Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 6 December 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

1 December 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizen & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Council delegates to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee authority to:

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications up to a value of $150,000.

§  Approve extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees or working groups the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Housing Subcommittee for matters relating to housing as stated in its terms of reference

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the Multicultural Strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 6

B       5.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 6

Housing Subcommittee

B       7.       Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 17 October 2017................................................... 13

B       8.       Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 November 2017............................................... 19

Multicultural Subcommittee

B       9.       Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 27 September 2017..................................... 25

B       10.     Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 22 November 2017...................................... 31

C       11.     Briefing - Envision

Dr Rita Dinisio and Professor Simon Kingham of the University of Canterbury will address the Committee about Envision, a geospatial tool for community engagement.

C       12.     Briefing - SCAPE Public Art

Carolyne Grant and Deborah McCormick will brief the Committee about SCAPE Public Art.  Also in attendance will be SCAPE Trustees Jane Leighs and Paige Cuthbert

C       13.     Briefing - Community Hub for Local Food

Peter Wells, Co-ordinator for the Food Resilience Network and Ōtākaro Orchard will brief the Committee about its community hub for local food on Cambridge Terrace

STAFF REPORTS

A       14.     Endorsement of the Final Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.................................... 37

A       15.     Development Contributions Rebate - Social Housing................................................ 69

C       16.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch. 79

C       17.     Approval of an Extension of Time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 88 Chester Street East.................................................................................................................................. 91

C       18.     Social Housing Programme Report for 1 September 2017 - 31 October 2017......... 99

C       19.     Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update November 2017............................ 123

C       20.     Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update...................................... 157

C       21.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 166  

 

 


 

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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 be confirmed  (refer page 7).

4.   Public Forum

There will be no public forum at this meeting

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

6.   Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 4 October 2017

Time:                                    1.03pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

4 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

John Filsell

Head of Recreation, Sports and Events

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8999

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies recorded.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Councillor Scandrett declared an interest in Item 10 – Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch and will take no part in the item.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00036

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Briefing Housing First Proposal for Christchurch

 

Staff updated the Committee on the Housing First proposal for Christchurch and the Committee noted that a report on the matter is intended to be presented at its November 2017 meeting.

 

 

8.   Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Capital Delivery Major Facilities Project Updates report.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00037

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Capital Delivery Major Facilities Project Updates report.

2.         Request information from staff about the process undertaken for naming of major facilities projects.

3.         Request that the Linwood Woolston Pool project be added to the Major Facilities Project Update report.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Keown                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

9.   Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July 2017 - 31  August 2017

 

Committee Comment

1.              The Committee requested staff provide a memorandum on the programme in place for assessing the social housing units grounds.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00038

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information supplied in the Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July – 31 August 2017.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

10. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Comment

Councillor Scandrett declared an interest in this item and took no part in the debate or decision.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00039

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,690 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the protected heritage building located at 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

11. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $135,979.00 for conservation, strengthening, repair and maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a 20 year limited conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00040

Part C

That the report lie on the table until the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting of 6 December 2017.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

12  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00041

Part C

That at 2.51pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 54 to 55 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                    Carried

 

An adjournment was taken from 2.52pm to 3.04pm

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.12pm.

    

Meeting concluded at 4.12pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 

 


 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

7.        Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 17 October 2017

Reference:

17/1375179

Contact:

Elizabeth Hovell

elizabeth.hovell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8637

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Housing Subcommittee held a meeting on 17 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for its information.

 

2.   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 17 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Housing Subcommittee - 17 October 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Adviser

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

8.        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

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Adviser

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

9.        Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 27 September 2017

Reference:

17/1229670

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Multicultural Subcommittee held a meeting on 27 September 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 27 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Multicultural Subcommittee - 27 September 2017

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

10.    Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 22 November 2017

Reference:

17/1411366

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Multicultural Subcommittee held a meeting on 22 November 2017 and is circulating the Unconfirmed Minutes recorded to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Unconfirmed Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 22 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Multicultural Subcommittee - 22 November 2017

26

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

14.    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

33

 

 

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

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

15.    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

72

 

 

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

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

16.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch

Reference:

17/1026025

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

027 222 2782

 

 

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 approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for Cardowan at 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for a Heritage Incentive Grant.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $135,979.00 for conservation, strengthening, repair and maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a 20 year limited conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·    Option 2 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the future protection of this heritage building, and its ongoing use as a dwelling.

·    The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A landmark building on Opawa Road will be repaired and retained.

·    It is intended that the building will remain in residential use but the owner has expressed a desire to have interpretation at the dwelling which will enable the public to learn the history of Cardowan. The owner has also stated he will be retaining the view of the dwelling from the street and re-establishing the gardens.

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This is a relatively large grant for a single building; however it is an investment in significant heritage building with local landmark value.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       Cardowan is scheduled as a Significant (Group 2) Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed Category II by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Registration Number 3815.  The building is of historical and social significance: it is one of only a few original examples of a middle sized colonial suburban ‘gentlemen’s estates’ in the area, and provides a record of the development of the suburb of Opawa.  It is also significant for its association with two influential members of Christchurch society: Daniel McKay, Immigration Officer for the Canterbury Provincial government and John James Thomson, the philanthropist.  JJ Thomson gifted the 63 acre Thomson Park to the people of Canterbury in 1931 to connect Victoria Park with the Sugar Loaf Reserve.

5.2       Cardowan was constructed in 1865 by David McKay, as the homestead for his five acre estate. The dwelling has architectural, aesthetic, technological and craftsmanship significance an unadorned two storey weatherboard construction, with the architecture influenced by the carpenter gothic style of the time.  This includes gabled roof forms, arched windows and a projecting bay with a flared roof.  Alterations and additions have occurred since its construction, but the original form remains clearly readable, and the street elevation is largely original.  Please refer to Attachment A “Statement of Significance” for further information.   

5.3       The dwelling suffered major structural damage in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence.  It has remained uninhabited since the previous owners moved out, and has now been purchased on an ‘as is where is’ basis.  Heritage and planning staff have previously had requests for information around the process for resource consent to demolish the property.

5.4       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Mr Ta Karati.

5.5       Mr Karati is seeking to repair and restore the dwelling. He has also stated he intends to retain the local landmark values of Cardowan, and views to the property from the street.  This includes reinstatement of a traditional front garden.  He has expressed a desire to place some interpretation or a plaque at the street boundary to provide information to the public about the history and significance of the dwelling.  He is also interested in using digital technology to record the interior of the dwelling.

5.6       The total cost for the proposed repair, maintenance and upgrade of the building (heritage works only) is estimated at $297,235.00, excluding GST.  There is no insurance payment associated with these works; however once completed the owner will be able to obtain ongoing building insurance.

5.7       The proposed works are intended to repair and stabilise the dwelling, undertake deferred remedial maintenance and complete upgrades required for building code compliance.  They include foundation, sub floor and pile repairs and re-levelling, replacement of the roof and spouting, chimney stabilisation, drainage works, electrical upgrades and exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting.  Other internal works are being undertaken at the same time to make the dwelling habitable, but these are not included in the grant application.  They include new kitchen, bathrooms, lighting, hot-water system, and other non-heritage items such as internal painting.

 

Photograph of Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, January 2015, M. Vairpiova

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

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works will structurally upgrade and repair the building, and undertake deferred remedial maintenance and conservation works.  They involve foundation, pile and sub floor repairs and upgrades, electrical and drainage upgrades, chimney stabilisation, roofing and spouting renewal, exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting, including repairs to the original sash windows.

6.2       Overall the heritage works being proposed are priced at $297,235 excluding GST, additional works will also be undertaken which are not eligible for heritage grant funding.  All relevant costs of the heritage related works are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Chimney stabilisation

$15,000

Foundation, pile, sub floor upgrades and re-levelling

$118,323

Exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting

 

$86,000

Sash window conservation

$6,720

Roofing and spouting

$34,422

External drainage works

$14,000

Electrical upgrades

$22,770

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$297,235

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs.  The building has historical and social significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological significance.  Its ongoing repair, retention and upgrade is worthy of support.  A grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project, which would be a grant of $148,617.00.  The fund has a balance of $135,979 currently available.  It is therefore recommended that this sum be approved as a grant for Cardowan.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

$135,979.

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’.  Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.  The recent ‘Future of Heritage’ engagement has identified that the community values its local heritage as being fundamental to its local distinctiveness, sense of place and character.  It has also identified a desire for heritage to be seen as a legacy to be protected for future generations.  It is also seeking heritage to be promoted through stories and trails.  The connection of Cardowan to Thomson Park would be one opportunity to achieve this.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

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

·           Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch – Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha

·           The Replacement Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$3,690

Proposed grant to 64 Opawa Road

$135,979

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$0

 

 

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

6.12    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected.  A 20 year limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

6.14    The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.  A resource consent or approved Heritage Works Plan will be required for these works.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the future protection of this heritage building, and its ongoing use as a dwelling.

·    The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A landmark building on Opawa Road will be repaired and retained.

·    It is intended that the building will remain in residential use but the owner has expressed a desire to have interpretation at the dwelling which will enable the public to learn the history of Cardowan.  The owner has also stated he will be retaining the view of the dwelling from the street and re-establishing the gardens.

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

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant for a single building, however it is an investment in a significant heritage building with local landmark value.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 but with a lower level of financial support to the project. Previous HIG Grant support to other projects in the city has varied but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works.  A lower grant of thirty percent ($89,170.00) is shown in the table below. 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$3,690

Proposed grant to 64 Opawa Road

$89,170

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$46,809

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Would leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

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

·   The risk that the owner would delay the works or would scale back some of the heritage conservation components.  This would put the dwelling at risk from ongoing water ingress and decay, and at risk of further damage in future seismic events.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

64 Opawa Road Statement of Significance

80

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Ceciel DelaRue - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

17     Approval of an Extension of Time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 88 Chester Street East

Reference:

17/1358795

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.Smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for a second extension of time of one year for a previously approved heritage incentive grant for the heritage building located at 88 Chester Street East, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines and Policy of the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme.  This requires approval from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for extensions of time in the uptake of approved heritage incentive grants.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the previous Council approval for the grant and the amount of funding involved in the project being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve the second extension of time of one year for the uptake of the heritage incentive grant previously approved for 88 Chester Street East, Christchurch.  The new completion date for the project would be 8 January 2019.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A heritage incentive grant of $109,120 was approved by the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee on 4 June 2015 and by Council on 25 June 2015 to assist with works to the heritage building at 88 Chester Street East, Christchurch.  See Attachment 1 for the Statement of Significance.  The original eighteen month deadline for the completion of the grant works was 8 January 2017.  An extension of time for this grant work was approved by Council on 17 November 2016 with the new completion date being the 8 January 2018.

4.2       The Operational Guidelines state that "Grant money is available for a period of 18 months from the date of written approval of the grant. This period will only be extended with the written consent of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee."  The, Social, Community Development and Housing Committee now undertakes responsibility for heritage grants.

4.3       The works covered by the grant have not been proceeding as planned due to further damage being discovered to the foundations along the eastern side of the building.  This damage will require new engineering design and also a building consent as this will constitute new structural works.  Further delays have been encountered in the design of the new wall foundation and design and gaining the required approvals from Council.  Consequently the applicants are seeking a further extension of time of one year to enable them to continue with the repair project and complete the refurbishment of the building.

 

5.   Context/Background

Brief History of the building and renovation project

5.1       Number 88 Chester Street East is one of a pair of two storey, semi-detached residential buildings located on Chester Street East between Madras Street and Barbadoes Street.  The buildings were designed and built by William Widdowson in 1892 as part of a development of eight very similar townhouses.  Following the earthquakes of 2010/11 only four of the townhouses now remain, 86 and 88 are one pair and 98 and 100 are the other.  The building at 88 Chester Street is owned by Glenn Marc Jordan who is also the grant recipient.

5.2       The building was significantly damaged in the 2010/11 series of earthquakes.  The original owner chose not to repair the building and the new owner applied for and was awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant to add to their own funds in order to undertake heritage repair, restoration and conservation work.  There is no insurance funding for the project.

5.3       Along with Number 86, the building at 88 Chester Street East is listed Group 2 in the Christchurch City Council’s City Plan.  The building is also registered Category 2 by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) registration number 1881.

5.4       The earthquake damage to number 88 Chester Street East included collapse of masonry elements, namely the chimneys and the parapets of the party wall.  The party wall was also damaged below the parapets and has now been replaced with a new lighter weight, timber framed, fire rated wall.  This was undertaken in conjunction with the owners of the attached property at 86 Chester Street East.  Number 88 will require repair of damaged piles, repairs to the external concrete ring foundations; replaced/upgraded internal structural bracing; and repairs or replacement of the decorative plasterwork.  On the exterior the building will require a new weatherboard clad wall to the east side with new foundations; repairs to the weatherboards, rain ware, windows, doors, roofing and a complete repaint.  With the completion of the works outlined, the building will meet the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the building.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance 88 Chester St East

88

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

18.    Social Housing Programme Report for 1 September - 31 October 2017

Reference:

17/1302769

Contact:

Robert Orchard

Robert.orchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8344

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on the Council's Social Housing programmes of work.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected by the Social Housing programmes of work.

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.         Receive the information supplied in the Social Housing Programme Report for 1 September – 31 October 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1.  Council’s Social Housing portfolio currently consists of 2478 units.

4.2.  The total portfolio numbers as at 30 June 2010 equated to 2702 units which included 23 units leased by other community providers and 23 units that were owner occupied at that time. The commencement of the renewal programme in 2014 saw a slight increase in numbers to 2714 (12 units).

4.3.  The decrease in total portfolio numbers reflects the commencement of the demolitions programme, including 113 units in the red zone and 172 earthquake damaged properties under the repair and renewal programme. This decrease has been offset with an increase of a total 61 new build units in this same period.

4.4.  Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) manage the majority of tenancies within the portfolio across 2446 units.  As of 1 July 2017, OCHT are also responsible for the minor (reactive) maintenance in relation to all complexes under that lease agreement.

4.5.  The remainder of the portfolio is either owner occupied (nine units) or managed by one of four other community housing providers (23 units) detailed in 5.6 below.

4.6.  As at 31 October 2017, there were 2269 open/tenantable units (91.5%) in the Social Housing Portfolio. This is an increase of seven operable units (units returned to service) since the July-August 2017 reporting period and a total of 12 units in this reporting year.

4.7.  Units are closed for a variety of reasons including but not limited to, pending redevelopment; demolition; EQ repair; methamphetamine contamination remediation; asbestos; or other significant asset related issues. Open/tenantable units fluctuate on a monthly basis.

4.8.  During the period 1 September to 31 October 2017 Repair and Renewal Programme works continued across 17 complexes as detailed in 6.1 of this report. Works included:

4.8.1.     Repair works across 13 complexes – Airedale Courts, HP Smith Courts, Tommy Taylor Courts, Bridgewater Courts, Fred Price Courts, Sandilands Pilot Project (asbestos removal) Huggins Place, Maurice Carter Courts, Norman Kirk Courts, Reg Stillwell Place, St Johns Courts, Vincent Courts, and Lancewood Courts.

4.8.2.        Renewal planning for the build of six units across two complexes – five units Bruce Terrace, Akaroa; one unit Bryndwr Courts (fire damage).

4.8.3.        Demolition works in progress at two complexes at Cresselly Place and Reg Stillwell Place, and demolition planning for a further two complexes at Airedale courts Block A and two closed units at Fred Price Courts.

4.8.4.        Repair programmes were completed in three complexes reported on in the July-August 2017. These are Mary McLean Place; Ka Wahine (McGregors Road) and YWCA.

4.9.  In accordance with Government legislative and policy changes, work continues to be undertaken in the areas of insulation assessment and/or installation.  Assessment or partial assessment has been completed on some 77% of complexes.

4.10.  Methamphetamine testing is undertaken routinely on all vacated units and on units where repair and renewal or planned works programmes are to commence.

4.11.  Since 1 July 2017 the majority of the minor (reactive) maintenance work is undertaken by the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). Other planned programmes of work such as exterior and interior paint programmes and (major) tree maintenance programme are managed by the Housing Team.

4.12.  The asset transfer programme for the capitalisation of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust through the transfer of $50m of Council social housing assets continues to be planned, assessed, recommended and implemented with a report to Council on 10 October.  Consultation required by Council prior to accepting the recommendations in the report is underway.

4.13.  Chart 1 (below) shows the Social Housing portfolio numbers and the disbursement of numbers across all lease types since 30 October 2010.

 Chart 1.

4.14. A change of numbers and/or spread of numbers is anticipated for the February 2018 report due to completion of demolitions, the acquisition of an owner occupier unit, and the potential completion of transfer of assets

 

5.   Background

5.1.  Council has been providing low-cost accommodation to low-income residents of Christchurch for almost 80 years, being a pioneer of social housing in New Zealand. The first units were built in 1938 – 16 pensioner units in Sydenham.  Today it owns 2478 units, located across the city and on Banks Peninsula, which makes it one of New Zealand’s largest owners of social housing.

5.2.  Council’s broader direction for housing, including social housing, is set out in the Housing Policy 2016, the amended Christchurch Housing Accord 2017 and the Council’s Social Housing Strategy 2007

5.3.  Such policy contains several goals that guide the ongoing management and delivery of Council’s social housing portfolio.

5.4.  Pertinent goals from the Housing Policy 2016 include:

·  Retaining affordable housing - Develop a range of creative, collaborative and innovative ways to ensure the coordinated long term promotion, provision and retention of both social and affordable housing.

·  Housing quality - Improve the standards, regulations and monitoring on housing design and quality to achieve healthier housing for households irrespective of their income.

5.5.  The Social Housing Strategy 2007 recognises that the Council has a leadership role in the provision and facilitation of social housing in Christchurch under seven goals including Partnership; Managing Demand; Location; Brokerage and Advocacy; Compatibility and Integration; Facilitation and Resourcing and Services Sustainability. 

·   Key objectives for Council under these goals include maintaining , upgrading  and where appropriate increasing  its supply of social housing; supporting best practice for warm dry and safe housing; continuing to ensure appropriate resources are available to manage complex tenancy needs and partnerships; to be the leader in quality social housing service provision and for housing operations to remain rates neutral.

Lease Arrangements

5.6.  Prior to October 2016, Council managed the majority of its social housing assets directly.  A small number of units were leased to other agencies:

·   The Beckenham Housing Trust (Lancewood Courts) – supported social housing

·   YWCA – emergency and transitional accommodation for single women and women with children

·   Home and Family – residential parenting programme

·   Anglican Care – McGregors Road (Ka Wahine) – transitional housing for women

5.7.  In September 2016, Council resolved to enter into a lease for the remaining properties. Management of these properties transferred to OCHT on 4 October 2016.

5.8.  There are currently nine owner occupied units in the Council Housing portfolio (eight at Aldwins Courts and one at Perth Street [HP Smith]). There will be an expected decrease of one unit by the next reporting period, and this is due to the expected purchase of one owner occupied unit at Aldwins Court.

Transfer of Assets

5.9.  Capitalisation of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust through the transfer of assets has commenced to fulfil the Council’s obligations under the Housing Accord. This programme aligns with Council’s resolutions of 9 July 2015 (headed ‘Capitalisation of Housing Entity as required by Housing Accord’) and 8 September 2016 (headed ‘Transfer of $50m Housing Fund Assets – Process’).

5.10.  Since 10 February 2017 Council have completed the transfer of a number of assets under this programme with the transfer of Louisson Courts and Charles Street vacant land properties in February 2017, and a number of properties in the social housing red-zone compensation package in June 2017 along with the transfer of the Linwood Village properties (formerly owned by MBIE).

5.11.  The completion of consultation, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Local Government Act 2002, is currently being undertaken in regard to recommended options for the fourth tranche of asset transfers as presented to council on 10 October 2017.

6.   Planned Works Programmes 1 September 2017 – 31 October 2017

Repair and Renewal Programme

6.1.  During the period 1 September to 31 October Repair and Renewal Programme works continued across 17 complexes. 

6.1.1.     Works in progress included open and closed unit repairs, ancillary or services works, and planning and procurement processes for: Airedale Courts, HP Smith Courts, Tommy Taylor Courts, Bridgewater Courts, Fred Price Courts, Sandilands Pilot Project (asbestos removal) Huggins Place, Maurice Carter Courts, Norman Kirk Courts, Reg Stillwell Place, St Johns Courts, Vincent Courts, and Lancewood Courts.

6.1.2.     Works were completed at YWCA, and Mary McLean.

6.1.3.     A scoping programme continues to be undertaken for the balance of the portfolio to provide updated information on any repair works required.

6.1.4.     Table 1 indicates the repair programme status for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Complex Name

Status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Clent Lane (36 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Ka Wahine (2 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Guise Lane Courts (21 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Maurice Carter Courts - stage 1 (51 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Briggs Row (4 units)

Completed

New timber retaining wall completed

100%

Aug-17

Mary McLean Place

Completed

EQ Unit repairs

100%

Sept-17

YWCA (9 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Sept-17

Bridgewater Courts (23 units)

In progress

· EQ repairs in progress

· Stage 1 commenced 13 February 2017. 

· Stage 5 commenced late July 2017 with PC scheduled for 13 October 2017.

90%

Oct-17

Fred Price Courts (37 units)

In progress

· EQ repairs in progress

· Stage 1 commenced 17 January 2017.

· Stage 5 is nearing completion. PC is scheduled for 21 November 2017.

· Ancillaries all on track

90%

Nov-17

Sandilands - Pilot Project (2 units; 24 units in total)

In progress

·  Pilot programme in place for EQ repairs and significant Asbestos removal.

·  2 units in pilot to determine full extent of ACM issues

33%

Dec-17

Tommy Taylor Courts (25 units)

In progress

• Repairs: successful lifting and relevelling of building completed 3/08/17.  
• New concrete slab foundations completed

• First & second floors currently under repair and refurbishment.

• North wing graffiti removal completed.

·  Exterior re-cladding in progress

·  Full exterior repaint to be completed

50%

Mar-18

Airedale C;D;G (92 units)

In progress

·  Monitoring of foundations on Blocks C-G, Airedale Courts. 

·  Stage 1 Remedial foundation works in progress on Block D.

30%

Apr-18

Huggins Place (30 units)

in progress

• EQ repairs in progress
• works extended to include installation of damp course and insulation to all units in complex.

25%

Dec-18

Scoping programme (623 units)

in progress

 EQ damage

95%

Dec-17

Lancewood Courts (11 units)

In progress

• EQ repairs
• Construction to commence November 2017

·  Tenants in temporary accommodation at Linwood Village

35%

Apr-18

Norman Kirk Courts (60 units)

Planning

Concept planning

0%

TBC

Maurice Carter Courts (51 units)

Planning

·  Stage one works completed August 2017

·  Stage two works commenced October 2017- all external and roof works

40%

Apr-18

HP Smith Courts (23 units)

Planning

• Full drawings for relevelling repair underway

In
• Review of internal scope required.

15%

TBC

St Johns Courts (13 units)

Planning

 • Pre tender planning

0%

Jul-18

Vincent Courts (18 units)

Planning

 • Pre tender planning

0%

Jul - 18

Reg Stillwell Place – services (6 units)

Planning

 • To be completed post demolition programme

0%

TBC

 

6.1.5      Planning and procurement has progressed under the renewal programme for six units, including five units at Bruce Terrace in Akaroa and the replacement of one fire damaged unit at Bryndwr Courts

6.1.6      Table 2 indicates the renewal (new build) programme status for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Complex Name

status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Bruce Terrace (5 units)

Tender

•Site visits undertaken with contractors
•Tender process completed

· Contract due for award

· Consultation and site blessing planning underway

15%

Aug-18

Bryndwr Courts (1 unit)

Design

• RFT process completed
• Contract in progress
• Detailed design underway prior to Building Consent submission.

20%

Mar-18

Table 2.

6.1.7      Demolition of a total of 58 units is in progress at Reg Stillwell and Cresselly Place, and planning is underway for the demolition of Block A at Airedale Courts (18 units). The demolition of two units at Fred Price Courts will be undertaken on the completion of the EQ repairs at this complex.

6.1.8      Table 3 indicates the demolition programme status for the 2017/18 financial year.

Complex Name

status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Reg Stillwell Place (28 units)

Demolition underway

 • Demolition in progress
• demolition of units completed

· Levelling of site in progress

40%

Sep-17

Cresselly Place (30 units)

Demolition underway

• Demolition of 30 units complete. 
•  Site works nearing completion

90%

Oct-17

Fred Price Courts (2 units)

Planning

• Demolition of 2 units (1&2) on completion of EQ repairs

0%

tbc

Airedale Block A (18 units)

Preparation for tender

· Asbestos testing & management plan completed.

· Contract awarded

· All tenants relocated - building closed for occupation

· Tenants informed of upcoming works

· Pre-demolition blessing of site in planning

0%
RFT

Dec-17

Table 3.

Insulation

6.2          Housing continue to work with Community Energy Action (CEA) on the validation of the insulation status of units across the portfolio.

6.3          Staff have worked closely with the Repair and Renewal team to ensure assessment of existing insulation is recorded on units under this programme and, where able, to increase insulation within units under repair. An example of this is Huggins Place, where due to major under floor works being undertaken, Housing have requested that the works scope is increased to include underfloor insulation in all units.  Previously this was not possible because of the lack of access to install this.

Methamphetamine

6.4      Methamphetamine testing is undertaken routinely on all vacated units and on units where repair and renewal or planned works programmes are to commence.

6.5       For the period 1 September to 31 October 2017 the following methamphetamine statistics apply:

·   101 properties were tested (as per register).

·   10 tested positive on the indicator test.

·   Following the comprehensive testing (of the above 10 positive units) only two properties were not fit to occupy due to levels above Ministry of Health (MoH) guidelines.

 

6.6     There are currently 13 properties offline due to meth contamination; six have remediation costs of $35K - $50K and are currently finalising insurance company acceptance of claim, and another six are currently under remediation with City Care.

Maintenance and Planned Works

6.7       Since 1 July 2017 the majority of the minor (reactive) maintenance programme is now undertaken under the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). 

6.8     Council continue to support upgrades and minor works outside of the minor (reactive) maintenance programme such as carpets, heater and stove replacements, roof and other works.

6.9       Council are responsible for ensuring that the Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) and fire compliance requirements are met. Under current regulations this applies to nine complexes with multi-story units.

6.10    External building and grounds assessments were undertaken on 18 complexes within this reporting period. This assessment programme enables identification of works and enable prioritisation of complexes for planned works programmes such as building wash downs and major tree works. Any health and safety issues identified during these assessment are addressed, and other identified required repairs such as pathway and driveway repairs are assessed and checked against the repair and renewal programme or are assessed for further planned remediation.

6.11    Under the exterior paint programme 54 complexes have been identified as requiring exterior paint work over the next 5-6 years. 42 as part of a planned exterior paint programme (BAU) and 12 as part of the Repair and Renewal programme of works.  Based on the planned works exterior painting budget available in the 2017-18 financial year the aim is to complete the six complexes that have a condition assessment grade between 4 - 4.4 during this period.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Project Report Cards Social Housing Repair & Renewal Programme 1 Sep - 30 Oct 2017

101

 

 

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

Claire Milne - Programme Liaison Advisor

Approved By

Robert Orchard - Manager Social Housing

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

19.    Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update November 2017

Reference:

17/1207609

Contact:

Darren Moses

Darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz

021377023

 

 

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 be informed of the current status of the priority projects being delivered by Facilities Rebuild team.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       Not applicable to this information-only report. 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This information only report provides a quarterly programme update on some of the key Community Facilities Rebuild activities for November 2017.

4.2       A summary of the Community Facilities projects and Heritage Facilities can be found in Attachment One.

4.3       The majority of the programme is currently scheduled to be completed by the end of 2018.  The programme is also tracking to be delivered within the budget envelope set by Council in the 2015-2025 LTP.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has committed to running a major earthquake repair and rebuild programme.  This work is undertaken by the Facilities Rebuild team on behalf of the Building Owners in Customer and Community Group.

5.2       Since 2012, this team have delivered numerous repairs and rebuild of key suburban Council facilities all over Christchurch City and across Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Social & Community Development Committee December 2017 Community Facilities Rebuild and Heritage bimonthly report_ attachment 1

121

 

 

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

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

20.    Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update

Reference:

17/1368976

Contact:

Alistair Pearson

Alistair.pearson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8465

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to be informed of the current status of the Major Facilities projects.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update report, and its attachments.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       This information only report provides an update on the Major Facilities projects to November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Major Facilities Elected Member Update November 2017

154

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Rita Estrella - Senior Project Coordinator

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilites

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

21.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 December 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

22

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017

 

 

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

 

23

Christchurch Stadium Trust

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations

To protect the commercial position of the Christchurch Stadium Trust and Trustees during the period where Council and the Trust are considering the future of the Temporary Stadium

1 August 2018

Following Council's consideration of this matter in the 2018/2028 Long Term Plan