping to take place and enables councils to make bylaws to restrict freedom camping on council-controlled land.  The Act does not allow councils to completely ban all forms of freedom camping.

5.2       Before making or amending a bylaw, the Council must determine that a freedom camping bylaw (clause) is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

·    to protect the area

·    to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area

·    to protect access to the area. 

5.3       The Council must be satisfied that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem and not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5.4       Under section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, a bylaw must be reviewed no later than five years after it is first made, with subsequent reviews at least once every 10 years.

5.5       The Council will undertake a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 (the bylaw) in 2020.

The Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, and 2016 amendment

5.6       In 2015 the Council made the bylaw with a four-level approach to restrictions on freedom camping:

·    Prohibited areas – no freedom camping allowed

·    Restricted areas – certified self-contained vehicles permitted, for a limited duration

·    Designated sites – non-self-contained camping at five sites, for a limited duration (French Farm, Wainui, Addington Park, Lower Styx River Mouth and Windsport Park)

·    No restrictions – in rural areas.

5.7       The bylaw came into force in December 2015.  After the summer season staff assessed that the use of the five designated sites for non-self-contained freedom camping activities was unsustainable from a health and environmental perspective (largely due to the unanticipated high numbers of freedom campers at those sites).  The Chief Executive temporarily closed the five designated non-self-contained sites, using a clause in the bylaw. 

5.8       On 12 May 2016 the Council resolved to bring forward a partial bylaw review to address the non-self-contained camping issues which had prompted the temporary ban.  Following the partial review, Council made the following significant changes to the bylaw via an amendment (which came into force on 1 December 2016), which:

·    prohibited non-self-contained freedom camping in the district

·    closed the five designated non-self-contained sites to all forms of freedom camping.

Hearings Panel report and recommendations

5.9       On 2 November 2016, the Council considered the report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw.  It adopted the amendments set out briefly above and made a number of other recommendations about the focus of a ‘full review’ which was suggested for 2017. 

5.10    In preparation for a bylaw review, staff have examined the performance of the bylaw and conclude that no structural changes to the bylaw are necessary at this time.  Operational activities have also been reviewed, and changes and adjustments are planned or in place for the coming summer season.

5.11    The table below outlines Council resolutions, as recommended by the Hearings Panel, relating to what should be considered as part of the bylaw review. Staff comments / responses have been added in right hand column:

Recommendation

Staff response

The appropriateness of limitations to the number of nights and numbers of vehicles, particularly in the rural and coastal areas, taking into the account the significant landscape values of Banks Peninsula.

There is no clear need for changes at this time.

The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Inc’s submission advocating the adoption of the proposed change to the self-containment standard NZS 5465:2001.

No change needed to the bylaw as already incorporated.

 

NZS 5465:2001 was updated to improve the minimum requirements for a toilet within a motorhome.  The changes do not affect the bylaw definition, which covers ‘Certified self-contained vehicle’ with a requirement for the vehicle to comply with NZS 5465:2001 by meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of the occupants for a minimum of three days, without requiring any external services or discharging waste.

The availability of sufficient dump stations.

This is an operational issue and does not require a bylaw response.

The appropriateness of self-contained freedom camping within the Akaroa Historic Area.

The restrictions in the Akaroa Heritage Area relate to the built environment and streetscape generally, not to the traffic (road) environment and things such as parking.

 

Unless there is a safety or capacity issue with vehicles parking at a specific location, then staff do not consider this to be an issue.

 

There have been very few freedom camping complaints in this area.

The appropriateness of self-contained freedom camping within Stanbury Park, as per the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board submission.

The use of Stanbury Park in Wainui will be considered in a future review of the bylaw.

The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board’s submission regarding the use of the Akaroa car park for self-contained freedom camping.

There are two areas in the carpark behind the Croquet Green where self-contained vehicles can camp for two nights in a 30-day period.

 

There have been no complaints about freedom camping in this area.

Immediately consider the viability of the toilet facilities and other related infrastructure on Banks Peninsula and put in place an appropriate level of monitoring over the summer period.

This is an operational issue and does not require a bylaw response.

 

Compliance with the bylaw over the 2016/17 summer season

5.12    Throughout the 2016/17 summer season, the Council’s Compliance and Investigation Team implemented an active monitoring regime for freedom camping activities. This involved daily (Monday – Friday) inspections of the Christchurch city and Banks Peninsula areas by two compliance officers that commenced at 6:00am. Weekend enforcement activities were not carried out over the 2016/17 season due to the relatively low level of complaints (only 14 of 122 received over the weekend).

5.13    The active monitoring regime finished at the end of March 2017. Since then a reactive enforcement response strategy has been pursued, acting on complaints. 

5.14    120 infringement notices were issued for the 2016/17 season, with a further seven issued between March and August 2017. The trend reported to the Committee in March 2017 continued, with the number of complaints received in relation to non-compliant freedom camping activities being less than half the number of complaints received for the previous summer season. Staff consider that this can be attributed to increased awareness of the bylaw and the deterrent effect of active compliance and enforcement activities.   

5.15    Staff have noted that many requests for service / complaints are listed as freedom camping-related because they involve a motorhome or campervan. Some of these complaints are not related to freedom camping or to the bylaw.  Examples include complaints relating to daytime activities of motorhomes (such as picnicking at lunchtime being assumed to indicate an overnight stay in breach of the bylaw); safety concerns about parking of motorhomes (for example reducing visibility for other road users or protruding onto the carriageway); or complaints about rubbish that may have been left by visitors who are not freedom camping.

5.16    Complaints relating to traffic safety may relate more to the Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw provisions than to overnight stays and freedom camping.   If deemed necessary, changes to parking restrictions can be made through the Community Board and public consultation process.

5.17    Staff from the Compliance and Investigation, and Transport and Parks teams have made preparations for the upcoming summer freedom camping season, including improvements to the signage of sites where freedom camping had been problematic last summer.  Staff will continue to monitor the need for weekend enforcement activities as the season progresses.

Other impacts and actions

5.18    There are a range of operational Council activities that impact on the effectiveness of the bylaw, and on the real and perceived freedom camping-related problems.  These include: promotional communications and public awareness of the restrictions; signage at key locations and where there are restrictions; management of associated potential nuisances (such as rubbish bin emptying); and focusing compliance monitoring and enforcement activities in problem areas, as they arise.

5.19    Council staff are members of the Tourism Industry Aotearoa’s (TIA) Responsible Camping Forum, with other territorial authorities, tourism agencies and rental vehicle companies. There is a summer social media campaign being launched where Forum members are encouraged to promote the use of the Camping New Zealand Facebook page and provide suitable material to TIA to share on its pages.

5.20    The Council has also contributed to a recent Akaroa District Promotions pamphlet for campervan drivers and freedom campers, which includes information on all Peninsula camping grounds, dump stations, public toilets, and on the freedom camping restrictions and requirements.

5.21    Other impacts on freedom camping more broadly may include:

·    changes to the self-containment standard (NZS 5465:2001) in May 2017, relating to on-board toilet facility requirements (There is a staged implementation process as certification is valid for four years.  This means all new vehicles need to comply and all renewals will need to comply as they are due for renewal over the next four years)

·    freedom camping publicity campaigns on social media, through apps, or by other means (e.g. by tourism organisations, rental vehicle companies, and by clubs or associations)

·    the freedom camping approach of neighbouring districts

·    wider impacts such as the recently announced re-opening of State Highway 1 (Picton to Christchurch) during daylight hours in mid-December. 

Nation-wide situation and impacts

5.22    According to the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation (MBIE), the estimated number of freedom campers in New Zealand has grown significantly, from around 10,000 visitors in the early 2000s, to around 80,000 in more recent years. However, even with this increase, freedom campers only make up around two per cent of the total number of visitors to New Zealand. Nationwide, the total estimated spending by freedom campers is around $380 million per year.

5.23    The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has responsibility for the Freedom Camping Act 2011.  The Act, and its bylaw-making powers, have not been without criticism across the country, as councils have worked to develop bylaws to respond to rapidly increasing visitor numbers, and to balance tourism expectations with local community needs, and with infrastructure capacity and environmental impacts. 

5.24    In November 2016, DIA released a report, Managing Freedom Camping in Public Places - National situational analysis.  The report criticises the tendency of councils to rely on freedom camping bylaws to reduce or address the harms associated with freedom camping (by limiting the opportunities for freedom camping), arguing this can unintentionally increase harm, as it concentrates freedom campers in a limited number of locations. 

5.25    The report sets out a number of freedom camping-associated problems, including a shortage of freedom camping areas, over-reporting (and misattributing) freedom camping problems and impacts, the different approaches of different councils (leading to confusion), the challenges of ensuring fines are paid, and information and data gaps around freedom camping generally.  The report also notes that only 37 per cent of councils have freedom camping bylaws (as of November 2016).

5.26    Work at the national level in this space will be ongoing, under the banner of the tourism strategy, ‘Tourism 2025 – Growing Value Together’, an industry-led growth framework developed in 2014 (led by Tourism Industry Aotearoa).  One of the key challenges of the strategy is ‘supporting regions to respond to and benefit from increasing visitor numbers’.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 13 December 2017

 

28.    Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014

Reference:

17/1474703

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

Judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8649

 

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Revokes the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014;

2.         Publicly notifies its resolution; and

3.         Retains clause 10 of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014

466

 

No.

Title

Page

a

UFS Bylaw 2014

473

b

UFS Bylaw clause analysis table

486

c

Letter from FENZ re Bylaws

488

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014

Reference:

17/1283971

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

941-8649

 

 

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 Council that it revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (UFS Bylaw).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, and has been prepared as a result of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 (FENZ Act) coming into force on 1 July 2017 and containing provisions relevant to the UFS Bylaw.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined because the FENZ Act now provides for many of the matters covered in the UFS Bylaw, and FENZ is now the body with responsibility for functions such as granting permits for fires in the urban area. The Council has no choice but to revoke any bylaw clauses considered to be inconsistent with the FENZ Act. 

2.3       Other clauses of the UFS Bylaw are considered to be ‘relevant fire bylaws’ so they do not need to be revoked, but can be revoked without consultation, as provided for in the FENZ Act, if the Council determines this is appropriate.

2.4       There is no community engagement and consultation required, as provided for in the FENZ Act.  There has been consultation with FENZ, which is required by the FENZ Act.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Revokes the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014;

2.         Publicly notifies its resolution; and

3.         Retains clause 10 of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 – Revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (preferred option)

·           Option 2 – Request staff provide a further report to revoke the clauses of the UFS Bylaw that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, retain the remaining relevant fire bylaw clauses and update the UFS Bylaw as needed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3       The advantages of this option include:

·    Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in respect of inconsistent bylaws.

·    Avoids the need to update and amend the remainder of the UFS Bylaw.

·    Avoids any confusion over the body now responsible for managing fire-related issues.

·    Avoids any confusion between Council having a bylaw and ECan requirements about open air fires.

·    Although there was not much compliance team time spent on or needed for the UFS Bylaw, revoking the UFS bylaw means that team has one less bylaw to administer.

·    No time/cost spent on reviewing the bylaw.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no specific provisions in the FENZ Act about ‘conditions’ when lighting a fire in the open air.  (Note: These are common sense requirements and guidance is available on FENZ’s website for the safe lighting of fires in a number of situations including camping and campfires; outdoor gas cookers; hunting; lighting bonfires; fireworks; sky lanterns and boat safety (https://fireandemergency.nz/recreational-and-cultural/)).

4.5       The FENZ Act has removed urban and rural fire responsibilities from territorial authorities and contains provisions for those authorities to amend and revoke bylaw clauses that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, or are relevant fire bylaws under that Act (relevant fire bylaws can also be retained). 

4.6       Councils need to consult with FENZ about their bylaws, and where they are satisfied it is appropriate to do so, they can then make revocations or amendments to their bylaws without any public consultation. FENZ have been consulted about the proposals discussed in this report, as required under the Act.

4.7       All the clauses of Council’s UFS Bylaw are relevant fire bylaws and two clauses are also inconsistent with the FENZ Act.  One clause of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw is also a relevant fire bylaw.

4.8       The object of the UFS Bylaw is ‘to protect public safety by preventing danger from fire’.  It is not a bylaw that deals with nuisance or pollution issues (pollution/’clean air’ requirements fall within ECan’s rules).  The organisation that now has responsibility for dealing with fire danger is FENZ, which is why staff recommend that the UFS Bylaw is revoked in its entirety.

4.9       Staff recommend that the Parks and Reserves Bylaw relevant fire bylaw clause is retained, as activities in parks occur on Council controlled land and it is appropriate for the Council to retain control over what is happening on its land.

 

5.   Context/Background

FENZ Act

5.1       The FENZ Act came into force on 1 July 2017 and shifted responsibility for both urban and rural fire duties to the new entity, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), from territorial authorities.  There is an administrative transition period in place to ensure the ‘handover’ from Council to FENZ is managed efficiently and without the public being affected.

5.2       The Council no longer has any rural fire functions and the former full time rural fire officer, who managed permits and some other functions under the UFS Bylaw, has been transferred to FENZ and is now an employee of that organisation.

5.3       As councils no longer carry out fire-related functions, the FENZ Act requires councils with fire bylaws to review their bylaws in relation to the new legislation.  This requires assessing whether bylaw clauses are ‘inconsistent’ with the FENZ Act or are ‘relevant fire bylaws’, as defined in the Act.  This assessment is set out in the attached table. 

5.4       The assessment process needs to consider whether the bylaw clauses should be revoked or amended.    The FENZ Act provides that the Council does not have to consult under either ss82 or 83 LGA before it makes a resolution to amend or revoke one of these bylaws.  Any bylaw clause that is ‘inconsistent’ with the FENZ Act is no longer of any effect, to the extent of the inconsistency (from 1 July 2017).  Given an inconsistent bylaw clause is no longer of any effect it is preferable to revoke such bylaw clauses.

UFS Bylaw

5.5       The UFS Bylaw provides controls over landowners and others lighting fires in the nine fire districts that are largely urban areas.  It does not apply to parts of the district that were covered by the former Forests and Rural Fires Act 1977.  The object of the UFS Bylaw is to protect public safety by preventing danger from fire; it does not have a ‘nuisance’ related focus.  Anyone lighting a fire in the open air must also comply with ECan's 'clean air' rules (found in their Regional Plan).  Provision of fire services and the promotion of fire safety is now a FENZ function.

5.6       In the last 12 months there have been no complaints to the Council regarding any breaches of the UFS Bylaw.  Over the last 12 months the Council received two applications for exemption under clause 6 of the UFS Bylaw, but both applications were withdrawn.

5.7       All the clauses of the UFS Bylaw are considered to be a ‘relevant fire bylaw’.  There are some clauses of the UFS Bylaw which are also inconsistent with the FENZ Act (see the attached table and UFS Bylaw).

Parks and Reserves Bylaw

5.8       Clause 10 of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 (which prohibits the lighting of a fire in a reserve without Council permission) is likely to be a ‘relevant fire bylaw’, but is not inconsistent with the FENZ Act. 

5.9       Activities in parks occur on Council controlled land so it is appropriate for the Council to retain some control over what is happening on its land.  Staff do not recommend that this clause be revoked. 

Consultation with FENZ

5.10    Before amending or revoking a ‘relevant fire bylaw’ the Council must be satisfied, after consulting with FENZ, that it is appropriate to amend or revoke the bylaw.  The Council sent FENZ a memorandum in relation to its bylaws that included the table of bylaws clauses referred to above, advising which clauses were inconsistent and which were considered to be relevant fire bylaws.  Council staff in meetings with FENZ also advised orally that the preferred option would be to recommend revoking the UFS Bylaw completely.

5.11    The Council has not received any advice from FENZ regarding its assessment of which bylaws are ‘inconsistent’ and which are ‘relevant’.  It did receive a letter dated 10 October 2017 which stated that FENZ is satisfied that the Council has consulted with FENZ as required by the Act (this does not provide any other feedback - see attached).

5.12    There is no specific time frame as to when relevant and inconsistent fire bylaws are to be amended or revoked, but the expectation is that these bylaws should be revoked/amended by 1 July 2018.  The recommendation in this report is not to amend any bylaws but to revoke all of the UFS Bylaw and retain the ‘fire-related’ bylaw clause in the Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

Other matters

5.13    The Council should also note that in future it cannot make any new bylaws that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, and the bylaw-making power under s146(c) Local Government Act 2002 (to prevent the spread of vegetation fires) has been repealed.

5.14    In addition, from 1 July 2018 the Council will no longer be responsible for issuing fire hazard notices under sections 183 and 184 of the Local Government Act 2002 (to require an owner or occupier to remove any growth or matter that could become the source of danger in a fire).  (This is not a power included in the UFS Bylaw but is a separate power currently in the Local Government Act 2002.)

6.   Option 1 - Revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The entire UFS Bylaw will be revoked (both inconsistent clauses of the bylaw and other ‘relevant fire bylaw’ clauses).  All fire permitting and other fire safety issues will be managed in future by FENZ.

Significance

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

6.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance as a result of the FENZ Act, and there has been consultation with FENZ as required by the FENZ Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The FENZ Act provides that both relevant fire bylaws and bylaws inconsistent with the FENZ Act can be amended or revoked by the Council, by making a resolution that is publicly notified.  Council does not need to consult first, as would normally be the case with the amendment or revocation of a bylaw, under either sections 82 or 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option has come about as a result of changes made by government legislation.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – no costs other than the cost of publicly notifying the resolution

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

6.9       Funding source – normal operational budget for public notices

Legal Implications

6.10    Section 199 of the FENZ Act inserted a new section 152B into the Local Government Act 2002.  The effect of this section is that if the Council is satisfied it is appropriate to amend or revoke a relevant fire bylaw (which is defined in the section), then, after consultation with FENZ, it may make the revocation or amendment without any formal consultation, as would normally be required for a bylaw amendment or revocation.  However, it must publicly notify the resolution. 

6.11    With a bylaw that is inconsistent with the FENZ Act, the Council has the same ability to amend a bylaw to remove an inconsistency, or to revoke an inconsistent bylaw without any formal consultation, but the Council must publicly notify the resolution.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There do not appear to be any risks associated with this option.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - None

6.14    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·    Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in respect of inconsistent bylaws.

·    Avoids the need to update and amend the remainder of the UFS Bylaw.

·    Avoids any confusion over the body now responsible for managing fire-related issues.

·    Avoids any confusion between Council having a bylaw and ECan requirements about open air fires.

·    Although there was not much compliance team time spent on or needed for the UFS Bylaw, revoking the UFS bylaw means that team has one less bylaw to administer.

·    No time/cost spent on reviewing the bylaw.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There are no specific provisions in the FENZ Act about ‘conditions’ when lighting a fire, or specific provisions regarding fireworks (Note: These are common sense requirements and guidance is available on FENZ’s website for the safe lighting of fires in a number of situations including camping and campfires; outdoor gas cookers; hunting; lighting bonfires; fireworks; sky lanterns and boat safety (https://fireandemergency.nz/recreational-and-cultural/)).

7.   Option 2 – Request staff provide a further report to revoke the clauses of the UFS Bylaw that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, retain the remaining relevant fire bylaw clauses and update the UFS Bylaw as needed.

Option Description

7.1       This option would provide for the revocation of inconsistent bylaw clauses but would require a further report to Council in respect of the UFS Bylaw clauses to be retained, as staff have not yet analysed how the bylaw would need to be amended to retain those clauses in a way that reflects other changes that have come about as a result of the FENZ Act being enacted. 

Significance

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

7.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance as a result of the FENZ Act, and there has been consultation with FENZ as required by the FENZ Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The FENZ Act provides that both relevant fire bylaws and bylaws inconsistent with the FENZ Act can be amended or revoked by the Council, by making a resolution that is publicly notified.  Council does not need to consult first, as would normally be the case with the amendment or revocation of a bylaw, under either sections 82 or 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option has come about as a result of changes made by government legislation.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – some further staff time to analyse the amendments requirement and the cost of publicly notifying the resolution

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - ongoing compliance and bylaw team time on administering/enforcing the bylaw, and the cost of future reviews of the bylaw

7.9       Funding source – Compliance and Strategy and Transformation team budgets

Legal Implications

7.10    Section 199 of the FENZ Act inserted a new section 152B into the Local Government Act 2002.  The effect of this section is that if the Council is satisfied it is appropriate to amend or revoke a relevant fire bylaw (which is defined in the section), then, after consultation with FENZ, it may make the revocation or amendment without any formal consultation, as would normally be required for a bylaw amendment or revocation.  However, it must publicly notify the resolution. 

7.11    With a bylaw that is inconsistent with the FENZ Act, the Council has the same ability to amend a bylaw to remove an inconsistency, or to revoke an inconsistent bylaw without any formal consultation, but the Council must publicly notify the resolution.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    With parts of the UFS Bylaw remaining in place there is a risk of confusion in the community about the Council’s role compared to the new FENZ role in managing all fire safety related issues.  This can be mitigated by suitable publicity.

7.13    Residual risk rating: Low

7.14    Planned treatment(s) would include publicity material on Council (and possibly FENZ) website.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies  - A further report to Council on appropriate amendments to the UFS bylaw

7.16    Implementation timeframe – should be done prior to 1 July 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·    Council continues to manage some fire related matters which can cause concern to parts of its community

·    Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in relation to revoking inconsistent bylaws.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The management of fire safety is not done solely by FENZ, the new organisation the government has established for this purpose.

·    Potential for confusion between Council’s role, FENZ’s functions and Ecan’s rules.

·    Staff time and cost in continuing to administer, enforce and review the UFS Bylaw.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

UFS Bylaw 2014

 

b 

UFS Bylaw clause analysis table

 

c 

Letter from FENZ re Bylaws

 

 

 

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

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

John Higgins - Acting Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

20 December 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

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

29.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 13 December 2017

Reference:

17/1474774

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 13 December 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 13 December 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 13 December 2017

490

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

20 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

20 December 2017

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 22 November 2017

 

30.    Central City Regeneration: Tackling Barrier Sites - Project Update.

Reference:

17/1389212

Contact:

Clare Piper

Clare.piper@ccc.govt.nz

941 9470

 

 

 

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report

2.         Approve the continued of the use of the framework and toolkit to tackle buildings or sites that are barriers to the regeneration of the Central City.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Central City Regeneration: Tackling Barrier Sites - Project Update.

496

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1  Barrier Sites Report 22Nov17

502

 

 


Council

20 December 2017

 

 

Central City Regeneration: Tackling Barrier Sites - Project Update.

Reference:

17/1291606

Contact:

Clare Piper

clare.piper@ccc.govt.nz

941 6470

 

 

1.   Origin and Purpose of Report

1.1       On 25th May 2017, the Council endorsed (see resolution CNCL/2017/00167) a three stage framework (and associated toolkit) that would guide staff in working with property owners to support the tidying up or redevelopment of sites/buildings that are considered barriers to the regeneration of the Central City.

1.2       The purpose of this report is to update the Strategic Capability Committee on the progress of that work and respond to emerging issues identified during the programme’s first six months.  

2.   Significance

2.1       As before, the recommendations in this report are considered to be of low significance as judged in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

2.2       The assessment considered that a limited number of land/property owners are the directly affected parties.  Whilst the impact on the affected land/property owners will depend upon the state of the property, the methods proposed involve proactive sources of support meaning there is potential for tailored solutions in each case.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report

2.         Recommend to the Council, the continued of the use of the framework and toolkit to tackle buildings or sites that are barriers to the regeneration of the Central City.

 

 

4.   Summary

4.1       The report to the Council on 25th May defined ‘Barriers Sites’ as:

·   Those privately owned buildings which are unoccupied and in a very poor state of repair;

·   Those which involve the use of cordoned off road space to safeguard the public from potential structural failure (in the event of, for example, a further earthquake); or,

·   Sites with un-remediated foundations which need to be fenced off for public safety.

4.2       To tackle these sites, the Council endorsed a three staged framework that is summarised in the diagram in section 5.1 of this report.

4.3       Associated with this approach was a schedule of measures, drawing on operative Council policies and statutory interventions, which could be used in cases where proactive dialogue between the council and landowners was not resulting in action. 

4.4       Since May, staff have approached and engaged with landowners helping many to resolve (or agree pathways to resolve) issues that resulted in their sites being included within the initial list. More importantly the Barrier Sites programme has provided support to help owners accelerate their plans for complete redevelopment/restoration of sites and buildings. 

4.5       In short, staff consider that the programme is successfully helping many building owners remediate their sites – and therefore should continue.  Credit for progress must be attributed to those responsible building owners.  Equally, a significant proportion of building owners have committed plans that they are expecting will come to fruition in a reasonable timeframe (but as yet, limited visible progress). 

4.6       However, on some sites only limited or no progress has been made.  We have reported the cir