Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 27 September 2018

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

21 September 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Minute’s Silence in Memory of Ronald Bruce Wright JP............................................................. 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 23 August 2018........................................................................................... 7

6.       Council - Metropolitan Funding Minutes - 24 August 2018................................................ 17

7.       Council Minutes - 6 September 2018.................................................................................... 29

8.       Council Minutes - 13 September 2018.................................................................................. 37

Regulatory Performance Committee

9.       2018 Review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy.......................................................... 49

10.     Earthquake-prone Buildings - Priority Thoroughfares and Routes Consultation........... 123

11.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 September 2018................................. 137

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

12.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 September 2018 143

Finance and Performance Committee

13.     Chairperson's Report............................................................................................................ 149

14.     Final Statements of Intent - ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust 153

15.     Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent.............................................. 227

16.     Financial Performance report for the year ended 30 June 2018...................................... 253

17.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 5 September 2018................................ 287

Audit and Risk Management Committee

18.     Internal Audit Charter update............................................................................................. 295

19.     Critical Judgements, Estimates and Assumptions in the 2018 Annual Report................ 307

20.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 31 August 2018............................... 313

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

21.     Draft Suburban Parking Policy............................................................................................ 319

22.     Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project...................................................... 347

23.     LDRP515 Estuary Drain Revised Concept............................................................................ 353

24.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 September 2018 365

Staff Reports

25.     Kart Club Relocation and Consent Application.................................................................. 371

26.     2018/19 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund........................................................ 393

27.     Angels Rest Bach removal update....................................................................................... 397

28.     Draft Heritage Strategy - Approval for Public Consultation............................................. 405

29.     Citizens War Memorial - request for relocation................................................................. 461

30.     Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Instrument to Appoint a Proxy for voting on behalf of the Council at the 2018 Annual General Meeting.................................................................... 533

31.     Proposed process to provide policy support to the Residential Unit Overlay................ 541

32.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 557  

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

A Minute’s Silence in Memory of Ronald Bruce Wright JP

 

 

1.   Apologies

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 23 August 2018

Reference:

18/885892

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly, Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Council held a meeting on 23 August 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Council meeting held 23 August 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 23 August 2018

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

6.        Council - Metropolitan Funding Minutes - 24 August 2018

Reference:

18/892787

Presenter(s):

Christopher Turner-Bullock – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council - Metropolitan Funding to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 24 August 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council - Metropolitan Funding meeting held 24 August 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - Metropolitan Funding - 24 August 2018

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 6 September 2018

Reference:

18/941710

Presenter(s):

Christopher Turner-Bullock – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 6 September 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 6 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 6 September 2018

30

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

8.        Council Minutes - 13 September 2018

Reference:

18/972999

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly, Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Council held a meeting on 13 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Council meeting held 13 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 13 September 2018

38

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 8 August 2018

 

9.        2018 Review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

Reference:

18/819642

Presenter(s):

Jenna Marsden, Senior Policy Analyst

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report “Background Information and Report on the Social Impacts of Gambling in Christchurch”

2.         Receive the summary of stakeholder feedback provided through a questionnaire on the Council’s current Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (2015)

3.         Retain the existing Gambling and TAB Venue Policy for a further three years.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

2018 Review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

50

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2015 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

70

b

2018 Gambling Venue Policy Review - Background Paper & Social Assessment

72

c

2018 Gambling Venue Policy Review - Stakeholder Responses Summary

118

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

2018 Review of the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

Reference:

18/519098

Presenter(s):

Jenna Marsden, Senior Policy Analyst.

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Regulatory Performance Committee and Council on the current state of class 4 (gambling machines) and TAB gambling activity in Christchurch (including the social effects), and determine whether a change from the current policy approach is warranted.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to fulfil the legislative requirement to review the Council’s Gambling and TAB venue policy within three years of the completion of the last review. The current policy was reviewed and rolled over in 2015.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the high level of community interest in gambling and the possible social impacts on individuals and communities, both in terms of benefits and harm. However there is no change proposed to the current situation, there is little cost and risk involved to Council, and the decision can be easily reversed.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends to Council that it:

1.         Receive the report “Background Information and Report on the Social Impacts of Gambling in Christchurch”

2.         Receive the summary of stakeholder feedback provided through a questionnaire on the Council’s current Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (2015)

3.         Retain the existing Gambling and TAB Venue Policy for a further three years.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the :

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19.4 Bylaws and regulatory policies to meet emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements - Carry out bylaw reviews in accordance with ten-year bylaw review schedule and statutory requirements.

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework  - Annual strategy and policy work program

4.2       The Council must have a policy on class 4 gambling venues and TAB venues, stating if new venues can be established, and if so, where they may be located.  This policy is due for review.

4.3       The Council’s current policy does not allow new class 4 venues to be established, and does allow TAB venues to be established in Christchurch.

4.4       Staff have considered the Council’s current policy in light of the relevant legislation and the current state of class 4 and TAB gambling activity and social effects in Christchurch.

4.5       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Retain the current Gambling and TAB Venues Policy (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Amend the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy and undertake a special consultative procedure.

4.6       Option 1 is recommended because on balance of the information available for class 4 gambling, it is considered appropriate to continue to focus on reduction of gambling opportunities throughout the city. This is particularly because Christchurch continues to have a higher number of gaming machines per head of population and comparatively higher rates of people seeking assistance for gambling problems. With respect to TAB venues, there do not appear to be any significant concerns with the number or location of TAB venues in the city and it is considered that the existing controls are sufficient.  Retaining the current policy without amendment following the review does not require further consultation/use of the special consultative procedure.

 

5.   Context/Background

Gambling and TAB Venue Policy Review - General

5.1       The Council has a combined policy for class 4 venues and TAB venues which was first adopted in 2004. The policy was reviewed in 2006, and because changes were proposed, consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) was required.  It was then subsequently reviewed in 2009, 2012 and 2015 using targeted consultation with key stakeholders.  In every review instance, the policy was retained unchanged.

5.2       Legislation requires that these policies are reviewed every three years. The policy was last reviewed in 2015 and is now due for review.

5.3       As part of this review process, staff have prepared a detailed background paper (Attachment B), which provides information on the current state of the class 4 and TAB gambling industry with a local focus, and considers the social impacts gambling has on individuals and communities in Christchurch. This report is designed to be read in conjunction with this paper. The key findings are:

·   Venue and gaming machine numbers are continuing to decline, and are doing so at a faster rate in Christchurch than nationally.

·   Christchurch has more gaming machines per venue and more gaming machines per head of population compared to national averages.

·   Expenditure (amount put in to machines, less prizes) in Christchurch is currently at its lowest level in the past ten years. Nationally expenditure has been increasing in recent years, but locally it continues to decline.

·   Per head of population Christchurch ranks middle of the table for class 4 gambling expenditure, at 34th highest out of the 67 territorial authorities. Yet when compared to the major cities, expenditure per head of population still remains one of the highest.

·   Research shows there is no association between the density of machines and expenditure per machine, but there is an association between density of machines and rates of problem gambling (more machines doesn’t necessarily mean more expenditure, but it may mean more harm).

·   Although reported problem gambling rates are gradually declining for Christchurch, comparatively, the number of people seeking assistance for gambling problems is higher per head of population than nationally.

5.4       To help inform the review of this policy, 28 major class 4 and TAB gambling stakeholders were invited to provide feedback on the Council’s current Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (2015) through a short questionnaire. Nineteen responses were received. A summary of this targeted consultation is detailed in Attachment C.

5.5       The Council commissioned detailed analysis by Covec of the economic impacts of non-casino gambling machines on Christchurch city in 2009. The Covec report[1] was updated in 2018. The key findings of this report have been incorporated into Attachment B: Background Information and Report on the Social impacts of Gambling in Christchurch. Of particular note, the Covec report assessed that the economic impacts of the local industry (aside from the small GDP benefit) are largely negative.

5.6       A policy may only be amended or replaced in accordance with the special consultative procedure (SCP) in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. A decision to roll over the existing policy for a further three years does not require a SCP to be undertaken.

 

CLASS 4 GAMBLING

Current Policy Background

5.7       It is a legislative requirement under the Gambling Act 2003 (section 101) for territorial authorities to have a policy on class 4 venues.

5.8       The Gambling Act applies to all forms of gambling except for race and sports betting which is covered by the Racing Act 2003. The purposes of the Act relevant to a class 4 venue policy are:

·   Control the growth of gambling

·   Prevent and minimise the harm from gambling, including problem gambling

·   Facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

5.9       Class 4 gambling is gambling on gaming machines (commonly referred to as “pokies”), which are not located in casinos.

5.10    A class 4 gaming venue policy must specify whether or not class 4 venues can be established in Christchurch, and, if so, where they may be located. It may also:

·   Specify any restriction on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated

·   Include a relocation policy.

5.11    The primary effect of the Christchurch City Council’s current Gambling Venue Policy is to influence gambling accessibility, and is what is commonly referred to as a “sinking lid” policy. It states the Council will not grant consent under section 98 of the Gambling Act 2003 to allow any increase in class 4 gaming venues or machine numbers, except where two or more corporate societies (clubs) are merging.

5.12    Where two clubs are merging, Ministerial consent must specify the number of gaming machines that may be operated. In accordance with section 95 (4) of the Gambling Act 2003, the number of machines that may be operated must not exceed the lesser of: 

·   the number of gaming machines specified in a territorial authority consent;

·   30 machines;

·   the sum of the number of gaming machines of the two venues merging, as specified in the application.

Council’s policy sets the maximum number of machines for club mergers at 18 machines. In most cases, this would be more restrictive than what would otherwise be approved under the Act.

5.13    A copy of the current Gambling venue policy is attached with this report (Attachment A).

 

Class 4 Gambling Venues in Christchurch

5.14    As at 11 April 2018 there were 1,332 gaming machines in 86 class 4 gambling venues in Christchurch. Currently 95% of the total number of machines permissible in Christchurch venues are operating. This means that although there are 1,332 machines currently operating, 1,451 are permitted to operate.

5.15    During the time Christchurch City Council has had a sinking lid policy in place, the number of venues and gaming machines in the city has declined, and has done so at a faster rate in Christchurch than nationally. In part, this could be due to the immediate and ongoing effects of the earthquakes combined with the sinking lid policy approach.

5.16    Despite declining venue and machine numbers, Christchurch continues to have a higher ratio of gaming machines per head of population than the national average, and this is one of the highest rates across the major cities of New Zealand, with only Tauranga having more.

5.17    Comparison of Machine Numbers (per 1,000 residents) in 2011 and 2017.

5.18    Studies from New Zealand and Australia have demonstrated a strong association between gambling accessibility (per capita gambling machine density) and the prevalence of problem gambling, and this is further supported by international research. Research has also found that there is no association between the number of machines and expenditure. In combination this indicates that more machines does not necessarily mean more expenditure, but it could mean more harm.

5.19    The map below shows the spatial distribution of gaming machine venues in Christchurch, with area unit deprivation.

5.20    Map of Class 4 Gambling Venues with Area Unit Deprivation, June 2017.

5.21    It is a commonly held perception that class 4 gaming venues are concentrated in lower socioeconomic areas. Research has shown there is a link between the two in Christchurch, although small in practical terms. Generally, the higher the deprivation score of an area, the higher the number of gaming machines[2]. Just over half (54%) of all gaming machines in Christchurch are located in areas with a deprivation score of 7 or higher. Living in an area of high deprivation is one of the identified factors that have a higher risk of problem gambling.

5.22

Number of Gaming Machines in Christchurch by Meshblock Deprivation

Benefits of Class 4 Gambling In Christchurch

5.23    Gaming machines provide some benefits including entertainment to the individuals using them. The community as a whole benefits from the return of profits (legislation prescribes a minimum of 40% of gross proceeds) either as grants to community organisations through the various trusts that own the machines or benefits provided to members of chartered clubs.

5.24    Concern has been raised, particularly by corporate societies, that a sinking lid policy approach is decreasing the level of funding and support available to community groups and organisations, and over time this will significantly impact on the services and activities those recipients provide.

5.25    Christchurch[3] received $13.6 million in funding from gaming machine proceeds in 2017. Over half of this was to sporting clubs and organisations. The amount of funding has fluctuated over the past four years, but generally appears to be declining.

5.26    Total Class 4 Gambling Corporate Society Grants Made to Christchurch Organisations, 2014-2017.


Gambling-related Harm – Class 4

5.27    The National Gambling Study (2014) found that although most adults (70%) who had gambled in the previous 12 months were at no risk of their gambling causing harm, 0.3% were problem gamblers. A further 1.5% are categorised as “moderate risk gamblers”[4].

5.28    Non-casino gaming machines have a much higher risk of potential gambling-related harms than most other forms of gambling. In context of all gambling activities, non-casino gaming machines have the second-highest rate of problem gambling prevalence, preceded only by online gambling.

5.29    For those seeking services for problem gambling, non-casino gaming machines were significantly more likely to be the main form of problem gambling reported and is most often the gambling method of “choice” for problem gamblers, (49% of clients).

5.30    Although reported problem gambling intervention service client rates are gradually declining for Christchurch, the city remains over-represented in the problem gambling treatment service user statistics with 8.2 clients per 10,000 population compared to 6.2 nationally.

5.31    As well as the harm experienced by the problem gambler themselves, problem gambling negatively impacts the people around that person and can have wide-ranging effects on these relationships. There isn’t a great deal of consensus about the extent of this secondary harm. The New Zealand Health Survey suggests around one in 40 people aged 15 and over (2.5%) are negatively affected by another person’s gambling. Other studies have suggested rates of secondary harm could be as high as 17%.

 

Other Gambling Venue Policy Approaches Considered

5.32    There is a continuum of options for a class 4 gambling venue policy – from a restrictive approach aimed at reducing the number of venues and gaming machines, to a more relaxed policy that enables the industry to grow, within the constraints of the Gambling Act 2003.

5.33    The following general approaches have been considered:

Cap on total machine numbers and/or venue numbers

5.34    This option places an upper limit on the number of gaming venues and/or number of machines in Christchurch. The Council could only issue new consents so long as it falls within the cap set.

5.35    Depending on where the cap is set, this option could allow some growth by setting a cap higher than existing numbers of venues/machines; set current levels as the maximum and prohibit any further growth; or set a cap lower than current numbers and no consents would be granted until the numbers fall below the cap set. The rationale is ensuring no further growth of the industry occurs, or does not allow growth beyond the level the Council and the community is comfortable with.

5.36    This approach has the potential to maintain the same level of grant funding available to community groups and organisations, but it is unlikely to make any significant change to the overall number of venues and machines, and the greater density of machines in Christchurch (and consequently greater risk of harm) may be maintained.

5.37    No real evidence has been found to support capped policies as an effective tool in reducing class 4 gambling spending or problem gambling prevalence.

5.38    It can be difficult to determine a meaningful cap that will provide the desired outcome. Caps tend to be set at present numbers, or otherwise subjectively set. If the Council were to consider this type of policy, a cap set at current numbers would be:

·    89 venues (including the 86 currently operating and 3 which have their licences on hold); and/or

·    1,451 gaming machines (including the 1,332 currently operating plus the additional 119 machines that are currently consented to operate).

5.39    Given the comparatively high rates of gaming machines per head of population and problem gambling in Christchurch, it does not seem appropriate to place a cap at existing numbers of venues and/or machines.

5.40    For a capped policy to have any real impact on problem gambling in Christchurch, it may be more appropriate to set a cap at a level lower than existing number of venues and/or machines. This means no new consents would be granted until a time when the number of venues and/or machines falls below the cap set. This would allow for further decrease and associated harm minimisation, while maintaining an acceptable level of grant funding available for community organisations.

5.41    One option could be to set the cap at a level where Christchurch is better placed, or on-par with national averages – for example, machine numbers per capita. If the Council were to consider this approach, a cap set to match the national average of 3.2 gaming machines per 1,000 population would be 1,220 gaming machines. The rate of reduction of gaming machine numbers over the last 14 years indicates that this figure is unlikely to be achievable in a three year period. Placing such a cap is likely to be meaningless - as effectively, a sinking lid approach would be employed in the interim.

5.42    Due to the difficulties setting a meaningful cap and the uncertainly of benefits associated with this policy approach, abandoning the current policy in favour of a cap is not the preferred option.

Restrict where venues may establish

5.43    This policy option would allow class 4 venues to be established, and would specify where they may be located. This could be only within certain areas of the city, or a certain distance away from specified places such as schools, churches, or other community facilities. Restrictions can apply to the entire territorial authority area or only to specific suburbs or area units. Location restrictions can only apply to new venues, and cannot apply retrospectively to existing venues.

5.44    This approach is most useful where flexibility is required within the policy if there is significant gambling harm occurring in one area of the city, but not in others.

5.45    Location restrictions for new class 4 gaming venues could only be considered as a policy option if the Council decided to move away from a sinking lid approach, and allow new class 4 venues to establish in Christchurch.

5.46    If the Council were to allow new venues to establish, location restrictions based on suburb or area unit deprivation scores would be a recommended to contribute to minimising the risk of gambling-related harm. This is in light of the slight majority of Christchurch’s venues being in areas of higher deprivation, and because research indicates that those living in areas of higher deprivation are at much greater risk of experiencing gambling-related harm.

Limit Machine Numbers at Each Venue

5.47    Council’s policy can limit the number of machines permitted in a venue, as long as the venue is not covered by specific provisions in the Gambling Act that override Council policy provisions. Any such limits can only apply to new licences, and not retrospectively on existing licences.

5.48    A policy which further limits the number of gaming machines permissible at each new class 4 gaming venue is a softer approach to reducing the number of gaming machines available in order to reduce gambling-related harm. It limits growth more than what would otherwise be permitted under the Gambling Act 2003, while still allowing growth of the local class 4 gaming industry.

5.49    This option has the potential to reduce the level of financial loss the gambler, reduce income for the host business, and reduce the amount of grant funding available to community groups and organisations if less machines are available, although these impacts and the benefit this policy provision may be limited as studies show there is no real association between the density of machines and expenditure.

5.50    Restrictions on machine numbers for new class 4 gaming venues could only be considered if the Council decided to move away from a sinking lid approach, and allow new class 4 venues to establish in Christchurch.

 

Relocation of Venues

5.51    A relocation policy sets out if a territorial authority will grant consent for venues to relocate. Adding a relocation policy to the Council’s Gambling Venue Policy to allow (or not allow) venues to relocate is optional.

5.52    Whenever a territorial authority is considering whether to include a relocation policy in its class 4 venue policy, it must consider the social impact of gambling in high-deprivation communities within its district. Attachment B to this report has considered the social impacts of gambling in Christchurch, including the impact in high-deprivation communities.

5.53    The current policy does not include specific allowances for the relocation of venues or machines. The Council considered during the last review of the Policy whether to include a relocation policy (as required by the Gambling Act 2003), and decided it would not include such a policy.

5.54    If the policy were to allow relocation, it can set criteria for the circumstances in which relocations would be consented, for example; only when a venue can no longer continue to operate from its current location due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator, such as:

·   Termination of lease

·   Acquisition of property under the Public Works Act

·   Natural disaster making the venue unusable

·   Site redevelopment, modernisation, or desire to otherwise make changes to the business.

It can also place restrictions on any relocation, such as the location where they could relocate to.

5.55    It is possible to use a relocation policy for the purpose of addressing the concentration of class 4 venues in areas of high deprivation, (potentially reducing the risk of gambling related harm), by allowing relocations, but only if they move to areas of low deprivation.

5.56    Of the councils who have put a relocation policy in place so far, none have reported specifically doing so for harm minimisation reasons. Although in some areas (such as Wellington and Hamilton) it does have this effect by only allowing relocations to specified areas. Take up of the relocation provisions has been reported as low.

5.57    A relocation policy could potentially help to reduce the risk of gambling-related harm if it moves venues wishing to relocate out of areas of high deprivation, but it will not impact on the overall number of gaming machines available. Given that Christchurch continues to have a higher number of gaming machines per head of population, and with the reported associated between machine density per capita and problem gambling prevalence, it might be more appropriate to continue to focus on reduction of gambling opportunities through reducing the number of venues and machines throughout the city.

5.58    Despite no specific provision in Council’s policy enabling relocation, in most cases where relocation is warranted for reasons beyond the control of the operator (e.g: natural disaster), venue operators have the ability to apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for relocation (without a formal change in venue) under the precedent set by the Waikiwi Tavern case in 2013. Such relocations would only be considered if the following criteria are met:

a)         The new building is in a site that is very close to the existing site/the change in location is minor

b)        The tavern’s name will be the same

c)         The ownership and management will be the same

d)        For all intents and purposes, the patrons of the tavern and the public will regard the tavern as having retained its venue, even if the building is relocated nearby.

5.59    The three options Council has in regard to a relocation policy and how these are administered is outlined below:

Relocation provision in Territorial Authority policy

How relocation applications are dealt with

Relocated venue licence

Territorial Authority consent required?

Circumstances

Relocations are stated as permitted

All relocation are dealt with under the Territorial Authority’s policy.

New licence.

Yes

As Territorial Authority policy provides for.

Relocations are stated as not permitted

No relocations will be considered, even by the Department of Internal Affairs (as per their indications to Council staff, but this approach could be challenged).

N/A

N/A

N/A

Policy is silent on relocations

Relocations under the ‘Waikiwi’ precedent may be considered by the Department of Internal Affairs

No - Continuation of existing licence.

No

As listed in a) – d) above.

 

5.60    A policy which typically adopts a sinking lid approach and contains a policy provision allowing for venue relocations could be seen as contradictory. The essence of a sinking lid policy is that the territorial authority will not grant consent for any new class 4 gambling venue. Venue relocations under a territorial authority’s policy are considered new licences, and therefore require consent from the local authority. Despite the two provisions appearing to be conflicting, it is workable. If Council decided to add a provision allowing venue relocations to the existing class 4 venue policy, relocations would need to be stated as an exception to the general sinking lid approach.

5.61    The Department of Internal Affairs has advised under the Council’s current policy, applications for relocation under the Waikiwi precedent can be considered. For this reason, it could be considered that there is no incentive to introduce a policy allowing relocation simply for practical issues (such as following an earthquake) because these kind of circumstances are sufficiently dealt with by the Department of Internal Affairs.

5.62    The Department of Internal Affairs has also advised that if a territorial authority’s policy states that venue relocations are not permitted, then they would not consider any venue relocation under the Waikiwi precedent either. It is unclear why the Department would rely on the Council’s policy in this instance as a territorial authority policy can only deal with new licences, and applications for Waikiwi relocations relate to the continuation of existing licences, and the Council is not involved in that type of decision.

5.63    There have been three ‘Waikiwi relocations’ in Christchurch, all as a direct or indirect result of the earthquakes. Of these, one has subsequently closed and their gambling licence surrendered; one has relocated and is operating; and the other is still on hold pending relocation to a building currently under construction. In addition there has been one recent application for relocation which is unrelated to the earthquakes. A decision is yet to be made on that application. 

5.64    In normal circumstances it could be expected that the uptake of relocations would be low. While in the long term, introducing a relocations policy with restrictions on where venues can relocate may help to reduce the accessibility of machines in areas of high deprivation, if take-up is low it is unlikely to have any significant impact.

5.65    Staff consider retaining the Council’s current policy (“staying silent”), is the most appropriate option in regard to venue relocation at this point in time because it provides balance between effectively reducing gambling accessibility over time while enabling venue operators to pursue relocation with the Department of Internal Affairs in exceptional circumstances where an exception to the general rule may be warranted.

 

TAB VENUES

TAB Venue Policy - Background

5.66    It is a legislative requirement under the Racing Act 2003 (section 65D) for territorial authorities to have a policy on Board Venues.

5.67    The purpose of the Racing Act 2003 is:

·   to provide effective governance arrangements for the racing industry

·   to facilitate betting on galloping, harness and greyhound races and other sporting events

·   to promote the long-term viability of New Zealand racing.

5.68    A TAB venue policy must specify whether or not Board venues can be established in Christchurch, and, if so, where they may be located.

5.69    The only type of TAB which the Council’s policy can apply to is a “Board venue”. These are also commonly referred to as a “TAB venue”, “TAB store”, or “stand-alone TAB”.

5.70    A “Board venue” is a premises that is owned or leased by the New Zealand Racing Board, and where the main business carried out on that premises is providing race and/or sports betting under the Racing Act 2003. Board venues offer full TAB services. Although some may be located within another business, a Board venue is in a totally separate area from the host business and has its own dedicated staff.

5.71    The other types of TAB, which the Council’s policy cannot apply to are:

·   Pub TAB / TAB Outlet: located within another business (typically a pub or workingmen’s club) and forms part of the services offered by the host business. They offer the same services as a Board venue, and are run by trained staff.

·   Self-service TAB terminal: electronic terminal located within another business. These terminals offer most of the TAB products.

5.72    The TAB also offers betting services via the phone and internet.

5.73    The Council’s current TAB Venue Policy allows the New Zealand Racing Board to establish new Board venues in Christchurch, without any restrictions as long as all other statutory and District Plan requirements are met.

5.74    A copy of the current TAB venue policy is attached with this report (Attachment A).

 

TAB Venues in Christchurch

5.75    Although the Council has had a permissive policy in place over the past 14 years which allows for growth, there has not been a proliferation of TAB venues in Christchurch. While there has been some annual variability in the number of venues, overall the number of venues has sharply declined over the past 14 years.

5.76    The Council’s policy can only apply to TAB venues. There are numerous other outlets for the same products in the community including pub TABs, self-service TAB terminals, and phone and internet TAB betting.

5.77    In 2004 there were ten TAB venues in Christchurch. Currently there are five. These are located in:

·   Barrington (Barrington Mall, 252a Barrington Street)

·   Bishopdale (Tavern Harewood, 333 Harewood Road)

·   Upper Riccarton (Bush Inn Tavern, 364 Riccarton Road)

·   Hornby (Hornby Workingmen’s Club, 17 Carmen Road)

·   Shirley (122 Marshland Road)

5.78    Two new venues were established after the February 2011 earthquake, in Linwood and Merivale. Both of these venues are now closed.

5.79    One venue (Shirley) is also a class 4 gaming machine venue.

 

Gambling-related Harm - TAB Race and Sports Betting

5.80    There is little information available on the harmful effects of race and sports betting in New Zealand, and none specifically related to betting at TAB venues. It is impossible to distinguish whether more harm occurs in TAB stores, pub TABS, TAB outlets, or through online and phone betting from home.

5.81    Research found that 8.7% of New Zealanders participate in race betting and 5.2% participate in sports betting.

5.82    TAB racing and sports betting expenditure for 2017 was $338 million, increased from $278 million in 2010.

5.83    Race and sports betting creates both social benefits (through the entertainment derived from watching sports and placing bets) and social harms, either to the individual and their families, or to the wider community. While there is a small risk of problem gambling associated with TAB gambling products (0.8% racing; 1.2% sports betting), comparatively this risk is low compared to the risk associated with class 4 gambling machines.

5.84    Proceeds from race and sports betting are applied for New Zealand Racing Board purposes. In 2016/17 approximately $136 million was distributed to the racing industry for stakes payments and operational support.

5.85    For Christchurch problem gambling clients, 15% report TAB betting as their main form of problem gambling. This has increased over the last 8 years, both locally and nationwide, although is higher in Christchurch than nationally (9%).

 

Other TAB Venue Policy Approaches Considered

5.86    A TAB venue policy has limited scope. It must specify whether or not Board venues can be established in Christchurch, and, if so, where they may be located. The only opportunities for change are either placing further restrictions on the location where TAB Venues can establish, or not allowing any new TAB venues to be established in Christchurch at all.

No New TAB Venues

5.87    This policy option would not allow new TAB venues to be established in Christchurch.

5.88    Based on the rationale that reducing availability will reduce the risk of harm, this option has potential to reduce the local prevalence of problem gambling as a result of race and sports betting.

5.89    The Council’s policy can only mandate over the establishment of TAB Venues. An unintended consequence of placing a moratorium on new TAB Venues could be an increase in other types of TAB outlet e.g. Pub TABs.

5.90    It is impossible to determine whether more harm is experienced when bets are placed via TAB venues versus other TAB betting services.

5.91    As other methods to participate in race and sports betting are readily available, it is unlikely that introducing a policy which does not allow new TAB Venues to establish would have any significant impact at all, and this option is not recommended.

Location Restrictions

5.92    It is possible to place restrictions on the location where new TAB venues can establish.

5.93    No specific concerns have been raised in relation to the location of current TAB venues and it is not considered that further location restrictions are required at this time.

 

6.   Option 1 – Retain the current Gambling and TAB Venues Policy (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Retain the current (2015) Gambling and TAB Venues Policy, unchanged, for a further three years.

6.2       Under this option, no new class 4 venues will be permitted to establish. This is commonly referred to as a “sinking lid” policy, and is the most restrictive policy a local authority has the mandate to put in place.

6.3       The rationale behind a policy which places a moratorium on class 4 gaming machine venues and numbers is that reducing the number of gaming machines and venues over time, thereby restricting accessibility to gambling venues, will help to reduce problem gambling rates and the harm caused by problem gambling. Studies from New Zealand and Australia[5] have demonstrated a strong positive association between per capita gaming machine density and the prevalence of problem gambling, and this is further supported by international research.

6.4       This approach is relatively common in New Zealand with 19 of the 67 territorial authorities currently with a sinking lid policy in place for class 4 gaming venues.

6.5       Retaining the Council’s current policy also means there will be no local provision for venues to relocate, although some relocations will still be possible through the Department of Internal Affairs as a result of the precedent set by the Waikiwi Tavern case in 2013.

6.6       Under this option, new TAB venues are permitted to establish without location restrictions, subject to meeting all other statutory and District Plan requirements.

6.7       Further consultation is not required under this option.

Significance

6.8       The level of significance of this option is medium, consistent with section 2 of this report

6.9       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform and consult to seek feedback. Key gambling stakeholders have been consulted with as outlined in paragraphs 5.4 and 6.11 of this report. The Gambling Act 2003 does not require a special consultative procedure (SCP) to be carried out under this option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.10    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

6.11    Corporate societies who operate gaming machines, the New Zealand Racing Board and problem gambling service providers are specifically affected by this option. Their views on the current policy are outlined in the table below.

Respondent type

View

Corporate societies

Disagree with the current class 4 policy, most commonly because it does not include a provision for relocation of venues and/or because of its sinking lid approach.

 

In their view, these provisions have reduced their ability to raise funds to support the community and have prevented them from adapting their business in response to market changes.

 

Most support the current TAB venue policy.

 

New Zealand Racing Board

Disagree with the current class 4 policy, and would prefer to see a cap implemented to maintain a balance between community funding and controlling the growth of gambling.

 

Fully support the current TAB venue policy.

 

Service providers / health

Support the current class 4 gambling policy.

 

Of the three respondents, two had no comment on the TAB venue policy, and the other did not support the current policy because it does not place any limits on the establishment of new TAB venues.

 

6.12    Community groups who receive funds from class 4 gambling have an interest in this policy as it has potential to impact on the level of funding available for distribution. Gap Filler approached Council staff upon hearing that the policy was being reviewed to communicate their stance not to accept funding generated from class 4 gambling. Further consultation with community groups has not been undertaken as part of this review because there is no proposal for change at this point in time.

6.13    The wider community has an interest in this policy, particularly as it relates to community funding and the minimisation of gambling-related harm. Further consultation with the wider community has not been undertaken as part of this review because there is no proposal for change at this point in time.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.15    If the Council decides to adopt the recommendation that the current policy be retained unchanged there will be no financial implications.

Legal Implications

6.16    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.17    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.18    The review of the policy, as provided for and discussed in this report, meets the requirements of both the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003.  This option proposes the policy will not be amended which means no further consultation is required.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.19    There is a low risk of stakeholder and community dissatisfaction with the continuation of a sinking lid policy given that wider community consultation has not been undertaken as part of this review. It is unlikely the general view of the community has changed significantly since last consulted on this matter. The next review of this policy is scheduled for 2021, but the policy can be reviewed at any time. If this risk is realised, Council could decide to undertake the next review early, and include a full special consultative procedure regardless of whether amendments are proposed or not.

Implementation

6.20    This option requires little in the way of implementation as there is no change to the current approach. The Secretary of Internal Affairs and key gambling stakeholders will be notified of the outcome of this policy review immediately following the Council’s decision.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

General

·   Retaining the current policy provides continuity with the existing policy setting, which appears to be well-supported by the community and is relatively simple to administer.

·   This option does not have any financial implications for the Council, in particular it does not require a Special Consultative Procedure.

Class 4 Venues

·   The current policy supports the purpose of the Gambling Act 2003.

·   The current policy is achieving its aim of reducing class 4 gaming venues and machines.

·   Reducing accessibility and density of gaming venues/machines over time.

·     Christchurch has higher gaming machines numbers per head of population than national averages.

·     Local problem gambling client rates are also above national averages.

According to studies it could be expected that reducing accessibility and density of gambling machines and venues over time would result in reduced rates of problem gambling and wider harm associated with problem gambling.

·   It has the potential to reduce the level of financial loss to individuals through less machines being available, although this may be limited as studies show there is no real association between the density of machines and the level of expenditure.

·   In certain circumstances where genuine reason for relocation may be warranted (eg: earthquake), relocation of venues may be allowed by the Department of Internal Affairs, despite no specific local authority policy provision.

TAB Venues

·   Allows the flexibility for venues to meet market demand and establish and close as appropriate.

·   Comparatively Racing Board products have a low prevalence of problem gambling and there has not been a proliferation of TAB venues under the existing, permissive policy.

·   This review has not identified any significant concerns with the current policy approach to TAB venues.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

Class 4 Venues

·   The position of existing venues could be entrenched – it does not allow venue operators flexibility may result in more venues operating than would be the case in a more permissive environment, as operators retain their venues knowing they cannot be replaced at a later date once lost.

·   Potential decreased level of grant funding available to community groups and organisations if less money is going in to machines.

·   This option does not require consultation with the wider community through a Special Consultative Procedure (although does not preclude it either). The last time the policy underwent a full special consultative procedure was in 2006.

TAB Venues

·   Additional venues could potentially increase the rates of problem gambling associated with New Zealand Racing Board gambling products. Comparatively Racing Board products have a low prevalence of problem gambling, however race and sports betting as the primary mode of problem gambling is currently higher for Christchurch than it is on average nationally.

·   Could be perceived by some as a contradictory approach to minimising gambling related harm when compared with a sinking lid approach for class 4 gaming venues.

 

7.   Option 2 – Amend the Gambling and TAB Venue Policy and undertake a special consultative procedure

Option Description

7.1       Amend the policy to another of the approaches outlined in section 5 of this report and undertake further consultation through a special consultative procedure.

7.2       A further workshop with the Regulatory Performance Committee would be required to determine policy direction.

Significance

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

7.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform and consult to seek feedback. Key gambling stakeholders have been consulted with as outlined in paragraphs 5.4 and 6.11 of this report. Under this option, if the Council’s policy is to be amended or replaced, further consultation via a special consultative procedure (SCP) would be required by section 102 (2) of the Gambling Act 2003.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       Key gambling stakeholders (corporate societies, The New Zealand Racing Board and problem gambling service providers) would be specifically affected by this option. They would need to be further consulted with on any proposed changes to the policy through a SCP.

7.7       The wider community has an interest in this policy as it relates to the location of class 4 gambling venues and the minimisation of gambling-related harm. Should the Council decide this is the preferred option, feedback from the wider community will be sought through a SCP.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       If the Council decides to amend its Gambling and TAB Venue Policy, the Council must consult on the draft policy using the Special Consultative Procedure prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. Depending on the exact details of the engagement plan, the cost of a SCP is between $20,000 and $50,000. An engagement plan has not been prepared for this project at this stage.

7.10    There is unlikely to be any significant financial costs of implementation to Council (initially or ongoing), other than some general communications on the new policy approach, and staff time, for example: processing applications for new venue consents or liaising with Department of Internal Affairs Gambling Compliance Staff on matters of relocation. At this point, we have not scoped exactly what those costs would be.

7.11    Costs will be met from existing budgets.

Legal Implications

7.12    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

7.13    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

7.14    The review of the policy, as provided for and discussed in this report, meets the requirements of both the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003.  This option proposes that the policy could be amended in accordance with one of the approaches outlined in section 5 of this report.  Under both Acts, an amendment to the policy requires that Council undertake further consultation using the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.15    There is a risk of community dissatisfaction with proposed amendments to the current policy as a sinking lid approach has largely been supported in the past. Dissatisfaction would become apparent through feedback received via a special consultative procedure. Further changes to the proposed policy can be made through the submission hearings and deliberations process as appropriate. If this occurs, the end result may be that the final policy adopted is effectively the same as the 2015 policy.

Implementation

7.16    A suggested timeframe for this option is shown in the table below

1.1.1      

1.1.2     Key Steps

1.1.3     Indicative timeline complete by

1.1.4     1.

1.1.5     Workshop with Regulatory Performance Committee to determine policy direction

1.1.6     August 2018

1.1.7     2.

1.1.8     Develop Engagement and Communications Plan

1.1.9     August 2018

1.1.10 3.

1.1.11 Prepare draft Gambling and TAB venue policy

1.1.12 September 2018

1.1.13 4.

1.1.14 Subsequent workshop with Committee to confirm draft policy provisions

1.1.15 September 2018

1.1.16 5.

1.1.17 Draft policy adopted for consultation by Council.

1.1.18 25 October 2018

1.1.19 6.

1.1.20 Draft policy open for submissions (one month).

1.1.21 26 October – 26 November 2018

1.1.22 7.

1.1.23 Hearing of submissions including deliberations on draft policy

1.1.24 Mid December 2018

1.1.25 8.

1.1.26 Council decision to adopt final policy

1.1.27 January 2019.

1.1.28 9.

1.1.29 Secretary of Internal Affairs, submitters, and stakeholders notified of adoption.

1.1.30 Within one month of adoption.

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Providing the Council with more recent feedback from the wider community on their preferences for class 4 and TAB venues in their city.

·   Other advantages will depend on the specific policy approach(es), but may include:

 

Possible advantage

Relevant alternative policy options

Maintaining (or increasing) the level of grant funding available to community groups and organisations.

Introducing a cap on venue/machine numbers

Allowing relocation

Allowing new venues to establish

Greater flexibility for venue operators and host businesses to close or change their business in response to market influences / providing business continuity assurance.

Allowing new venues to establish

Allowing relocation

Targeting the higher risk of gambling –related harm in areas of high socio-economic deprivation by reducing accessibility of machines in areas of high deprivation.

Allowing relocation

Location restrictions

 

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is little evidence to warrant a move away from the current approach. Comparatively Christchurch has a higher number of non-casino gaming machines per head of population and has a higher rate of people accessing services for problem gambling.

·   The cost of undertaking a SCP may outweigh the benefits if the preferred direction of the wider community is to continue with a sinking lid approach.

·   Other disadvantages will depend on the specific policy approach(es), but may include:

Possible disadvantage

Relevant alternative policy options

Slowing down, or reversing the reduction in the number of venues and/or machines resulting in greater accessibility

Allowing new venues to establish

Introducing a cap on venue/machine numbers

Allowing relocation

Increased prevalence of problem gambling due to greater accessibility.

Allowing new venues to establish

With regard to TAB venues –any change may have limited impact on problem gambling considering there are many other types of TAB outlet to access the same gambling services.

Not allowing TAB venues to establish

Public perception of a “softening” of approach to class 4 venues

Allowing new venues to establish

Allowing relocation

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2015 Gambling and TAB Venue Policy

 

b 

2018 Gambling Venue Policy Review - Background Paper & Social Assessment

 

c 

2018 Gambling Venue Policy Review - Stakeholder Responses Summary

 

 

 

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

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Allison Houston - Team Leader Alcohol Licensing

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Emma Davis - Acting Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 September 2018

 

10.    Earthquake-prone Buildings - Priority Thoroughfares and Routes Consultation

Reference:

18/949931

Presenter(s):

Robert Wright, Head of Building Consenting
Richard Gant, Technical Advisor
Lori Rankin, Engagement Advisor

 

 

 

1.   Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

1.1        The Committee received the report, and noted the Priority Thoroughfares and Routes map displayed at the meeting.

1.2        The Committee thanked staff for the work carried out on this matter.

1.3        The Committee resolved the original staff recommendations without change.

 

2.   Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

 

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

3.   Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft Earthquake-prone Buildings – Priority thoroughfares and routes map:  ccc.govt.nz/thoroughfareandstrategicroutes.

2.         Adopt the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) and agree to it being the subject of a special consultative procedure.

3.         Agree that a Hearings Panel be convened at the completion of the consultation period to receive and hear submissions on the draft policy, deliberate on those submissions, and to report back recommendations to the Council on the final form of the policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Earthquake-prone Buildings - Priority Thoroughfares and Routes Consultation

125

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Earthquake Prone Buildings -Statement of Proposal

129

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Earthquake-prone Buildings - Priority Thoroughfares and Routes Consultation

Reference:

18/632310

Presenter(s):

Robert Wright – Head of Building Consenting
Richard Gant – Technical Advisor
Shane Bruyns – Manager Commercial Consents

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to recommend to the Council that it commence consultation on the draft Earthquake-prone buildings – Priority Thoroughfares and Routes (Attachment 1) using a special consultative procedure.

1.2       The priority thoroughfares and routes will be used by the Council to prioritise earthquake-prone buildings in areas with high vehicular and pedestrian thoroughfares and strategic routes.   

1.3       The consultation meets the requirements of the Building Act 2004 for Council to identify routes and thoroughfares with sufficient traffic for the purpose of prioritising earthquake prone, unreinforced masonry buildings. The Council will also consult on the identification of strategic transport routes (those routes where earthquake-prone buildings could impede the route following an earthquake event).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Recommends to the Council that it:

a.         approves the draft Earthquake-prone Buildings – Priority thoroughfares and routes map:  ccc.govt.nz/thoroughfareandstrategicroutes; [6]

b.         adopt the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) and agrees to it being the subject of a special consultative procedure;

c.         agree that a Hearings Panel be convened at the completion of the consultation period to receive and hear submissions on the draft policy, deliberate on those submissions, and to report back recommendations to the Council on the final form of the policy.

 

3.   Key Points

Earthquake-prone buildings – legislative requirements

3.1       The Building Act 2004 (the Act) includes requirements relating to the establishment and maintenance of a national system for identifying, assessing and managing earthquake-prone buildings. The requirements came into effect on 1 July 2017.

3.2       The system categorises New Zealand into three seismic risk areas: high, medium and low. The seismic risk areas are used to set time frames for identifying and remediating earthquake-prone buildings. The vast majority of Christchurch district is within the high risk zone.

3.3       The Act requires territorial authorities to identify earthquake-prone buildings and to further identify a subset of priority earthquake-prone buildings. Priority buildings are those that are considered to present a higher risk because of their construction, type, use or location. They must be identified and remediated in half the time allowed for other earthquake-prone buildings in the same seismic risk area.

3.4       Certain hospital, emergency and education buildings are automatically prioritised in the Act because their function is critical in an earthquake event. As these are identified by legislation the routes they are located on may not be identified in the draft Priority Routes Map.

3.5       Section 133AE (clause 1) of the Building Act provides the meaning of “priority building”. The subsections of that clause that provide the meaning of priority building that relate the identification of priority routes are those that include:

(e) any part of an unreinforced masonry building that could—

(i) fall from the building in an earthquake (for example, a parapet, an external wall, or a veranda); and

(ii) fall onto any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare that a territorial authority has identified under section 133AF(2)(a):

(f) a building that a territorial authority has identified under section 133AF(2)(b) as having the potential to impede a transport route of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) if the building were to collapse in an earthquake.

Priority buildings identified with community input

3.6       Territorial authorities in high seismic risk areas must identify priority buildings on thoroughfares with sufficient pedestrian and vehicle traffic to warrant prioritising the parts of unreinforced masonry buildings on those thoroughfares. To do so, they must first consult with the community using the special consultative procedure set out under the Local Government Act 2002 (section 83).

3.7       Territorial authorities may also use the special consultative procedure to identify priority buildings that could impede routes of strategic importance.

3.7.1 The Council’s Building Consents team has worked with relevant Council service teams and with emergency service providers to identify the proposed Priority Routes. It is recommended that these routes are consulted on as part of the statement of proposal to ensure the views of informal emergency service providers such as freight transport providers and demolition or construction service providers as well as the wider community can also be considered.

3.8       The community is consulted to identify the thoroughfares or routes; then Council will identify the priority buildings on those thoroughfares or routes.

3.9       Together, the sufficient traffic thoroughfares and strategic transport routes constitute the draft Earthquake-prone Buildings – Priority Routes Map proposed for consultation: ccc.govt.nz/thoroughfaresandstrategicroutes

3.10    Once agreed by the Council, the proposed routes will be made available for community feedback and consultation. The basis of the consultation will be to ensure the sufficient traffic and strategic transport routes identified so far reflect what the community regards as appropriate.

3.11    The compliance requirements for earthquake-prone buildings (already identified or later identified) on these routes are stringent. Care needs to be taken that the right routes and buildings are targeted.

Timeline

3.12    The proposed project timeline will enable the Council to confirm the final routes by May 2019. The table below shows the tasks and target dates for completion.

                        

 

Task

Date

1.

Report to Council with recommendation to approve a statement of proposal for consultation and appoint a Hearings Panel

27 September 2018

2.

Consultation (minimum 1 month)

 

15 October - 15 November

 

Consultation analysis

Note: Inspectors may need to investigate buildings identified during the consultation.

Report writing

Late November - mid December

 

3.

Final documentation delivered to the Hearing team

Mid-January 2019

4.

Hearing and writing the Hearings Panel report to Council

Early February/March

5.

Council decision making meeting

March/April 2019

 

 

3.13    The community consultation process will be open to the public with the following stakeholder groups to be specifically targeted to ensure awareness of the process and the opportunity to contribute:

·    Emergency service providers

·    Owners of buildings (in metropolitan Christchurch) on the MBIE register

·    Community boards

·    Property Management companies

·    Real Estate companies

·    Relevant teams within the Council, which may include – Transport, Emergency Management, Urban Design and Heritage, Three Waters and Solid Waste

3.14    The final “product” will be a map showing identified areas of high pedestrian thoroughfares and strategic transport routes – priority routes. This map will be used by the Council’s Building Consents team to identify and manage high priority earthquake-prone buildings and for building owners to initiate and undertake the necessary seismic remediation works.

3.15    The final map will be available on the CCC website.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Earthquake Prone Buildings -Statement of Proposal

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Shane Bruyns - Commercial Manager

Lori Rankin - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

11.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 September 2018

Reference:

18/963506

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 7 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 7 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 7 September 2018

138

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

12.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 September 2018

Reference:

18/941573

Presenter(s):

Sarah Drummond, Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 5 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 5 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 5 September 2018

144

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sarah Drummond - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 September 2018

 

13.    Chairperson's Report

Reference:

18/933473

Presenter(s):

Councillor Raf Manji – Chair Finance and Performance Committee

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

Councillor Clearwater was in attendance and joined the table for this item.

The Committee queried whether Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) is already undertaking similar work to that set out in the Chairperson’s recommendations, and recommended that the Council requests CCHL to provide a report on this.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Requests Christchurch City Holdings Limited to report to the Council on any current considerations of its financial strategy, including its Capital Release strategy.

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Chairperson's Report

150

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Chairperson's Report

Reference:

18/803565

Presenter(s):

Councillor Raf Manji – Chair Finance and Performance Committee

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider requesting Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) to provide high level analysis of options on capital release.

 

2.   Chairperson’s Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note increasing debt levels for both Council and Christchurch City Holdings Limited.

2.         Request Christchurch City Holdings Limited to seek external independent advice on high-level analysis of options on capital release.

3.         Request Christchurch City Holdings Limited to report back with preliminary advice to the Finance and Performance Committee within 3 months.

 

3.   Background

3.1       The Council has previously considered options on capital release however there has been no recent independent advice on this issue in the current term.

4.   Context

4.1       The Council has approved a significant capital programme in the 2018-28 LTP which is putting pressure on both rates and debt covenant ratios.

4.2       The market value of CCHL investment in subsidiaries could be higher than the current carrying value, which is based on fair value ‘value-in-use’ valuations.

4.3       There are a number of options for potential capital release from operational assets and businesses.

4.4       CCHL’s investment portfolio is significant and the Council currently relies on consistent dividend income streams from CCHL. Financial analysis on the options will need to consider asset dividend yields and cost of borrowing.

4.5       Timing is a strategic consideration as asset values change over time.

5.   Key Points

5.1       Independent expert advice on the financial merits of capital release will inform Council discussion.

5.2       CCHL support seeking independent advice on their investment portfolio.

 

Signatories

Author                       Councillor Raf Manji - Chair Finance and Performance Committee

Approved By            Councillor Raf Manji – Chair Finance and Performance Committee

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 September 2018

 

14.    Final Statements of Intent - ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust

Reference:

18/933502

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb – Performance Monitoring Advisor

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

Joanna Norris of ChristchurchNZ delivered a presentation to the Committee on the final Statement of Intent for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd.

The Committee noted the advice set out in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9 of the staff report about revising ChristchurchNZ’s Levels of Service measures. The Committee made an additional recommendation to the Council, set in in clause 2. below, to request a workshop with ChristchurchNZ on proposed new Levels of Service measures.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.      Notes the final Statement of Intent for 2018/19 for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd is a substantially different document to its draft Statement of Intent and is therefore appended to the report as Attachment A;

2.      Requests Council staff and ChristchurchNZ to hold a workshop with the Council on proposed new levels of service before the end of 2018.

3.      Notes that the final Statement of Intent for 2018/19 for Central Plains Water Trust is identical to the draft Statement of Intent and can be accessed on the Central Plains Water Trust’s website or a hard copy can be sought from Council staff; and

4.      Notes that the final Statements of Intent for 2018/19 for Central Plains Water Trust and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd were delivered to the Council in accordance with the statutory timeframe and meet the content requirements of clause 9, schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Final Statements of Intent - ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust

154

 

No.

Title

Page

a

ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent for 2018/19

158

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Final Statements of Intent - ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd and Central Plains Water Trust

Reference:

18/800539

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that Council notes the final 2018/19 Statements of Intent (SOIs) for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd (CNZHL) and Central Plains Water Trust.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following the finalisation of the SOIs in accordance with the statutory timeframe of 30 June 2018. 

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes the final Statement of Intent for 2018/19 for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd is a substantially different document to its draft Statement of Intent and is therefore appended to the report as Attachment A;

2.         Notes that the final Statement of Intent for 2018/19 for Central Plains Water Trust is identical to the draft SOI and can be accessed on the Central Plains Water Trust’s website or a hard copy can be sought from Council staff; and

3.         Notes that the final Statements of Intent for 2018/19 for Central Plains Water Trust and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd were delivered to the Council in accordance with the statutory timeframe and meet the content requirements of clause 9, schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The final SOI 2018/19 for CNZHL and Central Plains Water Trust were received in accordance with the statutory deadline of 30 June.  They meet the content requirements set out in clause 9 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).  There is no further opportunity provided for under the LGA for shareholders to comment on the content of the SOIs.

Central Plains Water Trust

4.2       The Central Plains Water Trust 2018/19 SOI is identical to the draft SOI.  At the time the draft was considered Council questioned whether the recording of Denis John O’Rourke as chairman of the Trust was correct.  This has been confirmed as correct.

ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd

4.3       CNZHL’s final SOI has been comprehensively rewritten.  Although shareholders have no further avenues for formally commenting on the SOI, we provide it at Attachment A for noting, and comment on it in more detail than we would ordinarily for a final SOI.  The SOI for CNZHL’s subsidiary CRIS Ltd is appended to the CNZHL SOI.

4.4       As CNZHL progresses its activities towards steady state ‘business as usual’ following the amalgamation of Canterbury Development Corporation and Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, and with the appointment of new directors, the board is able to increasingly turn its attention to strategic matters.  The final SOI demonstrates this with the clear and concise presentation of CNZHL’s three year priorities that underpin its strategic framework, as well as how, at a high level these priorities can be delivered, and why they are important.  The three year priorities are:

·    Catalyse innovation, entrepreneurship, commercialisation;

·    Attract business, enterprise, talent (new);

·    Provide thought-leadership, economic insights;

·    Enhance destination, gateway;

·    Profile Christchurch, Canterbury, CNZHL; and

·    Grow revenue, culture, partnerships.

4.5       Delivering against these priorities is expected to create outcomes that, in 10 years’ time will:

·    Increase Christchurch’s GDP by 23%;

·    Grow the Canterbury population by 16%, to 707,400;

·    Restore and grow Christchurch’s domestic and international visitor spend market share; and

·    Create a higher quality of life for Christchurch residents.

4.6       CNZHL’s goals are long term aspirational ones that are particularly difficult to measure in terms of cause and effect.  As well, change in macro-economic indicators lag the interventions.  The challenge is to find measures that provide a good check of progress in realising the ambitions, and what catalysing effect CNZHL has contributed.

4.7       Staff note CNZHL’s advice that it is a member of the New Zealand Treasury’s Wellbeing Group, and the work of that group may help to inform outcome measures. 

4.8       CNZHL’s current SOI and Levels of Service measures in the Long Term Plan need to be revised.  They are a legacy from pre-amalgamation, and focus on inputs such as delivery of an identified number of workshops, or providing support to a particular number of businesses.  The problem with using input measures is that 100% success in delivery does not necessarily equate to meeting the organisation’s outcome-related goals to that extent.

4.9       In its Letter of Expectation for 2018/19, the Council asked CNZHL to work with Council staff to create concise and meaningful performance metrics that can be used to measure the quantity and quality of its activities, services and outcomes.   Staff are currently engaging with CNZHL to get this work underway.


 

Financial information

4.10    CNZHL has provided its overall annual budget for each of the three years, but has not identified the broad allocation of funding for the delivery of activities and services for particular groups of activities. 

4.11    Council staff have discussed with CNZHL staff the desirability of reporting against budget allocations for key high level deliverables.  CNZHL proposes that initially key groups of expenditure/activity can be categorised as:  Destination and Attractions Development, Innovation & Business Growth, Economic Insights, Strategy & Policy and City Story and Profile. 

Appendices in the CNZHL SOI

4.12    As a new entity, CNZHL is keen to engage with Councillors when possible to share its insights, views, challenges and advice on interventions.  Attached to its SOI are three appendices that provide its high level approaches to the economic development focus for the short-medium term, the need for actions to be underpinned by a prioritisation methodology as a result of there being more demand than supply capacity for CNZHL’s services, and CNZHL’s collaboration framework.

4.13    Although this information is beyond what is expected for the SOI, staff note that one of the most important levers for achieving economic outcomes in the central city is leadership.  CNZHL is the appropriate agent in the local economy to advise on a cohesive approach towards achieving the Council’s economic objectives.

CRIS Ltd

4.14    CRIS Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNZHL, and the board is duly accountable to the CNZHL board.  It is a non-operating company that owns innovation investment assets; largely these are a minority shareholding in Powerhouse Ventures Ltd and 50.1% of New Zealand Food Innovation (South Island) Ltd.  The assets held by CRIS Ltd relate to legacy economic development activity mandated by the terms of the Trust Deed for the Canterbury Economic Development Fund.

4.15    The Council provides funding of $330,000 per annum for some CRIS activities.

4.16    During the 2018/19 year, CNZHL is to undertake a review of CRIS Ltd to determine the benefits and outcomes from each of its activities and their contribution to the priorities of CNZHL.

4.17    The SOI for CRIS Ltd is attached to the CNZHL SOI for information.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent for 2018/19

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 September 2018

 

15.    Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent

Reference:

18/933555

Presenter(s):

Leah Scales – Chief Financial Officer, Christchurch City Holdings Limited

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

Leah Scales of Christchurch City Holdings Limited joined the table for this item.

 

2.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes the final Statement of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd which was delivered in accordance with the statutory timing of 30 June, and meets the minimum content requirements set out in clause 9 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002;

2.         Notes that the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group’s Statements of Intent have addressed the comments made by the Council on the draft documents;

3.         Notes that the financial information recorded in the final Statements of Intent for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group has been fully reflected in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028; and

4.         Notes that the Statements of Intent for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group can be located on each company’s website or a request for a hard copy can be made to Council Finance staff.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent

228

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Final SOI 2019

233

b

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Cover Letter for final SOI 2019

250

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent

Reference:

18/814680

Presenter(s):

Leah Scales, Chief Financial Officer, CCHL

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) and its Group.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following receipt of CCHL’s final SOI by 30 June 2018.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Notes the final Statement of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd which was delivered in accordance with the statutory timing of 30 June, and meets the minimum content requirements set out in clause 9 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002;

2.         Notes that the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group’s Statements of Intent have addressed the comments made by the Council on the draft documents;

3.         Notes that the financial information recorded in the final Statements of Intent for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group has been fully reflected in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028; and

4.         Notes that the Statements of Intent for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Group can be located on each company’s website or a request for a hard copy can be made to Council Finance staff.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Clauses 2 and 3 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides that the board of a council-controlled organisation must deliver to shareholders a draft SOI on or before 1 March each year, consider any comments on the draft SOI that are made to it and deliver the completed SOI to shareholders on or before 30 June each year. 

4.2       The Group’s SOIs have been finalised, and have been provided to the Council.  As the Council’s directly owned subsidiary, CCHL provided its own SOI to the Council before 30 June as required by the LGA.  CCHL’s final SOI meets the requirements for content as provided in clause 9 of Schedule 8 of the LGA.

4.3       The Council authorised the Chief Executive to write to the CCHL Board advising the Council’s comments on the CCHL Group’s draft SOIs (CNCL/2018/00061, dated 12 April refers).  The comments are noted below together with CCHL’s advice in a cover letter that accompanied the Group’s final SOIs:

·    That the Group works together with the Council’s Natural Environment Team on a consistent approach and methodology for the measurement of their carbon footprint – CCHL has initiated discussions with the Natural Environment Team and will meet with the Team to discuss further;

·    Lyttelton Port Company and Christchurch International Airport each include an objective reflecting their positioning as gateway to the Antarctic – both companies have included supporting the Council’s Antarctic Gateway Strategy as one of their key roles; 

·    Further detail be included in City Care’s SOI on its commitment to, and activities undertaken to support sustainability – performance targets relating to sustainability and innovation have been included (discussed in the next section).

4.4       CCHL’s final SOI is at Attachment 1 to this report.  We have not attached the Group’s SOIs since the Council is not able to formally comment on the content.  Each entity has placed its SOI on its website.  Staff can provide a hard copy of any or all SOIs on request. 

Material amendments to SOIs

4.5       The table below shows the CCHL Group’s profitability and dividend distribution expectations for the forecast period, and compares these with the prior year’s (2018) SOI projections.

4.6       A cover letter from CCHL is at Attachment 2 to this report.  It identifies the major non-financial changes to the SOIs from the drafts, and addresses the variances in net profit forecasts between the 2018 and 2019 final SOIs (note the 2018 SOI forecasts were for three years ending 2019/20).

Forecast profitability – CCHL Group

NPAT

2018/19

$m

NPAT

2019/20

$m

NPAT

2020/21

$m

Final (2019) SOI

86

89

95

Prior year  (2018) final SOI

94

101

N/A

Variance

(8)

(12)

N/A

4.7       CCHL’s cover letter notes a number of reasons for the reductions in net profit projections including the costs of servicing increased debt, tougher market conditions for some of the subsidiaries (e.g. City Care, Red Bus and EcoCentral), and regulatory changes that will adversely impact on Orion’s profitability in 2021.

4.8       The CCHL group had not completed its business planning at the time the draft SOIs were due on 31 March.  As a result the engagement between CCHL and Councillors was more focussed on strategic and business challenges.  This notwithstanding, CCHL committed to return a dividend to the Council that would not reduce irrespective of what the Group’s net profit turned out to be.  Council staff will engage further with CCHL about the timing of the Group’s business planning towards achieving an earlier line of sight to changes in the profitability of the individual subsidiaries at the time the draft SOIs are considered.


 

4.9       Finalisation of the forecast financial information has resulted in net profit for the Group that is lower than was expected, but in line with its commitment, no reduction has been made to the quantum of proposed dividend distributions from the draft (dividends in 2018/19 have been increased), as follows:

CCHL Group – Dividend projections

Dividend

2018/19

$m

Dividend

2019/20

$m

Dividend

2020/21

$m

Prior year final SOI

181.3

53.1

N/A

Draft SOI (March 2018)

188.3

45.1

51.0

Final SOI

191.5

45.1

51.0

4.10    The increased distribution projected for 2018/19 brings forward $3.2 million from 2026, funded by debt.  This reflects the Council’s decision to meet increased contract costs from EcoCentral in 2018/19 (CNCL/2018/00118 dated 14 June 2018 refers).  Note the change in dividend in 2019/20 related to timing only. 

4.11    The financial forecasts for the CCHL Group have been fully reflected in the Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Key changes to SOIs

Christchurch International Airport Ltd

4.12    CIAL has included in its final SOI recognition of the “key role it plays in supporting the Christchurch Antarctic Gateway Strategy and actively supports Antarctic entities at Christchurch Airport, most notable Antarctica New Zealand and the Antarctic Heritage Trust”.

Lyttelton Port Company Ltd

4.13    LPC has included in its final SOI recognition that it will “continue to support the Christchurch Antarctic Gateway Strategy with a particular focus on two of the four priorities of the strategy”.  It notes the company provides world class logistics for Antarctic vessels and has a clear focus on sustainability.

4.14    In its draft SOI LPC noted its commitment to building a cruise berth as part of its development programme.  In its final SOI it has added that its goal is to have the berth ready for the start of the 2020/21 cruise season (October 2020), though LPC notes this is dependent on it getting relevant consents.

Enable Services Ltd

4.15    Enable’s draft SOI did not include forecast financial and operational information and targets because it was not sufficiently advanced in its business planning at the time the draft SOIs were due.  Enable needed to undertake a full strategic review and develop its business plan for the significant change in its business – from network build to sales and customer service.  Its business planning has been completed and forecast information provided in its final SOI is shown in the table on the next page:


 

 

 

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

Number of connections (cumulative)

104,000

130,000

150,000

NPAT

($0.8m)

$10.5m

$19.9m

Dividend

0

0

0

Total Assets

$522.3m

$541.8m

$551.8m

4.1       Enable notes that dividends will not be paid over the forecast period which is consistent with expectations when entering the UFB contract.  Cash is retained in order to meet debt commitments relating to the fibre network build.

4.2       Sustainable business practices are noted, specifically with respect to the fibre network architecture, technology choices and through the network build.  Examples are provided including use of highly sustainable ducting with an expected life span of at least 50 years in the network, and drilling and shallow-trenching methodologies adopted to reduce the environmental impact compared with traditional civil construction and overhead methodologies. 

4.3       Enable plans to develop a targets-based sustainability framework by the end of the year.

City Care Ltd

4.4       City Care’s draft SOI included the following relating to sustainability:     

4.5       Responding to the Council’s request for further detail on City Care’s commitment and activities undertaken to support sustainability, the following additional paragraphs have been included in the final SOI:

4.6       City Care’s performance targets relating to sustainability are as follows, and have included one extra target:

·    Replace 20 vehicles with hybrid or EV

·    Continuation of changing out petrol-driven hand tools with electric models where appropriate

·    Measure greenhouse gas emissions to deliver a company-wide emission reduction of 2% year on year saving

·    NEW:  Be actively involved in at least three community projects that will enhance the environment.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Final SOI 2019

 

b 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Cover Letter for final SOI 2019

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 September 2018

 

16.    Financial Performance report for the year ended 30 June 2018

Reference:

18/933610

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish – Head of Financial Management

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee discussed costs associated with the SCIRT programme and made an additional recommendation to the Council to request a full and final report on SCIRT.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Approves operational carry forward requests from 2017/18 of $12.8 million (as detailed in Attachment B), to enable completion of projects in 2018/19 and beyond.

3.         Approves (as detailed in Attachment D) net capital carry forwards from 2017/18 of $116.2 million to enable completion of capital projects in 2018/19 or later as indicated, noting that:

a.         $105.9 million moves to 2018/19 and replaces a projected $122.4 million already included in the LTP for the 2018/19 year.

b.         $17.5 million moves to 2019/20 and $7.2 million is brought back from the years’ 2021/22 – 2022/23.

4.         Approves net capital revenue and funding carry forwards from 2017/18 of $16.9 million to align with the capital programme, noting this includes $12.8 million for development contribution rebates.

5.         Notes that the capital programme after carry forwards results in $15.7 million less borrowing than budgeted which allows the borrowing capacity to be used to fund the Town Hall rebuild, previously approved by Council resolution.

6.         Requests staff to provide a full and final report on SCIRT to the Council, including reference to the HIGG independent Chair’s report, independent assessor’s report and OAG report, and noting any other reports that have been published.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Financial Performance report for the year ended 30 June 2018

255

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Financial Performance

261

b

Operational Carry Forwards

269

c

Significant Capital Projects

271

d

Capital Carry Forwards

277

e

Special Funds

285

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Financial Performance report for the year ended 30 June 2018

Reference:

18/788901

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish Head of Financial Management

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to be updated on the financial results for the 2017/2018 financial year ended 30 June 2018.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Approves operational carry forward requests from 2017/18 of $12.8 million (as detailed in Attachment B), to enable completion of projects in 2018/19 and beyond.

3.         Approves (as detailed in Attachment D) net capital carry forwards from 2017/18 of $116.2 million to enable completion of capital projects in 2018/19 or later as indicated, noting that:

a.         $105.9 million moves to 2018/19 and replaces a projected $122.4 million already included in the LTP for the 2018/19 year.

b.         $17.5 million moves to 2019/20 and $7.2 million is brought back from the years’ 2021/22 – 2022/23.

4.         Approves net capital revenue and funding carry forwards from 2017/18 of $16.9 million to align with the capital programme, noting this includes $12.8 million for development contribution rebates.

5.         Notes that the capital programme after carry forwards results in $15.7 million less borrowing than budgeted which allows the borrowing capacity to be used to fund the Town Hall rebuild, previously approved by Council resolution.

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council’s operational financial results for the year show an operating surplus of $0.2 million after requested operational carry forwards.  The result is $1.1 million better than the March forecast mainly due to higher revenues.

3.2       $540.1 million of the capital programme was delivered representing delivery of 81% of the gross programme. Programme delivery was slightly lower than the 84% planned.

3.3       Borrowing was $15.7 million lower than planned after taking into account funding for carry forwards, partly as a result of lower strategic land purchases and partly due to higher NZTA (capital) revenue.


 

 

Financial Performance Summary

Annual Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Carry Fwd

Result

Operational

 

 

Revenues

-711.3

-697.1

14.2

-0.2

14.4

Expenditure

563.4

565.3

1.9

13.0

-11.1

Funds not available for Opex

136.9

131.8

-5.1

-2.0

-3.1

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

-11.0

-

11.0

10.8

0.2

 

 

 

 

Capital

 

 

Gross Programme Expenditure

540.1

664.5

124.4

116.2

8.2

Less planned Carry Forwards

-

-103.8

-103.8

-103.8

-

Capital Programme Expenditure

540.1

560.7

20.6

12.4

8.2

Revenues and Funding

-471.7

-447.4

24.3

16.8

7.5

Borrowing required

68.4

113.3

44.9

29.2

15.7

 

3.4       Key commentary on operational and capital results is given below.  A view of the Council’s financial results by activity is provided in Attachment A.

 

Operational

 

Annual Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Operating revenue

-153.3

-150.2

3.1

-0.2

3.3

Interest and dividends

-99.7

-94.5

5.2

-

5.2

Rates income

-458.3

-452.4

5.9

-

5.9

Revenue

-711.3

-697.1

14.2

-0.2

14.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel costs

193.4

197.3

3.9

0.2

3.7

Less recharged to capital

-36.0

-37.8

-1.8

-

-1.8

Grants and levies

42.2

45.3

3.1

3.5

-0.4

Operating costs

161.5

160.7

-0.8

6.9

-7.7

Maintenance costs

110.0

109.8

-0.2

2.4

-2.6

Debt servicing

92.3

90.0

-2.3

-

-2.3

Expenditure

563.4

565.3

1.9

13.0

-11.1

 

 

 

Net Cost

-147.9

-131.8

16.1

12.8

3.3

Other Funding

 

 

Transfers from Special Funds

-19.1

-24.0

-4.9

-2.0

-2.9

Borrowing cap grants /EQ response

-8.9

-9.1

-0.2

-

-0.2

Less Rates for capex /debt repay

164.9

164.9

-

-

-

Funds not available for Opex

136.9

131.8

-5.1

-2.0

-3.1

 

 

 

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

-11.0

-

11.0

10.8

0.2

 

Operational Revenue

3.5       Revenue is $14.4 million higher than budget after requested carry forwards. The bulk of this comes from rates, interest and insurance revenues.

3.6       Operating revenues are $3.3 million over budget due to:

·   Insurance revenues ($2.8 million), with $1.7 million relating to housing (non-rates funded),

·   Higher housing rent ($1.2 million), as a result of increasing income related rent subsidies,

·   Hire revenues within camping grounds, aquatic and stadia facilities coming in higher than budget ($0.8 million).

·   The above are partially offset by lower revenues within Consenting and Compliance ($1.7 million), driven by lower building consenting volumes.

3.7       Interest and dividends revenues were $5.2 million over budget, mainly through investing funds drawn down to cover forward starting swaps (paragraph 3.10 below). Subvention receipts were $1.4 million higher than budget, and the Transwaste Kate Valley dividend was $0.5 million higher, however these were offset by the retiming to 2019/20 of the special Transwaste dividend relating to the Burwood Resource Recovery Park ($1.9 million).

3.8       Rates revenues were $5.9 million over plan as a result of $4.6 million higher growth, and $1.3 million higher penalties.

 

Operational Expenditure

3.9       Annual operational expenditure is $11.1 million above budget after requested carry forwards of $13 million as detailed in Attachment B. This additional expenditure is offset by the increased revenue, (paragraph 3.5 above).

3.10    The $11.1 million unfavourable expenditure result after carry forwards is mainly due to:

·   Higher Transport costs ($2.8 million), driven by emergency works relating to storm events,

·   Higher debt servicing costs ($2.3 million) relating to earlier than planned debt start dates, to cover forward starting swaps taken out 3-4 years earlier. These additional funds were placed on deposit until needed and the costs were offset by increased interest revenues,

·   SCIRT defect liability programme costs ($2 million); these costs relate to the final 168 projects that hadn’t completed their 12 month defect period following SCIRT’s programme practical completion in June 2017.  The extent of works could not be reliably estimated when the 2017/18 plan was finalised.  This is separate from the cost share agreement with the Crown.

·   Increased rates cost to be paid by Council itself for Council-owned utilities infrastructure as a result of the last general revaluation ($6.1 million),

·   The above are partially offset by lower software fees and licences ($1.7 million), due to delays in some IT projects becoming operational.

3.11    Personnel costs favourable result is mainly due to lower Vbase staffing costs ($2.3 million) (offset by lower recoveries from Vbase), and a favourable variance within Building Consenting, as a result of vacancies ($1.3m). Building Consenting has a favourable resourcing cost saving of $0.6 million after allowing for outsourcing costs.

3.12    Personnel costs recharged to capital were lower than planned due to lower costs being capitalised, mainly within Vertical Capital Delivery.

3.13    The over spend shown in grants and levies reflects the waiver of the $0.5 million loan (not rates funded) to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust as part of the capitalisation arrangements.

3.14    Under Other Funding, Special fund drawdowns were lower than budget by $3.1m due to the transfer to the Housing Account of the surplus from operations ($1.4 million) and the insurance recoveries ($1.7 million).

3.15    The net cost of individual activities is shown in Attachment A.

 

Capital Programme

 

Annual Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Three Waters

92.9

84.6

-8.3

-9.0

0.7

Roading and Transport

92.3

93.7

1.4

1.2

0.2

Strategic Land

-5.6

23.6

29.2

24.9

4.3

IM&CT

17.9

18.7

0.8

0.7

0.1

Other

72.8

92.2

19.4

19.2

0.2

Works Programme

270.3

312.8

42.5

37.0

5.5

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure - SCIRT

1.1

0.1

-1.0

-

-1.0

Infrastructure - Non SCIRT

109.8

133.7

23.9

20.6

3.3

Transitional / Recovery Projects

11.8

26.3

14.5

14.5

-

Facilities Rebuild

146.9

189.9

43.0

43.0

-

Rockfall and Improvemt Allowance

0.2

1.7

1.5

1.1

0.4

Rebuild Programme

269.8

351.7

81.9

79.2

2.7

 

 

 

 

Gross Capital Projects

540.1

664.5

124.4

116.2

8.2

Unidentified Carry forwards

-

-103.8

-103.8

-103.8

-

Capital Programme Expenditure

540.1

560.7

20.6

12.4

8.2

 

 

 

 

 

Development Contributions

-28.7

-22.4

6.3

-

6.3

Less DC Rebates

2.5

15.3

12.8

12.8

-

DPMC Recoveries

-2.4

-2.4

-

-

-

NZTA Capital Subsidy

-68.5

-58.4

10.1

-0.4

10.5

Vbase recovery - Town Hall

-38.5

-30.9

7.6

7.6

-

Capital release / Special dividends

-140.0

-140.0

-

-

-

Misc Capital Revenues

-13.2

-15.6

-2.4

-

-2.4

Asset Sales

-11.8

-12.9

-1.1

-

-1.1

Capital Revenues

-300.6

-267.3

33.3

20.0

13.3

 

 

 

 

Rates for Renewals and Landfill

-116.9

-116.9

-

-

-

Special Funds

-54.2

-63.2

-9.0

-3.2

-5.8

Other Available Funding

-171.1

-180.1

-9.0

-3.2

-5.8

 

 

 

 

 

-

Borrowing Required

68.4

113.3

44.9

29.2

15.7

 

Capital Expenditure

3.16    Capital expenditure for the year was $540.1 million, and was evenly split between the capital works programme and the rebuild programme. The capital works programme spend was 86% of what was planned. The rebuild programme spend was 77%.

3.17    The $8.2 million permanent under spend after carry forwards is mainly due to:

·    Strategic Land – land acquisitions are $4.3 million lower than budget

·    Infrastructure – Non SCIRT – driven by savings for the New Brighton Pier repairs ($2 million), and

·    Savings across numerous other projects

3.18    Group of Activity level variance commentary for the capital programme is shown in
Attachment A.

3.19    Financial results of significant (>$250,000) capital programme projects are shown in
Attachment C.

3.20    Requested capital carry forwards are detailed in Attachment D.

 

Capital Revenues

3.21    Development contributions are higher than budget because new development has been higher than anticipated. There are $6.9 million of rebates provisionally allocated pending compliance with the scheme criteria.

3.22    NZTA subsidies are higher than budgeted as a result of higher recoveries from earthquake related work; and higher subsidies received for the major cycleway programme, due to the mix of spend across projects (funding differs across routes). The 2018 year was the last eligible year for funding from the Urban Cycleways Fund.

3.23    Special funds net drawdowns are $5.8 million lower than budget for the year, mainly due to higher developer contribution revenue set aside to fund future qualifying growth projects.

3.24    Required borrowing was $44.9 million lower than budget, and $15.7 million lower after funding carry forwards. The lower borrowing after carry forwards is largely the result of higher NZTA revenues, and lower strategic land purchases.

3.25    The $15.7 million lower borrowing is sufficient to fund the additional cost of the Town Hall that Council has previously approved. The additional cost approved was $11,653,872 of which $9,529,409 is required in the 2018/19 year to align to the total approved budget.

 

Special Funds

3.26    The annual movement and balance of the Housing Account, Capital Endowment Fund and Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund are shown in Attachment E.

3.27    The Capital Endowment fund is over allocated by $29,980 in 2017/18 due to lower than budgeted interest rates that occurred after Council allocated funds. This amount will be deducted from the amount available in 2018/19.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Financial Performance

 

b 

Operational Carry Forwards

 

c 

Significant Capital Projects

 

d 

Capital Carry Forwards

 

e 

Special Funds

 

 

 

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

Bruce Moher - Manager Planning & Reporting Team

Ryan McLachlan - Reporting Accountant

Diane Keenan - Head of Public Information and Participation

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

17.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 5 September 2018

Reference:

18/935394

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 5 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 5 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 5 September 2018

288

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 31 August 2018

 

18.    Internal Audit Charter update

Reference:

18/917113

Presenter(s):

Shaun Dowers - Head of Risk and Audit

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

The Committee accepted the Staff Recommendations to review, provide feedback on, endorse, and recommend to the Council for approval, the updated Internal Audit Charter.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Endorses the updated Internal Audit Charter.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the updated Internal Audit Charter.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Internal Audit Charter update

296

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft updated Internal Audit Charter

297

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Internal Audit Charter update

Reference:

18/791812

Presenter(s):

Shaun Dowers, Head of Risk and Audit

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to review, provide feedback and endorse (subject to any feedback) the updated Internal Audit Charter.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Reviews, provides feedback and endorses (subject to any feedback) the updated Internal Audit Charter.

2.         Recommends that the Council approves the updated Internal Audit Charter.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Internal Audit Charter was last approved in November 2014.  A timely opportunity exists with the commencement of the new Audit and Risk Management Committee Chair to provide visibility of this Charter and for the Committee to review/update/endorse as required.

3.2       Following a staff review, the Charter content remains relatively unchanged; the majority of changes relating to role titles as well as content changes to reflect collaborative management practice in Internal Audit planning and reporting stages.

3.3       Suggested staff updates have been tracked for visibility within Attachment A.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Draft updated Internal Audit Charter

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Shaun Dowers - Head of Risk and Audit

Approved By

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 31 August 2018

 

19.    Critical Judgements, Estimates and Assumptions in the 2018 Annual Report

Reference:

18/917116

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

The Committee accepted the Staff Recommendations.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Notes the current progress of the preparation of the 2018 Annual Report and audit progress.

2.         Notes the key accounting decisions, assumptions and estimates to date for the Council’s 2018 Annual Report, noting that these will be reflected in the final annual report to be considered by the Committee at its September meeting.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Notes this report on Critical Judgements, Estimates and Assumptions in the 2018 Annual Report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Critical Judgements, Estimates and Assumptions in the 2018 Annual Report

308

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Critical Judgements, Estimates and Assumptions in the 2018 Annual Report

Reference:

18/845319

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider the critical decisions, assumptions and estimates to date for the 2018 Annual Report.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided in accordance with the note within the report on the Audit New Zealand Audit Plan Letter (considered by the Committee on 30 May 2018 and by the Council on 28 June 2018) that the Committee would be further updated on these issues at this time. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the relevant Policy criteria.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Notes the current progress of the preparation of the 2018 Annual Report and audit progress.

2.         Reviews and considers the key accounting decisions, assumptions and estimates to date for the Council’s 2018 Annual Report, noting that these will be reflected in the final annual report to be considered by the Committee at its September meeting.

3.         Recommends that the Council notes this report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The audit of the 2018 annual report is well underway and Audit New Zealand and Council staff are currently working through the issues.

4.2       The audits of Council subsidiary entities are in the final stages and any significant issues raised by the auditors have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

4.3       At the time this report was prepared the audit of the financial statements is running to the agreed timetable and verbal audit clearance is expected to be received on 19 September 2018.

4.4       A draft of the annual report will be presented to the Committee at its meeting of 28 September 2018.

 

5.   Key decisions, estimates and assumptions

Accounting treatment of transactions with Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust

5.1       $3.8 million of land and improvements held for sale to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust as at 30 June 2017, was gifted to the trust resulting in a reduction in the operating surplus for the year ended 30 June 2018.

5.2       The $24 million of land and buildings to be transferred in 2018/19 will be recorded as Held for Sale at fair value (less the cost to dispose) at the 30 June 2018.

Accounting treatment of transactions with Ōtākaro Limited

5.3       The conditions to satisfy the transfer of control of the land and improvements for completed assets in the East Frame and northern portion of the Avon River Precinct with an estimated value of $1 million from Ōtākaro Limited to the Council have not been satisfied. A contingent asset of $1 million will be therefore disclosed.

Vbase Limited

5.4       The 2017/18 financial statements for Vbase Limited will be prepared under Public Benefit Entity accounting standards, this has resulted in a restatement of the prior year information for the Group results of the Council.

5.5       Both Audit New Zealand and Vbase’s tax advisors, KPMG have been involved in the restatement process.

Revaluations

5.6       For the 2018 annual report the Council has revalued land and buildings and park improvements.

Land and Buildings

5.7       The revaluation was undertaken by QV, updating the 2015 revaluation also undertaken by QV. The fair value was determined using the fair market value where one exists for the asset, and the Optimised Depreciated Replacement Cost method for specialised assets or where no market exists.

5.8       The value included the following assumptions:

·        Assets have been valued on a “highest and best use” scenario. This is defined as the most probable use of the asset that is physically possible, appropriately justified, legally permissible, financially feasible and which results in the highest value.

·        Buildings have been valued on an “as repaired” basis except where it is known that they will be demolished in the near future and this has been reflected in the value.

·        Assets were componentised as required except where the cost of the component or the life does not differ materially from the entire value of the structure. These are generally buildings less than $50,000 in value or of simple construction such as garages or sheds.

5.9       The fair value was considered to be $1.84 billion; an increase of $215.8 million.

Park Improvements

5.10    The revaluation was undertaken by Council staff and reviewed by WSP-Opus. This was the first revaluation of these assets since 30 June 2009, when they were valued by AECOM Limited. A revaluation has not been carried out earlier due to the focus on significant asset classes such as the three waters, roading, and land and buildings.

5.11    The fair value was calculated using the Optimised Depreciated Replacement Cost method and included the following assumptions:

·        Replacement unit cost data was calculated during the preparation of the 2018 Parks Asset Management Plan. This was determined from in-house and external sources including project managers, cost managers and quantity surveyors based in Christchurch with contract experience in recent local projects.

·        Useful lives are based on New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines 2006 and Council’s current estimates of service life. Where an asset has reached the end of its expected useful life, a minimum remaining life of three years was assumed.

5.12    The fair value was considered to be $160.7 million; an increase of $76.2 million.

6.   Context/Background

6.1       During the preparation of the Council’s annual financial statements the finance team make critical judgements, estimates and assumptions in order to comply with public benefit entity (PBE) accounting standards and generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP).

6.2       In previous years critical judgements, estimates and assumptions have had a significant impact on the financial statements particularly in the area of earthquake related expenditure.

6.3       In 2018 the number of these critical judgements, estimates and assumptions are significantly reduced due to the transfer of SCIRT related activities and valuation of all major infrastructure classes in 2016/17.

6.4       This year the principal critical judgements, estimates and assumptions relate to the transfer of assets between the Council and other parties, and the basis on which the Vbase report has been prepared.

6.5       In the case of the transfers to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust pursuant to the $45 million loan agreement, receivable created does not contain any requirements for regular repayments of the loan nor for any interest to be charged on the outstanding balance.

6.6       Return of value under the general security arrangement with Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust will only occur if one of three conditions occur, namely loss of charitable trust status, the trust no longer be eligible as a community housing provider or being wound up.

6.7       All these issues have been considered, along with the intention of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust being a long term provider of social housing for the Council, in assessing whether the loan is recoverable in full or not.

6.8       Audit New Zealand will be receiving two drafts of the financial statements and a single draft of the full annual report during the audit process.

6.9       At the time of the preparation of this report, Audit have received both versions of the draft financial statements including all changes suggested by the Audit New Zealand team.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Adrian Seagar - Senior Insurance Specialist

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

20.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 31 August 2018

Reference:

18/917442

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 31 August 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 31 August 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 31 August 2018

314

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 12 September 2018

 

21.    Draft Suburban Parking Policy

Reference:

18/960987

Presenter(s):

Greg Edwards – Policy Planner Transport
Rae-Anne Kurucz – Team Leader Transport

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approve the draft suburban parking policy for public consultation in the document attached (Attachment 1).

2.         Agree that a Hearings Panel be convened at the completion of the consultation period to receive and consider written and verbal public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Suburban Parking Policy.

3.         Receive the information on the proposed public consultation process.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft suburban parking policy for public consultation in the document attached (Attachment 1).

2.         Agree that a Hearings Panel be convened at the completion of the consultation period to receive and consider written and verbal public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Suburban Parking Policy.

3.         Receive the information on the proposed public consultation process.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Draft Suburban Parking Policy

320

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Suburban Parking Policy

328

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Draft Suburban Parking Policy

Reference:

17/233950

Contact:

Ruth Hudson

Ruth.Hudson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8161

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend that the Council approve the draft Suburban Parking Policy (the Policy) for public consultation.

Origin of Report

1.2       In September 2016 Council sought community feedback on the issues and options for suburban parking. During the engagement, Council received 214 comments. The feedback received has been used to inform this draft Suburban Parking Policy.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the large number of people who use car parks, and the possible environmental, social and financial costs.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the draft suburban parking policy for public consultation in the document attached (Attachment 1).

2.         Agree that a Hearings Panel be convened at the completion of the consultation period to receive and consider written and verbal public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Suburban Parking Policy.

3.         Receive the information on the proposed public consultation process.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.10 Transport advice is provided to ensure plans, projects and activities reflect Council's strategic transport vision.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve draft suburban parking policy for public consultation (Preferred Option).

·     Option 2 – Do not develop a suburban parking policy.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a policy framework to guide decision-making, to better manage parking, and to clarify Council’s role in suburban parking, in particular on-street parking.

·     The policy recognises that streets play an important role for both residents and the city as a whole. They provide space for people to move around the city, green space, places to meet and socialise, and they often provide parking. This creates competing demands for road space.  The policy will aims to shape how the Council allocates street space and manages on-street parking demand.

·     Encourages consistency in parking management decisions, especially around road priority and residential parking.

·     Supports changes made through the review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw in 2017.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Costs and resources required to develop policy and undertake consultation.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Suburban Parking Issues

5.1       Council is reviewing how it manages suburban parking, in particular on-street parking, to help prioritise public space and create safer and more people friendly streets. This consultation document includes draft policies to address the challenges with managing suburban parking. This Policy covers suburban areas outside of the central city, a parking plan for the Central City has already been adopted by Council in 2015.

5.2       In most suburban areas of Christchurch, un-restricted on-street parking is available. Occupancy rates are generally low, so there are no real issues for residents, businesses and their visitors to find a park on-street.

5.3       There are, however, some suburban areas where there is an increasing and high demand for parking from both residents, businesses and commuters, which makes it difficult to find a park and puts pressure on road space. These areas are generally located within walking distance from popular destinations, such as commercial centres, business parks, the university and airport.

5.4       Our streets have many uses, they provide space for people to move, greet and to stop. This creates competing demands for road space. The post-earthquake shift in residents and businesses has also increased traffic movements, and resulted in situations where travel time reliability is worsening. In response to these issues, the Council is constructing cycle lanes, bus priority measures and improving footpath and street amenity. The aim is to offer more travel choice to keep people moving and to create more people friendly streets and public spaces. Implementing these measures creates tension around the allocation of road space, including how much space is provided for on-street parking.  

5.5       Providing parking offers many benefits for the community, but there are also costs to providing parking (such as providing road space, environmental impacts, increased traffic, financial and opportunity costs, urban sprawl, and safety issues). These costs and benefits have been carefully evaluated and considered against the broader role of Council to determine the appropriate response to managing parking.

5.6       In September 2016 Council sought community feedback on the issues and options for suburban parking (https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Transport/Improvements-planning/suburban-parking-discussion-document.pdf) through the draft suburban car parking policy- issues and options discussion document (2016). During the engagement, Council received 214 submissions. The feedback received has been used to inform this draft Policy.

Current Policy Framework

5.7       A parking plan for the Central City (https://www.otakaroltd.co.nz/assets/BalanceOfLand/CentralParkingPlan2015.pdf) was adopted by Council in 2015, but there is no similar parking plan or policy for suburban areas. There was previously a Parking Strategy (http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Proceedings/2003/June/SustainableTransport/FinalisationoftheParkingStrategy.pdf) adopted in 2003, which was replaced by the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/strategies/transport-strategic-plan-2012) in 2012. A Suburban Parking Policy will contribute to giving effect to the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan.

Community Feedback

5.8       In order to inform the development of the draft policy, community engagement on the suburban car parking issues and options document was undertaken with key stakeholders. Public submissions were invited on the document from Thursday 18 August to Thursday 15 September 2016, with late submissions accepted until Wednesday 30 September 2016. A total of 250 booklets were posted to keys stakeholders, service centres and libraries. Booklets were on display at the Civic offices. The leaflet was also emailed to 680 key stakeholders.

5.9       During the course of the engagement, Council received submissions from 214 submitters. Responses were received from 179 individuals, nine interest groups, eight businesses, five resident associations, five organisations, four Community Boards, two business associations and two community groups.

5.10    The document was broken into nine issues and included space for additional comments to be made. The following is a summary of the issues and the most popular option for each issue:

·        Issue one: How to manage high demand for parking in residential areas adjacent to commercial areas and office parks. The most popular option (by a slight margin) was exempting residents from on-street parking restrictions (costs for parking permits be recovered through fees).

·        Issue two: How to manage demand for on-street parking from residents of existing houses that have no off-street parking.  The most popular option was dedicating on-street car parks for the sole use of the vehicles of residents of houses without the ability to provide on-site parking.

·        Issue three: How to manage high demand parking in some suburban commercial centres. The most popular option was to set time limits for managing on-street parking.

·        Issue four: On-street parking being used by private businesses. The most popular option was to ban on-street parking being used by private businesses.  

·        Issue five: Council’s role in providing off-street public parking in suburban centres. Most submitters strongly disagreed that Council should provide off-street parking in suburban areas. In addition, most submitters selected that the public off-street Council car park would need to be financially viable followed by a close second of road capacity being sufficient to hold the additional traffic.  

·        Issue six: enforcement of parking in bus lanes.  Most submitters preferred the option that some bus lanes are changed to allow high occupancy vehicles to also utilise the lanes.

·        Issue seven: parking on berms. The majority of submitters preferred that parking on berms was banned regardless of signage.  This issue has now been incorporated into the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

·        Issue eight: providing a sufficient number of on-street parks for people with restricted mobility. The most popular option was to continue to provide longer mobility concessions to allow more time in time restricted parks.

·        Issue nine: Should Council consider “park and bike” facilities. Most strongly agreed that park and ride / bike should be given further consideration.

5.11    The feedback received on each issue has been used to inform the draft Policy. 

Proposed Draft Suburban Parking Policy

 

5.12    In summary, the draft policy, Attachment 1, provides a framework for managing the competing demands for road space and suburban parking issues (identified in the issues and options discussion document). Ten policies are proposed that seek the following outcomes:

1.         Road space is prioritised to improve safety, movement and amenity by applying a road priority matrix.

2.         Parking is managed in high demand areas (85% occupancy) using a staged approach (including time limits, charging and resident scheme).

3.         Residential parking schemes are considered in high demand areas, on a case by case basis. Permits allow residents to be exempt from time limits in their areas.  Residents with no off-street parking and restricted mobility are prioritised in the allocation of permits.

4.         Honour existing resident’s only parking space permits. New resident-only on-street parking permits will only be allocated within resident parking exemption schemes.

5.         Deter private businesses from using on-street parking to store vehicles on the road.

6.         New off-street public parking is only provided by Council if certain criteria are met.

7.         Improve access for those with restricted mobility.

8.         Provide all types of parking, including motorcycle, electric vehicles, coaches and bicycles, in additional to motor vehicle parking, to encourage greater use of alternatives to the single occupant car.

9.         Adopt advances in parking management technology to improve parking outcomes.

10.       Parking is managed in narrow streets (7 meters) to enable safe access to the street.

5.13    City-wide public consultation, over a one month period, is proposed on the draft policy to gather community feedback on how to manage suburban parking. This would include a joint Community Board briefing, briefings with interested resident or business associations and online media coverage. Consultation documents will be made available at libraries and service centres, with submissions encouraged through ‘Have Your Say’ website. All submitters will be invited to have their views heard by the Hearings Panel. The Hearing Panel will then make recommendations to the Council of changes to the Policy.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve draft Suburban Parking Policy for public consultation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the draft Suburban Parking Policy for public consultation.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report due to the project having a city wide impact with long term strategic implications and known community concerns over parking availability for business and residents.

6.3       The pre-engagement with key stakeholders prior to city wide community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect this assessment. Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this medium rating.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Key stakeholders, including resident associations and business associations as representatives of their local communities, were invited to comment on parking issues through the Issues and Options Discussion document, outlined in Section 5 of this report. Their views and preferences have informed the direction of the draft Policy.

6.6       City-wide consultation is proposed on the draft Policy to gather further community feedback on how suburban parking should be managed. This report recommends that the hearings panel will consider submission and make recommendations on the final Suburban Parking Policy, which will be presented to council for adoption.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       The recommendations of this report aligns with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

Financial Implications

6.8       The cost of developing this Policy can be covered by Council’s current transport planning budget. There is no additional financial implications.

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications in adopting the draft Suburban Parking Policy.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.10    There is a low level of risks of consulting on a draft suburban parking policy. There is likely to be significant interest in parking issues in suburban areas. This Policy, however, does not propose any changes to any car parks. The document provides a draft policy framework to guide future decisions on car parks. There will be a case by case assessment on future changes to any car parking, and consultation as appropriate to any situation, however the policy framework will promote more consistent decision making across the city.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a policy framework to better manage parking and to clarify Council’s role in suburban parking, in particular on-street parking.

·   Encourages consistency in parking management decisions, especially around road priority and residential parking.

·   The policy recognises that streets play an important role for both residents and the city as a whole. They provide space for people to move around the city, green space, places to meet and socialise, and they often provide parking. This creates competing demands for road space.  The policy will aims to shape how the Council allocates street space and manages on-street parking demand.

·   Supports changes made through the review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw in 2017.

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Costs and resources required to develop policy and undertake consultation.

 


 

7.   Option 2 - Do not develop a Suburban Parking Policy

Option Description

7.1       Do not proceed with the draft Suburban Parking Policy.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium, consistent with section 2 of this report, due to known community concerns over parking availability and management of parking for business and residents. These concerns would continue under this option, and there would be no consistent approach to managing these concerns across the city.  

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Key stakeholders, including resident associations and business associations as representatives of their local communities, were invited to comment on parking issues through the Issues and Options Discussion document. If this option is followed to not proceed with a draft Policy, their views and preferences would not be reflected in how we manage suburban parking.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       The recommendations of this approach do not align with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and would not support the recent changes to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, in particular around residential parking.

Financial Implications

7.6       There are no financial implications of not developing a draft suburban parking policy.

Legal Implications

7.7       There are no legal implications of not developing a draft Suburban Parking Policy.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.8       There are no significant risks of not developing a draft Suburban Parking Policy.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.9       The advantages of this option include:

·    Changes to parking management across the city will continue to be made on a case by case basis.

7.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There would be no consistent city-wide strategy on how to address competing demands for public space in suburban streets and council car parks. This means that individual decisions will be made to each parking issues in each area, as they are raised by the community. This approach has the potential to slow the implementation of projects which require changes to on-street parking.

·    There would be no policy framework on how Council should manage parking and prioritise public road space.

·    There could be a lack of consistency in parking decisions, especially in residential areas and it could become difficult to implement a new city-wide residential parking scheme.

·    There would be no policy to support the changes made in the 2017 review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Draft Suburban Parking Policy

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Hudson - Senior Policy Planner Transport

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Greg Edwards - Policy Planner - Transport

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 12 September 2018

 

22.    Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project

Reference:

18/961144

Presenter(s):

Carolyn Ingles – Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage
Alistair Pearson – Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Confirm the commencement of the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project to deliver public realm improvements, especially to the South and South East portion of Cathedral Square adjacent to – and coordinated with – the existing and in construction private developments in this area.

2.         Confirm that the scope of the public realm improvement project will include reuse of existing materials and investigate new elements where it is cost effective to do so and spatially focussed as follows:

i.          Phase 1 South East Corner: from Worcester Street – Colombo Street

ii.         Phase 2 South West Corner: from Colombo Street – Strand Lane

iii.        Phase 2a: immediately in front of the former Warner’s Hotel

3.         Approve the funding for the project from the LTP capital project ID 2735 – The Square & Surrounds. 

4.         Note that the unspent portion of LTP capital project ID 2735 will be retained for future stages of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements. 

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Confirm the commencement of the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project to deliver public realm improvements, especially to the South and South East portion of Cathedral Square adjacent to – and coordinated with – the existing and in construction private developments in this area.

2.         Confirm that the scope of the public realm improvement project will include reuse of existing materials and investigate new elements where it is cost effective to do so and spatially focussed as follows:

i.          Phase 1 South East Corner: from Worcester Street – Colombo Street

ii.         Phase 2 South West Corner: from Colombo Street – Strand Lane

iii.        Phase 2a: immediately in front of the former Warner’s Hotel

3.         Approve the funding for the project from the LTP capital project ID 2735 – The Square & Surrounds. 

4.         Note that the unspent portion of LTP capital project ID 2735 will be retained for future stages of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project

349

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project

Reference:

18/862301

Presenter(s):

Carolyn Ingles – Heard of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage
Alistair Pearson – Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to the Council that the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project is approved and that the project will be funded using some of the net $4.6 million which is Council’s contribution to the Cathedral Square anchor project.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of the Council resolution from the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan CLTP/2018/00017 and now seeks to confirm the project and allow drawdown of funding:

9(j)         That the Council notes it endorsement of progressing public realm improvements to Cathedral Square, acknowledging the need for a coordinated and prioritised approach within existing budgets; the Council will be progressing public realm improvements to the southern area of Cathedral Square to tie in with planned private sector developments.

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 2018-2028 LTP already identifying the project in the 2018-2028 LTP, that Council endorses this project and that it will be funded from within existing budgets.  A number of submitters on the 2018 LTP requested that the Council works collaborative with their developments on sites surrounding Cathedral Square – and this project will achieve that. 

2.1.2   Significant consultation and engagement has also been undertaken on Cathedral Square and surrounds by Regenerate Christchurch.  The proposals in this paper are consistent with the engagement and consultation feedback received.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Confirm the commencement of the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project to deliver public realm improvements, especially to the South and South East portion of Cathedral Square adjacent to – and coordinated with – the existing and in construction private developments in this area.

2.         Confirm that the scope of the public realm improvement project will include reuse of existing materials and investigate new elements where it is cost effective to do so and spatially focussed as follows:

i.          Phase 1 South East Corner: from Worcester Street – Colombo Street

ii.         Phase 2 South West Corner: from Colombo Street – Strand Lane

iii.        Phase 2a: immediately in front of the former Warner’s Hotel

3.         Approve the funding for the project from the LTP capital project ID 2735 – The Square & Surrounds. 

4.         Note that the unspent portion of LTP capital project ID 2735 will be retained for future stages of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council resolved the following in relation to Cathedral Square as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan:

That the Council notes its endorsement of progressing public realm improvements to Cathedral Square, acknowledging the need for a coordinated and prioritised approach within existing budgets; the Council will be progressing public realm improvements to the southern area of Cathedral Square to tie in with planned private sector developments.

4.2       While this resolution sets out an intent, it does not provide explicit approval for the project, the funding, or the scope.  Formal Council approval to commence the project and drawdown funding, is therefore now sought.

4.3       The report also notes how the community and elected members will be updated as the project proceeds.

 

5.   Context/Background

Project Scope

5.1       The Council LTP resolution identifies the need to integrate with planned private sector developments in the southern area of the square.  In particular, the private sector developments which need to be considered are the Nexus development with Spark as tenants (formerly the BNZ site) and the Redson development, Aotea Gifts (formerly the ANZ). Currently the timing for the opening of these businesses is mid-late 2019. With the completion of these developments a large part of the edge around the southern and eastern end of Cathedral Square including the plaza outside Tūranga New Central Library, will be completed.

5.2       To meet the expectations set in the Council resolution, the public realm within this area requires upgrading in time for the completion of the private developments.  It is proposed to develop a design that can be delivered on time and within available budgets while incorporating key design drivers from the Regenerate Christchurch vision. This will include consideration of temporary changes to the public realm including the associated events and activities; alongside enabling co-ordinated and safe access to Cathedral Square whilst key rebuilds occur.  As part of this process consideration will need to be given to the appropriate level of engagement and consultation.

5.3       The scope of the improvements will involve a reuse of the existing materials with new components added where it is practical and cost effective to do so.  The Regenerate Christchurch vision identified greening and paving elements which will be considered for inclusion.

5.4       Public realm improvements are envisaged to be completed in phases to broadly align with completion of adjoining developments as set out below:

·    Phase 1 South East Corner: from Worcester Street – Colombo Street.

·    Phase 2 South West Corner: from Colombo Street – Strand Lane.

·    Phase 2A immediately in front of the former Warner’s Hotel.

 

5.5       There are several public and private sector projects which will impact and have interdependencies within Cathedral Square.  Officials are liaising with parties involved in these projects to understand how to effectively manage these interdependencies. 

5.6       Currently, events are regularly programmed in Cathedral Square and event plans will need to adjust as works areas for the Cathedral and other developments change. Further activation will need to be considered as the project and the square evolves.

Elected Member Updates

5.7       Elected members will be updated regularly through monthly updates or with additional frequencies, if so required.      

Financial Implications

5.8       Cost of Implementation – The 2018-2028 Long Term Plan budgets for $9.44M as set out in the table below.  It is anticipated that for the delivery of the areas identified in paragraph 5.4, all of the FY2019 funding is likely to be spent and all or part of the FY2020 funding could be required (circa $3.6m).  Once the scope and costs are defined, staff will report back to this committee.  The remaining capital budget (expected to be approximately $5.8m) will be retained to complete future phases of the Cathedral Square public realm improvement.  These will be scoped once greater clarity on the timing and impacts from the Cathedral reinstatement project are known. 

5.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Transport operating budgets currently fund the ongoing maintenance and cleaning in The Square.  There is no anticipated increase in cleaning costs for paved areas however new landscape treatments may require extra operating cost budgets.

5.10    Funding source – funding for the capital expenditure is available from project ID 2735 – The Square & Surrounds.   Additional operations budget maybe required from FY2020 onwards to maintain any enhanced landscaping.

5.11    The following project funding is provided for in the 2018-2028 LTP:

Financial Year

2019

2020

2021

2022

Total

2018-2028 LTP ($ millions)

1.04

2.58

2.67

3.15

9.44


This project forms Council’s contribution to The Square – Schedule Nine of the Crown Cost Share Agreement.  The 2018-28 Long Term Plan assumes the Council receives a 50 % Contribution under that agreement.  This has been agreed by the Crown and Council (as per the Cost Sharing Agreement), and the financial transfer will be addressed through the global settlement arrangements in due course. 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 12 September 2018

 

23.    LDRP515 Estuary Drain Revised Concept

Reference:

18/961358

Presenter(s):

Tom Parsons – Surface Water Engineer

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Progress the preferred minor works option (option 1) to construction.

2.         Modify the works upstream of the Breezes Road Drain in the previously resolved ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ from resolution CNCL/2016/00284.

3.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Estuary Drain Works.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Progress the preferred minor works option (option 1) to construction.

2.         Modify the works upstream of the Breezes Road Drain in the previously resolved ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ from resolution CNCL/2016/00284.

3.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Estuary Drain Works.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

LDRP515 Estuary Drain Revised Concept

354

 

 

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

LDRP515 Estuary Drain Revised Concept

Reference:

18/722472

Presenter(s):

Tom Parsons – Surface Water Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) to recommend to the Council a preferred option for the Estuary Drain Project.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. The report follows from an earlier report to the ITE Committee and the Council (23 June 2016).  The Council decision CNCL/2016/00284 supported progressing the Preferred Option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction. The preferred option included renewal of the Breezes Road Drain within Bexley reserve, construction of a new stormwater pipe along Woodlands Place and works to an existing inter-allotment drain.

1.3       The detailed design was completed and a tender was put to the market. The tender prices received exceeded budget. Numerous alternatives have been explored with the viable options presented in this report.

1.4       This reports seeks to revisit the earlier preferred option upstream of the Breezes Road Drain.  This report does not seek to revisit the renewal of Breezes Road Drain as it was included in the original preferred option and is still required.

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 small number of residents affected by the decision.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment. Engagement with the landowners affected by flooding and the original proposed works has been undertaken.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Progress the preferred minor works option (option 1) to construction.

2.         Modify the works upstream of the Breezes Road Drain in the previously resolved ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ from resolution CNCL/2016/00284.

3.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Estuary Drain Works.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection & Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5.0 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding - Delivery of works to meet floodplain management plans and remaining high priority plans: Start delivery of works to meet Heathcote, Avon and Estuary floodplain management plan  

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered (Figure 1):

·     Option 1 – Minor works (preferred option) that include new pipework beneath Cuthberts Road, removal of a large poplar tree and raising a short length of footpath along Breezes Road (to help manage overland flows).

·     Option 2 – Original concept (increase budget).

·     Option 3 – Renew Breezes Road Drain Only (do nothing upstream).

4.3       All the options include replacing the Breezes Road Drain.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduction of the frequency of property flooding in small rainfall events for approximately three properties along Breezes Road.

·     Reduced cost.

·     Can be delivered within the existing budget.

·     Minimal impact on private property owners.

·     Improved efficiency of existing drainage network along Breezes Road.

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Very limited benefit in larger rainfall events, if any.

Figure 1 Breezes Road Drain and other minor works in Option 1

4.5       Following the receipt of tenders, a range of options were considered to reduce the cost of construction to come under the budget assigned for the project. These included: four different alternative pipe alignments (Delamare Park, a vacant property on Woodlands Place, Breezes Road, existing drain alignment), upgrade of existing Breezes Road pipe network along with upgrades to Cuthberts North Drain and application of the flood intervention policy. These were discounted for a variety of reasons in favour of the three options presented in this report.

4.6       Council has received repeated complaints of flooding of Breezes Road with overflow from the road entering private property before discharging to the inter-allotment drain upstream of Breezes Road Drain.

 

5.   Context/Background

Earlier Concept

5.1       The Estuary Drain discharges into Ōtākaro / Avon River upstream of the Bridge Street Bridge and collects flows from the catchment roughly bounded by Bexley Park, Cuthberts Green and Aranui Primary School.

5.2       The Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) investigation into the Lower Avon Drains (Knights, Estuary, City Outfall and Brittans) was awarded to engineering consultants, Jacobs, in April 2015. The study investigated earthquake related flood risk within the catchment and identified options for repair, remediation and enhancement. The issues, options and concept design report resulted in the recommendation of the ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’. The proposed option was adopted by the Council on 23 June 2016 (CNCL/2016/00284).

5.3       This project is identified as a medium/low priority within the LDRP. The preliminary cost estimate for the option adopted on 23 June 2016 was $1.8 M +/- 30%.

5.4       The total outturn cost estimate for undertaking the ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ was estimated at $2.42 M immediately following tender, now for option 2 we are expecting this cost to be approximately $2.6 M. This was greater than the approved budget of $2.26 M, including contingency, provided for in the original decision. Rather than seek additional funding the project team considered alternative options as described in this report.

Drain Renewal

5.5       Breezes Road Drain is severely earthquake damaged (Figure 2). The drain needs to be rebuilt. As the original resolution supported this activity the renewal of the drain is not considered further within this report and it is included within all options.

5.6       The budget remaining after allowance for the drain renewal is insufficient to cover the estimated costs of the remaining approved works. The options presented in this report consider how to provide benefit to flood affected residents along Breezes Road, using the budget remaining after allowance for Breezes Road Drain renewal.

Flood Risk

5.7       Significant earthquake land damage has been observed in the area. Some parts of the catchment have been estimated to have dropped in the order of 1 metre, but more typically 200 mm – 400 mm in the urban area. This has increased predicted flood risk in some areas within the catchment in an estimated 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event, however buildings located within these areas are typically elevated above flood levels.  No above floor flooding has been reported to Council in the catchment since the earthquakes.

5.8       Floors at risk of flooding are defined as those residential dwelling floors with flooding within 100 mm of the floor level. These have been assessed for the 2% and 10% AEP pre- and post-earthquake events.

Figure 2 Post-Earthquake Breezes Road Drain

5.9       There are no floors estimated to be at risk of flooding in a 10% AEP event, either pre-earthquake or post-earthquake. In the post-quake predicted 2% AEP rainfall event there are two residential floors estimated at risk of pluvial flooding in the vicinity of the proposed works. The flood risk at these properties has increased as a result of earthquake induced land damage. These two properties would be benefited by the original ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’.

5.10    All of the adjacent urban areas are above today's 20% AEP tide but are below a similar event if 1 metre sea level rise is allowed for. There are localised depressions located within the catchment which present drainage challenges.

5.11    Extreme tide levels within the Avon River ('tidal' flooding) will exert increasing influence on the catchment as sea levels rise, indicating that stormwater pumping will become necessary over time to service the local stormwater drainage network.

5.12   

6.   Option 1 – Minor works option (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option includes new pipework beneath Cuthberts Road in the general vicinity of Nugents Street, removal of a large poplar tree and raising a short length of footpath (approximately 50 metres) along Breezes Road (to help manage overland flows) in the order of 150 mm. Some works on private property may be required to support raising of the footpath.  A short length of renewal of the inter-allotment drain behind the Breezes Road properties is required.

6.2       This option will not address flood risk in large rainfall events but will assist in reducing the frequency of property flooding in small rainfall events. The aim will be to improve the efficiency of stormwater capture within the existing drainage network in events up to approximately a 20% AEP rainfall event. In events larger than this there will be only very limited benefits, if any.

6.3       The three properties will still be at risk of flooding in a 10% AEP rainfall event and the two properties with floor levels at risk in a 2% AEP rainfall event will remain at risk. The property owners of the flood affected properties will have a reduction in the frequency of flooding but not the magnitude of flooding in large events. These residents may be inconvenienced by the footpath raising construction. Detailed design will identify the need for on property works, if any.

6.4       The original option and this option include removal of a large poplar tree which grows above the inlet to the pipe network at the downstream end of the inter-allotment drain behind properties along Woodlands Place and Breezes Road. In a previous tree survey undertaken in 2016 the tree condition was described as fair. Removal of this tree will reduce risk of blockage of the network and damage to the network should the tree fall naturally. Removal of the tree has the support of the property owner.  The tree is not a Council tree and is not protected.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to discuss the option with the directly affected property owners. The property owners who were directly affected by the earlier ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ will need to be informed of any decisions resulting from this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       The property owners at risk and those who were directly affected by the earlier ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ are specifically affected by this option.

6.9       Those impacted by the earlier proposed option included a number of property owners down a shared driveway. The works would have affected access to the properties during construction giving rise to some inconvenience for residents.  These owners would not have benefitted from the works but were generally accepting of the works. Access impacts were of particular concern to one resident. Restricting access to these properties will not be required with this option.

6.10    The property owner on Woodlands Place with the poplar tree expressed support for removal of the tree.

6.11    One resident would have benefited with the replacement of an existing garage along the proposed pipe alignment. This will no longer be required.

6.12    The flood affected properties have expressed support for reducing flood impacts on their properties. The owner of the lowest lying property currently manages drainage of floodwaters onsite during and following an event. The footpath raising has the support of that property owner.

6.13    This option was presented to the Coastal – Burwood Community Board (the Board) on 6 August 2018 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. There was general agreement from Community Board on the approach but the Board expressed some concern about the expectations of the community having been raised though the original Council decision.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.14    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, although it will not aid in the delivery of the Long Term Plan Level of Service 14.1.1.

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – The total outturn cost for option 1 is $1.92 M including costs to date, forecasted costs to complete the downstream drain renewal, the forecasted works included in this option and an allowance for contingency. The total budget of $2.26 M is expected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed works.  Allowances for renewal of the inter-allotment drain has not be made in the estimates above and will only be progressed if sufficient budget is available.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Existing maintenance and operational costs will not be materially affected by this option.

6.17    Funding source – Funding for this project is provided from the existing project budget within FY19 and FY20 (CMPS ID 26891). The budget provides sufficient funding for this option.  Any budget remaining at completion of the project is proposed to be returned to the overarching LDRP budget for use in other projects within the programme. The project team will explore options to progress the construction work in FY19 by bringing project budget back from FY20.

Legal Implications

6.18    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.19    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the mechanics of the resolutions facilitating this change of option have been discussed.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.20    There will still be a risk of floor level flooding in a 2% AEP rainfall event following the implementation of this proposal.

6.20.1 Residual risk rating: The risk remains unchanged with this option as the proposed works do not address this level of flood risk, however, the residents will be better informed of the potential outcomes.

6.21    Access to private properties may be required to enable the footpath raising. This could result in delays or a need to compromise the design.

6.21.1 Residual risk rating: Initial discussions with the landowners have been favourable.  The affected landowners have expressed support for the works.

6.21.2 Planned treatments include ongoing discussions with affected landowners and potential design modifications. 

6.22    There are a large number of existing services along Cuthberts Road including an underground 66 kV power cable. Laying the new stormwater pipe across these services may cost more than estimated, require service relocations or preclude the pipe being laid.

6.22.1 Residual risk rating: The issue has not yet been fully explored at this stage in the design and will be investigated as part of detailed design should this option be approved.

6.22.2 Planned treatments include potholing services early in the next design stages and early engagement with service providers. If it is found that the proposed alignment is not achievable this component of the work will not be delivered.

Implementation

6.23    Implementation dependencies - None.

6.24    Implementation timeframe – Funding for the project is currently spread across FY19 and FY 20. It is planned to undertake the drain reconstruction work in FY19 with the other works to follow in FY20. A bring back would be required to support completion of the entire option in FY19.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduction of the frequency of property flooding in small rainfall events for approximately three properties along Breezes Road.

·   Reduced cost when compared against the original ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’.

·   Can be delivered within the existing budget.

·   Minimal impact on private property owners.

·   Improved efficiency of existing drainage network along Breezes Road.

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Very limited benefit in larger rainfall events, if any.


 

7.   Option 2 – Original concept (increase budget)

Option Description

7.1       This option would deliver the original proposed ‘Repair and Limited Remediation’ option but will require an increase in budget.  The scope of the renewal of Breezes Road Drain in this option (as originally tendered) includes terramesh and phyto-treatment of the drain. This scope differs from options 1 and 3, both of which include a more cost effective solution with a section of pipe and swale and a section of timber drain renewal.  This scope was removed from the other options during a value engineering exercise.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this option were met prior to the original report on the project.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The original ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for the drain works and mitigation of the new post-earthquake floor level flooding, but expressed concern that underfloor flooding was only marginally improved.  On the 6 August 2018 the Coastal-Burwood Community Board was in general agreement with the approach set out in Option 1 but did have concerns about community expectations regarding the original option.

7.6       Enacting this option will inconvenience residents along Woodlands Place, who are not directly benefited by the works. Some of the residents have raised concerns about access to their properties during the works.

7.7       Flood levels would drop at the two properties at risk of over floor flooding with this option but frequent on-property flooding would still occur. The lowest lying property owner has supported works in the area to reduce flood risk.

7.8       One resident would benefit from a replacement garage if this option were to progress.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies and will aid in delivery of level of service 14.1.1.

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – The total outturn cost for Option 2 is $2.64 M including costs to date, a forecast of costs to complete the work and an allowance for contingency. The total budget of $2.26M is insufficient to complete the works proposed in Option 2.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance costs will be very low for the new pipe in the short term. Council will have to allow for depreciation costs within its budgets. The new pipe would be included in City Care contract once complete.

7.12    Funding source – An increase in the existing budget would be required to support this option. Programme funding for FY19 is fully allocated to projects. If the additional funding were sought from the LDRP budget then this could be achieved through a slight delay of an existing project, such as LDRP513 Pump Station 205 Upgrade.

Legal Implications

7.13    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

7.14    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.15    Access to private property was negotiated prior to tendering of this option and easement agreements remain in place. Views of land owners may have changed since these access agreements were negotiated. There is no way to mitigate this risk other than to re-enter negotiation with affected parties following a decision on this report.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies – none.

7.17    Implementation timeframe – retendering of the works would be required. Construction could start in FY19, however, the programme and construction staging would need to consider budget availability.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Remediates increases in flood risk associated with the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ('the earthquakes') for the two houses estimated to be at risk in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event that were not estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes.

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Disruption to residents of Woodlands Place.

·   Higher cost.

·   Delay in other LDRP projects to enable funding of this project.

·   Does not address overland flows through and ponding on properties along Breezes Road.


 

8.   Option 3 – Renew Breezes Road Drain Only (Do Nothing Upstream)

Option Description

8.1       This option would abandon all upstream works and only complete the drain renewal.

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 to discuss the option with the directly affected property owners. The property owners who were directly affected by the earlier ‘Repair and Limited Remediation Option’ will need to be informed of any decisions resulting from this report.

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       The flood affected properties have expressed support for reducing flood impacts on their properties. The owner of the lowest lying property currently manages drainage of floodwaters through temporary pumping during and following an event. This property owner opposes this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Strategic priority for Council to adopt informed and proactive approaches to natural hazard risks. This strategic priority calls for investment in disaster risk reduction. A do nothing option will not meet this requirement.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – The total outturn cost for option 3 is $1.71 M including costs to date, forecasted costs to complete the work and an allowance for contingency. The total budget of $2.26M is expected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed works.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – nil.

8.9       Funding source – Any surplus budget at the end of the project could be returned to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme to allow for higher priority works to progress. This would help deliver against Council’s strategic priority.

Legal Implications

8.10    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

8.11    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.12    There is a risk of flooding in both very frequent and extreme events to a small number of properties if no works are undertaken.

8.13    The locally affected residents are likely to be opposed to a decision to do nothing and could seek an alternative decision.

8.13.1 Residual risk rating: Not applicable.

8.13.2 Planned treatment is to proactively engage with the affected landowners to describe the decision.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies – none.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   No costs in excess of the renewal costs.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Flood risk remains.

·   Opposed by flood affected residents.

·   Does not align with Council’s strategic priorities.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Martin Densham - Project Manager

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

24.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 September 2018

Reference:

18/964937

Presenter(s):

Samantha Kelly – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 12 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 12 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 12 September 2018

366

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

25.    Kart Club Relocation and Consent Application

Reference:

18/951442

Presenter(s):

Paul Waiting, Team Leader City Planning
Brent Smith, Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek further direction on progressing the Christchurch Kart Club Incorporated (the ‘Kart Club’) relocation to McLeans Island (and the required land use and discharge consent processes).  This is because the $100,000 capped Council contribution towards consent costs has been reached, but the consent has not yet been obtained – further direction is therefore required.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is in relation to a Council Resolution on 13 August 2015 regarding the relocation of Christchurch Kart Club (this report does not include the relocation of Canterbury Greyhounds):

That as the moving of the Canterbury Greyhounds is contingent on the relocation of the Christchurch Kart Club:

1.1       That the Council resolves to implement Option 2 (relocating both the Kart Club and Greyhounds to suitable alternative sites – fixed sum) as specified in the staff report ($3.5m plus GST Kart Club and $450,000 plus GST Greyhounds) to enable current planned development (including residential) to be achieved and agrees to the following:

1.1.1   That the Corporate Support Manager(*) be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into such contractual and lease documentation as considered necessary or appropriate to effect the surrender of the existing leases at Carrs Reserve held by the Kart club and the Greyhounds and the relocation of those clubs to alternative premises (including the possible grant of a new lease of Council land to the Greyhounds and Kart Club);

1.1.2   That the Council funding (to the extent detailed in Option 2 above) for the relocation of both the Kart Club and the Greyhounds activities from Carrs Reserve to new sites be brought forward as part of the deliberations on the 2016/17 Annual Plan (currently in the LTP in 2021/2022 and 2022/2023).

1.1.3   That this option should have a time restriction placed on it for the uptake of the offer by the clubs, sufficient to ensure that the project could be considered as part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan and a date be set by which the Clubs must have moved and surrendered their respective leases. Where possible, this date should coincide with the end of the Kart Club’s racing season so as not to disadvantage the members. If this option is not accepted by the Kart Club at any point up to February 2016, then Option 2 lapses and the assigned funding is potentially returned to the Council’s budget.

1.1.4   That staff proceed to initiate the necessary processes for applying consents to enable Option 2 to be achieved, in consultation with the two clubs and that any Council contribution to the consenting process be capped at $100,000.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the high level of possible costs and benefits to the wider community. Should the Council decide to discontinue its support for the relocation and consent process, there is a high amount of reputational risk to Council.

2.1.2   There are tangible and definite benefits, and additional opportunities are likely to be realised:

·     Continuation of CCC’s long-term political and financial commitment to relocate the Club for facilitating full residential development potential of the Awatea land block in Wigram (capacity for 380-670 dwellings depending on site sizes), with its related DC potential of an estimated $13M-$23M[7] and potential rates income;

·     Increased likelihood of an eventual preferred land use outcome for the Kart Club, CCC and the Awatea community;

·     Logical resolution of an ongoing resource consent process which is otherwise set to stall, leading to the eventual rejection of the application by CCC Consenting under RMA requirements.

2.1.3   There is high financial cost and/or risk and limited options for managing, mitigating or avoiding these:

·     Additional CCC expenditure on a resource consent process that is not guaranteed to lead to an approval; or, even in the event that it does, may be challenged through an Environment Court by a number of neighbours in the McLeans Island area that do not support relocation.

2.1.4   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report will be determined through the statutory consent notification process.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Resolve to continue with the Kart Club relocation process, and agree to provide additional funds of up to $70,000 for the consent process (Option 1).

3.         Or should Council select Option 2 (not provide further funding) of this report, resolve to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to enforce the terms of the 2016 Deed of Surrender of Lease taking such steps as deemed necessary, including cancellation of the agreement for breach of contract.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan - Ensure Christchurch District Plan   is operative.

4.2       The Council and Kart Club entered into a Deed of Surrender of Lease on 21 June 2016 which set out the terms of the surrender of the Kart Clubs lease in return for payment by Council of $3.5M.

4.3       The surrender of the Kart Clubs lease and payment of the $3.5m is conditional on the Club obtaining resource consent for their new facility on land they are proposing to acquire at 156 Conservators Rd. As part of the agreement, the Council agreed to contribute a capped amount of $100,000 to the consent process.

4.4       A Land Use Consent application was subsequently lodged with CCC in October 2017 for the Kart Club’s new track and facilities at 156 Conservators Road, McLeans Island. A Discharge Permit application was simultaneously lodged with Environment Canterbury (ECan).

4.5       The Kart Club responded to the Request for Information (RFI) from both ECan and CCC. Both applications are currently on hold. Minor further information is required by CCC’s Resource Consents Team before a notification decision can be made.

4.6       At this stage the capped budget of $100,000 for the Council’s contribution to the consent process has been expended whilst the Kart Club inform us they do not have the ability to contribute financially to the consent process. 

4.7       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Council continues to support the Kart Club relocation process by providing additional funds towards the consent process (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Council does not contribute additional funds towards the consent process for the Kart Club’s relocation.

4.8       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.8.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Continuation of CCC’s long-term political and financial commitment to relocate the Kart Club, facilitating full residential development potential of the Awatea land block in Halswell, with its related development contributions potential plus rates (up to a maximum of 1,941 households and an estimated $30M in development contributions);

·     Increased likelihood of an eventual preferred land use outcome for the Kart Club, CCC and the Awatea community;

·     Logical resolution of an ongoing resource consent process which is otherwise set to stall, leading to the eventual rejection of the application by CCC Resource Consents under Resource Management Act (RMA) requirements.

4.8.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Additional CCC expenditure on a resource consent process that is not guaranteed to lead to an approval or even in the event that it does, may be challenged through an Environment Court by a number of neighbours in the McLeans Island area that do not support relocation;

·     Difficult to estimate additional costs as they will be dictated in part by the nature of external submissions during the notification period, the subsequent length of any hearing, and the nature of specialist consultancy support potentially required at the hearing.

4.9       Should the Kart Club not proceed with the consent application process, they would be in breach of the agreement and the Council, in its regulatory capacity, would also reject the current application under the Resource Management Act.

4.10    The result of the above is that the Kart Club would not move from their current location at Carrs Reserve.

4.11    The Awatea block has undergone a significant assessment of land use options. Land surrounding Carrs Reserve south of the Christchurch Southern Motorway (CSM) could be rezoned to industrial, which is not the preferred land use outcome because there is already a surplus of 200 hectares of industrial land over 30 years.

4.12    If the Kart Club do not relocate, land surrounding Carrs Reserve south of CSM is not appropriate for residential development. The implications of Kart Club remaining at its current location are:

4.12.1 Additional new greenfield land will have to be found somewhere else either within Christchurch City, Selwyn or Waimakariri districts;

4.12.2 Infrastructure was put in place to service residential land in Awatea. A remodelling of the wastewater network will have to be done, which is an unbudgeted cost.

4.13    The Christchurch District Plan has already zoned the Awatea block of land, illustrated in the attached Appendix 8.10.14 Awatea Outline Development Plan, as residential and is counted as part of the Residential Development Capacity in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. Residential development is currently progressing to implement that part of the Awatea Outline Development Plan south of the CSM.

4.13.1 A subdivision consent (RMA/2017/737 and RMA/2017/737/A) for a total of 106 residential lots and land-use consent (RMA/2017/744) to enable a dwelling to be established on each allotment in Stages 1 and 2 on land adjoining Carrs Reserve at 340-344 Halswell Junction Road has already been granted. Certificates under Section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act will not be issued for Stages 3 and 4 of the proposal until the Kart Club has relocated and motor sports activities at Carrs Reserve have ceased.

4.13.2 Residential development, with required acoustic bunds, has progressed within the higher density residential development area shown in the attached Awatea Outline Development Plan for 100 residential dwellings, under RMA/2017/3133 (Original application number RMA/2016/1372 and former reference RMA92033502).

4.14    It is the staff view that the resource consent process for Kart Club to relocate its track and facilities at McLeans Island has advanced to such a stage that it would be inefficient use of Council resources to cease financial support at this time. Whilst it is impossible to pre-empt a statutory process, our[8] view is that consent, subject to conditions, is likely to be granted following a notification process. Whilst a resource consent is not prescriptive and will have time limits to be given effect, it does provide a greater degree of certainty for the Kart Club in analysing the likely costs of relocation, which can aid the Club in preparing an Annual Plan submission or investigating other potential sources of funding.


 

4.15    It is considered that it is in the Council’s best interest to fulfil its agreement with the Kart Club. The Club has been left in a very challenging position by both the rezoning of land surrounding Carrs Reserve to Residential New Neighbourhood and the subsequent (non-notified) subdivision decisions.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Overview

5.1       In October 2017, Christchurch Kart Club Incorporated (the ‘Kart Club’) lodged a resource consent application to relocate their track and facilities from Carrs Reserve, Halswell to 156 Conservators Road, McLeans Island. The Council’s Citizens and Community Group has supported the application process through the payment of consents fees and consultancy inputs. Costs spent on consultants for the preparation of the consent application and responding to the Request for Information (RFI) amounts to $118,125.46 to date. Subsequently, minor additional RFI work has been required by the Council’s Resource Consents Team before a notification decision can be made.

5.2       At this stage, the capped budget of $100,000 has been expended. The Council does not have additional budget specifically allocated to continue progressing the consent application, either in terms of further consultancy inputs into the RFI or the initiation of a notification process, with its subsequent costs.

5.3       An estimate based on officer’s experience of similar situations would be that up to an additional $70,000 may be required. This cost estimate does not however include the costs of any Environment Court appeal process should one arise post-hearing. Here is a breakdown of the estimated additional costs, based on costs to date and staff experience of resource consent processes:

·   Public notification fee - $15,000 (or $10,000 for limited notification)

·   Further consultancy support, stakeholder engagement/consultation, and hearings commissioner - $35,000-$55,000.

5.4       Council officers met with Kart Club in July and were informed the Club has no ability to contribute financially to the process as all their surplus funds are targeted at unfunded items not covered by the Council grant for the relocation.

5.5       More detailed background to the project is provided below, which highlights why Council has invested in the relocation process to date. The issue to be considered is whether Council still supports the relocation and consent process, and will provide further financial support to the consent process.

Background to CCC’s Support for Relocation

5.6       The relocation of the Kart Club’s track and facilities is needed if the full residential development of the ‘Awatea Block’ south of Wigram (see attached District Plan Appendix 8.10.14) is to be achieved. The non-complying status (Rule 14.12.1.5 NC3) for residential activity and residential units in Awatea applies only to land south of the Christchurch Southern Motorway (CSM) whilst Kart Club operates from its current site. With Kart Club operating there is limited potential for residential development on land surrounding Carrs Reserve because of the noise generated from karting activities. An estimated minimum of 380 and a maximum of 670 households cannot be developed on residential land south of the CSM unless the Kart Club is relocated.

5.7       The Awatea Plan Change (PC5) became operative on July 2011 to facilitate future urban development in an area that had been subject to a Special Purpose Zoning (SPZ) since the 1990s. The Council, by way of resolution, provided an undertaking to landowners in the SPZ to progress a rezoning and PC5 was the outcome of many years of consultation. PC5 noted that its final implementation was principally reliant on two factors – installation of stormwater infrastructure (underway) and the relocation of the Kart Club.

5.8       Residential land in the Awatea Block north and south of the CSM is estimated to provide a minimum of 1,126 households and a maximum of 1,941 households in a range of residential densities. The potential number of sections depends on the range of the site sizes in the affected area which, for Area 2 in the Awatea Outline Development Plan, can be between 450m2 and 800m2. In 2013, Council staff calculated a rough estimate of over $30M of development contributions attainable based on 1500 households that can be provided in the Awatea Block, if Kart Club is relocated.

5.9       Investigations to relocate the Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a suitable site started in the mid-1990s. In over 20 years several sites were considered but negotiations fell through due to various reasons such as timing issues, assessments did not stack up, or lack of support from the landowners. The McLeans Island site was identified as the best option and after years of work the following have been achieved:

·   Sale & Purchase Agreement in 2012 between Kart Club and KB Quarries for eight hectares of land at 156 Conservators Road;

·   2013 Council Resolution to implement the option to relocate the Kart Club and Greyhounds from Carrs Reserve to a suitable site and fund the land-use and discharge consent processes;

·   2015 Council Resolution to implement the option to relocate the Kart Club and Greyhounds from Carrs Reserve to a suitable site at a fixed sum of $3.5M and fund the land-use and discharge consent processes at a capped amount of $100,000;

·   An agreement in 2016 between Council and Kart Club regarding the surrender of lease and Surrender Payment of $3.5M (an agreement with the Canterbury Greyhounds for the surrender of lease and Surrender Payment of $450,000 will be initiated if and when the Kart Club consent is granted); and

·   Land Use Consent and Discharge Permit applications were lodged with Council and Environment Canterbury respectively on October 2017. Both applications are currently on hold pending further information required.

5.10    Attached is a brief history of the work to date and a copy of the 2016 Deed of Surrender of Lease. The Kart Club has held a bona fide lease with Council (and its predecessor, Paparua County Council) since 1988, and the current situation it finds itself in is only the result of the Awatea rezoning and through no action of its own doing. The Club has resisted investing at its current site whilst the consent process is underway, but is now reaching a critical juncture wherein it needs clarity on its long-term future.

6.   Option 1 – Council continues to support the Kart Club relocation by providing additional funds towards the consent process (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option will involve the Council increasing the budget (via the Non-Conforming Uses Fund) and agreeing to provide up to $70,000 towards the consent process to enable the achievement of the Council resolution dated 13 August 2015 regarding the relocation of Christchurch Kart Club.  This funding would be held by the Citizens and Community Group and expended against the consent costs. 


 

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to be determined through the statutory consent notification process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. It is noted however that Te Taumutu Rūnanga and Te Ngai Tuahuriri Rūnanga, who have a shared interest in the South-West Christchurch area, supports a consistent approach with that taken in the Council’s South-West Area Plan, which includes the relocation of Kart Club’s track and facilities.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The Kart Club is specifically affected by this option. This option will enable the Kart Club to fulfil the sole condition of the 2016 Deed of Surrender to obtain a resource consent, and subsequently surrender its lease to Council. The Kart Club supports this option.

6.6       The Awatea residents are specifically affected by this option due to development constraints imposed on land surrounding Carrs Reserve whilst Kart Club operates at its existing site.  Their view is that the sooner the Kart Club obtains the resource consent the sooner the Club can relocate and, as a result, release their land for residential development.

6.7       KB Quarries is also specifically affected by this option, being the landowner of the consent application site. This option will help satisfy one of the conditions stipulated in its 2012 Sale and Purchase Agreement with Kart Club.

6.8       Environment Canterbury owns a vast area of land near the consent application site. Letters were received from ECan’s McLeans Island tenants expressing concerns in respect of the Kart Club’s resource consent application. Concerns about a range of potential effects from Kart Club’s proposed activities relate to reverse sensitivity, traffic, noise, litter and dust pollution, and effects on animals. ECan has no particular view regarding its tenants’ concerns but is willing to arrange and facilitate a meeting between its tenants, Kart Club and CCC. The tenants concerned are namely: Deer Stalkers’ Association, Handloaders Association, Target Shooting Club, Steam Scene, and Orana Park.

6.9       Other neighbouring landowners who have also expressed concerns are Harewood Gravels and Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust (ICWT). Harewood Gravels is particularly concerned about the potential effects on its existing Bird Hazard Management Plans, water quality/quantity, and the impact on the proposed future rural use of land. ICWT is concerned about the potential effects on its aviary at Peacock Springs.

6.10    Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL) has indicated that they have no concerns in regards to Kart Club’s proposal and consent application. CIAL has decided to take a neutral stance.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Funding to continue with this consent application is not allocated from the Long Term Plan. 

6.13    Funding is to be sourced from the Non-Conforming Uses Fund, as referenced in the Reserves and Trust Funds section of the Annual Report. This is a fund providing for properties containing non-conforming uses causing nuisance to surrounding residential areas and inhibiting investment and redevelopment for residential purposes.

6.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs for the existing site will be minimal should the Kart Club relocate. Future development of the site and subsequent maintenance would be subject to public consultation and inclusion in a future LTP. There are no maintenance implications for Council at the new site as it would be a private facility and not on Council land.

Legal Implications

6.15    The legal situation about the Kart Club relocation has been considered previously and already documented in an existing Deed of Surrender between Council and Kart Club. There are no legal implications relevant to this decision.

6.16    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a risk that the consent, if granted, may be appealed in the Environment Court. This will result in additional costs.

6.17.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk will be high.

6.17.2 Planned treatment(s) include engaging with ECan’s McLeans Island tenants and other interested parties to address any concerns relating to potential effects of the Kart Club relocating to McLeans Island.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Implementation is dependent on gaining consents. The payment to the Greyhounds is also subject to the Kart Club relocation.

6.19    Implementation timeframe - The timeframe is dependent upon securing a resource consent for the new site.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·     Continuation of CCC’s long-term political and financial commitment to relocate the Kart Club for facilitating full residential development potential of the Awatea land block in Halswell, with its related development contributions potential plus rates (up to a maximum of 1,941 households and an estimated $30M in development contributions);

·     Increased likelihood of an eventual preferred land use outcome for the Kart Club, CCC and the Awatea community;

·     Logical resolution of an ongoing resource consent process which is otherwise set to stall, leading to the eventual rejection of the application by CCC Resource Consents under Resource Management Act (RMA) requirements.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Additional CCC expenditure on a resource consent process that is not guaranteed to lead to an approval; or, even in the event that it does, may be challenged through an Environment Court by a number of neighbours in the McLeans Island area that do not support relocation;

·     Difficult to estimate additional costs as they will be dictated in part by the nature of external submissions during the notification period, the subsequent length of any hearing, and the nature of specialist consultancy support potentially required at the hearing.

7.   Option 2 - Council does not contribute additional funds towards the consent process for the Kart Club’s relocation

Option Description

7.1       This option will involve the Council not contributing any more funds towards the Kart Club relocation consent process.

7.2       Should Council select this option, the Kart Club may not proceed with its consent application. This would result in Council, in its regulatory capacity, rejecting the consent application and should this occur, Council (as landlord) would then be able to cancel the 2016 Deed of Surrender of Lease for breach of contract.

7.3       If the Council did not cancel the agreement, it would have to carry forward the surrender payment of $3.5M for an indefinite amount of time as the agreement is drafted such that the date of surrender of the lease and the relocation of the Kart Club is now linked to the decision on the resource consent application.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is high consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.5       There are no further engagement requirements for this option, engagement was addressed for the original decision in 2015.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       Should the Council select this option the Kart Club will remain in its current location and the zoning of the surrounding area will be limited to industrial land uses. Industrial land uses (albeit with mitigation) pose a greater risk to water quality. Avoidance of high risk activities locating upstream of the Heathcote River and nearby springs (being Taonga) is preferred by local Rūnanga.

Community Views and Preferences

7.7       The Kart Club is specifically affected by this option. Should Council select this option, the Kart Club will remain at their current location at Carrs Reserve, which is not their preference.

7.8       The Awatea residents are specifically affected by this option due to development constraints imposed on their land surrounding Carrs Reserve whilst Kart Club operates at its existing site.  Their preference is to have the Kart Club relocate to enable the release of their land for residential development.

7.9       KB Quarries is also specifically affected by this option, being the landowner of the consent application site. Should the Council select this option and the Kart Club does not obtain a resource consent because they don’t have the ability to continue with the consent application process, then the 2012 Sale and Purchase Agreement with Kart Club will fall through.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.11    Cost of Implementation  There is no additional cost with this option, however the Kart Club are likely to request additional funding through the Annual Plan process.

7.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - No additional ongoing costs

Legal Implications

7.13    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. The Council, for its part, has already fulfilled its obligation to provide $100,000 towards the consent process, under Clause 2.2 of the 2016 Deed of Surrender agreement.

7.14    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

7.15    There is a risk to Council of the Kart Club challenging Council decisions going forward if they find redevelopment on their current site is their only option and then find it heavily constrained by Council decisions that were made in a manner that indicates relocation was highly likely.

7.15.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is/are implemented will be high.

7.15.2 Planned treatment includes negotiating with the Kart Club an agreed way forward.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies - There will be no implementation.

7.17    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   This option will mean Council does not contribute any more funds on the consent process and it will be up to Kart Club to secure funds to continue its consent application.

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased likelihood of Kart Club remaining at its current location at Carrs Reserve and the surrounding land south of the Christchurch Southern Motorway (CSM) could be rezoned to industrial, which is not the preferred land use outcome.

·   If the Kart Club is not relocated, most of the land surrounding Carrs Reserve south of CSM is not appropriate for residential development. The implications of this would be:

·     Additional new greenfield land will have to be found somewhere else either within Christchurch City, Selwyn or Waimakariri;

·     Infrastructure was put in place to service residential land in Awatea. A remodelling of the wastewater network will have to be done, which is an unbudgeted cost.

·   The more than 20 years’ worth of staff work, cost of investigating options for the relocation of the Kart Club, and the costs spent already towards the consent process would be wasted.

·   Loss of potential housing capacity for 380-670 dwellings, an estimated $13M-$23M of potential development contributions and potential rates income.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Appendix 8.10.14 Awatea Outline Development Plan

382

b

Kart Club Relocation History of Work

383

c

Surrender of Lease - Kart Club

385

 

 

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

Paul Waiting - Team Leader City Planning

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Marie Pollisco - Policy Planner

Justin Sims - Property Consultant

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

26.    2018/19 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund

Reference:

18/950886

Presenter(s):

Jay Sepie ( Community Advisor)

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an application for funding from the 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

58438

Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade Trust

MultiMedia Communications Santa Parade 2018

$35,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of applications being received.

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 number of people affected and/or with an interest.

2.1.2   Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves a grant of $20,000 from the 2018/19 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade Trust towards rent and insurance costs.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2018/19

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

 $135,000

$18,587

$116,413       

$96,413

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2018/19 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade Trust September 2018

395

 

 

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

Nicola Thompson - Team Leader Community Funding

Bryony Armstrong - Funding Support Officer

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

27.    Angels Rest Bach removal update

Reference:

18/705863

Presenter(s):

Trudy Jones Transport Planner Sustainable Transport, Richard Holland Team Leader Asset Planning

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for staff to request that the Council amend the 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140 relating specifically to the removal of Angels Rest Bach, Port Levy in order for scheduled Christchurch City Council upgrade of general picnic area and car park upgrade in this area to proceed as planned.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is prepared in order to seek a decision from the Council to amend details of resolution 2 of the 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140, referring specifically to “the occupier to remove the Bach from legal road at no cost to Council”.

1.3       While the resolution and process outlined within has been followed by staff, they have been unable to achieve the demolition of the Angels Rest Bach by the owners as part of the 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140.  This report seeks a resolution change in order for the delivery of the CCC picnic and car park area upgrade Financial Year 2018/19 to proceed as planned.

2.   Significance

2.1       The proposed amendment to the Council 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140 is deemed of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined to be low in respect to the wider repercussions of the decision.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Amend the 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140, resolution 2 with reference to the costs of the Bach removal being covered by the owners, ie: revoke the reference to ‘at no cost to Council’

2.         Agrees that staff will arrange for the cost of removal of the Bach to be absorbed by the parks enhancement project which is due to commence September/ October 2018.

 


 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.6 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Public Convenience - condition average or better: 90%

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

Option 1 – Amend the Council’s resolution (preferred)

Amend the Council’s resolution related to the removal of the Bach by owner and to allow the planned upgrade project to proceed with its removal to be undertaken as part of the upgrade works at the Council’s cost.

Option 2 – Proceed with Legal Proceedings

Apply for a mandatory injunction from the Court to have the removal of the Bach sanctioned and the cost of removal imposed upon the Stewarts.

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Enabling the Parks Unit to proceed with scheduled reserve upgrade without further delay and in line with the draft MoU between Te Runanga and Council.

·     There is no generic policy relating to removal of existing private Bach’s from legal road vested in the Council. Hence this does not represent a precedent.

·     The Council’s Parks Unit has sufficient budget to absorb the costs of the Bach’s demolition within the planned project works.

·     Timely removal of an obstruction and hazard in the road reserve.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Cost of the Bach’s demolition will be carried by the Council’s Parks Unit, and not the owner as required by the Council’s 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has been working alongside local Te Runanga O Koukourarata Society since 2006 to improve the environment in Port Levy (along with Department of Conservation, Environment Canterbury and Lincoln University) and has committed to enhancing the reserve facilities for public good.

5.2       Since 2007 Te Runanga O Kokourarata Society have undertaken the majority of the proposed natural environment protection and enhancement activities as proposed in 2006/2007 landscape plans, as well as extending plantings along an associated stream, working with the neighbouring property owner. CCC staff developed concept plans for the proposed public picnic area on legal road reserve in 2007.

5.3       In 2010 the adjoining landowner Te Runanga O Koukourarata requested that the Council have the Bach removed from the road as it was partially located on their land and they wished to work in collaboration with Council rather than initiating a private legal eviction. They did not wish to proceed with their own development plans while this issue remained unresolved. Approximately 7 m2 of the 66m2 building on Maori Reserve land has now been removed, the remaining approximately 59 m2 is on legal paper road and extra areas have been fenced off within the planned esplanade upgrade area.

5.4       The Council has committed budget in financial year 2018/19 of the current Long Term Plan for a general picnic area, car park and toilet upgrade.  

5.5       Te Runanga O Kokourarata wishes to continue working with the Council to enhance the public picnic space on this foreshore area in front of their proposed development and enhance access to the circuit walkway.

5.6       The Council is being asked to respond to this particular case based on the request of the neighbouring property owner, on whose land this private Bach and fenced gardens is partially located.

5.7       The private Bach has no legal right to occupy legal road, has never been issued a license to occupy and therefore has no existing use rights.

5.8       The situation of the private Bach occupying road reserve limits public access/thoroughfare to areas of public/community interest in Port Levy and there are future land use plans (by the private land owner and Council).

5.9       Council has committed budget in financial year 2018/19 of the current Long Term Plan for general picnic area and car park upgrade in this area.

5.10    At the Council meeting of 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140 was carried.  The details of the resolution are as follows:

That the Council:

1.    Approve the removal of the Bach (Angel's Rest) situated on legal road at Port Levy as shown in the attachments contained in the agenda.

2.    Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to give notice to the occupier to remove the Bach from the legal road at no cost to Council.

3.    Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to manage the process of the removal of the Bach in an appropriate and timely manner taking any reasonable legal steps necessary to complete the process.

4.    Approve serving formal notice to the Bach owners to remove the building within a reasonable timeframe, being two years.

5.11    Attempts made in March 2016 by the Property Unit asking the owner to complete the demolition have been unsuccessful. In response to a legal notice to remove the portion of Bach on Maori land in July 2016, the owners were able to demolish the corner portion of the structure located on Maori Reserve.

5.12    The owners have made it clear in writing that they are unable to undertake the remainder of the task with recent terminal illness, bereavement and associated financial issues to deal with. They have requested that a ‘resolve be found to the Angel’s Rest (situation) without the families’ involvement’.

5.13    The impasse over removal of the Bach now risks delaying the Council’s toilet and picnic area upgrade project – due to commence September/ October 2018. The partially demolished Bach property is a hazard and obstruction at the moment.

5.14    The Parks Unit need the Bach removed to proceed with their project. Under the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Te Runanga O Koukourarata and the Council relating to environmental enhancement works to be undertaken in this area this upgrade is already much delayed with the original concept plan dated 2007.

5.15    Te Runanga O Koukourarata are also seeking action on this so they can proceed in accordance with the draft MoU relating to environmental enhancements within the water catchment area and progress a planned Papakainga subdivision which would access the site from this area.

5.16    Due to these delays it is now prudent to seek permission for the Council to demolish as part of the land preparation for the planned reserve upgrade as part of the project’s budget. This will allow the project to start in September/October this year.

5.17    It is felt that further pursuit of the owners by legal means would add cost, time and risk being viewed as lacking in compassion, creating unnecessary bad publicity to what was an emotive issue when the matter was resolved in 2016 and remains so today.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Amend the Council’s Resolution (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Amend the Council’s resolution related to the removal of the Bach by owner to allow for the planned upgrade project to proceed with its removal incorporated into the Council project costs, with the agreement of the Bach owners.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance were met during 2015 and 2016 when the original Council decision was taken.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, and is supported by, Te Runanga O Koukourarata.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The Angel’s Rest Bach owners have advised staff that they no longer have an interest in this structure.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Demolition - $15,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

6.9       Funding source – The Parks Unit has agreed that this cost can be absorbed into the costs of the project

Legal Implications

6.10    In order for Council to undertake demolition of the remaining portion of the building occupying road reserve staff have requested and received consent from the owners to demolish the Angel’s Rest Bach at Council’s expense.

6.11    The Legal Services Unit has advised relating to this matter.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There is a risk that failing to follow Option 1 would result in further delay of the Park’s Unit project. Failure could also risk the Council relationship with Ngai Tahu and its reputation.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - The demolition of the Bach can proceed in September/October if Option 1 is approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·    Enabling the Parks Unit to proceed with scheduled reserve upgrade without further delay and in line with the draft MoU between Te Runanga O Koukourarata and Council.

·    There is no generic policy relating to removal of existing private Bach’s from legal road vested in the Council. Hence this does not represent a precedent regarding removal of illegal structures from road reserve.

·    The Council’s Parks Unit has sufficient budget to absorb the cost of the Bach’s demolition within the planned project works.

·    Timely removal of an obstruction and hazard in the road reserve.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Cost of the Bach’s demolition will be carried by the Council’s Parks Unit, and not the owner as required by the Council’s 10 March 2016 resolution CNCL/2016/00140.

7.   Option 2 – Proceed with Legal Proceedings

Option Description

7.1       The original 10 March 2016 Council resolution CNL/2016/00140 is not amended. In order to have the Bach removed, an application to Court would need to be made for a mandatory injunction ordering the removal of the Bach. Ultimately the Bach would still be removed and the costs of demolition then sought from owners. This would allow Council to have the action sanctioned by the Courts and avoids any potential liability for damage to the Stewarts property. The parks project upgrade would be delayed.

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance were met during 2015 and 2016 when the original Council decision was taken.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, and is supported by, Te Runanga O Koukourarata.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Section 6.5 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Consistency – Under the Local Government Act 1974 Section 357, it is an offence to encroach on a road by erecting a structure without the consent of the Council. Under CCC Structures on Roads Policy habitable buildings are not permitted on road reserve. As of March 2016, the occupants were given two years notice with regard to removing the structure which is a nuisance and obstruction to a planned Council public space upgrade. Any consent to occupy the land has now effectively been withdrawn by the Council and the Stewarts are in breach of Section 357 of the Local government Act 1974. Section 357 imposes penalties for such an offence, being a one-off fine of $1000.00 along with an additional fine of $50.00 for every day on which the offence continues. The Stewarts may also be ordered to pay the Council’s costs of removing the Bach from the land.

7.6.2   While Section 357 provides the Council with the power to carry out the removal of the Bach, the Council’s ability to be reimbursed for the costs of the removal is subject to the Council obtaining an order from the Court. The Court’ power to make such an order is discretionary. Without first obtaining an order from the Court directing the Stewarts to cover the costs of removing the Bach, it cannot be guaranteed that these costs won’t fall on the Council. Therefore if this option were to be pursued, an order from the Court would need to be obtained to have the removal of the Bach sanctioned and the cost of removal imposed on the Stewarts.

7.6.3   To proceed with having the Bach removed from the land the Council could confirm termination of the Licence and serve the Additional Notice on the Stewarts for the continued trespass by the Bach. The Additional Notice would also advise the Stewarts that they are in breach of Section 357 of the Local Government Act 1974 and are liable for a fine of $1000.00 and a further fine of $50.00 for every day on which the Bach remains on the Land. If immediate steps are not taken by the Stewarts to remove the Bach from the Land, or an agreement to remove the Bach cannot be reached, the Council could apply to the Court for an injunction ordering the Stewarts to remove the Bach on the basis of trespass.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – The estimated legal costs alone involved in seeking an order for possession of the site, let alone the recovery of removal costs are estimated to be $15-$20,000 plus GST. As suggested the financial as well as staff time costs required to pursue this legal action and enforcing the recovery of costs would undoubtedly exceed those of Option 1. This would involve legal costs estimated to be $15-$20,000. In addition Council would cover cost of clearing the building and incur additional costs in recovering expenses from the owners.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - None

7.9       Funding source – Parks Unit has agreed it can absorb cost of demolishing Bach, but they do not have available resources to pursue Court action.

Legal Implications

7.10    Option 2 would require the Council to make an application to the Court seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the removal of the Bach.

7.11    The Legal Services Unit has advised relating to this matter.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    There is a risk that may result in failing to upgrade the Port Levy foreshore. This could damage the Council’s reputation and its relationship with Ngai Tahu.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - None

7.14    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council would not pay for the Bach’s demolition.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Council would have to pursue and fund legal proceedings in the Court which are likely to exceed demolition costs.

·   The Parks Unit upgrade project cannot proceed.

·   Risk to the council’s reputation with Ngai Tahu.

·   Loss of the Council’s reputation through failure to upgrade the area and work with Ngai Tahu.

·   Allow an obstruction and hazard to remain in the legal road reserve.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Trudy Jones - Transport Planner Sustainable Transport

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

27 September 2018

 

 

28.    Draft Heritage Strategy - Approval for Public Consultation

Reference:

18/929582

Presenter(s):

Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner 

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the draft Heritage Strategy for public consultation, and agree the establishmen