Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 28 February 2019

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

 

 

22 February 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@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

28 February 2019

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 24 January 2019.......................................................................................... 5

6.       Council Minutes - 14 February 2019...................................................................................... 17

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

7.       Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 30 January 2019.. 31

Regulatory Performance Committee

8.       Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 30 January 2019....................................... 37

Audit and Risk Management Committee

9.       Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 1 February 2019................................ 41

10.     Audit NZ Report to Council on the 2017/18 Audit of the Christchurch City Council....... 47

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 February 2019..... 77

12.     E-Scooter Permit Recommendations.................................................................................... 83

Staff Reports

13.     Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Heritage Strategy............................. 125

14.     Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Proposed Earthquake-prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Routes.......................................................................................... 171

15.     Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Suburban Parking Policy................. 175

16.     Temporary relocation of Fendalton Service Desk.............................................................. 245

17.     Community Board funding allocations from the Strengthening Communities Fund..... 247

18.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 266  

 

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 24 January 2019

Reference:

19/87063

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 24 January 2019.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 24 January 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Council - 24 January 2019

6

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 14 February 2019

Reference:

19/168416

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 14 February 2019.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 14 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Council - 14 February 2019

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

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

28 February 2019

 

 

7.        Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 30 January 2019

Reference:

19/108264

Presenter(s):

David Corlett - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 30 January 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 30 January 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 30 January 2019

32

 

 

Signatories

Author

David Corlett - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

8.        Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 30 January 2019

Reference:

19/100090

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 30 January 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 30 January 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 30 January 2019

38

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

9.        Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 1 February 2019

Reference:

19/108873

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 1 February 2019 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 1 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 1 February 2019

42

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 1 February 2019

 

10.    Audit NZ Report to Council on the 2017/18 Audit of the Christchurch City Council

Reference:

19/108882

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout - Manager External Reporting and Governance

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receives the information and notes the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2018 and management’s responses to these.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receives the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit NZ Report to Council on the 2017/18 Audit of the Christchurch City Council

48

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2018

50

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

Audit NZ Report to Council on the 2017/18 Audit of the Christchurch City Council

Reference:

19/41606

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout; Manager External Reporting and Governance

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information and consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2018 and management’s responses to these.

2.         Recommend to Council that it receives the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Management Report is attached as Attachment A.

3.2       The Management Report sets out Audit New Zealand’s findings from their audit of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2018. The report draws attention to areas where the Council is doing well or where Audit New Zealand has made recommendations for improvement.

3.3       The key points in the management report are:

3.3.1   Internal Control Processes

Audit NZ noted that the identification of a significant although not material misstatement by Council highlighted that there are appropriate internal control processes in place.

3.3.2   Recommendation for Improvements

No new recommendations were made following the 2017/18 audit.

3.4       Review notes from the audit of group entities include:

3.4.1   Christchurch City Holdings Limited – Release of Capital, Dividends and Bond Issues.

3.4.2   Vbase Limited – Move to PBE accounting standards and Town Hall repair costs and post balance date equity injections from Council.

3.5       Future matter to be reviewed in the 2018/19 audit cycle include:

3.5.1   Accounting for the Otautahi Community Housing Trust Asset Transfer.

3.5.2   Council’s procurement and contract management processes from a best practice perspective.

3.5.3   The accounting treatment of the Crown’s contribution towards key development projects.

3.5.4   Progress in addressing Deloitte’s outstanding recommendations from their audit of Holidays Act 2003 compliance.

3.5.5   Review of the treatment of any variations to the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 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

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

28 February 2019

 

 

11.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 February 2019

Reference:

19/155804

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 13 February 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 13 February 2019

78

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 13 February 2019

 

12.    E-Scooter Permit Recommendations

Reference:

19/155248

Presenter(s):

Nick Lovett, Policy Planner - Transport
Steffan Thomas, Manager Operations - Transport

 

 

 

1.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee received three deputations on this item from Jake McLellan, Charlotte Mayne and Helen Broughton.

Attachment B to this report was tabled on the day of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s meeting in response to correspondence from Lime.

 

2.   Staff and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the continued issue of trading permits for e-scooters under the Public Places Bylaw 2018 and Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018, and

a.         Note the intention to issue a 12 month permit for Lime Technology with a proposed increase in Lime’s permit cap from 700 to 1000 e-scooters.

2.         Resolve that:

a.         The rental fee applicable under the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy (2018) is applied for all e-scooter permits.  Noting that this is presently set at $172.50/m2 per year, which would equate to $86.25 per year for each Lime scooter.

b.         The total fee payable under an E-Scooter permit will be determined on a pro rata basis proportionate to the total footprint, measured in square metres, of all vehicles in the fleet.

c.         The fee will come into effect the day after the Council's decision to adopt it.

3.         Approve a citywide limit/cap on the number of e-scooters of 1600 until demand can be determined to justify an alternative cap.

4.         Delegate to the Head of Transport the authority to amend up or down individual permit caps and the citywide cap on the number of e-scooters.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

E-Scooter Permit reccomendations

85

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Micro-mobility discussion paper

94

b

Memorandum - Response to Correspondence from Lime

121

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

E-Scooter Permit reccomendations

Reference:

18/1296221

Presenter(s):

Nick Lovett – Transport Policy Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to be informed of the results of the Lime e-scooter trial, and to recommend that the Council approve the staff recommendations on future trading permits, set a commercial fee to apply to all e-scooter permits and approve an interim citywide limit on the number of e-scooters.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee resolution ITEC/2018/00067 :

1.2.1   Acknowledges and supports that the permit will be extended to end of February 2019 under delegation by staff so that reporting can occur to the Committee’s February meeting.

1.3       Staff are aware that at the 4 February Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting the Board resolved the following:

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board: Request staff to provide as part of their advice to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Council on the review of the Lime scooter trial, whether or not a fee could be charged to all hire mobility providers who use the public realm under permit, with the revenue being used for footpath repairs and maintenance.

1.4       This information is included in the current report with a recommendation to apply the existing Trading and Events in Public Places Policy (2018) fee, and that revenue from this fee would be utilised within the Transport Unit, including if applicable, for footpath repairs and maintenance. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing number of people affected, the level of interest and impacts in accordance with the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the continued issue of trading permits for e-scooters under the Public Places Bylaw 2018 and Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018, and

a.         Note the intention to issue a 12 month permit for Lime Technology with a proposed increase in Lime’s permit cap from 700 to 1000 e-scooters

2.         Resolve that:

a.         The rental fee applicable under the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy (2018) is applied for all e-scooter permits.  Noting that this is presently set at $172.50/m2 per year, which would equate to $86.25 per year for each Lime scooter.

b.         The total fee payable under an E-Scooter permit will be determined on a pro rata basis proportionate to the total footprint, measured in square metres, of all vehicles in the fleet.

c.         The fee will come into effect the day after the Council's decision to adopt it.

3.         Approve a citywide limit/cap on the number of e-scooters of 1600 until demand can be determined to justify an alternative cap.

4.         Delegate to the Head of Transport the authority to amend up or down individual permit caps and the citywide cap on the number of e-scooters.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

4.1.2   Level of Service: 17.0.11.4. A strategic vision for transport to guide the planning and delivery of transport programmes - Elected members are briefed before key governance committee meetings.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.2.1   Option 1 (Preferred) – Approve shared e-scooter schemes to operate in the city.

4.2.2   Option 2 – Do not approve shared e-scooter schemes to operate in the city.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        Using an evidence based approach to increase the number of shared e-scooters allowed under the permit to ensure a manageable operation that meets the needs of users and the public.

·        A fair and consistent fee structure that ensures consistent price signals to anyone trading or utilising public space, as well as allowing incurred costs to be offset by the permit holder.

4.3.2   Allows for competition in the marketplace.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Continuing to permit shared e-scooter schemes in Christchurch could pose a reputational risk for the Council given a small group of residents are vocally opposed to their operation in Christchurch. Other reputational risk may be exposed through any future high-profile injuries or incidents that may occur on shared scooters in Christchurch.

·        Limiting the number of scooters in the city though a permitting system may not fully address the market demand, limiting potential trip uptake and overall transport benefits to the city.

 

5.   Context/Background

Lime Trial Overview

5.1       In September 2018, the Council agreed to permit Lime Technology Limited a three-month trading permit to operate 700 e-scooters within Christchurch City. At an update to the ITE committee in November 2018, committee members acknowledged and supported an extension of the trial until the end of February 2019 in order to report back at the first committee meeting of the year.

5.2       The Lime scooter trial has been in place since 15 October 2018, with very high rates of usage when compared with similar sized cities (from Lime’s perspective we would expect that the trial will have been commercially beneficial).

5.3       To monitor the trial, staff have analysed the data provided by Lime, and have been working with staff from NZTA, ACC, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to better understand injury rates, safety issues and risk profile.

5.4       Staff have also set up a reference group to raise qualitative issues and gather feedback. Additionally, an online survey with more than 8,000 responses was conducted to gather quantitative data and feedback. More than half (54%) reported using a Lime e-scooter in Christchurch.

Findings from the trial

5.5       Public reception

5.5.1   There has been a wide range of feedback through multiple communication channels since the trial began. The trials in Christchurch and Auckland, and Lime’s recent roll-out to other locations, have gained significant media and public attention.

5.5.2   From the Council’s e-scooter survey 75% of the respondents think that the e-scooter trial has had a positive or very positive effect on the city. A similar number (74%) of respondents felt that e-scooter share companies should probably or definitely be allowed to operate in Christchurch after the trial.

5.5.3   People that had used the e-scooters were much more likely to view them positively and feel more comfortable sharing space with the scooters on the footpath and other public spaces.

5.5.4   A random, but representative survey sample of Christchurch and Auckland residents was also undertaken. Auckland residents are more mixed towards the impact of shared e-scooters on the city, while Christchurch residents are more positive overall.  This may reflect differences in implementation and/or supportive infrastructure provision in the two cities. 

5.6       Usage and uptake

5.6.1   To date, there have been over 400,000 trips taken by more than 100,000 people in Christchurch. Most trips are less than ten minutes and are concentrated in the central city and around Hagley Park.

5.6.2   Most users (nearly three-quarters) have ridden the scooters less than a handful of times. A small group of users (~1%) have taken more than 30 trips over the three-month period.

5.6.3   Utilisation has remained very high throughout the trial with each e-scooter being used approximately seven times per day on average.

5.6.4   From the survey, most people report to have ridden them on footpaths, however shared paths and cycle ways are often stated as the preferred locations for riding them.

5.6.5   Most users reported using the e-scooters for fun and recreation (55%), as well as for getting to/from hospitality locations or other social activities (36.7%).

5.6.6   From the survey 40% of users (n=3,872) reported that they would have walked had the scooters not been available on their most recent trip. Nearly a third of users (31%) reported that they would have taken a motor vehicle (Car driver/passenger or Taxi/Uber).

5.7       Operations, Performance and Compliance

5.7.1   The Council’s contact centre has received a number of complaints about users’ behaviour on Lime e-scooters. However, most complaints were about riders violating Lime’s customer rules (helmet use, riders under 18 etc.) or transport rules (which are enforced by Police) rather than breaches of their trading permit. 

5.7.2   The reference group noted that Lime was relatively ineffective in enforcing its own user agreement conditions (such as age limits or number of users).  From the online survey, 18% of users reported allowing someone under the age of 18 to operate their e-scooter and 27% of people reported having been on a scooter with more than one person on it.

5.7.3   As part of the current permit requirement, Lime scooters are required to be fitted with front and rear facing lights, a bell and be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure user safety. Lime have been asked to provide information about the safety, maintenance and inspection procedures.

6.   Discussion

6.1       Fees

6.1.1   For the duration of the trial, Lime has been charged the cost of the Trading Permit, and no additional fees associated with their activities.  As the trial moves into a more permanent service, the Council needs to ensure the use of public space is managed fairly and balance the use of public space with the interests of commercial activities.  This is already provided for in the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018, which states in section 3.3 that ‘The Council reserves the right to charge rental fees for all commercial activities on a public place’. A per vehicle fee structure is the most appropriate way to ensure vendors are economical and responsible with their fleet and that there isn’t an oversupply of idle vehicles creating public obstructions.

6.1.2   Use of public space for private and business activities is essentially a property right that the Council grants to parties through permits and licences. The basis for determining an appropriate fee associated with e-scooter permits should be applied based on the amount of space that is being occupied and its corresponding value.

6.1.3   The Council already has a fee structure set out in its Public Streets Enclosures Policy, under which for example cafes and bars pay to occupy the public realm. The price calculated for e-scooters by using a similar fee structure (as determined by the Facilities, Property and Planning Unit) is $172.50/m2 per year. This is based on the assumption that half the fleet are deployed in the central city and the remainder in the suburbs.

6.1.4   Assuming each scooter occupies 0.5m2 the cost per scooter per year would be $86.25.

6.2       Fleet caps and citywide limits

6.2.1   Other e-scooter vendors have contacted the Council expressing interest in obtaining a permit to operate. Competition within any market can improve efficiency and ensure that no single supplier can dictate how the market operates or dictate prices for the goods and services. However, observations from multi-vendor cities overseas has not necessarily shown lower prices for consumers, despite competition.

6.2.2   Limiting the number of e-scooters in the city should be done so to balance the needs of customers and the general public in accordance with the Public Places Bylaw. Determining a limit is challenging with only three-months of observed data, and uncertainties about how demand will fluctuate throughout the seasons.  Staff recommend that the size of fleets and/or the number of permits is regularly monitored to ensure positive outcomes are achieved and mitigate negative impacts of oversupply.

6.2.3   Although more work is required to finalise what the overall citywide limit is to ensure the best outcomes for consumers and the public, there is international evidence of market saturation leading to diminishing returns in terms of how often and how far e-scooters are ridden. The point for oversupply appears to be approximately 3-4 vehicles per thousand residents. Based on this estimation, the citywide saturation point for Christchurch could be approximately 1,600 vehicles.  It is easier to set a conservative limit initially and then increase that if required, than to set a higher limit which may then be reduced.

6.3       Future Policy Development

6.3.1   In anticipation of micro-mobility services growing, staff are developing a draft policy to provide clarity about the use of e-scooters and similar business models in the context of the Council’s Bylaw, other policies and permitting process.    Staff will report back to Committee with the draft policy over the next few months.

7.   Option 1 – Approve shared e-scooter schemes to operate in the city

Option Description

7.1       Staff are recommending that trading permits continue to be issued for e-scooters under the Public Places Bylaw 2018 and Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018, and that a permit be issued to Lime Technology permit for another twelve months.

7.2       This option will enable more permits to be granted on a case-by-case basis (up to the citywide cap proposed below) provided other operators can demonstrate benefits while ensuring minimal disruptions to pedestrians and other users of public space. These recommendations are based on the feedback from the survey, the reference group recommendations, input from Lime Technology and the observed impacts during the trial.

7.3       Staff recommend charging a fee to recognise the use of public space by such schemes, and to do this, adopt the fee structure determined by the Facilities, Property and Planning Unit.  This equates to $172.50/m2 which could be approximated at $86.25 per scooter per year, but will depend on the exact make and model of vehicle (and its size).  

7.4       Based on observed patterns from the Lime trial, it is clear that the demand for shared e-scooters is greater than the existing cap of 700 vehicles currently permitted. The number of vehicles deployed each day has remained marginally below (but close to their permitted cap).  Staff are therefore recommending lifting Lime’s permitted cap to 1,000 vehicles. This may be reviewed depending on the utilisation, deployment rates and operational performance of the permit holder.  Staff also recommend an interim citywide limit/cap on the total number of e-scooters, of 1600 vehicles.  Staff will continue to assess demand to assess if an alternative cap is justified.

Significance

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

7.6       Residents are well aware of the trial and the public were invited to provide feedback via the online survey.

7.7       Formal public consultation on the details of the draft micro-mobility policy will be required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.9       The wider public are affected by this option due to increased presence and e-scooters in public places.  Their views have been formed over during the trial phase. Members of the public have provided online feedback with nearly 7,000 responses indicating that the majority believe e-scooter schemes should be allowed to remain after the trial.

7.10    When users were asked what would encourage them to use e-scooters more often, making the trial permanent and having more e-scooters available were the two most common responses. Although, most users reported that they could find an e-scooter when they needed to rent one.

7.11    Initial conversations with Lime representatives have revealed they are supportive of a dynamic cap type permitting system, where fleets can be increased/decreased based on demand and performance.  These representatives have also mooted a per-trip fee structure for the permits as a possible option.

7.12    Other parties, interested in providing shared e-scooter services have provided little detail of their intended fleet size although, staff understand these will fall within the proposed citywide cap.  None have discussed or questioned the Council’s intended fee structure for permits.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.14    The primary costs of implementing this option will be incurred through the transport unit. As is the case with any new level of service, there will be pressures on fixed operating budgets and staff resources. Given the increased number of e-scooter devices on city streets, targeted education and safety campaigns will be planned for 2019.

7.15    If the Council approve the report there will be associated application, monitoring, maintenance and compliance costs.  Also, software may be required to monitor and evaluate the compliance and performance of each operator, if multiple operators enter our market.

7.16    Funding source – The proposed permit fee is intended to cover the costs described above and any additional staff resource that is required. 

Legal Implications

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

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

7.19    The legal considerations are:

7.19.1    The current Lime permit and any future permits will be issued under the Council’s Public Places Bylaw 2018 and Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018.  Although the Policy doesn’t expressly prohibit or allow for e-scooter trading permits, the current Lime permit was issued, with controls, under the general guidelines of the policy and under the ‘other activities’ section of the policy.

7.19.2    Section 12 of the Local Government Act enables the Council to set fees and charges, and the Trading and Events in Public Places policy provides that the Council may charge rental fees for commercial activities using a public place.                  

Risks and Mitigations  

7.20    There is a risk that Lime may increase their prices, as a result of the proposed fee structure.  This may result in the costs being incurred by users or a downturn in ridership.

7.20.1    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low.  Depending on utilisation, it is expected that applying the standard fee structure will be equivalent to an additional 5c per ride.  This is unlikely to materially impact the commercial feasibility of the hire e-scooter model.

7.20.2    Planned treatments to mitigate this risk are to ensure that fee policies are fair and transparent to all operators and that competition in the marketplace will ensure consumers aren’t negatively impacted by monopolistic pricing.

Implementation

7.21    The implementation dependencies for this option require a Council resolution to confirm the increase in cap and fee structure for the permit.

7.22    All changes to the Lime permit and the issuing of new permits can be approved by the Head of Transport under delegations held by that position.

7.23    The implementation timeframes can progress as soon as the fee structure is agreed by the Council and paid by the permit holder. The cap on the number of permitted vehicles can be reviewed in three months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.24    The advantages of this option include:

7.24.1    Using an evidence based approach to increase the number of shared e-scooters allowed under the permit to ensure a manageable operation that meets the needs of users and the public.

7.24.2    A fair and consistent fee structure that ensures consistent price signals to anyone trading or creating an obstruction in public place, as well as allowing incurred costs to be offset by the permit holder.

7.24.3    Allows for competition in the marketplace

7.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

7.25.1    Continuing to permit shared e-scooter schemes in Christchurch could pose a reputational risk for the Council given a small group of residents are vocally opposed to their operation in Christchurch. Other reputational risk may be exposed through any future high-profile injuries or incidents that may occur on shared scooters in Christchurch.

7.25.2    Limiting the number of scooters in the city though a permitting system may not fully reach the market demand, reducing trip uptake and overall transport benefits to the city.

8.   Option 2 – Do not approve shared e-scooter schemes to operate in the city

Option Description

8.1       This option would not extend the trading permit to Lime Technology Limited, and not issue any more trading permits for shared e-scooter schemes in the future. The Council should consult on this before a final decision is made, as is represents a proposed change to the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy. The current permit was granted, with conditions, under the ‘other activities’ section and following the guidance of that Policy.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       The occasional and frequent users of the Lime e-scooters are specifically affected by this option due to this option providing that their permit to trade not be continued. More than 100,000 people have used the devices during the trial period and 93% of users that responded to the survey indicated that e-scooter companies should probably or definitely be allowed to operate after the trial.

8.5       If the Council consults on a decision to refuse future e-scooter and micro-mobility permits it will gain a better understanding of community views and preferences.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with the Council’s strategic directions framework

8.6.1   One of the Council’s strategic priorities is to increase active, public and shared transport opportunities and use

8.6.2   This option is also consistent with the Council’s strategic priority to maximise opportunities to develop a vibrant prosperous and sustainable 21st century city.

8.6.3   Discontinuing shared e-scooter systems would eliminate one of the most popular forms of shared transport in the city.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

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

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

8.12    The Council should consult on a decision to refuse future e-scooter permits to ensure it has properly considered the views and preferences of those affected by or interested in such a policy approach. The Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2018 contemplates permits of other activities not specifically covered by the policy being considered on a case by case basis. This means there is no guarantee a permit will be granted in any case. However, following the Lime trial and the level of interest in this activity, for the Council to make a reasonable decision not to grant any future permits it should have a clear policy approach which it consults the public on first, before making a final decision.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.13    There is a risk that not allowing shared e-scooter companies to operate in Christchurch, the city may hinder the regeneration of the central city, and fail to meet its transport objectives.

Implementation

8.14    The Implementation dependencies for this option require informing the permit holder that the Council will not issue a trading permit.

8.15    The Implementation timeframe for this option is to discontinue operations by March 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

8.16.1 Reducing the rate of injuries that occur on e-scooters in Christchurch.

8.16.2 Not incurring additional expenses to the transport unit or the Council.

8.16.3 Eliminating the concerns of safety and inconvenience for pedestrians and vulnerable road users that have been raised by some commentators during the trial period. 

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

8.17.1 Reduced level of services for residents and visitors travelling around the central city

8.17.2 Missed opportunities to realise the Council’s Strategic Priorities and transport goals.

8.17.3 Impacts on the hundreds of independent contractors’ supplementary income (or livelihood) from charging the e-scooters.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Micro-mobility discussion paper

 

b 

Memorandum - Response to Correspondence from Lime (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Nicholas Lovett - Policy Planner - Transport

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

13.    Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Heritage Strategy

Reference:

19/29556

Presenter(s):

Councillor Phil Clearwater  - Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Draft Heritage Strategy.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.  A link to the written submissions is also available should you want to review them. http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/11/BLHP_20181121_AGN_3036_AT.PDF  

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the amendments to the Christchurch City Council Heritage Strategy, in the form attached (Attachment A).

2.         Authorises staff to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions as the case may be.

3.         Notes the following changes (incorporated in Attachment A), as a result of the consultation and hearings process:  

a.         Add an acknowledgement of the Consultation and Hearings Panel Process to the document.

b.         Amend the Strategy for the word ‘community’ to read ‘communities’ throughout the document.

c.         Add the following paragraph to page 2-

These strands include the stories of Ngāi Tahu, the early European settlers, Pasifika and people of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds who have journeyed here over time.  This Strategy recognises that all these stories are our taonga and part of our rich and diverse heritage.

d.         Add a message from Dr Te Marie Tau on page 5 to represent the papatipu rūnanga partnership.

e.         Amend bullet point 9 on page 10 to read - “Provider of expertise and knowledge”.

f.          Amend bullet point 12 on page 10 to read - “story teller”.

g.         Amend the text box on page 12 heading to read –

 Christchurch City Council Scheduled Heritage Places lost as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes.

h.         Add to the text box on page 12 ‘Christchurch City Council Scheduled Heritage to read.

Scheduled places of significance to Maori which were significantly impacted by the earthquakes-

Rapanui

Te Tihi o Kahukura/Castle Rock,

Te Poho Tamatea (maunga above Rapaki),

Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River and Ōtakaro/Avon River.

i.          Add a text box to page 13 to read - Context for the Heritage Strategy

The Heritage Strategy sits alongside a suite of legislation relating to heritage recognition and protection including the Resource Management Act, Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act and Reserves Act. The Strategy and its implementation plan are informed by national and international heritage conservation charters, and background documents such as the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula Contextual Historical Overview studies, the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan and local area studies.

j.          Amend caption to image on page 15 to read –

“Akaroa Lighthouse with the French flag flying at half-mast in memory of those killed in the terrorist attack in Paris on 15 November 2015”.

k.         Amend spelling of whanau on page 16 to read – whānau.

l.          Amend page 21 bullet point  ‘Accessibility’ to read –

This Strategy includes people of all ages and abilities through a range of accessible options

m.       Amend paragraph starting …and not so visible on page 22 to include –

music, kapahaka, dance and language and including the people and groups connected with them,

n.         Amend paragraph starting …culturally diverse on page 23 to include –

 festivals, food, clothing

o.         Amend the paragraph starting ....more than history on page 23 to include –

‘political, social, cultural and environmental movements’.

p.         Amend the paragraph starting …varied in scale and type on page 23 to replace shopping with - commerce, recreation, business and the arts

q.         Add an additional paragraph to page 22-24 to read –

Our Heritage, Our Taonga includes moveable heritage - vehicles, boats, trams, waka, objects, artefacts, documents, photographs, ephemera, art and items removed from lost buildings and places.

r.          Add a new Mahinga to Whāinga on page 38 to read –

Acknowledge and celebrate the contribution of our communities to social justice and political reform

s.         Add a new Mahinga to Whāinga 4 on p. 39  to read –

 Seek to develop the strongest possible regulatory framework to ensure effective protection of highly significant and significant heritage places. 

t.          Amend the graphs and charts on pages 47-49 for clarity

u.         Appendix D (p66) illustrates the relationship between the Strategy and other legislative, policy and background documents.” Add to the appendices as appendix D on page 66 a table showing the relationship between the Strategy and other legislative, policy and background documents. 

Note: to refer the Hearings Panel report and Council decision to the Te Hononga Committee for their information.

Requests staff provide a report on the implementation plan as a priority noting the significant loss of heritage post-earthquake to the Social Community Development and Housing Committee.

 

3.       Background

3.1          The Council resolved on 28 September 2017 (CNCL/2017/00278) that staff prepare a Heritage Strategy with an implementation plan outlining a new direction for heritage.  The resolution requires that the Strategy be developed in partnership with Ngāi Tahu, and for the Strategy to be implemented collaboratively with key stakeholders, heritage owners and the community.  

3.2          The Council resolution required:

That the Council:

1.         Instruct staff to prepare a Heritage Strategy with an implementation plan outlining a new direction for heritage.

2.         Note that the Strategy is based on the following principles:

·        our inheritance and legacy;

·        the recognition of both tangible and intangible heritage;

·        a story-based approach that acknowledges and respects all our cultures;

·        under-pinning our local and community sense of place and city identity.

3.         Note that the Strategy is developed in partnership with Ngāi Tahu.

4.         Note that implementation of the Strategy is developed in partnership with key stakeholders, owners and the community to include, but not limited to:

a.     A charter or shared values agreement developed through further engagement to implement the new strategic direction collaboratively.

b.     Regular workshops and/or forums to facilitate a collaborative approach to achieving positive heritage outcomes.

c.      Establishment of regular Hui with the ngā Rūnanga.

d.     Seek opportunities to improve and enhance local and community use and access.

5.         Facilitate a workshop with relevant organisations and agencies to consider an overarching strategic approach to moveable cultural property in Christchurch city.

3.3          Heritage is a key resource and asset to the district, contributing to our community and local identity, culture, belonging and sense of place. The retention and promotion of our heritage is vital to creating a vibrant, dynamic and sustainable twenty first century city, which celebrates its past.

3.4          There are social, cultural, community and economic benefits to be derived from the celebration and retention of heritage. The loss of a substantial numbers of both listed and unlisted heritage buildings as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes has provided an opportunity to re-define and broaden the definition of heritage to include intangible heritage: the stories of people and places, including sites, traditions, knowledge, landscapes, areas and archaeology.

3.5          Increased public and community awareness of heritage offers Council the opportunity to develop a new approach to the protection and celebration of heritage which is founded on a shared vision and developed through engagement and partnership. It also offers the opportunity for Council to engage with the community and stakeholders to develop ways to implement and achieve the vision in a more collaborative manner.

3.6          The Council resolution set out that the Strategy should be developed in partnership with Ngāi Tahu.

3.7          The consultancy arm of the Rūnanga - Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited and the Council’s Ngāi Tahu Partnership Team were involved in the development of the Strategy document.  Three workshops with Rūnanga-connected heritage professionals were held from June to September 2018 to develop and review the draft document. 

3.8          The development of the Strategy in partnership supports the Te Hononga – Papatipu Rūnanga relationship agreement. It enhances the relationship between Ngāi Tahu and the Council through the development of an ongoing collaboration, and builds shared understanding and strong co-ordinated leadership on matters of mutual interest.

4.       Context

4.1          The Strategy presents a broadened view of heritage, which includes the built and natural environment, tangible and intangible heritage, including stories, memories and traditions, and moveable heritage.  Ngāi Tahu taonga is acknowledged and integrated, and the heritage of the city’s diverse cultures and distinctive communities is respected and provided for.

4.2          The Strategy is a high level document, setting out Council’s leadership role for heritage in both the regulatory and non-regulatory spheres, and how it intends to work in an ongoing partnership with Ngāi Tahu and in collaboration with the community to identify, protect and celebrate heritage.

 

5.       Consultation Process and Submissions

5.1          The Draft Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 was released for public consultation on Wednesday 10 October 2018 and closed Monday 12 November 2018. Copies of the document and summary documents were provided at all Council libraries and service centres, and emails sent to 455 stakeholders. The draft Heritage Strategy and consultation can be viewed here:

 https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/196

5.2          Updates were posted on Council’s social media pages, and the Community Boards’ Governance Teams were requested to send information about the Draft Heritage Strategy consultation to organisations in their community networks. Drop-ins were held on Sunday 14 October at Ferrymead Heritage Park Rewind Festival; Wednesday 17 October at Tūranga; Saturday 20 October at Akaroa Farmers Market and Halswell Quarry Park; Sunday 21 October at Orton Bradley Park Spring Fair; Saturday 27 October at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre, and Saturday 3 November at Lyttelton Farmers Market. 

5.3          Three further responses were received after the closing date and were accepted as late submissions by the Hearings Panel.

5.4          Respondents were asked six questions:

5.4.1     Does this draft Strategy include and reflect what you value about our heritage, our taonga?

5.4.2     Does the draft Strategy represent your values and culture/respect and acknowledge the diverse cultures of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula?

5.4.3     Have we got the goals right to help us recognise, celebrate and protect our heritage, our taonga?

5.4.4     Have we got the balance right between tangible (physical) and intangible heritage (stories and memories)?

5.4.5     Do you support the idea of a Heritage Charter so individuals and groups can work together to recognise, protect and celebrate our heritage, our taonga?

5.4.6     Do you have any further thoughts on the Draft Heritage Strategy?

5.5          The following graph indicates the responses of those who specifically replied to all or some of the first five questions. Strong support for the draft Heritage Strategy was also reflected in the comments of most other submitters in response to question 6.

5.6          If the draft Heritage Strategy is adopted by Council, Council Officers can then begin to develop in partnership with the six papatipu rūnanga and working with stakeholders, the community and owners’ a Heritage Charter as requested by resolution (CNCL/2017/00278)

4 Note that implementation of the Strategy is developed in partnership with key stakeholders, owners and the community to include, but not limited to:

 a  charter or shared values agreement developed through further engagement to implement the new strategic direction collaboratively.

5.7          Of the 42 respondents, most indicated full or general support, particularly in relation to:   

·        The process followed by the Council in developing the draft Heritage Strategy

·        At least eight respondents made specific, positive reference to the Council’s collaborative approach

·        The idea of a Heritage Charter

·        Recognition of mana whenua in the document and how the partnership with the six papatipu rūnanga is reflected in the draft Strategy

·        Recognition of the cultural diversity of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula

·        The role of Council as a champion of heritage and the need for it to provide effective regulatory protection for heritage places.

·        The need for adequate funding for heritage to be provided by the Council. This included adequate funding for its own heritage places, heritage grants and community-based initiatives, and funding for moveable heritage.

6.       The Hearing

6.1          The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Phil Clearwater (Chairperson), Councillor Jimmy Chen and Councillor Yani Johanson.  The Hearings Panel convened on Wednesday 21 November, Monday 10 December to hearing verbal submissions and Monday 18 December 2018 to receive further information from Council Officers and to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

6.2          Given the collaborative way the Strategy was developed two external Hearings Panel members were appointed with full voting rights; Puamiria Parata-Goodall and Kyle Davis. Kendra Burges-Naude was also utilised as an advisor to the Hearings Panel on behalf of the Youth Council but was not a member of the Hearings Panel and therefore did not have voting rights.

6.3          Prior to hearing oral submissions Council Officers presented a brief overview of the proposed amendments and presented the Hearings Panel with further information in relation to the pre-engagement consultation, the partnership and engagement process which informed the development of the Strategy and the consultation process on the draft document, a brief summary of the recommended changes from submissions and answered questions of the Hearings Panel.

6.4          The Hearings Panel then heard from those submitters who were available and wished to present, and asked questions for clarification. To assist the Hearings Panel with its deliberations, questions arising were allocated to Council officers to respond to accordingly.

6.5          The majority of verbal submissions were consistent with the points raised in written submissions. Some of the key issues that were raised through these verbal submissions included;

·    Support for the collaborative development of the Strategy, hope that this could be a model moving forward for all Strategy development

·    Request that the Strategy is shared with other Territorial Authorities as a model of inclusive Strategy development

·    Developing of an Implementation Plan and Charter, as an inclusive process as with the development of the draft Heritage Strategy

·    Recognition of the huge range of stories, from large to small street and individual stories within communities, and the importance of these as the threads that tie people together  

·    Inclusion of movable Heritage to the Strategy and looking to include ecological heritage in other strategies being developed

·    Continuing to work with Iwi and other Multicultural stakeholders to gather a rich range of stories and weave threads together.

7.       Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

7.1          The Hearings Panel noted a general level of support for the Strategy expressed by submitters and discussed the concerns raised in written and verbal submissions, these included;

·    The Hearings Panel noted the loss of large Heritage Areas in Christchurch post-earthquake and the value the Strategy could bring to protecting the remaining heritage

·    That Heritage is acknowledged to be more than tangible buildings, it encompasses the intangible of oral history, stories of new arrivals, moveable heritage, the Strategy has been built to weave these things together

·    The Panel thanked Council Officers for the inclusive way the draft Strategy had been prepared and the success of the engagement, stakeholder and working groups and all other parties

·    The Panel noted that as further work on implementation is undertaken the good work already started in engaging with communities will continue. More groups, and Communities (including other marginalised groups) will be included in the implementation planning, to allow their voices to be heard

·    The Panel noted that funding issues for community groups needed to be considered by the Council, and better/more funding could be acquired for implementation of the Strategy through other organisations and Central Government.

7.2          After receiving advice from Council Officers, the Hearings Panel discussed issues around formatting of the document (such as removal of brackets from translations) and noted that this would be carried out for the ‘clean’ Strategy Document. Further word changes and specific changes have been noted in the recommendation.

7.3          The Panel noted their deep concerns on issues with funding, of the Strategy, the speed with which it could be implemented and that a current work plan across Council was not in place.

7.4          The Panel discussed that they would like further communication that heritage is sustainable and environmentally friendly good for economy and this message should be more widely spread.

7.5          The Panel discussed that as the Four Well Beings were again becoming a focus of Council that for the Strategy to be successful support from across all Council departments would be required.

7.6          At the close of the Hearing the Chairperson Councillor Clearwater on behalf of the Panel thanked all Council, Officers, submitters and those that had engaged in the drafting of the Strategy for their involvement and passion.

Signatories

Author                        Sarah Drummond - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Councillor Phil Clearwater  - Chairperson of the Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Heritage Strategy 2019 - 2029

133

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

28 February 2019

 

 

14.    Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Proposed Earthquake-prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Routes

Reference:

19/29603

Presenter(s):

Councillor Glenn Livingstone - Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Proposed Earthquake-prone buildings – Identification of Priority Routes.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.  A link to the written submissions is also available at http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/12/BLHP_20181212_AGN_3317_AT.PDF

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Incorporate changes to the draft Earthquake-prone Buildings – Priority Routes Map as a result of submissions received and staff recommendations:

a.         Retain the high pedestrian thoroughfares as mapped in the Central Business District.

b.         Retain Hagley Park as a high pedestrian thoroughfare.

c.         Remove from the priority routes the section of Wairakei Road where it intersects with the Belfast Bypass due to the road being permanently closed.

d.         Remove the land in Belfast from Tyrone Street to Main North Road and to the side of the Railway from the high pedestrian area of the map.

 

3.   Background/Context

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

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

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

3.4       The Council’s Building Consents team worked with relevant Council service teams and with emergency service providers to identify draft Priority Routes. Those routes were consulted on to ensure the views of informal emergency service providers, such as freight transport operators and demolition or construction service providers, as well as the wider community could be considered.

3.5       The Proposed Priority Routes Map (www.ccc.govt.nz/thoroughfaresandstrategicroutes) identifies the routes considered to have sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic or that are of strategic importance in terms of an emergency response such that the priority building provisions of the Act should apply. 

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

3.7       The final approved Priority Routes Map will be used by the Council’s Building Consents team to identify and manage high priority earthquake-prone buildings and for building owners to initiate and undertake the necessary seismic remediation works within the required timeframe.

 

4.   Consultation Process and Submissions

4.1       At the 27 September Council meeting consultation on the Policy was approved, you can find this report here

http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/09/CNCL_20180927_AGN_2367_AT.PDF

4.2       The consultation period ran from Monday 15 October 2018 to Thursday 15 November 2018.

4.3       Details of the consultation can be found here:

 https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/143

4.4       17 Submissions were received. The staff summary of submissions and hearing report are attached (Attachment A).

4.5       The Volumes of Submissions are available at the link:

http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/12/BLHP_20181212_AGN_3317_AT.PDF

4.6       Submissions were received from Three Community Boards: Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board, and Seven key stakeholder organisations - Property Council New Zealand, Christchurch Civic Trust, Insurance Council of New Zealand, Earthquake Disability Leadership Group (EDLG), Historic Places Canterbury, Summit Road Society and Central City Business Association.

4.7       There were two questions posed during consultation, firstly relating to high pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares and secondly, strategic routes.

High pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares

4.8       12 submitters were in support of the proposed high pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares, three did not support and two did not indicate a preference.

Strategic routes

4.9       11 submitters were in support of the proposed high pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares, four did not support and two did not indicate a preference.

4.10    Other topics noted in submissions included:

·    Refining and reducing the Central City proposed high traffic or pedestrian thoroughfare areas

·    Removing Hagley Park from as a high pedestrian thoroughfare

·    Risk of rock fall in the Port Hills

·    Impact the priority earthquake-prone buildings classification could have on heritage buildings, and the need to balance safety measures and the threat to heritage buildings

·    Request to incentivise Heritage building repair and ensure that it is completed in a timely manner if a grant has been given.

5.   The Hearing

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Chairperson Councillor Glenn Livingstone, Community Board Member Tim Lindley and Community Board Member Tori Peden. The Hearings Panel convened on Wednesday 12 December to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2       Prior to hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposed amendments and responded to questions of the panel. Staff noted an amendment to the recommendation to the hearing panel in their report, that they no longer recommended adding Sherborne Street/Cranford Street to the priority routes map. The Hearings Panel noted and accepted the amendment to the staff recommendation.

5.3       The Hearings Panel then heard from those submitters who were available and wished to present, and asked questions for clarification. To assist the Hearings Panel with its deliberations, questions arising were allocated to Council officers to respond to accordingly.

5.4       The majority of verbal submissions were consistent with the points raised in written submissions. Some of the key issues that were raised through these verbal submissions included:

5.4.1   Concern of overlap between Heritage Building restoration work and the route work being difficult for building owners to co-ordinate due to issues with insurance etc. A campaign on signage regarding MBS % as the public is not well informed on this information.

5.4.2   The need for more visible signage for pedestrians at street level so they are aware of buildings.

5.4.3   Issues with a general public perception of the Central City still being unsafe, that more public education was needed in conjunction with the route map about the safety of the city.

5.4.4   Need for more messaging on the safety of buildings within Christchurch post-earthquake, perhaps promoted with Christchurch NZ.

5.4.5   Preference for a staged approach rather than a focus on halving the building time for identified building.

5.4.6   To avoid the loss of further Heritage fabric of the city while being mindful of safety and to allow flexibility in the process.

 

6.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

6.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing.  Council Officers were invited back to the table to provide further clarification for the Hearings Panel.  Some of the key issues that were addressed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

6.1.1   The Hearings Panel noted a general level of support for the policy expressed by submitters and discussed the concerns raised in written and verbal submissions.

6.1.2   The Hearings Panel discussed that there may be a need for some parallel processes to deal with heritage issues and potentially some developed methodology/process/ pathway for building owners and Heritage NZ to work together.

6.1.3   The Hearings Panel had received and discussed advice from staff regarding building setbacks, exemptions and extensions that are available to building owners under the Act, the focus of the Act to halve the time for earthquake prone buildings to be brought up to code.

6.2       Staff advice to the Hearings Panel was that demolition costs and non-compliance costs are outside of the scope of this consultation as they are set by Central Government.

6.3       The Hearings Panel noted the need for more publication regarding signage for earthquake prone buildings and asked Council officers to provide a copy of the signage to submitters in attendance and for inclusion in this report.

6.4       The Hearings Panel heard and discussed advice from Council Officers that when buildings are being strengthened appropriate disability signage must be installed.

6.5       Following consideration and deliberation of submissions, the Hearings Panel agreed to recommend to Council to adopt the earthquake-prone buildings – Route Map with the recommended staff amendments. The map is a web based interactive Map and can be found at the following link www.ccc.govt.nz/thoroughfaresandstrategicroutes

 

 

Signatories

Author                        Sarah Drummond - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Councillor Glenn Livingstone - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

15.    Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Suburban Parking Policy

Reference:

19/85467

Presenter(s):

Councillor Raf Manji - Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Draft Suburban Parking Policy. 

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes the staff report containing a summary of the submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received, and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.  A link to the full written submissions is also available should you want to review them. http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/01/BLHP_20190121_AGN_3512_AT.PDF

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council adopts the Suburban Parking Policy subject to the following amendments as a result of the consultation and hearings process:

1.         Amend the definition of highest parking occupancy from 85% to 75% throughout the policy.

2.         Amend Policy 1 by deleting Table 1 and replacing it as follows:

 

Commercial Areas

Residential Areas

Other Areas (such as Industrial)

1st priority

Safety

Safety

Safety

2nd priority *

Movement and Amenity

Movement and Amenity

Movement and Amenity

3rd priority

Mobility parking

Mobility parking

Mobility parking

4th priority

Bus stops/ Cycle parks/Bike corrals Shared parking (bike, share  or car share)/ Micromobility parking (e.g. scooters)

Bus stops

Bus stops/ Cycle parks/Bike corrals Shared parking (bike, share  or car share)/ Micromobility parking (e.g. scooters)

5th priority

Taxi Ranks (special passenger vehicle stands)

Residents Parking

Short Stay Parking

6th priority

Loading Zones

Cycle parks/Bike corrals Shared parking (bike, share  or car share)/ Micromobility parking (e.g. scooters)

Residents Parking

7th priority

Short Stay Parking

 Short Stay Parking

Commuter Parking

8th priority

Residents Parking

Commuter Parking

 

9th priority

Commuter Parking

 

 

 

3.         Amend Policy 2 as follows:

i.  In the introductory paragraph and immediately after the words “...the Council response.” add the following words:

Parking enforcement operates in many of our suburban areas. This will continue alongside any additional parking management tools that are introduced.

ii. In the first text box under the heading ”Residential zones” add the following words immediately after “… issued under this approach.”

The purpose of introducing time-restrictions to a section of street are to determine if limited restrictions are effective in addressing parking issues before other interventions are introduced.

iii.  Delete the words “approximately 25%” and replace with “approximately 25-50”

iv.  Add the following footer after the table.

Peak times’ is defined as occurring at the peak occupancy period following an AM and PM parking survey.

4.         Amend Policy 5 by adding the following paragraph immediately after the first paragraph.

Parking enforcement operates in many of our suburban areas. This will continue alongside any additional parking management tools that are introduced.

5.         Amend Policy 7 by adding the following paragraph after bullet point 5.

Mobility parks will also be reviewed to ensure that they are being utilised or can be converted to alternative types of parking. The following actions will be used:

a.   Mobility park permits will be reviewed annually to ensure that parks are located where there is demand.

b.   Parking enforcement will ensure that valid permits are displayed.

c.   Occupancy surveys will be conducted to assess their utilisation.

This will not supersede the mobility park requirements outlined in the District Plan.

6.         Amend Policy 8 as follows:

i.      Replace the second subheading “Bicycles” with the new subheading “Bicycles/Micromobility”.

ii.     Delete the text under the existing heading “Bicycles” and replace with the following:

Encouraging greater use of these modes is facilitated through the priority given in the kerbside priority matrix (Policy 1). In areas of high demand Council encourages the introduction of on-street corrals. These must be implemented in line with the Structures on Roads policy2 and Traffic and Parking 2017 Bylaw. A Corral is an on-street parking facility that can usually accommodate more parks than a typical facility on the footpath. Corrals usually occupy an area equivalent to one car parking space. Implementation of corrals will be designed in line with the Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines (2013).

7.         Amend Policy 9 by deleting the first bullet point and replacing it as follows:

·   continue to review and explore parking enforcement and pricing technologies.

8.         Authorise staff to make any typographical or changes to correct minor errors or omissions as the case may be.

 

 

3.   Background/Context

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

3.2       There are, however, some suburban areas where there is an increasing and high demand for parking from both residents, businesses and commuters, which makes it difficult to find a park and puts pressure on road space.

3.3       These areas are generally located within walking distance from popular destinations, such as commercial centres, business parks, the university and airport. It also includes areas that are increasing in density following the post-earthquake shift in commercial activity to the suburbs.

3.4       The Draft Suburban Parking Policy provides a framework for managing the competing demands for road space and suburban parking issues. It is intended to guide future decisions on suburban car parking.

3.5       There will still be a case by case assessment on changes to any car parking, and consultation as appropriate to any situation.

4.   Consultation Process and Submissions

4.1       Council approved public consultation for the Draft Suburban Parking Policy on 27 September 2018. This followed an earlier engagement in September 2016 when Council sought community feedback on the issues and options for suburban parking. During this earlier engagement, Council received 214 comments. The feedback received as part of this earlier engagement was used to inform the consulted Draft Suburban Parking Policy document.

4.1       Consultation on the Draft Suburban Parking Policy occurred between October 17 and November 21 2018. 67 individual responses were received during this period.

4.1       Consultation documents were made available to the public at Libraries and service centres as well as online channels via ‘Have Your Say’ and social media to elicit responses from the wider community. All submitters were invited to have their views heard by the Hearings Panel.

4.2       Staff were available on request for Community Board briefings to provide greater context and clarity on the Draft document as well as an opportunity to ask questions. Staff presented at a Joint Community Board Meeting on 5 October and the Coastal-Burwood Community Board on 5 November.

4.3       483 key stakeholders were contacted individually making them aware of the consultation, which included details on how to make a submission. These included submitters who had previously commented on the issues and options document in 2016.

4.4       Of the submissions received, 16 were from organisations. These were:

Name of Organisation

Spokes Canterbury

Talking Transport Blog

Banks Peninsula Community Board

Avonhead Community Group Inc.

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Submissions Committee

St Albans Residents Association

Riccarton Bush Kilmarnock Residents' Association

Canterbury District Health Board

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Airport Business Park

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Christchurch Citizens Collective

Centrepoint

Riccarton Residents Association

Carolines Kombi Limited

 

4.5       A more detailed analysis of submissions by staff is outlined in the Officer report (Attachment A).

5.   The Hearing

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Raf Manji (Chairperson), Councillor Mike Davidson and Community Board member Alexandra Davids.  The Hearings Panel convened on Monday 21 January 2019 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2       Prior to the Hearings Panel hearing oral submissions Council officers spoke to their Officer report. This included a brief overview of the current situation, a summary of feedback received, and proposed amendments to the draft Policy. Council officers responded to questions raised by the Panel.

5.3       The Hearings Panel then heard from submitters, and asked questions for clarification. The oral submissions were largely consistent with the points raised in the written submission.  Some of the key issues that were raised through the oral submission included:

Key Issues raised through verbal submissions

·    Demand for on-street parking can change over time as land use changes, particularly as a result of intensification.

·    Different areas of the City experience different issues and the suburban parking policy needs to be flexible enough to allow for local solutions to local problems.

·    The importance of considering safety as part of any decision-making for on-street parking.

·    The priority given to mobility parking in the draft policy, and the need to monitor mobility parking location and demand.

·    The need for parking enforcement to sit alongside, and support, parking policy.

·    Whether local communities could have a role in supporting enforcement.

·    The level of on-street parking occupancy as a trigger for deciding when to consider applying parking time restrictions to sections of a street.

·    The potential to use new technology to better manage parking through enhanced enforcement and pricing.

5.4       The Hearings Panel invited Council officers back to the table to answer questions raised through verbal submissions. This included questions on the Council resourcing for parking enforcement in suburban areas, enforcement of mobility parking on private land, and the rationale for the priority assigned to the use of road space. 

6.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

6.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. Additional information tabled by submitters during the hearing was also considered.  Some of the key issues that were addressed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

6.1.1   The Hearings Panel, noting the concern from Community Boards that local parking decisions be made locally, noted that Community Board Delegations will remain unchanged by the proposed policy.

6.1.2   The Hearings Panel confirmed that safety considerations should be given the highest priority when making decisions on suburban parking.

6.1.3   The Hearings Panel agreed with those submitters who commented that mobility parking should be given a higher priority.

6.1.4   The Hearings Panel noted that while the provision of bus stops remains important the provision of other types of parking in residential areas are less important in residential areas (i.e. cycle parks, microbility parking (e.g. scooters), bike corrals and shared parking for car share and car share).

6.1.5   The regular exceedance of 85 per cent of on-street parking occupancy as a trigger for deciding when to consider applying parking time restrictions to sections of a street was discussed by the Hearings Panel. The Panel decided that this is too high and figure 75 percent is more appropriate.

6.1.6   When applying time restriction parking to a street a figure of approximately 25 per cent of the street was considered by the Hearings Panel to be inflexible and that a figure of 25 per cent to 50 per cent is more appropriate.

6.1.7   The Hearings Panel noted submitter feedback on parking enforcement and agreed to the staff recommendation to include statements noting that parking enforcement in suburban areas will continue alongside any additional parking management tools that are introduced.

6.1.8   The Hearings Panel noted submitter comment that new technology could provide an opportunity for enhanced enforcement and pricing. For example, one submitter queried whether local communities, given modern mobile phone technology, could support parking enforcement in some way, with another referring to progressive pricing. The Hearings Panel agreed that Council should continue to review and explore parking enforcement and pricing technologies.

Conclusions

6.2       Following consideration and deliberation of submissions, the Hearings Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to Council to adopt the amendments to the Draft Suburban Parking Policy in the form attached (Attachment B), containing those revisions agreed to by the Hearings Panel at its meeting on 21 January 2019.

 

 

 

Signatories

Author                        David Corlett - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Councillor Raf Manji - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Staff Report

181

b

Attachment B Amended Suburban Parking Policy Document

224

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

28 February 2019

 

 

16.    Temporary relocation of Fendalton Service Desk

Reference:

19/77873

Presenter(s):

Sarah Numan - Head of Citizen and Customer Services

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to be informed of the planned temporary relocation of the Fendalton Service Desk.

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 assessing the impact of each decision against a standard set of Council criteria. These include the social, environment and cultural impacts, the impact on Maori, the number of people affected, possible costs/risks to council ratepayers and possible benefits/opportunities for council ratepayers.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Be informed of the planned temporary relocation of the Fendalton Service Desk, to be funded through operational savings within the Citizen and Community Group.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Fendalton Service Desk and Library is planned to be closed to the public from 5 March to 28 July 2019. This is to enable the repair, replacement and upgrade of key components of the plant and buildings.

4.2       To enable Service Centre services to be provided to Citizens during the closure period, a temporary service centre will be established at the Fendalton Village, 376 Ilam Road. The cost of this temporary relocation will be funded through operational savings within the Citizen and Community Group.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The primary reason for closing the building is to replace the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) plant as it is at its end-of-life. While the building is closed, Facilities are taking the opportunity to carry out minor-medium building repairs and upgrades as part of the 10 year programmed refurbishment.

5.2       The building will be closed to the public from Monday 4 March 2019 – Sunday 28 July 2019. Key dates:

5.2.1   Friday, 1 March 2019 is the last day the Service Centre will be open.

5.2.2   Saturday, 2 March 2019 is the last day the library will be open.

5.2.3   Monday, 4 March 2019 a temporary Service Centre will open at the Fendalton Village, 376 Ilam Road.

5.2.4   Friday, 8 March 2019 is the last day CCC staff will have building access.

5.2.5   Monday, 11 March 2019 the building becomes a construction site under contractor control.

5.2.6   Monday, 22 July 2019 CCC staff start moving back into the building.

5.2.7   Monday, 29 July 2019 re-open to the public (based on contractor’s programme).

5.3       The closest libraries available for use by Fendalton customers during the closure are Papanui, Bishopdale and Turanga libraries.  A Mobile Library will visit the Fendalton Library car park every Monday 1.30-3.30pm, Wednesday 9.15-11.15am and Friday 3-5pm.

5.4       Citizens Advice Services will be provided from The Village, Papanui, at 460 Papanui Road during closure.

5.5       The Service Centre will be temporarily located to the Fendalton Village, 376 Ilam Road, opening Monday – Friday 9:00 – 5:00 p.m.  All services will be available including NZ Post.  

5.6       The estimated cost of this temporary relocation is $69,184. To offset these additional unbudgeted costs, operational savings existing elsewhere in the Citizens and Community Group (specifically one-off savings arising from conservative first-year costings for Turanga) will be utilised.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Sarah Numan - Head of Customer Services

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

17.    Community Board funding allocations from the Strengthening Communities Fund

Reference:

19/25501

Presenter(s):

Gary Watson - Partnerships and Planning Manager
Sam Callander - Funding Team Leader

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision on the apportionment of funds from the Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) to Community Boards for allocation in local communities.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2018/00001 of 13 December 2018.

“Refer decisions regarding Strengthening Communities Funding for Community Boards (staff recommendations 3 and 4) back to the Funding Review Working Group for further consideration in early 2019.”

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by an assessment that concluded that the decisions in this report do not change current levels of service.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Apportion $3,153,311 from the Strengthening Communities Fund to Community Boards for ongoing allocation based on a formula that is weighted 70% population, 30% equity and has a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board (that maintains the Banks Peninsula per-person allocation at $23 per annum); for the financial year 2019/2020.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.3.1.2 Effectively administer the grants schemes for Council - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for grants schemes for Council Level of Service: 4.1.22.0 Provide services that ensure all Council and Community Board decisions are held with full statutory compliance - 100% compliance.

4.1.2   Activity: Community Development and Facilities.

·     Level of Service: 2.3.1:  Effectively administer grant schemes for Council.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Allocation to community boards based on a weighting of 70% population, 30% equity and has a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board that maintains a maximum per person allocation at $23 per annum (preferred option).

·   Option 2 – Retain Status Quo, 60% population, 40% equity, rural community adjustment of $140,000 for the Banks Peninsula Community Board.

·   Option 3 – Allocation to community boards based on population (100%) and a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board that maintains a maximum per person allocation at $23 per annum.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides clarity and advance notice to community boards on the amount of SCF available to each board ahead of the funding round opening on 4 March 2019.  This will advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

·     Addresses concerns that the formula used in 2018 contained a modest over-emphasis on equity, given that the SCF funds derive from rates and, as rates are progressive, there is already redistribution.

·     It is the recommendation of the Working Group.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Will lower the SCF available to some communities with proportionally higher equity needs.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       On an annual basis Council is asked to approve that approximately $3,153,311 of the SCF be apportioned to seven community boards for ongoing allocation to their respective communities.  The formula for the apportionment between boards was adjusted in August 2017.  At this time an antecedent Key Local Projects component of the SCF was replaced by the apportionment of a percentage of the eligible funds based on equity (depravation index) directly to boards for allocation.  The remaining SCF was apportioned on a population basis. 

5.2       The current formula used to calculate each community board’s allocation is; 60% population based, 40% equity based and includes a population adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board of $140,000 reflecting a smaller primarily rural community spread over a large geographical area.

5.3       Between May and November 2018 the Funding Review Working Group (Working Group) reviewed the formula.  This resulted in a number of options being presented to Council on 13 December 2018.  The preferred option presented in December was weighted 80% population, 20% equity with a rural community adjustment of $140,000 for Banks Peninsula.  The relevant sections of the December 13 Council report are attached to this report as Attachment A.

5.4       The Council supported the concept of apportioning funds to boards for ongoing allocation and the rural adjustment for Banks Peninsula.  Council asked the Working Group to give further consideration to the formula governing apportionment in early 2019.  Council’s resolution is detailed in section 1.2 of this report.

Working Group Consideration of the Apportionment Formula

5.5       The Working Group met on 23 January 2019.  They considered and compared a range of scenarios that compared an equity weighting of 40%, 30%, 20% and 0%, each with a rural adjustment for Banks Peninsula.  These scenarios are summarised in the table below (all rounded to the nearest dollar).

60% Population/
40% Equity
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Adjustment

80% Population/
20% Equity
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Adjustment (capped at $23 pp)

100% Population
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Adjustment (capped at $23 pp)

70% Population/
30% Equity
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Adjustment (capped at $23 pp)

Board

Population

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

F-W-H

64,992

$431,445

$7

$504,290

$8

$577,662

$9

$467,802

$7

S-C

44,067

$361,143

$8

$376,355

$9

$391,677

$9

$368,735

$8

L-C-H

67,848

$758,109

$11

$680,857

$10

$603,047

$9

$719,552

$11

C-B

46,671

$438,982

$9

$426,945

$9

$414,821

$9

$432,974

$99

H-H-R

64,260

$570,393

$9

$570,773

$9

$571,156

$9

$570,583

$9

P-I

45,402

$401,834

$9

$402,685

$9

$403,542

$9

$402,258

$9

BP

8,235

$191,405

$23

$191,405

$23

$191,405

$23

$191,405

$23

Total

341,475

$3,153,311

$3,153,311  

$3,153,311 

$3,153,311 

 

5.6       A summary of the SCF allocated by Boards to date in the current financial year was available for reference.  Details can be found in Attachment B of this report.

5.7       The Working Group debated the extent to which the current formula effectively balanced population and equity.  Some members remained comfortable with the current 60/40 split, others were concerned that current formula is too heavily weighted on equity because as rates are progressive there is already redistribution

5.8       The $140,000 rural adjustment for Banks Peninsula was discussed.  Whilst the need for an adjustment was supported it was agreed that the apportionment of the SCF should be capped at a person rate of $23.

5.9       The Working Group were provided a direct and unrounded comparison between the current (60/40) weighting and a proposed 70/30 option.  This is detailed in the table in section 5.11 of this report below.

Recommendation of the Working Group

5.10    The majority of the Working Group members indicated a willingness to support 70/30 option with the adjustment to Banks Peninsula capped at $23 per person and resultant amount redistributed.

5.11    The Working Group noted staff advice that if Council did not reach a decision on changing the formula the existing, Council approved, formula would apply for the 2019 allocation of the SCF.  The current and recommended formulae and their implications for each community board are presented in the table below.

 

Current Formula 

- 60% Population

- 40% Equity

Banks Peninsula adjustment $140,000

Population Based Formula

- 100% Population

- Banks Peninsula remain @ $23 per person

Working Group Recommendation 

- 70% Population

- 30% Equity

Banks Peninsula remain @ $23 per person

Board

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Change

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Change

F-W-H

$431,445

$6.64

$574,546

$8.84

$143,101

$467,802

$7.20

$36,357

S-C

$361,143

$8.20

$389,564

$8.84

$28,421

$368,735

$8.37

$7,592

L-C-H

$758,109

$11.17

$599,794

$8.84

-$158,315

$719,552

$10.61

-$38,557

C-B

$438,982

$9.41

$412,584

$8.84

-$26,398

$432,974

$9.28

-$6,008

H-H-R

$570,393

$8.88

$568,075

$8.84

-$2,318

$570,583

$8.88

$190

P-I

$401,834

$8.85

$401,366

$8.84

-$468

$402,258

$8.86

$424

B P

$191,405

$23.00

$191,405

$23.00

$0

$191,405

$23.00

$0

Total

$3,153,311

 

$3,153,311

 

 

$3,153,311

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – 70% Population 30% Equity (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Apportion $3,153,311, the existing amount, from the SCF to community boards for ongoing allocation based on a formula that is weighted 70% population, 30% equity and has a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board that maintains the per person allocation at $23 per annum; for the financial year 2019/2020.

Significance

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

6.2.1   The level of significance was determined by an assessment that concluded that the decisions in this report do not change current levels of service.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The approach to the apportionment of the SCF to community boards for ongoing allocation is based on feedback from the Working Group, Community Board Chairs and Deputy Chairs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies namely the Long Term Plan and the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – There is no identified additional cost to Council at this time.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There is no additional ongoing cost to Council.

6.8       Funding source – All project costs are met from within operational budgets set aside for this purpose or reprioritised Council-wide.

Legal Implications

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

6.10    This report and aspects of the content have been discussed with the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    There is a risk that a number of organisations in may receive less or no funding due to their community boards having a less funding, this would be particularly impact the Linwood-Central-Heathcote wards.  This may result in additional pressure on effected organisations and services may suffer as a result.

6.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be medium.

6.11.2 Planned treatment include encouraging neighbouring boards partnering to funding groups whose end users reside across community board boundaries.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - a Council decision is needed to inform the allocation of the Strengthening Communities Fund, this process begins on 4 March 2019.

6.13    Implementation timeframe – March 4 to 30 September 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Addresses concerns that the formula used in 2018 contained a modest over-emphasis on equity, given that the SCF funds derive from rates and, as rates are progressive, there is already redistribution.

·   Provides clarity and advance notice to community boards on the amount of SCF available to each board ahead of the funding round opening on 4 March 2019.  This will advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

·   It is the recommendation of the Working Group.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes some of the existing weighting on equity which will lower the SCF available to some communities.


 

7.   Option 2 – Status Quo

Option Description

7.1       Apportion $3,153,311, the existing amount, from the SCF to community boards for ongoing allocation based on the existing formula; that is weighted 60% population, 40% equity and has a rural community adjustment of $140,000 for the Banks Peninsula Community Board; for the financial year 2019/2020.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   No change provides continuity and advance notice to community boards on the amount of strengthening community funding available to each board.  This will advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Fails to address concerns that the formula used in 2018 contained an over-emphasis on equity.

8.   Option 3 – Allocation to community boards based on population and a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board

8.1       Allocation to community boards based on population (100%) and a rural community adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board that maintains a maximum per person allocation at $23 per annum.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides clarity and advance notice to community boards on the amount of SCF available to each board ahead of the funding round opening on 4 March 2019.  This will advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

·   Funding based on population is a very straightforward concept potentially easier to understand and explain.

8.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes the equity weighting that was introduced to allow for the inherent differences between communities city wide in terms of need.

·   Removes the equity weighting that was supported by the Working Group and community board Chairs and Deputy Chairs.

·   Results is significant changes to funding levels for some community boards and their recipient communities.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Community Board Funding Allocation from the SCF - Council Report from 13 December 2018

255

b

Community Boards grants for SCF and DRF 2018

259

 

 

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

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Carey Graydon - Policy Analyst

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships and Planning

Approved By

Patricia Christie - Head of Business Partnership

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

28 February 2019

 

 

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

28 February 2019

 

 

 

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 Council Minutes - 24 January 2019

 

 

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

 

20

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 14 February 2019

 

 

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

 

21

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 1 February 2019

 

 

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

 

22

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 February 2019

 

 

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