Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 11 October 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

 

 

5 October 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

11 October 2018

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

5.       Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square................................................................................................. 5

6.       Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch............................................................................ 19

7.       Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House................................... 33

8.       Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)........................................................ 45

Audit and Risk Management Committee

9.       Christchurch City Council 2018 Annual Report.................................................................... 89

10.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 28 September 2018......................... 417

Civic Awards Committee

11.     Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 21 September 2018................................................... 421

Health and Safety Committee

12.     Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 14 September 2018....................... 425

Staff Reports

13.     Chairperson's Report for the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party to Amend the Membership........................................................................................................................... 429

14.     Draft Council Submission for the draft Regional Public Transport Plan.......................... 433

15.     Draft Council submission on the Canterbury Earthquakes Tribunal Bill......................... 437

16.     Community Resilience Partnership Fund............................................................................ 441

17.     Mayor's Monthly Report - September 2018....................................................................... 463

18.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 467  

 

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 3 October 2018

 

5.        Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square

Reference:

18/1039087

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.      Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square

6

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Former Chief Post Office, Statement of Heritage Significance

14

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square

Reference:

18/909362

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building at 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch, more commonly known as the Former Chief Post Office Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to dialogue with the owner of the building who wishes to see the building repaired, seismically upgraded and renovated internally and externally.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.      Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $900,000 (preferred option);

·           Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $600,000.

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

1.1.2     The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building for an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will be likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

  

Photographs of the East Façade in 2012, left, and the North Façade in 2018, right.

Brief History

5.1       The detached commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as 'Highly Significant'. The building is registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Category I (register number 291). See the attached ‘Statement of Heritage Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was designed by the only architect ever to hold the title of Colonial Architect for New Zealand, W.H. Clayton and built between 1877 and 1879. Sadly Clayton died prior to the building’s completion and the project was overseen and amended to include an extension on the west end by P. Burrows, an assistant architect in the same firm. It was originally designed as a Government Building and included the Post Office but with the completion of the larger Government Buildings across the Square in 1913 the principal occupant of the building became the Chief Post Office. The building remained in use with the Post Office until the late 20th Century when the Post Office was split into three separate entities. The building was sold at this time and is now in private ownership.

5.3       The building was designed in the Italianate Style with elements of Venetian Gothic. The façade materials are predominantly red brick and stone masonry with arched windows, including pointed arch decoration on the first floor, window columns, ornate gables and projecting bands of carved stonework. The original main entrance was located beneath the clock tower element on the East Façade. This tower has multiple clock faces and the three dimensional full colour Government coat of arms. Within the tower there is the original cast iron bell which chimed regularly up until the earthquakes. The roof is currently clad with asbestos fibre cement corrugated panels which replaced the original roofing material at some point after the Second World War.

5.4       The building was altered substantially at the time of the splitting up of the Post Office, with a small part in the southern wing being demolished to allow for the construction of the 1992 brown coloured Telecom building on Hereford Street. The bulk of the original interior was largely removed at this time and a pedestrian link installed to Hereford Street under the Telecom tower. However, the remaining overall form, the principal facades and the ground floor were retained as was the small rear courtyard. The building was structurally upgraded at this time with steel bracing being attached to the internal faces of the masonry walls and within the roof and clock tower. The new steel work was connected down to the existing foundations.

5.5       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade work done in the early 1990’s performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired. The building has been vacant since this time but has been secured with exterior fencing and plywood to the lower floor windows and doors. However, there is still considerable risk to the building from illegal entry and continuing deterioration from lack of occupation and necessary maintenance.

5.6       The applicant for the grant is the current owner, ‘Crystal Imports Limited’. The owner has settled with the building’s former insurer and is ready to proceed with the repair, seismic upgrade and roof replacement works. The latter two work items are not covered by insurance but are needed if the building is to not be classed as earthquake prone and is to become a viable leasing option and also made safe for long-term occupation. The replacement of the roof will remove an ongoing impediment to the building’s repair, safe maintenance and its coordinated overall appearance and conservation.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Funding Scheme

5.7       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

6.   Option 1 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $900,000 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund. It is envisaged that this grant funding would not cover all of the required seismic upgrade and roof replacement works but it is not yet clear what percentage of the total spend required for the project that this grant would represent. However, the scale of the building and hence the amount of repair is such that the grant would be well below the normal maximum limit for a landmark grant of fifty percent of the total cost of the works.

6.2       The proposed use of the building is proposed to be the same as before the earthquakes with a mixture of retail and commercial space. However, the scope of work is likely to include required upgrades to structure to achieve somewhere in the region of sixty-seven per cent New Build Standard (NBS); installation of new complying fire egress and fire protection systems, as well as enhanced disabled access; and replacement of the asbestos roof system.  Along with a building consent process these works will require a resource consent as they will alter the external appearance of the building through a new emergency escape being created at the west end and the replacement of the roof cladding with a different material (colour coated corrugated roofing iron).

6.3       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects to date is summarised in the table below. The level of grant support proposed for the Former Chief Post Office Building is similar in scale to a number of other grants for similar scaled buildings. A number of these projects have now been completed and illustrate the positive outcomes achieved with Central City Landmark Heritage Grant funding acting as an incentive to the owners to invest substantial amounts of their own funds into a heritage building requiring repairs.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant for the Former Post Office Building

2018/2019

$900,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$600,000

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund of $1,500,000 for the financial year 2018/2019.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy is as follows:

‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of Central City heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

The schemes ‘Operational Guidelines’ are used in the interpretation and application of this Policy. 

6.12    The Council also requires the owner to enter into conservation covenants.  Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.   Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a new full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant. There is already a covenant on this building but it is suggested a new covenant with updated clauses should be created to cover these specific works and the eventual modified building.

 

Risks and Mitigations

6.22    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

7.   Option 2 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. This lower amount of grant funding would possibly be insufficient to give the building owner the confidence and willingness to embark on the initial steps to undertake and complete the works to the building. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed lower grant level to the Former Chief Post Office

2018/2019

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$900,000

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from the surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The lower level of grant funding may be insufficient to encourage the owner of the building to embark on the process of securing, repairing and upgrading the building;

·    Lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the owner to raise funds from other sources of finance.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Former Chief Post Office, Statement of Heritage Significance

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 3 October 2018

 

6.        Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/1039101

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street. The grant would come from two financial years, $600,000 from this year and $300,000 from 2019/2020.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

20

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance, 92 Lichfield Street

28

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/922491

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building at 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch, more commonly known as the Sargood Son & Ewen Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to dialogue with the owner of the building who wishes to see the building repaired, seismically upgraded and renovated internally and externally.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street. The grant would come from two financial years, $600,000 from this year and $300,000 from 2019/2020.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       T:

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the City’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $900,000 (preferred option);

·           Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $600,000.

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

1.1.3     The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building for an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will be likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage grant fund and some of the following years. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that this fund was created for.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

      

Photographs of the North Façade pre-earthquakes, left, and the West Façade in 2012, right.

Brief History

5.1       The commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan, as 'Highly Significant'. The building is not currently registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). See the attached ‘Statement of Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was designed by the Melbourne based architects, Tayler and Fitts and completed in 1893. The building was designed for the firm of Sargood, Son and Ewen, the Melbourne based company of warehousemen and importers. Frederick Sargood and J A Ewen were the partners of the firm with Frederick Sargood’s son Percy overseeing the New Zealand operations, and hence the unusual name for the building.

5.3       The building was designed to be a warehouse for the wide range of goods imported by the company and served this purpose until 1973. At the time of its construction, the building fronted onto one of the prime commercial streets in Christchurch, Lichfield Street, and the main façade was designed in a grand late Victorian classical style. Unusually the building had a front façade with ornate brick and stone detailing wrapping around the west corner and part way down the lane. This gives the mid-block building a rare three dimensional depth in a street that was, other than at the road junctions, composed of single face facades. The principal entrance to the building on the symmetrical North Facade was originally in the centre of the projecting bay on Lichfield Street but was later moved to the eastern side of the facade. This adversely impacted on the original ornate window formerly located here. The original finished building included ornate parapets and decorated gables but these elements were removed in the aftermath of the Napier earthquake in the 1930’s.

5.4       Along with the modifications outlined above, the building had a series of extensions added to the southern side throughout the early 20th Century which were designed by local architects and which were much simpler than the original front part in their façade treatment. These extensions were not envisaged to be viewed from a distance as they were by the time of their construction surrounded by other large scale commercial buildings. Other alterations were carried out to the interior spaces and crucially these included substantial seismic upgrade works completed in 2004-2005 including a concrete sheer wall installed behind the main Lichfield Street façade.

5.5       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade work done in the early 2000’s performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired. The main area of damage was to the upper part of the west façade which had not been fully strengthened. Part of this brickwork façade collapsed in one of the many aftershocks in June 2011. A large wall of shipping containers has been placed along the main Lichfield Street facade but this façade has sustained only minor damage due to the concrete sheer wall. The building has been vacant since the earthquakes but the building has been secured with exterior fencing to the lower floor windows and doors. However, there is still considerable risk to the building from illegal entry and continuing deterioration from lack of occupation and necessary maintenance.

5.6       The applicant for the grant is the current owner, ‘FTG Securities Limited’. The owner has settled with the building’s former insurer and is ready to proceed with the repair and seismic upgrade works. The initial aim is to complete the seismic strengthening of the main façade by connecting the existing sheer wall to new side sheer walls and to new structural diaphragms in the floors and roof space. The latter works are not covered by insurance but are needed if the building is to not be classed as earthquake prone and is to become a viable leasing option and also made safe for long-term occupation. The completion of the sheer walls will also enable the removal of the shipping containers, and reconstruction in matching brickwork and detailing of the upper parts of the West Façade which were lost in June 2011.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Funding Scheme

5.7       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

6.   Option 1 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $900,000 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund spread over two financial years. It is envisaged that this grant funding would not cover all of the required repair and seismic upgrade works but would form a valuable contribution to the overall cost of the works which have been priced for the owners at over four million dollars by the contractor, Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd.

6.2       The proposed use of the building is likely to be the same as before the earthquakes with a mixture of retail and commercial space. However, the scope of work will include upgrades to the structure to achieve sixty-seven per cent New Build Standard (NBS); installation of new complying fire egress and fire protection systems, as well as new disabled access is required. 

6.3       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects to date is summarised in the table below. The level of grant support proposed for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building is similar in scale to a number of other grants for similar scaled buildings. A number of these projects have now been completed and illustrate the positive outcomes achieved with Landmark Heritage grant funding acting as an incentive to the owners to invest substantial amounts of their own funds into a heritage building requiring repairs and upgrades.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant for the Former Post Office Building

2018/2019

$900,000

Proposed grant for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building

2018/2019

$600,000

Commitment from 2019/2020

2019/2020

$300,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019           

 

$0

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

 

$1,200,000

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be a total of $900,000; $600,000 taken from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund of $1,500,000 for the financial year 2018/2019 and $300,000 from the following year, 2019/2020.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the current Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy is as follows:

‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of Central City heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

The schemes ‘Operational Guidelines’ are used in the interpretation and application of this Policy. 

6.12    The Council also requires the owner to enter into conservation covenants.  Covenants act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.   Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the proposed grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. 

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund as well as some of the following year’s funds. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

7.   Option 2 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund. This lower amount of grant funding would possibly be insufficient to give the building owner the confidence and willingness to embark on the initial steps to undertake and complete the works to the building. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant level to the Former Chief Post Office

2018/2019

$900,000

Proposed lower grant to the Sargood Son & Ewen Building

2018/2019

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$0

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy;

·    The lower amount of the grant will avoid any need to allocate from the following year’s funding.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The lower level of grant funding may be insufficient to encourage the owner of the building to embark on the process of securing, repairing and upgrading the building;

·    Lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the owner to raise funds from other sources of finance.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Statement of Significance, 92 Lichfield Street

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 3 October 2018

 

7.        Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House

Reference:

18/1039144

Presenter(s):

Amanda Ohs, Senior Heritage Advisor

 

 

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.      Approve a covenant consent to undertake maintenance, earthquake repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the Sutton House.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House

34

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Preliminary Statement of Significance, 20 Templar Street, William Sutton House

38

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House

Reference:

18/930214

Presenter(s):

Amanda Ohs
Fiona Wykes

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that Council approve repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the former residence of artist William (Bill) Sutton, known as the Sutton House.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the application for covenant consent approval received on 4 September 2018. 

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 project having little or no impact on Council’s ability to carry out its role, and the low level of impact on ratepayers. While the decision is not easily reversible, as the result of the decision involves physical work to a building, these works are not detrimental to this building. The overall social, economic and cultural impacts that could arise from the project are positive. Overall this decision is not significant enough to change the overall significance value.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.      Approve a covenant consent to undertake maintenance, earthquake repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the Sutton House.  

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       T:

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 1.4.3.1 Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places - Provide advice as required in a timely manner, within 10 working days for consents Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the City’s heritage places.

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the City’s heritage places.

4.1.2   A full conservation covenant is registered on the title of the property at 20 Templar Street. The current owner is seeking a covenant consent for essential maintenance, earthquake repairs and upgrade works to enable the building to be used as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating the life and work of the renowned Canterbury artist William Sutton.

 

5.   Context/Background

Heritage Significance

5.1       William Sutton’s dwelling, integral studio and setting are of high significance to the Christchurch District, and have heritage significance nationally, considering Sutton’s standing as a well renowned New Zealand artist.  The building is notable for its mid-century architectural design by Tom Taylor, and the integration of the house with its garden. The dwelling, studio and garden setting have very high integrity and authenticity and can convey with immediacy the way of life of one of New Zealand’s most important artists, and provide valuable context and insight into his work.  A preliminary ‘Statement of Significance’ has been prepared for this building and is attached (Attachment A).  

5.2       The house was designed by Tom Taylor and its construction was completed in 1963.  Tom Taylor studied architecture for two years but did not finish the course. However, he still undertook architectural commissions as well as being an accomplished artist and sculptor. He designed the house for Bill Sutton in the International Modernist style of architecture influenced by the ‘de Stijl’ movement. The house is an accomplished example of this interpretation of the modernist style of architecture using vernacular New Zealand materials and construction techniques that gained popularity in New Zealand after World War 2, especially throughout the 1950s and 60s.  Taylor designed the house to suit Bill Sutton’s specific needs providing both a house and studio. The building is culturally and architecturally a very special building and is a rare example of a building that was designed for a well-known artist and that has remained in its original condition for approximately 50 years. 

Heritage Status

5.3       The house is not currently listed as a heritage place by Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga nor is it in Appendix 9.3.7.2 Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage of the Christchurch District Plan. However, based on a preliminary assessment by Council’s Heritage Team, the house and property are very likely to meet the Resource Management Act threshold for inclusion on the Schedule.  Including the house on schedule of significant historic heritage could be considered when the next District Plan review occurs.

Conservation Covenant

5.4       A conservation covenant protecting the house and its setting was entered into between the owner at the time, Neil Roberts and Christchurch City Council (CCC) in 2002.

Ownership and use

5.5       Following the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes the property was included in the Residential Red Zone although the house was not significantly damaged. The Red Zone properties including the Sutton house were acquired by the Crown with the land being considered unsuitable for residential use. A Trust, ‘The Sutton Heritage and Garden Trust’ was formed to save the house and property as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating Bill Sutton. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) who administer the property on behalf of the Crown have reached agreement with the Trust and CCC to retain the house and landscaped property for this purpose as part of the ‘Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area’. LINZ will repair the house and undertake statutory upgrading work required by the Building Act for the change of use of the house from a residence to a community facility for a public place of assembly. The accumulated deferred maintenance, earthquake repairs and the minor alterations to the house and setting arising from the statutory upgrading and new use need approval from the Council under the conservation covenant.

 

 

Description of proposed works

5.6       The proposed works that require covenant consent include the works to the exterior of the house including the installation of wheelchair accessible ramps and repairs to the conservatory, which would include alterations to the steel joinery and the glazing. The ramp proposals are reversible, and the overall form of the conservatory from the street will remain unchanged.

5.7       Works to the interior of the house that are relevant to the covenant consent include structural and services upgrades (primarily electrical rewiring). The structural upgrades are required as part of the repair, and the services upgrading can be reversed if necessary with no adverse effects on the original fabric or form of the house. The house’s architectural values, and interpretation, are not affected by the proposed interventions.

5.8       Works to the concrete block garden wall also require covenant consent as will the removal and replacement of one of the garden trees. The wall is protected under the covenant, but it is damaged and on a dangerous lean, out over the footpath as a result of the large Paulownia tree next to the wall. This tree has displaced the wall and its foundations as it has grown. The wall has to be partially deconstructed, the tree removed, then further deconstruction of the wall undertaken. The section of wall is to be reconstructed in new concrete block masonry to match as closely as possible the previous wall but with new foundations. The location and overall dimensions of the new wall will thus be the same as the previous wall. A new Paulownia sapling will be planted to replace the tree which will be removed.

5.9       A minor difference will be that the section of wall requires reconstruction using new metric sized blocks as the hard cement mortar on the existing wall has made it impractical to re-use the existing imperial blocks. It has not been possible to locate a supply of the original, imperial sized blocks.

5.10    The garden layout is being partially amended for the construction of the accessible ramp which will enable the site to comply with the accessibility requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. The amendment of the layout is limited to the minimum required to enable the construction of the ramp and does not affect anything beyond this relatively small area.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Preliminary Statement of Significance, 20 Templar Street, William Sutton House

 

 

 

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

Amanda Ohs - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 3 October 2018

 

8.        Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)

Reference:

18/1046053

Presenter(s):

Luke Rees-Thomas – Property Consultant

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.1       The Committee received advice from Council Officers that further properties may become available from LINZ once the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor development plan has been finalised. Council Officers recommend to the Committee that these properties be added to recommendation three.

1.2       Councillor Tim Scandrett moved by way of amendment:

·   That reccomendation 3 be amended to add properties  28, 32, 34, 36A-E Harvey Tce, 18 Templar St

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Yani Johanson and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred back to Council, under the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which include car parking and an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling.

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3.

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 36A-E Harvey Tce, 18 Templar St are transferred to Council, under the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which includes car parking, an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling and an associated park

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3

 

                        

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)

47

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Trust Proposal

56

b

Location and Layout Plan

67

c

Covenant Proposal

69

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)

Reference:

18/935606

Presenter(s):

Luke Rees-Thomas, Property Consultant

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that Council accept the transfer of the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond from the Crown.

1.2       20 Templar St is the former home of acclaimed New Zealand artist Bill Sutton, who died in 2000. The property was acquired by the Crown within the wider Residential Red Zone programme. LINZ currently holds the property as agent for the Crown. A conservation covenant protects the property which saved the residence from demolition.

1.3       A proposal has now been presented that includes Council receiving transfer of the property. LINZ have committed a substantial sum to refurbish and strengthening the premises. LINZ will also enter a lease with ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’, who will occupy and manage the property in memory of Bill Sutton’s accomplishments. Once these processes are complete, the property will be transferred to Council and added to the existing Parks Heritage portfolio.

1.4       It is proposed the Trust will be responsible for all operational and maintenance costs throughout the lease term. The Council’s financial exposure would be limited to standard property renewals as expected under comparable community use agreements. It is expected the Lessor would subsidise the rental to a nominal rate.

1.5       LINZ now awaits the decision of Council to accept the asset before any further actions can be authorised.

Origin of Report

1.6       This report is staff generated.

1.7       The proposal for Council to receive the property originates back to a letter sent by LINZ to the Council’s CEO in July 2017.

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 project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents (primarily the arts community). While the decision is not easily reversible, this is not significant enough to change the overall significance value.

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

2.1.3   Any effect on the general public is likely to be minimal. The property has historically been a private residence and access to the site would be improved.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred back to Council, under the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which include car parking and an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling.

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3.

 

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: 6.9.1.1 To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance - Percentage of public monuments, sculptures, artworks with Conservation Plans in place:20 %

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Accept the proposed property transfer (Preferred Option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the proposed property transfer

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The arts community will receive support in the form of a new facility that showcases a popular icon’s work.

·     The Council will receive a refurbished and strengthened property with a clear operational purpose in place.

·     The Council will receive a secure tenant in place for a fixed term.

·     The Council will not be locked into a long term lease, the initial term of 5 years will allow both parties to gauge progress.

·     The Lessee will manage the premises and be liable for operational costs, building maintenance and general outgoings.

·     The Council will continue to support redevelopment of the Avon River Corridor.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Council is unlikely to receive a rental return under the proposed lease.

·     The lease is only guaranteed for an initial term of 5 years. However renewal options may be included.

·     Costs to maintain the building will incrementally increase over the lifetime of the asset, which is typical.

4.4       Should the Council elect not to proceed with the transfer of 20 Templar St, the property refurbishment and lease to the Trust is unlikely to proceed.

 

5.   Context/Background

20 Templar St / Bill Sutton Home

5.1       The Sutton House at 20 Templar St, Richmond, was the former residence of acclaimed New Zealand artist, Bill (W.A.) Sutton who died in 2000. The house was designed by Tom Taylor and constructed in 1963.

5.2       A conservation covenant protecting the house and its setting was entered into between the subsequent owner, Neil Roberts and Christchurch City Council in 2002. Following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes the property was included in the TC3 red zone, although the house was not significantly damaged.

5.3       The property is unique in that it is one of the few survivors from the Red Zone residential demolition programme. This is primarily due to the land covenant, which required the Council’s territorial consent on any works. The Council was consulted and these discussions progressed through to the Minister’s request which sought a more positive outcome. Whilst the property is now located in park like surroundings, this also provides certain challenges, such as potential security risks.

5.4       Property Review:

·    The property listed as 20 Templar St is contained within Computer Freehold Register CB159/132, Legal Description ‘Part Rural Section 33’, being 703m2 in area. The land is Fee Simple and not classified as Reserve.

·    The land is currently zoned ‘Specific Purpose (Flat Land Recovery) Zone’ within the operative District Plan.

·    The sole instrument on the title is a Land Covenant, registered 2002, which relates to the heritage nature of the property and strictly limits certain works or improvements without first receiving the Council’s formal consent as territorial authority. Beyond the covenant, there are no aspects of the property’s title which hinder the Council’s ownership in the future.

·    The current rateable value of 20 Templar St is $14,000, primarily due the land zoning. However this is somewhat misleading, no improvements value is included, whereas the house is still present. Staff have not sought a market rental valuation as the property is unique with few comparable sites.

·    Storm and waste water drainage from the property remains in service. The sewer connection is currently pumped via a kiosk on the adjacent land, through to Harvey St.

·    Regenerate Christchurch are the entity leading the redevelopment of land acquired under the Residential Red Zone programme. Plans for the area surrounding 20 Templar St show green public spaces running from Harvey Tce down to the Avon River. Public consultation on development options for the Avon River Corridor has recently closed. A copy of the subsequent report can be viewed at - https://engage.regeneratechristchurch.nz

LINZ Proposal

5.5       On 31 July 2017, Land Information New Zealand (as agent for the Crown) wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive and relayed a request from the Minster of Land Information. The letter raised a positive opportunity and suggested the Council consider inheriting 20 Templar St as a natural extension of its statutory responsibility under the land covenant.

5.6       In summary, the offering from LINZ includes; a refurbishment of the property (funded solely by LINZ), a building change of use to accommodate community applications, a new lease to an incorporated Trust and the gifting of the property to Council for $1.

5.7       LINZ hold Crown property on a transitional basis until a future use is determined, assets are then allocated to a more permanent ministerial department. In this instance, it appears fitting for Council to receive 20 Templar St as the proposed use honours the heritage of the building. It is also probable that the surrounding land will vest to Council as park/reserve in the future under the Regenerate Christchurch plan.

5.8       Council staff met with the key stakeholders in late 2017, discussions were positive and a general consensus to progress plans was agreed. The project has now progressed, with LINZ coordinating refurbishment plans and consent applications.

5.9       LINZ have communicated the proposal to Regenerate Christchurch, who have confirmed no objection to the granting of short term leases in support of the desired outcomes. The retention of the Bill Sutton home as a community museum appears to fit within the wider area planning.

5.10    The refurbishment works are now on hold pending the decision of Council to accept the asset upon completion.

The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust / Lease

5.11    ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ is a newly incorporated entity formed by a group of individuals who are passionate about the works of Bill Sutton. The Council has received a written proposal from the Trust – refer Attachments A and B.

5.12    The purpose of the Trust is to save the house and property as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating Bill Sutton. This entity is to be co-chaired by Dame Anne Hercus and Neil Roberts (prior owner of 20 Templar St and curator of the Robert McDougal Art Gallery). Trustees also include individuals on behalf of the University of Canterbury and the Christchurch Art Gallery.

5.13    The Trust will manage the dwelling and property as a house museum and cultural destination providing display/exhibition space, a venue for community art education programmes and be available for public meetings. The house museum will provide interpretation of Bill Sutton’s life and work. One bedroom will be used as an administration office supporting the activities in the house and the Trust. The space may also provide coordinated support for other similar venues in the city such as the Ngaio Marsh House.

5.14    LINZ intends to grant a lease to the Trust prior to the Council receiving Transfer. The lease will hold an initial fixed term of 5 years. Due to process limitations, LINZ are only able to lease this land for a maximum of 5 years. In order to ensure Council staff are able to effectively manage the contract, feedback has been provided to LINZ along with the Council’s standard lease template. At the time of writing, the lease agreement remains under negotiation between LINZ and the Trust.

5.15    The Trust have requested lease rental be a nominal rate e.g. $1 per annum. This appeal is rationalised on the basis of all income being required to satisfy operational expenses and promotion of the house and garden.

5.16    In order for 20 Templar St to be utilised as a public access venue, planning regulations require the Trust to supply additional car parking to support the proposed use. To satisfy this requirement, the Trust will lease land at 22 & 26 Harvey Tce from the Crown (next door to 20 Templar St). As mentioned in 5.7 there is potential for the Crown to transfer this adjacent land to Council in the future. Therefore it is recommended, in event these land titles do transfer to Council they are allocated to allow the continuation of the Trust’s occupation within 20 Templar St.

5.17    In the event the Trust elect not to renew their lease of 20 Templar St beyond the initial 5 year term, the Council would be required to run an open tenant sourcing process. The building will be in a format suitable for multiple applications and the surrounding area should be developed by this time. There does not appear to be great risk to Council should this eventuality occur.

5.18    Staff have reviewed the Trust’s proposal and are satisfied the venture contains relatively low risk exposure for Council. In the event the Trust were unable to meet financial lease obligations, the Council would review formal accounts and consider whether any further considerations are warranted.

Property Works

5.19    LINZ are leading the building refurbishment project and will meet all related costs. The works have been scoped based the operational use desired by the Trust, including public access. LINZ have lodged a land use resource consent to develop the house as a community facility.

5.20    LINZ have outsourced the services of a professional Architect and Conservation Consultant to assess the proposed alterations and effect in relation to the land covenant. A report has been completed on the property – refer Attachment C.

5.21    The proposed work to the house includes both deteriorated fabric repairs and change of use alterations. The repairs are the replacement of deteriorated and rotted fabric and will be done on a like-for-like basis with no resultant changes to the architectural form or aesthetic appearance of the house. The work is repair and restoration. Improvements are required to ensure compliance with disabled access and fire egress routes. Further details are included within the Consultant’s report.

5.22    The change of use requires that the strength of the building be upgraded to as near as reasonably practicable to that of a new building, the engineers propose upgrading the house to achieve a minimum of 67% NBS. This requires replacement of some wall claddings and linings to enable installation of additional bracing and to improve structural connections of the framing and framing to the foundations. 67% NBS is sufficient to meets the Council’s own property occupancy policy.

5.23    As territorial authority, the Council is involved at several levels to assess and approve the requested changes; building consent, resource consent and land covenant approval. The latter is the subject of a separate Council report, which should be read in conjunction with this item.

5.24    The current expectation of works completion is March 2019, subject to Council approval to receive the property.

Property Transfer

5.25    The Crown will gift 20 Templar St to the Council on the following terms:

·   LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment as detailed within Item 10 of Attachment C. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

·   The property will transfer following completion of the works.

·   Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

·   The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

·   The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

5.26    The Council’s Parks unit support the receipt of 20 Templar St and will budget for future property ownership costs as follows:

·   The building would be managed in perpetuity. A maintenance plan would be required at the completion of the refurbishment works.

·   The Opex budget for building and grounds maintenance cost are unbudgeted and cannot be quantified until the terms of the agreement with the Trust is finalised and Council becomes the owner of the property.

·   Additional Opex renewal funding will be requested in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

5.27    Section 107 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 authorises the Crown to dispose of land held under the said Act. It is the Crowns responsibility to meet its statutory obligations under the aforesaid acts before the land can be disposed of by the Crown direct to Council.

5.28    It is usual practise to obtain written agreements for sale and purchase, these agreements give certainty by placing terms and conditions on the vendor and purchaser and obligate them to complete the transaction as per the agreement. A Sale and Purchase contract will be negotiated with the Crown. Council staff will review the finalised lease agreement prior to processing the property transfer.

5.29    Should the Council receive transfer, a valuation will be required in order to set an approximate accounting book value for the assets.

6.   Option 1 - Accept the proposed property transfer (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council elects to accept the Crown’s proposal and will receive 20 Templar St, on terms as stipulated within this report.

6.2       In the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred to Council under the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor development plan, those properties are allocated to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The local community are likely to be supportive of this acquisition as it provides support for an appreciated local artist and the arts community in general.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – Minor staff costs to process property transaction and establish lease management.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Lease management, property renewal costs over time.

6.10    Funding source – Current budgets and new allocation for building lifetime renewals.

Legal Implications

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

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

6.13    The legal consideration is a review of the lease and transfer agreement.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.14    There is a risk that the Trust may be unable to meet their projected income levels and as a result be unable to independently meet financial lease obligations. Should this occur, the Council would need to review the situation, including the Trust’s account and make further contribution decisions.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - The agreement is dependent on the property works (LINZ) and successful negotiation of the Lease agreement with the Trust.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – 6 months (approx.)

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The arts community will receive support in the form of a new facility that showcases a popular icon’s work.

·   The Council will receive a refurbished and strengthened property with a clear operational purpose in place.

·   The Council will receive a secure tenant in place for a fixed term.

·   The Council will not be locked into a long term lease, the initial term of 5 years will allow both parties to gauge progress.

·   The Lessee will manage the premises and be liable for operational costs, building maintenance and general outgoings.

·   The Council will continue to support redevelopment of the Avon River Corridor.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council is unlikely to receive a rental return under the proposed lease.

·   The lease is only guaranteed for an initial term of 5 years. However renewal options may be exercised.

·   Cost to maintain the building will incrementally increase over the lifetime of the asset, which is typical.

7.   Option 2 - Decline the proposed property transfer

Option Description

7.1       The Council elects to decline the Crown’s proposal and will not receive 20 Templar St.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not necessary as no action is being taken.

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 community are not specifically affected by this option due to there being no change in ownership.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

Legal Implications

7.9       There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    There is a risk of negative public feedback from a small portion of the community, should the Council elect not to proceed with the acquisition.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - None, no action being taken.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will not incur any costs in relation to this property.

·   The Council will not be bound to a lease.

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   If the Council does not agree to receive the property transfer, the project is unlikely to proceed.

·   The arts community will not benefit from a new facility which honours a celebrated artist.

·   Future long term ownership would be uncertain.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Trust Proposal

 

b  

Location and Layout Plan

 

c  

Covenant Proposal

 

 

 

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

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 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

11 October 2018

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 28 September 2018

 

9.        Christchurch City Council 2018 Annual Report

Reference:

18/1022894

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management
Len van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee met with Andy Burns and Andrew Timlin of Audit New Zealand without Management present for part of the consideration of this item.

2.         The Committee thanked staff for their work on the Annual Report.

3.         When this report is considered by the Council the attached 2018 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report will have been updated in accordance with the Committee’s review and will have the Independent Auditor’s Report and Letter of Representation requiried by Audit New Zealand included/attached for adoption and/or signing as applicable and recommended by the Committee.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

(Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Notes that this report will be considered by the Council on the Council’s public agenda once the Committee makes its recommendations in relation to the adoption of the 2018 Annual Report.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Notes that the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

a.         Has reviewed the (draft) 2018 Annual Report and notes that it will receive a clean audit report.

b.         Has reviewed the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2018 Annual Report.

c.         Has reviewed the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand along with the internal management sign off matrix.

d.         Has reviewed the Summary Annual Report and notes that this will be released after the adoption of the 2018 Annual Report by the Council.

2.         Adopts the 2018 Annual Report.

3.         Receives the Independent Auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

4.         Adopts the 2018 Annual Report with the inclusion of the Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

5.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to make changes as required by Audit New Zealand and/or to correct errors in publishing the 2018 Annual Report.

6.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to finalise the Summary Annual Report on the basis of the 2018 Annual Report and to make changes as required for publishing.

7.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to produce and publish the 2018 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report within the statutory timeframes.

8.         Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2018 Annual Report, and to sign the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch City Council 2018 Annual Report

91

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Annual Report 2018

95

b

Annual Report Summary 2018

353

c

Letter of Representation 2018

405

d

Letter of Representation Summary Report 2018

413

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

Christchurch City Council 2018 Annual Report

Reference:

18/952354

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish, Head of Financial Management

Confidentiality

Section under the Act:

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

Sub-clause and Reason:

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

Plain English Reason:

The information to be used as the basis for the finalisation of the Council's 2018 Annual Report remains subject to change. The Committee has a responsibility to consider and review the Annual Report before adoption by the Council and to hold it in confidence before it is finalised for adoption, and it is in the public interest that the Committee can review the Annual Report before it is publicly available.

Report can be released:

The information included in, and attached to, the staff report will be available on the public agenda for the 25 October 2018 meeting of the Council.

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to endorse the 2018 Annual Report for Council approval in October 2018.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Notes that this report will be considered by the Council on the Council’s public agenda once the Committee makes its recommendations in relation to the adoption of the 2018 Annual Report.

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee recommends the Council:

2.         Notes that the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

a.         Has reviewed the (draft) 2018 Annual Report and notes that it will receive a clean audit report.

b.         Has reviewed the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2018 Annual Report.

c.         Has reviewed the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand along with the internal management sign off matrix.

d.         Has reviewed the Summary Annual Report and notes that this will be released after the adoption of the 2018 Annual Report by the Council.

3.         Adopts the 2018 Annual Report.

4.         Receives the Independent Auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

5.         Adopts the 2018 Annual Report with the inclusion of the Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

6.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to make changes as required by Audit New Zealand and/or to correct errors in publishing the 2018 Annual Report.

7.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to finalise the Summary Annual Report on the basis of the 2018 Annual Report and to make changes as required for publishing.

8.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to produce and publish the 2018 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report within the statutory timeframes.

9.         Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2018 Annual Report, and to sign the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Attached as

3.1.1   Attachment A is the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2018, and

3.1.2   Attachment B the draft Summary Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

3.2       Audit New Zealand has examined the financial statements and accompanying reports of the Group and have received clearance from the Office of the Auditor General.

3.3       Audit New Zealand has provided the Committee with a draft audit report which is included in the separate report from Audit New Zealand to the Committee.

3.4       Audit New Zealand requires a Letter of Representation signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive. A draft of this letter is included in the Report from Audit New Zealand on 2018 Financial Statements being consider by the Committee at today’s meeting.

3.5       A representative of Audit New Zealand will be in attendance at the Committee meeting to answer any questions regarding the annual report, explain the audit opinion they will be providing and the representations required.

4.   Context/Background

Operating Results

4.1       This result differs from the financial result reported in the Performance Report received by the Council on 27 August 2018, as the Annual Report includes year-end adjustments for items such as asset revaluations, accruals and impairments.

4.2       The Council’s surplus before tax was $192.5 million, $16.3 million greater than plan.

4.3       In 2017/18 total revenue is $62.2million higher than budget comprising:

4.3.1   The Council received vested assets $24.6 million higher than anticipated;

4.3.2   The subsidies and grants income were $10.8 million higher than budget relating to additional grants for Ngā Puna Wai and Taiora QEII Recreation and Sport Centre;

4.3.3   Increase residential and commercial activity resulted in development and financial contributions being $8.1 million higher than plan; and

4.3.4   Similarly the increase in residential and commercial activity had a boost in rates revenue of $5.4 million higher than budget.

4.4       In 2017/18 total operating expenses were $45.9 million higher than budget.

4.5       Items that affected the increase in expenses included:

4.5.1   The valuation of financial instruments resulted in unbudgeted losses of $17.9 million;

4.5.2   Other expenses were $26.7 million higher due to:

·   $9.5 million higher spend in asset related costs and

·   Council grants exceeded the planned amount by $5.3 million,

4.5.3   The increases above were partially offset by lower personnel costs of $2.5 million.

4.6       Total other comprehensive revenue and expenses were $29.2 million better than budget.

4.7       The Council’s total comprehensive revenue and expenses were $283.7 million, $49.1 million greater than plan.

Financial position

4.8       Total assets are $207.2 million lower than budget.

4.8.1   This includes the impact of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets which are $652.4 million lower than budget mainly due to the annual plan overstating the 2017 revaluation forecast movement,

4.8.2   investments and other financial assets are $226.4 million higher than budget due to a combination of revaluation increases and additional investments made during the year and

4.8.3   cash and cash equivalents are $204.9 million higher than budget.

4.9       Total liabilities are $85.9 million higher than budget.

4.9.1   Borrowing was $78.9 million higher than budget due to unplanned borrowing for on-lending to CCHL,

4.9.2   Other liabilities are $31.4 million higher than budget mainly due to unbudgeted income in advance for prepaid inspections, Lancaster Park demolition fees, Christchurch housing initiative grant, and prepaid rates by ratepayers.

4.9.3   These are offset by derivative liabilities which were $53.6 million lower than budget due to market movement on interest rates and

Asset Revaluation

4.10    The Council undertook revaluations of two asset classes in 2018.

4.10.1 Land and Buildings; three yearly revaluation

4.10.2 Park Improvements; three yearly revaluation

Audit opinion

4.11    The draft audit report provided by Audit New Zealand in its separate report provides a clean opinion in relation to the 30 June 2018 financial statements.

4.12    Audit New Zealand will be present at the Committee meeting and will be able to answer questions on the audit report they will be issuing.

Financial Ratios and benchmarks

4.13    The Council has five financial ratios which form a key part of its financial risk management strategy. All five actual results fell well within the policy limits.

4.14    The Council met all but two of the thirteen (including the Council’s five key financial ratios) prudential benchmarks. The rates affordability ratios were not met.

4.14.1 The rate affordability benchmark in dollar terms exceeded the self-imposed limit by $5.8 million.

4.14.2 The rates affordability benchmark in percentage terms exceeded the self-imposed limit by 0.79%.

4.14.3 Both of these rates affordability benchmarks were forecast to exceed limits in the 2017/18 annual plan.

Council activities and services section

4.15    The 30 June 2018 Performance Report to Council reported the LTP performance measures that were not achieved. In the Annual Report we are required to report performance against all the LTP performance measures as well as the mandatory measures introduced by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

4.16    A small number of performance measures have had their results changed as a result of both internal and Audit New Zealand reviews.

4.17    Particular focus has been given by Audit New Zealand to the mandatory performance measures required by the DIA.

Letter of Representation

4.18    Audit New Zealand requires a letter of representation to be signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive. A draft of the letter is included in the separate report from Audit New Zealand.

4.19    The letter of representation includes the standard representations typically required by Audit New Zealand.

4.20    To support the signing of the letter of representation and the statement of compliance by the Mayor and Chief Executive an internal sign off process has been undertaken.

Summary Annual Report

4.21    Section 98 of the Act requires the Council to prepare and make publicly available a Summary Annual Report within one month from adopting the Annual Report. The Summary must represent, fairly and consistently the information regarding major matters dealt with in the Annual Report.

4.22    Attachment B is the current draft of the Summary Annual Report. The format of the summary is generally consistent with prior years.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Draft Annual Report 2018

 

b 

Draft Annual Report Summary 2018

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

11 October 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


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 




 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

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

11 October 2018

 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


Council

11 October 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

11 October 2018

 


 


 


 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

10.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 28 September 2018

Reference:

18/1025001

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 28 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 Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 28 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 28 September 2018

418

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

11.    Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 21 September 2018

Reference:

18/993277

Presenter(s):

Milinda Peris, Civic and International Relations Coordinator

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Civic Awards Committee held a meeting on 21 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 Civic Awards Committee meeting held 21 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Civic Awards Committee - 21 September 2018

422

 

 

Signatories

Author

Milinda Peris - Civic and International Relations Coordinator

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

12.    Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 14 September 2018

Reference:

18/967125

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee held a meeting on 14 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 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 14 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee - 14 September 2018

426

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

13.    Chairperson's Report for the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party to Amend the Membership

Reference:

18/946741

Presenter(s):

Councillor Sara Templeton - Chair of the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve amendments to membership of the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party.

2.   Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves the removal of provision for a representative from the Banks Peninsula Community Board on the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party.

2.         Approves the replacement on the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party of Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner by Councillor Anne Galloway.

3.         Approves the updated Terms of Reference for the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party appended to the report as Attachment A, which incorporate these changes to the membership.

3.   Key Points

3.1       On 22 June 2017, the Council by resolution:

a.         established the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party (the “Working Party”), to recommend to the Council, as land owner, whether to authorise, or on what terms to authorise, baches to continue to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake, Boulders Bay and Maori Gardens;

b.         resolved that the Working Party be comprised of Councillor Templeton as Chairperson, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor East, Councillor Johanson, and a representative each from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Banks Peninsula Community Board; and

c.         directed the Working Party to meet and undertake the investigations necessary in order for it to report back to Council by 30 September 2017.

3.2       The Working Party accordingly reported back to the Council on 28 September 2017, and the Council at that time amended its abovementioned resolution of 22 June 2017 to include Hobsons Bay within, and delete Maori Gardens from, the bach locations the Working Party is considering, so that the amended resolution is for the Working Party:

To recommend to the Council, as land owner, whether or not to authorise and, if it does, on what terms to authorise, baches to continue to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake, Hobsons Bay and Boulder Bay, including a recommended process for dealing with the outcome should the recommendation be to not authorise the baches.

3.3       With the removal of Maori Gardens from the bach locations the Working Party is considering, there is not the reason there was for a representative from the Banks Peninsula Community Board, and the Councillor from the Banks Peninsula ward, to be on the Working Party. Felix Dawson as that Board’s representative, and Deputy Mayor Turner as the Councillor from that ward, have accordingly asked to come off the Working Party.

3.4       It is considered appropriate, with the removal of Maori Gardens from the bach locations being considered, that provision for a representative from Banks Peninsula Community Board on the Working Party be removed, and that the Deputy Mayor be replaced on the Working Party by another councillor. It is proposed that Councillor Galloway replace the Deputy Mayor on the Working Party.

3.5       The reference to the Working Party reporting back to the Council by 30 September 2017 within its Terms of Reference can now be removed (as fulfilled) and has been deleted in Attachment A. There is no requirement for a new reporting back date to be noted in the Terms of Reference, but it is anticipated the Working Party will provide an update report to the Council on its progress before the end of the year.

3.6       The purpose of this report is to amend the membership of the Working Party for the reasons discussed, establishing a membership of a number and composition considered most appropriate and available for remaining work involved.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party - Terms of Reference - Proposed Amended Membership

431

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

14.    Draft Council Submission for the draft Regional Public Transport Plan

Reference:

18/909117

Presenter(s):

Ruth Hudson, Senior Policy Planner, Planning and Strategic Transport
Rae-Anne Kurucz, Team Leader Transport, Planning and Strategic Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the attached draft submission on the draft Regional Public Transport Plan.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft submission for the draft Regional Public Transport Plan (Attachment 1)

2.         Request staff to prepare a prioritised programme of public transport infrastructure

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The draft Regional Public Transport Plan (the Plan) describes the public transport system that Environment Canterbury, in partnership with local councils in Greater Christchurch and Timaru, proposes to fund and operate. The Plan sets out the outcomes, objectives and policies that apply to the public transport system. It focuses on key areas, and highlights the visionary change needed to prepare for evolving technologies and for a sustainable future. Submissions close on Sunday 14 October 2018.

3.2       Christchurch City Council staff have been involved in the development of the Plan. The draft submission is in overall support of the Plan. The draft submission raises the following key recommendations:

Support for the vision and proposed network changes

3.3       Council will support the higher service frequencies and new infrastructure with the provision of public transport infrastructure. As a next step Council will develop a prioritised programme of public transport infrastructure to support new services which will be consulted on through our Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes.

3.4       Council supports initiatives to put the customer first and encourages Environment Canterbury to hold similar events to the free bus day as a good way to promote public transport and increase bus use.  For example, there is a good opportunity for Environment Canterbury to support the public to easily travel to popular events such as the Santa Parade or Christmas in the Park, with free bus services for these occasions.  

Improving our environment is a top priority

3.5       Council supports the top priority of improving our environment in the draft Plan, particularly the transition to zero emission vehicles. However, Council firmly believes that the details of the Plan and policies should be further strengthened to guarantee that this goal will be achieved. Council believes that the review of service contracts, planned in 2021, is an opportune time to transition to zero emission vehicles. Council recommends that a mechanism is built into the procurement system, before the next review of service contracts in 2021, to ensuring a higher weighting for electric or zero emission vehicles. 

Governance and delivery

3.6       Council recognises the need to transform public transport to support urban growth. Council will support Environment Canterbury and the Joint Committee to work with the Government to secure funding to help accelerate the delivery of the Plan’s vision.

3.7       Council will support Environment Canterbury to work with Government to enable public transport services to be better funded through access to the recent changes to the Financial Assistance Rates by NZTA.

3.8       Council will continue to work with the Joint Committee to actively encourage government to review the governance model for public transport, especially within Greater Christchurch. A joined up model is needed to better align the responsibility and delivery of public transport services and infrastructure.

3.9       Council would also like to work with Environment Canterbury to approach Government with recommend changes to the Public Transport Operating Model. The Council believes the current model results in long service contracts (for nine years) which limit innovation and the trial of new service types within the public transport service industry.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

draft Council submission to the draft Regional Public Transport Plan

435

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Hudson - Senior Policy Planner Transport

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

15.    Draft Council submission on the Canterbury Earthquakes Tribunal Bill

Reference:

18/1003858

Presenter(s):

Judith Cheyne, Associate General Counsel, Legal Services Unit
Jenny Hughey, Principal Advisor Policy, Strategic Policy

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the draft submission on the Canterbury Earthquakes Tribunal Bill (Attachment A).

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft submission on the Canterbury Earthquakes Tribunal Bill (Attachment A).

 

3.   Background

3.1       The Canterbury Earthquakes Tribunal Bill aims to establish a new Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal, to provide speedy, flexible, and cost-effective services to resolve outstanding residential insurance claims from the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes.

3.2       Submissions close on 18 October 2018. The Bill can be found at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2018/0082/latest/LMS35664.html?src=qs

3.3       A summary of the main proposals in the Bill are:

·   It sets up an independent judicial body in Christchurch to provide homeowners (called policyholders and insured persons in the Bill) with an alternative to resolve their insurance claims;

·   The Tribunal will take an inquisitorial approach to proceedings and apply proactive case management, including setting timeframes, appointing independent expert advisers to assist the Tribunal, and directing parties to independent mediation;

·   The Tribunal will still make decisions based on existing law, and the terms of the insurance contract;

·   The Bill proposes the application process will be fee-free, and legal representation is not necessary (but anyone choosing to engage other services, or a lawyer, for the purposes of their case in the tribunal will need to pay for those services).

·   Homeowners can apply to the tribunal if they have an outstanding insurance claim involving their insurer (including Southern Response or the Earthquake Commission (EQC)) and they held the insurance policy at the time the damage occurred.  This includes first-time settlement claims, as well as claims re-opened due to the discovery of additional earthquake damage or deficient repairs.

·   The tribunal will not consider claims relating to properties that have been sold following the damage to which the claim relates (the explanatory note says this is because these types of claims are novel and legally complex);

·   Claims already filed in court can be transferred to the Tribunal on application by a policyholder/insured person.

4.   Key submission points

4.1       The Council is aware there are many people in the community still struggling with outstanding earthquake insurance issues, and for that reason it supports the Bill and its aim of establishing the Insurance Tribunal. 

4.2       The Government needs to ensure, however, that alongside the establishment of the Tribunal, it provides sufficient budget and resource to enable the Tribunal to be effective and provide the speedy, flexible, and cost-effective services proposed in the Bill.

4.3       The Tribunal’s service should not take longer than current services available.

4.4       The Council’s experience as a stakeholder with the Residential Advisory Service provides strong evidence to support the establishment of a Tribunal.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council submission on the Canterbury Earthquake Tribunal Bill

439

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Aaron Haymes - Head of Legal Services

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

16.    Community Resilience Partnership Fund

Reference:

18/1012730

Presenter(s):

Mary Richardson – General Manager Citizens & Community

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council the allocation of grants from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Notes the contents of this report, including the attachments.

2.         Considers the initiatives recommended for funding from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

3.         Makes a grant of $55,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Burwood Community Church Trust for Year One of the Burwood Support Programme – Recovery and Resilience Project (RRP).

4.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, makes a grant of $55,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Burwood Community Church Trust for Year Two of the Burwood Support Programme – Recovery and Resilience Project (RRP).

5.         Makes a grant of $57,020 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Hornby Community Care Trust for Year One of Hornby Community Activator.

6.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, makes a grant of $54,520 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Hornby Community Care Trust for Year Two of Hornby Community Activator.

7.         Makes a grant of $30,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Leadership Lab for Year One of Leadership in Communities (LINC) 2019/20 Cultivator.

8.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, makes a grant of $30,000 to Leadership Lab for Year Two of Leadership in Communities (LINC) 2019/20 Cultivator.

9.         Makes a grant of $20,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Shakti Ethnic Women's Support Group for Year One of Shakti Youth Network for Change – Christchurch Pilot.

10.       Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, makes a grant of $20,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund to Shakti Ethnic Women's Support Group Christchurch for Year Two of Shakti Youth Network for Change – Christchurch Pilot.

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report presents a number of initiatives that are recommended for funding from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

4.2       The purpose of the Community Resilience Fund is to support projects that strengthen communities by increasing community participation, connectedness and resilience.

4.3       The intention is that the Fund will focus on innovative projects that will make a measurable difference within communities.

4.4       The objectives of the fund are to support initiatives that:

·   Build community connection and activation.

·   Are community-led and build on existing community strengths and reflect the local context.

·   Strengthen the capacity and capability of communities.

·   Create collaborative ways of working. 

·   Encourage innovation and creativity and encourage and enable social enterprise.

·   Remove barriers to participation and resilience.

4.5       The fund also seeks to secure our future in the eastern parts of Christchurch and be informed by evidence.

 

5.   Context/Background

Purpose of the Community Resilience Fund

5.1       The contract with the Ministry of Health identified that the Community Resilience Fund will support projects that strengthen communities by increasing community participation, connectedness and resilience.

Objectives of the Community Resilience Fund

5.2       The objectives of the Fund are to invest in initiatives which contribute to Community Resilience through:

·   Community Connection and Activation

·     Strengthen connections between neighbours, families, whānau and communities of shared interest and identity, as well as geographically.

·     Create and activate places within local communities that increase access to opportunities for physical activity and social connection.

·   Community-led Response

·     Support local community-led initiatives.

·     Recognise and utilise the resources, skills, knowledge and infrastructure of local communities.

·     Build on existing community strengths and reflect the local context.

·   Capacity Building

·     Strengthen the capacity and capability of communities to identify and deliver effective services and activities that will increase community resilience and wellbeing.

·     Identify and cultivate local leadership.

·   Collaboration

·     Create collaborative ways of working that will endure beyond the completion of a specific project.

·     Engage a broad range of stakeholders to identify common interests and benefits that might be achieved by working together and engender long-term commitment to being part of the solution.

·   Innovation and Enterprise

·     Encourage innovation and creativity.

·     Encourage and enable social enterprise.

·   Removing Barriers to Participation and Resilience

·     Remove earthquake related barriers to participation and resilience.

·     Support initiatives that enhance peoples’ ability to access to appropriate services. 

·     Increase participation in, and awareness of, community, recreation, sports, arts, heritage and environment groups, programmes and local events.

5.3       The Council formally adopted the Objectives as the funding Criteria in October 2017.

Funding Process

5.4       The contract identified that the fund will primarily use a direct selection approach. This method was selected because:

·   This approach minimises the transaction and compliance costs for groups and Council.

·   Funding can be targeted based on the objectives of the fund.

·   Funding arrangements can be flexible and innovative activities developed as funding is not restricted by an application or contract.

5.5       The Council has allocated funding to 35 initiatives since October 2017.   The total allocation is $2,424,680 Year 1 and $1,950,000 Year 2.

6.   Funding Recommendations

6.1       There are four (4) initiatives recommended for consideration from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

6.2       These applications have been reviewed and approved by the Psychosocial Governance Group.

6.3       Recommendations for the Community Resilience Partnership Fund are outlined in Attachment A, a summary matrix is detailed in Attachment B and the CRPF funding history is listed in Attachment C.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A CRPF Funding Proposals 11 October

445

b

Attachment B CRPF Summary Matrix 11 October

458

c

Attachment C CRPF Funding History

460

 

 

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

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

Nicola Thompson - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 October 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


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

17.    Mayor's Monthly Report - September 2018

Reference:

18/1010353

Presenter(s):

Lianne Dalziel, The Mayor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to report on external activities she undertakes in her city and community leadership role; and to report on outcomes and key decisions of the external bodies she attends on behalf of the Council.

Origin

This report is compiled by the Mayor’s office.

2.   Mayors Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Report September 2018

464

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

18.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

11 October 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

19.

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 28 September 2018

 

 

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

 

20.

Christchurch Civic Awards 2018

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Protection of Privacy

Only names of successful candidates will be released after Council confirmation. No personal information will be released.

21.

Public Excluded Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 21 September 2018

 

 

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

 

22.

Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 14 September 2018

 

 

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

 

23.

Waste and Recycling Services

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The information may prejudice the parties' commercial position

Release once Annual Plan 2020 is approved

24.

Future Development Strategy - Consultative Draft

s7(2)(c)(i)

Protection of Source of Information

The Council has a responsibility to consider the review the Draft Settlement Pattern Update (Future Development Strategy) before adoption by the Greater Christchurch Partnership and Councils and to hold it in confidence before it is finalised for adoption, and it is in the public interest that the Council can review the Draft Settlement Pattern Review (Future Development Strategy) before it is publicly available.

Final Future Development Strategy adoption date (2019)

25.

Update on tHE ŌTĀKARO AVOn River Corridor

s7(2)(c)(ii)

Prevent Damage to the Public Interest

Breach of confidentiality could prejudice future sharing of information

When Regenerate Christchurch publicly notify the draft Plan.