Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 28 March 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 March 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Acknowledgement.................................................................................................... 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 28 February 2019....................................................................... 7

6.        Council Minutes - 14 March 2019......................................................................... 23

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

7.        Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa............................................... 45

8.        Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation................... 69

9.        Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 6 March 2019..... 79

Regulatory Performance Committee

10.      Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 6 March 2019................................... 87

Audit and Risk Management Committee

11.      Audit New Zealand - 2018/19 Audit Plan............................................................... 93

12.      Status of Christchurch City Council Water Safety Plans......................................... 117

13.      Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 8 March 2019............................. 123

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

14.      Cathedral Square Improvement Works.............................................................. 129

15.      Cabbage Trees outside 222 High Street.............................................................. 141

16.      Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 25 February 2019... 155

17.      Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 March 2019...... 177

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

18.      Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 27 February 2019..... 183


 

Staff Reports

19.      Water Management Zone Committees - Annual Reports and updates...................... 189

20.      2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund Applications: Living Springs, Shirley Pump Track, Botanic Delights............................................................................................ 203

21.      2019 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents................................................................................................... 209

22.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 211  

 

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Acknowledgement

The Meeting will acknowledge the tragic events that occurred in our City on Friday 15 March 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.

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 28 February 2019

Reference:

19/231563

Presenter(s):

Samantha Kelly – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 28 February 2019.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 28 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 28 February 2019

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 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


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

6.     Council Minutes - 14 March 2019

Reference:

19/291986

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly, Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 14 March 2019

24

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

28 March 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 March 2019

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 6 March 2019

 

7.        Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

Reference:

19/258824

Presenter(s):

Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

 

 

 

1. Committee Consideration

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee declined the retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant application for the building located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa. The Committee noted that its delegation does not extend to the removal of the existing limited conservation covenant and it would therefore recommend that Council remove this covenant.

 

 

 

2. Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Does not approve a retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant to the protected heritage building located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa.

 

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00016

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the removal of the limited conservation covenant on the property located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa;

2.         Notes that the cost of removing the covenant is covered by Council as no grant has been disbursed to this property.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

47

 

No.

Title

Page

a

58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa - Statment of Significance

62

b

58 Rue lavaud - Corresponce re Heritage Incentive Grant - October 2017

66

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

Reference:

18/1295599

Presenter(s):

Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to consider a retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant for works to the building at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa, and if necessary for the Council to approve the removal of the limited conservation covenant.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding by the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Does not approve a retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant to the protected heritage building located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa.

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

2.         Approves the removal of the limited conservation covenant on the property located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa;

3.         Notes that the cost of removing the covenant is covered by Council as no grant has been disbursed to this property.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2.0 Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places - 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy.

·     Level of Service: 1.4.3.0 Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – No grant awarded. Limited covenant removed from the property (preferred option);

·     Option 2 – A retrospective grant awarded for 20% of the works originally awarded a grant;

·     Option 3 – A grant award of 20% on the basis of the new costs and works submitted.

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Heritage Incentive Grant funding will not be awarded retrospectively to a project;

·     The Council would be acting in accordance with the Heritage Incentive Grant Policy Operational Guidelines;

·     By not awarding a grant, funds remain available to provide support for other projects.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Council could be perceived as not supporting an owner in the conservation of their heritage building and the owners may consider they are not being supported in the conservation of their heritage building;

·     The Council could be perceived as being inconsistent as the works have previously been awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant;

·     The limited conservation covenant currently registered on the property and associated with the previous application would be removed.

 

5.   Context/Background

                58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa – September 2015

Building history

5.1       The building at 58 Rue Lavaud is scheduled as Significant (Group 2) in the Christchurch District Plan, and is listed Category 2 by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) List Number 5287.

5.2       The detached two storey building was constructed in 1883 as a pharmacy for Henry Citron. The architect was Thomas Cane, at one time the Canterbury Provincial architect, and unusually the building retained its original use throughout its lifetime, until the last few years. The building has been owned by the same family since 1935.

5.3       The exterior of the building has only been modified slightly over the years, with the addition of two more windows on the first floor side of the Cross Street façade, and a series of alterations to the shop front and entrance on the street corner. There has also been an extension to the rear of the building, facing the harbour, which includes a first floor deck, with a staircase providing independent access to the first floor flat. Internally the alterations have been more substantial to accommodate changing use requirements over time.

5.4       The building is owned by the applicant, Richard Stewart.

History of the Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

5.5       The history and administration of this grant and the related building and resource consents from the Council has been complex.  A brief summary is set out below, given the nature of this application.

5.6       On 31 March 2015 the applicant was awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) of $81,482. This was for structural upgrade works, upgrades to the fire protection, and associated fees and on site costs. The overall costs for the work were estimated at $162,964 and the grant awarded was 50% of these costs. A letter of Approval of Grant, dated 1 April 2015, was sent to the applicant. As is set out in the Heritage Incentive Grants policy, the grant was available for an 18-month period, which lapsed on 31 September 2016. As part of the grant award, a limited conservation covenant was placed on the property.

5.7       Between March and May 2015 the resource consent application was put on hold by the applicant as the scope of works for the project were extended and new plans required. There were also outstanding RFI (Request for Further Information) on both the resource and building consent applications. The RFIs included a request for a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to protect the heritage fabric of the building during the works, details of the extent of alterations and removal of heritage fabric from the first floor, and details of the methodologies for the works proposed. On 6 May 2015, the applicant responded requesting that the TPP be waived, but did not supply any other information.

5.8       During May-June 2015 emails were exchanged with the project manager for the works, seeking clarification as to what works had been undertaken, and information on the scope of works for the project which were still to be completed. Resource and building consent had not yet been issued. Requests for information were made around the scope to enable staff to work with the applicant to resolve any issues with resource consent and compliance with the conditions of the Heritage Incentive Grant.

5.9       In September 2015 a site visit was undertaken to the property while staff were in Akaroa on other matters. It was observed that the works related to the grant appeared to have been completed and were now obscured by new wall coverings; grant recipients are required to notify staff when works commence which enables staff to confirm the works are consistent with the grant.  In this case it was not possible to determine the extent of heritage fabric which had been removed during the works, or ensure that conservation principles had been applied as required by the heritage operational guidelines.

5.10    In June 2016 the owners were sent a 23-month reminder letter by the Council noting that they had yet to apply for their code compliance certificate for building works.

5.11    On 29 February 2016 the applicant provided details of the works undertaken to the building and requested a retrospective resource consent be granted. The retrospective resource consent was granted on 23 May 2016. The consent report noted that some elements of the scope of works undertaken had had an adverse effect on the heritage values and fabric of the building. For example, no representative samples of original materials or technologies were left in situ as evidence of the original construction; other original fabric was removed and replaced with new materials which were not date stamped.

5.12    In early August 2016 the project managers contacted Council heritage staff asking whether any documentation was required beyond Code of Compliance documentation in order to process the grant. A detailed list of the requirements was provided, which also noted that one condition of the grant had not been met as no site visit had been arranged for certification of the works, and they were now obscured. No response was received.

5.13    In June 2017 the Council sent a letter to the owner noting that an application for a Code Compliance Certificate had still not been made and if it were not received by 16 July 2017 the Council would send a refusal to issue a code compliance certificate letter. Documentation was subsequently provided dated 29 June 2017, 30 June 2017, and 07 August 2017.

5.14    The applicants requested payment of the grant on 25 August 2017; the grant had lapsed on 31 September 2016. This request was declined noting that the grant had lapsed and the non-compliance with the conditions of the grant.

5.15    On 20 September 2017 a letter was received from the applicant’s lawyer objecting to the withdrawal of the grant. A response was provided articulating the situation, but also providing a way forward which the option for the applicant to make a further application for Council to consider (see attachment B).

5.16    On 3 October 2018 an application was submitted for a retrospective grant for works carried out in 2015 to the building at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa. This report relates to that application.

History of the eligible works

5.17    The eligible works consist of structural upgrades, conservation and maintenance as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floors;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys.

 

5.18    Projected costings in 2015 were as follows:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Structural upgrade work

$94,542

Upgrade to fire linings

$52,822

Structural engineer’s fees

$1,332

Site management, P & G, service charges and travel costs

$14,268

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$162,964

 

5.19    A grant of 50% was approved by the Community Committee on 31 March 2015 for $81,482.

Heritage Incentive Grant application, October 2018

5.20    The owners of 58 Rue Lavaud have submitted a retrospective application for a grant in October 2018 for the following works:

·    All the previous works from 2015 listed above;

·    Disabled toilet;

·    Disabled access;

·    Fire alarm;

·    Additional engineering;

·    Council fees.

 

The additional works would have been eligible for Heritage Incentive Grant funding at the time, other than the disabled toilet (which would be eligible now with the 2018 changes to the grant criteria). While this was a required Building Code upgrade, the grant scheme is generally limited to structural upgrades, fire and security protection, access to buildings, and services where they are being replaced due to damage or deterioration. It should be noted that these works would have been required to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the conservation principles and practice of the ICOMOS (NZ) Charter.

 

 

5.21    The applicant has stated that the previous work came in at a lower total than originally estimate - $158,081. All relevant costs are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Disabled access

$15,435

Fire protection

$11,526

Additional engineering

$12,374

Resource consent fees

$261

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$39,596

Previous eligible costs

$158,081

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$197,677


 

6.   Option 1 - No grant awarded. Limited covenant removed from the property (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       It is recommended that no grant is awarded to the applicant for this property for the following reasons:

·    This is consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy.

·    The previous grant lapsed, and despite notification to the owners of this, no action was taken on their part within the timeframes set out in the grant policy.

·    It is not possible for staff to confirm that the works have been undertaken consistent with grant policy, as this grant would be retrospective.

It is noted that a limited conservation covenant was placed on the property when the previous Heritage Incentive Grant was granted, and since no grant has been paid to the owners, the Council should cover the cost of removing the limited covenant. Should the decision be made to support Option 1, a recommendation is included in this report to remove the covenant.

Significance

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

6.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    Christchurch City Council Multi-Cultural Strategy

·    International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS) NZ Charter 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – for all Heritage Incentive Grant applications in this financial year, and of those presented at this Committee meeting are shown below (with the percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019            

$697,700

Approved grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Approved grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Approved grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Approved grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Approved grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Approved grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Approved grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (0%)

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.8       It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that, given the high demand for assistance, the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation of the 2018/19 financial year funds and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

6.9       The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - there are no ongoing costs associated with this option.

6.11    Funding source – the Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

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

6.13    As a covenant is already in place on this property, should Council approve the staff recommendations this will require the covenant to be removed.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    There is a risk that the applicant expects funding support through this funding application as a result of having previously been awarded a grant, and their belief that they were not required to take action when notified of the lapsing grant. This may result in them disagreeing with the decision and questioning the decision making process.

6.15    The lapsing and non-payment of the previous grant has already been reviewed by Council’s legal team, and the suggestion of removal of the conservation covenant at no cost to the applicant was a recommendation of that review. See Attachment B for previous correspondence with the   lawyers on the matter.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies – the works related to the grant application have already been completed. Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   This decision would be consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy;

·   By not awarding a grant, funds remain available to provide support for other projects which are not applying retrospectively and who are adopting an approach consistent with heritage conservation principles.

 

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council could be perceived as not supporting an owner in the conservation of their heritage building and the owners may consider they are not being supported in the conservation of their heritage building;

·   There could be a perception that Council is acting inconsistently as the works have previously been awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant;

·   The limited conservation covenant currently on the property would be removed.

7.   Option 2 - A retrospective grant awarded for 20% of the works originally awarded a grant

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 provides for a retrospective grant to be awarded to the applicant, but only in relation to the original estimate of costs, and that it be awarded at the percentage which is currently the standard percentage being awarded to applicants for works with relatively higher costs – namely 20%.

7.2       This would not equate to the amount of the grant initially awarded to the applicants in 2015; however it would be in line with current practice.

7.3       The works applied for consist of structural upgrade works, conservation and maintenance works as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floor;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys.

 

7.4       Costings in 2015 were as follows:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Structural upgrade work

$94,542

Upgrade to fire linings

$52,822

Structural engineer’s fees

$1,332

Site management, P & G, service charges and travel costs

$14,268

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$162,964

 

7.5       The applicants have stated that the actual costs for the works in 2015 came in slightly lower than anticipated, as follows:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$158,081

 

7.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. There is already a high demand for the grant funds for this financial year and where works are of a higher value, grants are generally being offered and awarded at less than 30% of eligible costs. It is recommended that 20% of eligible works could be an acceptable level of grant, which would equate to $31,616. However, due to limited funds remaining for allocation this year, other grants would need to be adjusted down in order to meet this level of grant funding for this project.

Overall proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (20% of eligible works)

$31,616

Significance

7.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report

7.8       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.9       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

7.10    There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. See Section 6.7.

Financial Implications

7.12    Cost of Implementation – the table below includes the previously approved grants, along with the lower level of grants for all of the current application for this committee meeting are shown below (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019

$697,700

Approved grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Approved grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Approved grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Approved grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Approved grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Approved grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Approved grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20% of original funded works)

$31,616

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$121,985

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

7.13    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that given the high demand for assistance, that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation for this option.

7.14    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

7.15    HIGs and conservation covenants provide assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

7.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be no ongoing maintenance costs to the Council as a result of this grant.

7.17    Funding source – the Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

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

7.19    The property already has a limited conservation covenant in place.

Risks and Mitigations

7.20    There is a risk that awarding a retrospective grant for these works may set a precedent for others to consider applying for retrospective consent.  It could also set a precedent for works being completed in a manner which is not consistent with conservation principles or which does not meet the conditions of resource consent.

 

7.20.1   If Council were to award a grant, correspondence with the applicant would be clear that the reason for awarding a retrospective grant in these circumstances is based on the fact that:

·    the property was previously awarded a HIG which was not claimed within the policy timeframes;

·    evidence has been supplied that the works were completed to an acceptable standard for Building Code compliance, noting that the manner in which the works were undertaken has resulted in a loss of heritage fabric and values

·    and no additional funding is being proposed beyond that which was previously agreed.

Implementation

7.21    Implementation dependencies - the works have already been completed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will be seen to be supporting an owner in the retention and repair of their heritage building;

·   The limited conservation covenant will remain on the property.

7.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It would be inconsistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy.

·   Council will be awarding a grant retrospectively for works not certified prior to completion;

·   Less funds will be available to award to other eligible projects that are not applying for retrospective funding and who are adopting an approach consistent with heritage conservation principles.

·   .

 

8.   Option 3 - A retrospective grant awarded of 20% on the basis of the new costs and works submitted in October 2018.

Option Description

8.1       Option 3 would provide for a retrospective grant to be awarded to the applicant for all relevant costs incurred, and that it be awarded at the percentage which is currently the more typical percentage being awarded to applicants for works with higher costs – namely 20%.

8.2       This would not equate to the amount of grant initially awarded to the applicants back in 2015, however the percentage would be in line with current practice.

8.3       The works applied for consist of structural upgrade works, conservation and maintenance works as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floor;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys;

·    Disabled access;

·    Fire alarm system;

·    Additional engineering costs;

·    Council fees.

 

 

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Disabled access

$15,435

Fire protection

$11,526

Additional engineering

$12,374

Resource consent fees

$261

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$39,596

Previous eligible costs

$158,081

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$197,677

 

8.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. There has been high demand for grant funds in the current financial year, and where works are of a higher value, grants are generally being offered and awarded at less than 30% of costs. For this proposal to be in line with other grants offered in this financial year, it is suggested that 20% of eligible works could be an acceptable level of grant to offer in this option.

Overall proposed heritage grant (20% of all new eligible works)

$39,535

 

8.5       Other grants are obviously possible, varying between the three options proposed. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 2. This option is only possible if all the other proposed grants are offered at a lower level of funding. The table below includes the previous approved grants, along with the lower level proposed grants for this Committee meeting are shown below (with the lower percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019

$697,700

Approved grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Approved grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Approved grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Approved grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Approved grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Approved grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Approved grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20% of all works undertaken)

$39,535

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$114,066

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.6       The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will be seen to be supporting an owner in the retention and repair of their heritage building;

·   The limited conservation covenant will remain on the property.

8.7       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be inconsistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy

·   Council will be awarding a grant retrospectively for works not certified prior to completion;

·   Less funds are available to award to other eligible projects that are not applying for retrospective funding and who are adopting a conservation approach.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa - Statment of Significance

 

b 

58 Rue lavaud - Corresponce re Heritage Incentive Grant - October 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 6 March 2019

 

8.        Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation

Reference:

19/259652

Presenter(s):

Dr Antony Shadbolt, Team Leader –Parks Biodiversity

 

 

 

1. Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.            In considering this item the Committee noted the wider issue of pest control and asked staff to provide an update on pest control strategies, and the status of the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula Tree and Urban Forest Plan.

 

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

 

Part A (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the following protection measures:

a.         That monarch butterfly overwintering trees at Abberley Park and Burnside Park be banded within seven days of butterflies beginning their overwintering behaviour.

b.         That staff monitor butterfly mortality at Abberley Park and Burnside Park and other sites to determine the effectiveness of tree banding.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation

70

 

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation

Reference:

19/9142

Presenter(s):

Dr Antony Shadbolt (Team Leader - Parks Biodiversity)
Vicky Steele (Project Wingz)

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to endorse staff recommendations to implement protection measures at selected monarch butterfly overwintering trees in Christchurch Parks to remove/reduce suspected predation by rats.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been co-written by Council Staff and Vicky Steele (Project Wingz) to fulfil the request at the 8 August 2018 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to provide further information to the Committee.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Endorse the following protection measures:

a.         That monarch butterfly overwintering trees at Abberly Park and Burnside Park be banded within seven days of butterflies beginning their overwintering behaviour.

b.         That staff monitor butterfly mortality at Abberley Park and Burnside Park and other sites to determine the effectiveness of tree banding.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.2 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Gardens - condition average or better: 70%

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fit overwintering trees with pest proof tree bands (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Carry out Rat trapping and/or poisoning

·     Option 3 – A combination of  Options 1 and 2

·     Option 4 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Will assist Council staff and the community in determining the cause of significant mortality in monarch butterfly over-wintering sites.

·     Is likely to prevent significant mortality at target sites

·     Is a relatively cost effective and proven intervention compared with ongoing predator control in the urban environment

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Will not provide protection at all monarch overwintering sites

·     Minor adverse visual effect of tree bands

 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Monarch Butterfly Predation in Urban Parks

5.1       Monarch Butterflies are described as an ‘assisted native’ by some entomologists and they are thought to have arrived in New Zealand via a natural colonisation event. However there are no New Zealand native plant species that support their larval (caterpillar) stage and therefore, they require swan plants (add genus name), their natural host, to be cultivated and planted by humans in gardens to fill this gap in their lifecycle requirements. Hence their survival in New Zealand is dependent on people. They have not been assigned a ‘Threat Classification’ under the New Zealand Threat Classification system.

5.2       During two overwintering seasons (2016 and 2018) Christchurch City Council (Council) staff were alerted by members of the public to high monarch butterfly mortality in some urban parks (Refer Table 1). It has been suggested by members of the community that the dead butterflies have been victims of predation, and through investigation it seems that the likely cause of this predation has been black rats (Rattus rattus) which have been observed in the overwintering trees at Abberley Park. Unlike Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), black rats are good climbers.  


 

5.3       Colonies monitored consistently (weekly and after severe weather) since 1997 include:

·   Woodham Park

·   Abberley Park

·   Ruru Lawn Cemetery/Linwood Cemetery

·   Redwood Park

·   St James Park

·   Bishopdale Park

·   Burnside Park

5.4       Predation was first discovered in Abberley Park and Ruru Lawn Cemetery in May 2016. The was no predation recorded in 2017, but in 2018 it occurred again at Abberley Park and also Burnside Park and Ernle Clark Reserve.

5.5       Table 1 shows monitoring data from 2012 until present, from Abberley and Burnside Parks. Numbers are approximate, recorded by eye, and taken after 4pm while the butterflies roost. Note: deaths are recorded by the recovery of dead butterflies and/or wings (set of 4 made up of 2 forewings and 2 hindwings of matching sex). Not all reduction in numbers is related to mortality - female butterflies leave parks after mating usually around mid-July/early August (weather dependent)

Table 1: Monarch butterfly monitoring data from 2012 until present, from Abberley and Burnside Parks[1].


 

5.6       Due to accumulated toxins (cardenolides) in monarch butterflies, they have no known major mammalian predators of any significance except for the black eared mouse which is native to South America and has evolved an ability to prey upon the monarch. This species does not occur in New Zealand. Elsewhere rats have also been observed feeding on monarchs in overwintering trees, so while it may be unusual that black rats are predating monarch butterflies in Christchurch’s urban parks, it is certainly not out of the question.

5.7       In 2016 and 2018 the Styx Living Laboratory Trust lent the Council Parks Unit staff a motion sensing wildlife surveillance cameras which were set up in the overwintering trees in Abberley Park. No rats were detected in the 2016 session, however it is possible that this may have been due to a) poor camera set-up and/or b) the cameras only being deployed for a short session. However, rats were frequently detected on the cameras within the overwintering tree during the 2018 monitoring session.

5.8       Monarch butterflies are not considered a threatened or at-risk species in New Zealand, and therefore Monarch butterflies are not considered a high priority species for management by the Christchurch City Council from a biodiversity perspective. However, they are regarded as charismatic species in their own right and usually thrive in Christchurch, even throughout the winter. Many residents of Christchurch buy or grow swan plants during spring, summer and autumn to attract monarchs to their gardens. Their overwintering sites are an aesthetic novelty in our urban parks, and their presence here and across the city unquestionably supports our Garden City image and identity.

5.9       New Zealand has a higher rate of unique butterfly and moth species than anywhere else, and particularly so in Canterbury. However you rarely see many other species in our city, making the Monarch a welcome sight. As pollinators, they are also a beneficial species and one of the few butterflies seen during the colder months with most other Canterbury butterflies overwintering as a larva or pupa.

5.10    Furthermore Monarch butterflies are one of the first wildlife species that young children come to recognise and are captivated by. Exposure to, and appreciation of urban nature at any age, whether it be indigenous, exotic (or in this case an assisted native species) is likely to lead to an increased sense of care and kaitiaki of the natural environment, including our parks and open spaces.

5.11    Brian Patrick, a well-known Canterbury entomologist and butterfly/moth expert also believes the monarch is an iconic feature of Christchurch parks and gardens and would like to see measures put in place to protect them. He has discussed such solutions as fitting the overwintering trees with metal predator/pest exclusion bands and planting winter flowering plants in the vicinity of the overwintering trees.

5.12    Although there is no conclusive (scientific) evidence that it is indeed black rats predating on the monarch butterflies at their overwintering sites, the degree of anecdotal evidence and expert opinion suggests that this is the likely scenario and is a theory that could be further investigated.

5.13    Therefore it is recommended that a degree of predator control, monitoring, and assessment of its success is undertaken prior to and during the 2019 and 2020[2] overwintering seasons. Note that opportunities to incorporate winter flowering plant species be incorporated into planting renewals to help improve the butterflies fitness and robustness at this time of the year.


 

5.14    Options for reducing the level and impacts of predation in urban parks therefore include:

·   Do nothing approach

·   Rat trapping and/or poisoning

·   Banding of selected overwintering trees (preferred option), and

·   A combination of tree banding and trapping/poisoning

·   Incorporation of winter flowering plants into planted areas (refer below)

5.15    Do Nothing: This option is likely to have no beneficial effect on monarch butterfly populations at the overwintering sites and may result on ongoing predation and increased adverse publicity.

5.16    Trapping and/or Poisoning: Trapping and poisoning on its own is not likely to be an effective solution due to the continual reinvasion of predators from adjacent areas. Given the low priority from a biodiversity perspective and not being part of a wider pest control initiative within the Christchurch urban area it is unlikely that this approach would be supported by (e.g.) Predator Free 2050.

5.17    Tree Banding: Attaching steel bands that prevent rats and other predators from accessing overwintering sites is a cost effective solution depending on the complexities of the overwintering trees (IE are there multiple, interlacing tree canopies necessitating the banding of multiple trees?). An estimated cost of each tree band is in the vicinity of $180 each – again dependant on the complexities of each tree.

5.18    Winter Flowering Plants: The Council Parks unit has a programme of Urban Park and Garden Heritage Park plant border renewals. Plant borders may be able to be retrofitted/supplemented with winter flowering plant species at no additional cost to status quo plant species election.


 

6.   Option 1 – Selected Tree Banding (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Supply and install rat and predator-proof steel tree bands to monarch butterfly overwintering trees.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are none.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $1500

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Likely Nil

6.8       Funding source – Urban Parks

 

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    There is a risk that the general public may have a negative view of Council spending public money on monarch butterfly protection. This may result in media negative attention

6.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

6.11.2 Planned treatment(s) include tolerating this risk and also take advantage of such a situation to educate the wider public, highlight this novel phenomenon in the City’s Parks, and highlight biodiversity threats caused by exotic predators.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Presence of overwintering butterflies

6.13    Implementation timeframe – Late Spring 2019 (determined by time butterfly overwintering)

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will assist Council staff and the community in determining the cause of significant mortality in monarch butterfly over-wintering sites.

·   Is likely to prevent significant mortality at target sites

·   Is a relatively cost effective intervention compared with ongoing predator control

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor adverse visual effect of tree bands

7.   Option 2 – Trapping and/or Poisoning

Option Description

7.1       Set traps and/or lay poison in vicinity of overwintering trees

Significance

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

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications Cost of Implementation - <enter text>

7.5       Cost of Implementation - $1100

7.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $900

7.7       Funding source – Urban Parks

 

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    There is a risk that the general public may have a negative view of Council spending public money on monarch butterfly protection. This may result in media negative attention

7.10.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

7.10.2 Planned treatment(s) include tolerating this risk and also take advantage of such a situation to educate the wider public, highlight this novel phenomenon in the City’s Parks, and highlight biodiversity threats caused by exotic predators.

 

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Presence of overwintering butterflies

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Late Spring 2019 (determined by time butterfly overwintering)

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not entail attaching tree bands to trees and therefore avoids adverse aesthetics

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Will entail continual trapping and poisoning as rats and/or other predators will continually recolonise the control area from (e.g.) adjacent properties.

·   Rats and/or other predators may avoid traps and will therefore still pose a threat to the overwintering populations

·   Diverts animal pest control resources away from high(er) priority/threatened indigenous species

8.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       No control action is taken and butterfly colonies will be exposed to possible decimation by rats

Significance

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

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

8.5       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.7       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    There is a risk that interested members of the public will have a negative view of Council not investing in protecting this unique feature of the public open space. This may in-turn result in negative media attention

8.10.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

8.10.2 Planned treatment includes tolerating this risk.

 

 

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to Council

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not protect overwintering monarch butterfly colonies

·   Council and the community will still not know whether tree banding successfully protects butterfly colonies

 

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

Author

Antony Shadbolt - Team Leader Biodiversity

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

9.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 6 March 2019

Reference:

19/285969

Presenter(s):

David Corlett, Hearings and Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 6 March 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 6 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 6 March 2019

80

 

 

Signatories

Author

David Corlett - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

10.   Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 6 March 2019

Reference:

19/283759

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 6 March 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 6 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 6 March 2019

88

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 8 March 2019

 

11.     Audit New Zealand - 2018/19 Audit Plan

Reference:

19/256513

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 Audit Plan for Christchurch City Council and Consolidated Group from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Notes that Council staff will report at the next meeting any critical judgements, estimates and assumptions that will be made during the preparation of the Annual Report in accordance with accounting and audit standards for public benefit entities.

3.         Notes that the Committee will be further updated on these issues and any other issues that arise at its 28 August 2019 meeting prior to the audit clearance scheduled for 16 September 2019.

 

Secretarial note: Following the Committee meeting it was confirmed by staff that the references in the Audit Plan (at pages 3 and 6) to the “wellhead replacement programme” should be amended to “water supply improvement programme” and the Audit Plan was amended accordingly as attached for the Council to receive.

 

2. Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receives the Audit Plan for Christchurch City Council and Consolidated Group from Audit New Zealand, and:

a.         Notes that property, plant and equipment will again be a focus for the audit team in 2019;

b.         Notes that internal controls to prevent fraud and the compliance with continuous disclosure requirements will also be reviewed in-depth as part of the 2019 audit; and

c.         Notes the timetable for deliverables to ensure the audit proceeds smoothly.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit New Zealand - 2018/19 Audit Plan

95

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Audit Plan 2019

97

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Audit New Zealand - 2018/19 Audit Plan

Reference:

19/224394

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 confirm with Audit New Zealand the audit arrangements for the audit of the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2019 for the Council and Consolidated Group.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       Audit New Zealand highlighted in their 2017/18 Report to Council on the Audit of the Council, the priority of work for 2018/19.  This plan builds on the work to be undertaken and timeframe for delivery.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Consider the Audit Plan for Christchurch City Council and Consolidated Group from Audit New Zealand and recommend to the Council that it:

a.         Note that property, plant and equipment will again be a focus for the audit team in 2019;

b.         Note that internal controls to prevent fraud and the compliance with continuous disclosure requirements will also be reviewed in-depth as part of the 2019 audit; and

c.         Note the timetable for deliverables to ensure the audit proceeds smoothly.

2.         Note that Council staff will report at the next meeting any critical judgements, estimates and assumptions that will be made during the preparation of the Annual Report in accordance with accounting and audit standards for public benefit entities.

3.         Note that the Committee will be further updated on these issues and any other issues that arise at its 28 August 2019 meeting prior to the audit clearance scheduled for 16 September 2019.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Audit Plan Letter is issued each year outlining audit issues, audit timetable and audit process. The letter is at Attachment A.

4.2       In accordance with the terms of reference of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, it is the role of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider the nature and scope of the audit and audit timetable.

4.3       The main audit issues for 2019 include:

4.3.1   Valuation of property, plant and equipment.  Roading assets, storm water infrastructure and art works are due to be revalued this year on a triennial cycle.

4.3.2   Fair value assessment of non-revalued property, plant and equipment.  Asset categories that are outside of the revaluation cycle this year will be reviewed to determine whether there is a material difference with the carrying values of these asset categories.

4.3.3   Capital asset additions and work in progress.  Work on well head replacement and the repair of the Town Hall will undergo additional scrutiny during the 2018/19 audit including a review of project governance.

4.3.4   Early adoption of accounting standards (the Council and group).  This year will see Council early adopt PBE IFRS 9 – Financial Instruments, review of the revised disclosures will form part of this year’s work plan.

4.3.5   Risk of management override of internal controls. Audit New Zealand will perform targeted audit procedures to minimise this inherent risk.

4.3.6   Other ongoing accounting issues to be reviewed that are included in this plan are:

·   Recognising aspects of the cost sharing agreement with the Crown.

·   Accounting treatment of asset transfers for the Otautahi Community Housing Trust.

·   Procurement and contract management.

·   Project Governance, especially in relation to well head upgrade programme and Town Hall repair.

·   Prudent expenditure decisions (the Council and group).

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Audit Plan 2019

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

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 March 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 March 2019

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 8 March 2019

 

12.     Status of Christchurch City Council Water Safety Plans

Reference:

19/256521

Presenter(s):

John Moore, Head of Three Waters & Waste

 

 

 

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.         Notes the status of the Water Safety Plans for community drinking water supplies including the actions required to address the non-conformances identified in recent Drinking Water Assessor’s Water Safety Plan Implementation Audit reports.

2.         Notes the agreement to update all Water Safety Plans in accordance with the new Ministry of Health framework.

 

2. Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receives this report on the status of its Water Safety Plans.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Status of Christchurch City Council Water Safety Plans

118

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of CCC Water Safety Plans

122

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Status of Christchurch City Council Water Safety Plans

Reference:

19/177771

Presenter(s):

John Moore, Head of Three Waters & Waste

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be updated on the status of Water Safety Plans for community water supplies, prepared under the Health Act 1956 and the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (revised 2018).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and provides:

1.2.1   Information about the legislative requirements around the preparation of Water Safety Plans and the associated audits

1.2.2   A summary of existing Water Safety Plans including the findings of recent Plan implementation audits

1.2.3   Information on the new Ministry of Health Water Safety Plan Framework and the work the Council is required to undertake in 2019.

2.   Significance

2.1       The information 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 completing the Significance and Engagement Policy Worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Notes the status of the Water Safety Plans for community drinking water supplies including the actions required to address the non-conformances identified in recent Drinking Water Assessor’s Water Safety Plan Implementation Audit reports.

2.         Notes the agreement to update all Water Safety Plans in accordance with the new Ministry of Health framework.

3.         Recommends that the Council receives this report on the status of its Water Safety Plans.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has eight approved Water Safety Plans (Plans) covering its 11 public water supplies.

4.2       The Drinking Water Assessor carries out 3-yearly implementation audits to ensure that water suppliers operate their water supplies in accordance with the Plans. Where non-conformances are identified by the Drinking Water Assessor the water supplier is required to put in place an action plan to mitigate the non-conformances.

4.3       The Council has a register in place for non-conformances and their associated corrective actions and actively works through the issues. Agreements have been reached with the Drinking Water Assessor and staff are actively working through an action plan to address each of the non-conformances.

4.4       Five of the Plans for Banks Peninsula settlements are due to be reviewed and updated in 2019.

4.5       The Ministry of Health released a new Framework for these Plans in December 2018 to align more closely with international best practice. This new framework strengthens the focus on preventative measures across the whole system, promotes a multi-barrier approach to managing risk, and supports continuous improvement.

4.6       Following discussions with the Drinking Water Assessor and officials from the Ministry of Health in January this year the Council has agreed to update it Plans in accordance with the new framework. This includes five supplies on Banks Peninsula (due May through to September 2019) and the urban Christchurch supply by July 2019.

 

5.   Context/Background

Christchurch City Council drinking water supplies

5.1       The Council owns and operates 11 public water supplies which are registered  in the Ministry of Health register of community drinking water supplies as follows:

Urban Christchurch

3 registered water supplies using 140 operating bores sourced from the Christchurch-West Melton aquifer system:

·    Christchurch Central CHR001 (population served 255,500) – comprising the Central, West, Parklands, Riccarton, Rawhiti and Rocky Point pressure zones

·    Northwest Christchurch NOR012 (80,000)

·    Brooklands / Kainga BRO012 (1,600)

Lyttelton Harbour

·    Lyttelton LYT001 (4,450) – comprising Lyttelton, Governors Bay and Diamond Harbour zones – sourced from the Christchurch-West Melton aquifer system (Central zone bores)

Banks Peninsula

·   Akaroa AKA001 (1,350) – surface water (four small streams) and groundwater (two bores)

·   Takamatua TAK002 (150) – connected Akaroa water treatment plant

·   Birdlings Flat BIR001 (150) – groundwater (one bore)

·   Duvauchelle DUV001 (250) – surface water (Pipers Stream)

·   Little River LIT001 (240) – surface water (Police Creek) and groundwater (one bore)

·   Pigeon Bay PIG001 (26) – surface water (Dicks Stream)

·   Wainui WAI138 (200) – groundwater (one bore)

5.2       The urban Christchurch, Lyttelton Harbour and Wainui supplies are sourced solely from groundwater and are usually not treated. The remaining Banks Peninsula supplies rely on streams, which are subject to potential contamination from land use activities, and include treatment plants for disinfection.

Legislative framework

5.3       The Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007 requires that all community drinking water supplies with a population of greater than 500 develop a Water Safety Plan (Plan) for their drinking water supply.

5.4       The Plan assesses and manages the risks to the safety of drinking water associated with that supply and identifies improvements that are necessary to protect public health. Risks are identified from the source water through to the point when water is supplied to the customer.

5.5       Plans are reviewed, approved and audited by a Drinking Water Assessor from the Canterbury District Health Board. The Drinking Water Assessor carries out Plan Implementation Audits every 3 years. In addition to annual internal reviews the water supplier is required to carry out a detailed review every 5 years and resubmit the updated plan to the Drinking Water Assessor for approval.

Status of our Water Safety Plans

5.6       The Council has developed Plans for Christchurch City (including Lyttelton Harbour Basin), Akaroa, Takamatua, Birdlings Flat, Duvauchelle, Little River, Pigeon Bay and Wainui. These Plans include information about the water supply infrastructure, water source, water quality monitoring, water treatment (where undertaken), barriers to contamination and an assessment of risks and their mitigation.

5.7       All Plans have been approved and audited by the Drinking Water Assessor. The audit reports identified several non-conformances that need addressing and also include some recommendations. The table in Attachment A provides a summary of all Plans.

5.8       Non-conformances require a signed agreement sheet that outlines actions to be put in place to mitigate the non-conformances. All agreement sheets have been accepted by the Drinking Water Assessor and staff are working through the action plan.

5.9       The reviews of the Plans and the follow up actions from reviews and audits are monitored and managed by a Water Safety Plan Project Control Group.

Work to be undertaken under the new Ministry of Health Water Safety Plan Framework

5.10    In December 2018 the Ministry of Health released an updated framework for these Plans to align more closely with international best practice. This new framework strengthens the focus on preventative measures across the whole system, promotes a multi-barrier approach to managing risk, and supports continuous improvement.

5.11    Following discussions with the Drinking Water Assessor and officials from the Ministry of Health in January this year the Council has agreed to update its Plans in accordance with the new framework. This includes Plans for five supplies on Banks Peninsula (due May through to September 2019) and the urban Christchurch area by July 2019.

5.12    A collaborative approach to identifying and managing risks will be taken. It is envisaged that the Drinking Water Assessor and Ministry of Health representatives will attend risk management workshops to ensure that the updated Plans are fully aligned with the Drinking Water Assessor and Ministry of Health expectations.

5.13    Workshops are expected to take place in March and April 2019.

Reporting on Water Safety Plans

5.14    Following discussions with the Chairs staff propose to report on the status of the Plans to the Audit and Risk Management Committee annually, and on the status and detailed progress against the action plans, to address any non-conformances, to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee as part of the bimonthly report on the three waters and waste services.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Summary of CCC Water Safety Plans

 

 

 

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

Daniela Murugesh - Asset Engineer

John Moore - Head of Three Waters & Waste

Helen Beaumont - Programme Manager - Water Supply

Approved By

John Moore - Head of Three Waters & Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

13.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 8 March 2019

Reference:

19/256449

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 8 March 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 8 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 8 March 2019

124

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

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

 

14.     Cathedral Square Improvement Works

Reference:

19/277165

Presenter(s):

Lee Sampson, Senior Project Manager

 

 

 

1. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendations Accepted Without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 – Proceed with the design proposals for the Cathedral Square public realm improvement project (phases 1-3). Refer to attachments A and B.

2.         Note further updates will be provided at key stages of the design progression; namely at developed and detailed design stages.

3.         Delegates to the Chief Executive authority to enter into a contract/s for phases 1-3 of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements.

4.         Notes that Phase 4 works (which seek to prioritise pedestrian activity and safety in Cathedral Square) will follow a separate piece of work that will consider the transport network in the north of the CBD as well as key facilities in the immediate area. This phase will have the appropriate engagement process associated with any changes that might be proposed.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Cathedral Square Improvement Works

130

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Concept with movement zones

139

b

Phasing Plan

140

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Cathedral Square Improvement Works

Reference:

19/64586

Presenter(s):

Lee Sampson Senior Project Manager (Development)  Ext 6315

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present a design proposal for the public realm improvements to the south and southeast quadrants of Cathedral Square (phases 1-3) to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider and recommend to the Council.

1.2       To recommend a delegation to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a contract for the public realm physical works (phases 1-3).

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being provided in response to the Council resolutions of September 2018 confirming the commencement of the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project to deliver public realm improvements to the South and South East portion of Cathedral Square adjacent to, and coordinated with private developments in this area; and to specifically fulfil Council Resolution CNCL/2018/211 of 27 September 2018 that the Council:

Approve the funding to initiate the project from the LTP capital project ID 2735 – The Square & Surrounds, and request a report back for confirmation on the design proposals.   

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 with consideration of the limited size and nature of the improvement project. Moreover, a far-reaching public engagement already occurred in 2017 with regards to a wider long-term regeneration strategy for Cathedral Square. The improvement scheme will now actively test and work towards some key elements of that plan, albeit within the localised area defined.

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

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve Option 1 – Proceed with the design proposals for the Cathedral Square public realm improvement project (phases 1-3). Refer to attachments A and B.

2.         Note further updates will be provided at key stages of the design progression; namely at developed and detailed design stages.

3.         Delegates to the Chief Executive authority to enter into a contract/s for phases 1-3 of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements.

4.         Notes that Phase 4 works (which seek to prioritise pedestrian activity and safety in Cathedral Square) will follow a separate piece of work that will consider the transport network in the north of the CBD as well as key facilities in the immediate area. This phase will have the appropriate engagement process associated with any changes that might be proposed.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads & Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.8.0 Maintain the condition of footpaths - =75%

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Proceed with the design proposals for phases 1-3 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Enabling the Council to deliver upon the commitments made to progress public realm improvements to Cathedral Square within the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and to do so in a co-ordinated manner to tie in with planned private sector developments.

·     Delivery within the Council’s existing budgets, as requested.

·     Enhancing safety and accessibility, alongside the creation of more inviting, inclusive and event ready spaces, to the benefit of visitors and residents alike.

·     Ensuring Cathedral Square remains ‘open for business’ while allowing the Council to work in partnership with the surrounding developments, achieving improved design outcomes for the longer term.

·     Includes a ‘Poutama’ paving pattern (within the South-East quadrant) which reflects cultural heritage.

·     Recycling (circa 50%) of the existing materials into the new forms.

·     Providing the Council an opportunity to test key elements of the wider regeneration strategy for Cathedral Square.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Short-term impacts while the physical works proceed. Staff are targeting (phase 1) a construction start during the winter low visitor season from July 2019 (subject to approvals).

·     Cathedral Square will remain a busy reconstruction zone for some time. However, by completing this project now the Council supports the private sector and retains the quality of public realm space while works progress elsewhere.

·     This project does not deliver the wider unfunded regeneration strategy for the Square and surrounds, but does test and work towards some key elements of it within a localised area.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The council has noted - its endorsement of progressing public realm improvements to Cathedral Square, acknowledging the need for a coordinated and prioritised approach within existing budgets; the Council will be progressing public realm improvements to the southern area of Cathedral Square to tie in with planned private sector developments within the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

5.2       At its meeting on 27 September 2018 the Council further resolved: the commencement of the Cathedral Square Public Realm Improvement Project to deliver public realm improvements, especially to the South and South East portion of Cathedral Square adjacent to – and coordinated with – the existing and ‘in construction’ private developments in this area.

5.3       Cathedral Square continues to be an important civic space within the central city and remains a key destination and connector for both visitors and residents alike.

5.4       Following the Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) a number of buildings adjoining Cathedral Square were deemed ‘dangerous’ and were demolished. This activity, alongside general wear and tear and ‘ad hoc’ changes initiated to keep the Square functional in the short-term, have left parts of the Cathedral Square public realm no longer fit for purpose. 

5.5       Within the southeast quadrant in particular approximately 40% of existing paving has some level of damage. The current lighting levels also create a sense of unease at night.  Adding to this the new developments abutting the Square are being constructed with necessary higher floor levels, making interfaces with the adjacent public realm spaces and therefore convenient pedestrian accessibility hard to achieve without re-contouring.

Context 

5.6       A number of significant surrounding private sector developments are due to be completed over the next 18 months, particularly adjoining the south and south east quadrants of the Square.   The ‘Spark Building’ is one of the first of these developments with completion expected in September 2019.

5.7       The Cathedral Square public realm improvement project is therefore intended to be the first step towards the phased rejuvenation of Cathedral Square by providing an inviting, adaptable, inclusive and event ready public space, ensuring it remains 'open for business' while the development of surrounding sites (including the reinstatement of the Cathedral) progress.

5.8       In order to achieve this the Council has requested staff to progress a design proposal to repair and improve the public realm spaces, initially prioritising the south and southeast of the Square.

Key Scope

The key objectives of this project include:

5.8.1   Paving improvements - take up, re-contour and re-lay (recycling 50% of the existing fabric) - within the south and south east quadrants;

5.8.2   To improve safety and accessibility along with the experience for pedestrians and cyclists.

5.8.3   The introduction of a ‘Poutama’ paving pattern to the southeast quadrant;

5.8.4   Additional landscaping elements to soften the environment;

5.8.5   Infrastructure improvements - predominantly lighting and power (for events); and

5.8.6   Consideration of changes to the Cathedral Square road network which will help support a higher prioritisation of pedestrian safety and activity while ensuring any changes in and adjacent to Cathedral Square complement the central city transport networks.

6.   Option 1 -Proceed with the design proposals for phases 1-3 (preferred option)

Option Description

6.1       Proceed with the design proposal for the Cathedral Square Public realm improvement project (phases 1-3). Refer to attachments 1 and 2.

6.1.1   With further updates to be provided at key stages of the design progression, namely at developed and detailed design stages.

6.1.2   Approving a delegation to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a contract/s for phases 1-3 of the Cathedral Square Public realm improvements.

6.1.3   Notes that Phase 4 works (which seek to prioritise pedestrian activity and safety in Cathedral Square) will follow a separate piece of work that will consider the transport network in the north of the CBD as well as key facilities in the immediate area. This phase will have the appropriate engagement process associated with any changes that might be proposed.

 Project Phasing

6.2       Please refer to attachment B.

6.3       Phase 1 - Border, activated edge and accessible zone  

6.3.1   The majority of the new and existing developments around the Square are working towards the same goal, with the intent for a vibrant, active edge with ground floor retail and hospitality opening out onto the Square.

6.3.2   Phase 1 will create a paved threshold strip that is wide enough to provide for spill-out space and an ‘accessible zone’, while creating an edge definition to emphasize the cross-shape of the Square.  The re-contouring of the ground to meet the new floor levels of the adjacent buildings will occur within this area.

6.3.3   Accessible Zone – working with disability advisory groups, the need for planned and clear accessible routes and wayfinding has emerged.  

6.4       Phase 2-3 - Re-paving, ‘poutama’ pattern and greening

6.4.1   There has been overwhelming feedback to have a 'greener' Square that has an increased level of amenity by providing more landscaping and using native planting.

6.4.2   Existing trees on the southern edges are retained and contoured into the larger greenspaces. The space is largely open with clear sight lines, but provides improved opportunities to sit, reflect and enjoy the space.

6.4.3   Staff have collaborated with Matapopore to achieve a bi-cultural narrative that is clearly visible in the form of the new paving patterns and landscaped elements. These align with the wider narrative for Whiti-Reia (Cathedral Square) while being very aware of the limitations of available funding.

6.4.4   The poutama pattern represents attainment, passing of knowledge, and the male and female lines of ancestry. Created with a mix of new and recycled pavers. 

6.4.5   Phase 3 largely involves the existing ‘eventing’ space operating as in currently does with the inclusion of the ‘border’ and some transitional treatments. 

6.5       Phase 4 – Carriageway and transport network

6.5.1   From the feedback received to date, there is a desire for Cathedral Square to be a welcoming place which attracts people and invites them to linger. In order to achieve this, here is a need to ensure the space is designed with pedestrian amenity and safety integral to the design.

6.5.2   There are a number of transport interests to consider in this area. Key central city cycleways are intended to pass through the Square, and so blending those needs with those of pedestrians and necessary access vehicles to adjacent hotels and other developments are key outcomes to be achieved.  It is envisaged that the key cycle routes will not be separated but interact through a shared space approach.

6.5.3   The reality of Cathedral Square, and the different demands from developments in this area therefore necessitates a design that is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to suit the range of activities expected in and around the Square itself. It is important for any changes to the carriageway in the southeast of Cathedral Square to tie into the transport network in both the immediate area and the wider central city, as well as the key facilities within this area.

6.5.4   Staff are currently considering how any Cathedral Square roading and transport network changes might best relate to adjacent road network projects such as Colombo Street, Hereford Street and Manchester Street. Additionally, any changes also need to support the Performing Arts Precinct (and any changes to the road network around it), the Convention Centre, Tūranga - and any parking facilities that may be constructed to support these facilities.

6.5.5   Once this wider separate piece of work has been completed, staff propose the initiation the appropriate type of engagement process associated with phase 4 to consider higher prioritisation for pedestrians and how this might be achieved (e.g. shared zones), alongside future-proofing the surrounding transport network.
Staff will engage with the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the consultation documentation prior to release.

Significance

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

6.7       The level of significance was determined post consideration of the limited size and nature of the improvement project; that being an enhancement project in response to private sector developments. Moreover, a far-reaching public consultation already occurred in 2017 with regards to a wider long term regeneration strategy for Cathedral Square. The improvement scheme will actively test and work towards some key elements of that plan, albeit within a localised area.

Once key approvals are gained it will be important to keep stakeholders and residents fully updated through e-newsletters and website updates.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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.

6.10    Nevertheless Matapopore has been involved with the design evaluation of the improvement project, thereby ensuring the Ngāi Tūāhuriri/Ngāi Tahu values, aspirations and narratives have been considered within the design proposal tabled.

Community Views and Preferences

6.11    In supplementing the far-reaching engagement already undertaken in 2017 by Regenerate Christchurch in relation to the wider regeneration of Cathedral Square and surrounds, a targeted re-engagement has been undertaken with the neighbouring land owners and stakeholders.

             These ‘one on one’ sessions have informed the design progression and have enabled staff to take feedback on some negotiable proposals, evolving the design accordingly to that which is tabled.  Although the improvement project is of a limited nature and is restricted to a localised area, the scheme does reflect and work towards some key elements of the wider regeneration strategy.

The Council’s design response has garnered good support from the neighbouring land owners and stakeholders as a pragmatic and measured response to the immediate improvements required to the Square.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation – estimated $3,600,000 for phases 1-3 plus or minus 10 percent.

6.13.1 Inclusions:

·     Professional fees

·     Contingency sums   

6.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – To be confirmed.

6.15    Funding source – $9,400,000 within capital project ID 2735 - Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28. Note that any unspent portion of this capital project will be retained for future phases of the Cathedral Square public realm improvements. 

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.18    There is a low perception of risk in relation to this project but there is an important requirement to keep stakeholders and residents fully informed with e-newsletters and website updates.

6.18.1 Residual risk rating: Low

6.18.2 Planned – Proactive communications strategy when key approvals gained including e-newsletters and website updates.

Implementation

6.19    Implementation dependencies - Working with the neighbouring reconstructions.

6.20    Implementation timeframe – target start (phase 1) July 2019 (estimated 18-weeks, phases 1-3) working away from the southern edge of the Square.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Enabling the Council to deliver upon the commitments made to progress public realm improvements to Cathedral Square within the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and to do so in a co-ordinated manner to tie in with planned private sector developments.

·   Delivery within the Council’s existing budgets, as requested.

·   Enhancing safety and accessibility, alongside the creation of more inviting, inclusive and event spaces, to the benefit of visitors and residents alike.

·   Includes a ‘Poutama’ paving pattern (within the South-East quadrant) which reflects cultural heritage. Recycling (circa 50%) of the existing materials into the new forms.

·   Ensuring Cathedral Square remains ‘open for business’ while allowing the Council to work in partnership with the surrounding developments, achieving improved design outcomes for the longer term.

·   Allowing the Council to test key elements of the wider regeneration strategy for Cathedral Square.

·   Enabling public realm works to progress, while any road and transport network changes can form a later phase of work which can be separately consulted over.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Short-term impacts while the physical works proceed. Note staff are targeting the commencement of construction works (phase 1) during the winter low visitor season from July 2019 (subject to approvals).

·   Cathedral Square will remain a busy reconstruction zone for some time; however, by completing the early project phases now, the Council supports the private sector and retains the quality of public realm space while works progress elsewhere.

·   This project does not deliver the wider unfunded regeneration strategy for the Square and surrounds, but does test and work towards some key elements of it within a localised area.

7.   Option 2 – Maintain Status Quo

Option Description

7.1       Defer the decision to progress the improvements to the south and southeast quadrants of Cathedral Square.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is high and inconsistent with section 2 of this report.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would require staff to urgently re-engage with neighbouring owners and stakeholders regarding the inability to have fit-for-purpose public realm space in time for the completion of private sector developments which impact recovery.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       This would be contrary to the majority of views shared alongside the directive given to staff – to progress public realm improvements to the southern area of Cathedral Square to tie in with planned private sector development.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency with the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Works currently forecasted and budgeted.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – Yes.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Costs associated with abortive design work, alongside the necessity for further engagement.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The public realm space is not currently fit-for-purpose.

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    If no improvements are made issues around safety of pedestrian and traffic users of the Square may arise. This could lead to a legal implication for the Council in the future.

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    There could be a reputational risk to the organisation in deferring the works.

7.12.1 Residual risk rating: High

7.12.2 Non Planned

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.14    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced spending from capital project allocated ID 2735 - Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28.

·   No short term impacts from the physical works – they would not proceed.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not enable the Council to deliver upon the commitments made to progress public realm improvements to Cathedral Square within the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and to do so in a co-ordinated manner to tie in with planned private sector developments.

·   Does not enhance safety and accessibility, alongside the creation of more inviting, inclusive and event spaces, to the benefit of visitors and residents alike.

·   Does not ensure Cathedral Square remains ‘open for business’ while allowing the Council to work in partnership with the surrounding developments, ensuring improved design outcomes for the longer term.

·   Does not allow the Council to test key elements of the wider regeneration strategy for Cathedral Square.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Concept with movement zones

 

b 

Phasing Plan

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

John Lonink - Senior Urban Designer

Lee Sampson - Senior Project Manager - Development

Janet Marshall - Personal Assistant

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

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

 

15.     Cabbage Trees outside 222 High Street

Reference:

19/277251

Presenter(s):

Isabelle Gensburger – Project Manager
Lynette Ellis – Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

 

 

 

1. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendations Accepted Without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the preferred option set out in the officers’ report, which is to remove the existing cabbage trees outside 222 High Street and plant temporary low plantings or grasses such as tussocks until a permanent landscape design is developed and further consultation carried out as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project scheduled to be delivered in Financial Year 2020.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Cabbage Trees outside 222 High Street

142

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Tree Assessment

150

b

Current plaque location

153

c

Historic plaque location

154

 

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

Cabbage Trees outside 222 High Street

Reference:

19/102229

Presenter(s):

Isabelle Gensburger, Project Manager, City Services Group - Transport

 

 

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 determine the preferred option regarding the cabbage trees outside 222 High Street.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a concern from the property owner of 222 High Street about the poor condition of the adjacent cabbage trees and that they will obscure the future business frontage.

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 using the engagement and significance matrix. Although this is a sensitive issue due to being located in a high-profile area, this is not a city-wide issue and the risk in terms of financial impact is low.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approves the preferred option set out in the officers’ report, which is to remove the existing cabbage trees outside 222 High Street and plant temporary low plantings or grasses such as tussocks until a permanent landscape design is developed and further consultation carried out as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project scheduled to be delivered in Financial Year 2020.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads & Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.9.0 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition

4.2       The following options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Remove the existing cabbage trees and plant temporary low plantings or grasses such as tussocks in the existing planters

·    Option 2 – Do nothing, preserve the existing cabbage trees and replace them in due course under the tree maintenance programme

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of Option 1 include:

·   Given the significant private sector investment in the High Street area and the desire to encourage more people and vitality into the central city, staff do not consider it appropriate to leave the cabbage trees in their current state, as they detract from the amenity of the area.  Low plantings such as natives or tussock grasses would be considered acceptable on a temporary basis as they would thrive in the existing beds.  Annual bedding displays of flowers would be inconsistent with the historic context of the site and have an impact on operational budgets. This option is preferred by the adjacent property owner.

·   The existing cabbage trees are in poor condition and some, if not all, are likely to require removal and replacement within a short time period.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Isolated planters of low plantings are not consistent with the scale and character of the City Mall streetscape. Low planters are typically used where there are street lighting and tram poles. Planter beds are designed to maintain some separation between vehicles and the poles. These factors will be considered when developing a permanent landscape design for this site.

·   The existing planters of the cabbage trees are not elevated, whereas all other shrub plantings are in raised planters and well protected from potential damage by traffic. The existing cabbage trees would provide better protection to the plaque than low plantings in the existing planters.

 

5.   Context/Background

The relevant background and context information is noted elsewhere in the report.

5.1       Background

·   The Council is planning to reinstate the paving and street furniture outside 222 High Street. As a result of the direct engagement with the property owner of 222 High Street, a request has been raised concerning the existing cabbage trees in the area. No further or wider public consultation has been undertaken with regards to the cabbage trees.

·   The Council has undertaken an assessment of the cabbage trees and any other related planning matters, including potential cultural and heritage values.

5.2       Tree Assessment

·   Attached in Appendix A is a tree assessment completed by Arbor Vitae Ltd on 22 January 2019. In summary, all three cabbage trees are in poor condition.

·   It should be noted that the design of the planter beds are such that they require improvements to enhance the growing conditions for the cabbage trees.

5.3       Heritage and Cultural values

·   There is an existing plaque in the ground surrounded by the cabbage trees. This plaque acknowledges that this was the site where our early settlers first started clearing the tussocks to build and form Christchurch streets.

·   Given the location of the cabbage trees in the carriageway, they would be no older than the latest development of City Mall in the mid to late 2000s (attached in Appendices B and C are the historic and current layout of City Mall at the corner of Cashel and High Streets, respectively).  Consequently, they have little historical merit in themselves.  The Canterbury centenary plaque that they surround, however, is of heritage significance (though not scheduled), and if the trees and beds were to be removed, it might be an appropriate time to consider relocating it back to its original location (as shown in Appendix C) if possible or somewhere nearby where it remains in context but is less vulnerable. 

·   The original design intent of the streetscape of City Mall paired the cabbage trees at this High Street site with four cabbage trees at the Bridge of Remembrance end of Cashel Mall.  The four cabbage trees the Bridge of Remembrance were removed by Otakaro during the construction of the Avon River Precinct and not replaced.


 

6.   Option 1 – Remove the existing cabbage trees and plant temporary low plantings / grasses in the existing planters

Option Description

6.1       This option is to remove the existing cabbage trees and plant temporary low plantings or low-maintenance grasses (e.g. tussocks) in the existing planters.

6.2       Following this develop a permanent landscape design for that incorporates and features the historic plaque.  This will be completed as part of the development of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report, as it is a temporary solution.

6.4       Engagement requirements for any permanent solution will be completed as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       This temporary 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.

6.6       The Council have initiated consultation with Mana Whenua to ascertain the implications of this proposal and potential impact on Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions in relation to the permanent landscape solution at this site.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The property owner of 222 High Street has raised concerns about the quality of the existing cabbage trees due to the perceived obstruction to the future business frontage and the current poor condition of the trees. Their view is that the cabbage trees should be removed and replaced with low plantings.

6.8       The option of installing annual bedding displays of flowers has been raised.  This would be inconsistent with the historic context of the site and the plaque and would have a significant impact on operational costs.

6.9       The wider community has not yet been consulted regarding this proposal or any future possible permanent landscape design.

6.10    Further consultation would be required as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project, should this option be pursued, in order to confirm the most appropriate landscape design in the context of the heritage plaque.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - approximately $1,600 for this temporary solution.

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $500 per annum over the one to two years. As this cost is in relation to existing landscape beds, costs have been allowed for within the planning for operational costs.

6.14    Funding source – Capital expenditure will be covered by ‘Paving Central City, City Mall and High Street delivery package’ (ID# 34418).

Legal Implications

6.15    There no known legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.16    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Units

Risks and Mitigations  

6.17    If this option is pursued, there is a risk that the Council be perceived inconsistent with the Christchurch Central Streets & Spaces Design Guide criteria encouraging the introduction of more trees, landscaping and gardens into the city centre.

6.17.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatments is implemented will be low

6.17.2 In order to mitigate the inconsistency, further work would be required as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project to find a suitable landscape design solution in the context of the historic plaque.

6.17.3 Continued liaison with the affected stakeholders until the issue is closed.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies – none known.

6.19    Implementation timeframe – if this option is pursued, the building developer of 222 High Street would like the cabbage trees to be removed by 31 March 2019 which corresponds to the target opening date of the new building. New plantings would only be possible in the planting season (shrubs between May and August). Further landscape design work and consultation would be required as part of the High Street (Cashel – St Asaph) project scheduled to be delivered in Financial Year 2020, in order to confirm the most appropriate solution in the context of the historic plaque.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Given the significant private sector investment in the High Street area and the desire to encourage more people and vitality into the central city, staff do not consider it appropriate to leave the cabbage trees in their current state, as they detract from the amenity of the area.  Low plantings such as natives or tussock grasses would be considered acceptable on a temporary basis as they would thrive in the existing beds.  Annual bedding displays of flowers would be inconsistent with the historic context of the site and have an impact on operational budgets. This option is preferred by the adjacent property owner.

·   The existing cabbage trees are in poor condition and some, if not all, are likely to require removal and replacement within a short time period.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Isolated planters of low plantings are not consistent with the scale and character of the City Mall streetscape. Low planters are typically used where there are street lighting and tram poles. Planter beds are designed to maintain some separation between vehicles and the poles. These factors will be considered when developing a permanent landscape design for this site.

·   The existing planters of the cabbage trees are not elevated, whereas all other shrub plantings are in raised planters and well protected from potential damage by traffic. The existing cabbage trees would provide better protection to the plaque than low plantings in the existing planters.

7.   Option 2 - Do nothing and preserve the existing cabbage trees

Option Description

7.1       This option is to preserve the existing cabbage trees (do nothing). The cabbage trees will be removed and replaced with new ones if required in due course, as part of the tree maintenance programme.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this low level of significance are consistent with the level of significance of this project issue.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The property owner of 222 High Street has raised concerns about the quality of the existing cabbage trees due to the perceived obstruction to the future business frontage and the current poor condition of the trees. Their view is that the cabbage trees should be removed and replaced with low plantings.

7.6       No further or wider public consultation has been undertaken with regards to the cabbage trees.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – Nil

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – approximately $250 per annum and has been allowed for within planning for annual maintenance costs.

7.10    Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.13    There is a risk that the property owner of 222 High Street will be dissatisfied by this proposal due to concerns regarding the poor condition of the cabbage trees and the property owner’s perception that the cabbage trees will obscure the future business frontage. This may result in an appeal of the decision.

7.13.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low

7.13.2 Planned and current treatment include continued liaison with the affected stakeholder until the issue is closed

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - not applicable

7.15    Implementation timeframe for tree replacement will be dependent on tree maintenance priorities and the ongoing condition of the trees

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maintains the original intent of the City Mall landscape design at this site.

·   The cabbage trees provide some recognition of New Zealand native trees. The other trees along Cashel and High Streets are exotic.

·   Preserving the cabbage trees will be consistent with the Christchurch Central Streets & Spaces Design Guide encouraging the introduction of more trees, landscaping and gardens into the city centre.

·   The cabbage trees in the existing position offer a contrast with the more formal avenue of Fastigiate Oak trees.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The existing planters would require improvements to enhance the growing conditions for the cabbage trees, which would require additional funding from a capital project.

·   The existing cabbage trees are in poor condition and some, if not all, are likely to require removal and replacement within a short time period.

·   This option will not satisfy the adjacent property owner who believes that the cabbage trees will obstruct visibility of the business frontage.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Tree Assessment

 

b 

Current plaque location

 

c 

Historic plaque location

 

 

 

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

Isabelle Gensburger - Project Manager (Consultant)

Tony Armstrong - Arborist

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

16.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 25 February 2019

Reference:

19/216881

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held an extraordinary meeting on 25 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 25 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 25 February 2019

156

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 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


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

17.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 13 March 2019

Reference:

19/278863

Presenter(s):

 

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 13 March 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 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 13 March 2019

178

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

18.   Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 27 February 2019

Reference:

19/241565

Presenter(s):

Sarah Drummond, Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 27 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 Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 27 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 27 February 2019

184

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sarah Drummond - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

19.    Water Management Zone Committees - Annual Reports and updates

Reference:

19/72843

Presenter(s):

Paula Smith, Banks Peninsula Zone Committee
Arapata Reuben, Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee
Alan Lim, Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to be informed about the activities of the three water management zone committees for calendar year 2018.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the zone committees’ annual reports (Attachments A, B and C).

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There are three water management zone committees that were established under the Local Government Act 2002 as joint committees of Environment Canterbury and the City Council and, for Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn Waihora committees, Selwyn District Council.

3.2       The purpose and function of the zone committees are to

·   facilitate community involvement in the development, implementation, review and updating of the Zone Implementation Programme that gives effect to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in the zones.

·   monitor progress of the implementation of the Zone Implementation Programmes for their zones.

3.3       Zone committees have limited powers. They do not have the authority to

·   commit any Council to any path or expenditure and its recommendations do not compromise the Councils’ freedom to deliberate and make decisions.

·   submit on proposed Resource Management or Local Government Plans.

·   submit on resource consent matters.

3.4       The three zone committees have worked collaboratively with community groups, Environment Canterbury, City Council and other parties to achieve gains in biodiversity and ecosystem health. Their achievements for 2018 are described in their annual reports (Attachments A, B and C).

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula zone committee annual report 2018

191

b

Christchurch-West Melton zone committee annual report 2018

195

c

Selwyn-Waihora zone committee annual report Dec 2018

199

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Emma Davis - Acting Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

20.   2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund Applications: Living Springs, Shirley Pump Track, Botanic Delights

Reference:

19/318707

Presenter(s):

John Filsell, Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships
Sam Callander, Community Funding Team Leader

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider applications for funding from the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund from the organisations listed below.

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Living Springs Trust

New Water Treatment Plant

$80,000

$80,000

Parks Unit

Shirley Community Reserve Pump Track

$87,850

$87,850

Recreation, Sports  and Events Unit

Botanic D'Lights 2020

$117,000

$117,000

Totals

$284,850

$284,850

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve a grant of $80,000 from the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund to Living Springs Trust towards a new water treatment system, and

a.         require reporting to be submitted 12 months following payment or completion of the new water treatment system, whichever comes first.

2.         Approve a grant of $87,850 from the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund to the Parks Unit for a modular pump track initially located at the Shirley Community Reserve, and.

a.         require reporting to be submitted 12 months following payment or once the pump track is operational whichever comes first.

3.         Approve a grant of $117,000 from the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund to the Recreation, Sports and Events Unit towards production and delivery of an addition to the Botanic D'Lights event for 2020, and

a.         require reporting to be submitted three months following Botanic D'Lights 2020.

 

3.   Key Points

Issue or Opportunity

3.1       On 12 April 2018 the Council resolved to establish criteria for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) (CNCL/2018/00057).  On 10 May 2018 Council resolved to utilise all income from the CEF for three years, 2018/19 to 2020/21 (i.e. not use part of the income to inflation-protect the fund). 


 

3.2       On 13 December 2018 Council established eligibility and assessment criteria for the CEF and an application process.  Assessment criteria are as follows:

3.2.1   Evidence that the proposal is for a specific project or activity projects.  Or evidence of economic or environmental benefits.

3.2.2   Evidence that the project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

3.2.3   Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

Strategic Alignment

3.3       The recommendations are aligned to Councils Strategic Framework and in particular the Community outcomes of ‘Stronger Communities - safe and healthy communities’, namely:

3.3.1   Living Springs – The proposed grant will contribute to the provision of a new plant utilising new technology to provide safe drinking water at the City’s most popular camp.

3.3.2   Pump Track – The proposed grant will fund a new and a modern playing area for children, young adult and other community members in Shirley and other locations into the future as the track is relocatable.

3.3.3   Botanic D’Lights - The proposed grant will provide new and additional capacity on top on the current levels of service allowing for tens of thousands of Christchurch residents to enjoy this spectacular outdoor event in the heart of the city in the depths of winter.

Decision Making Authority

3.4       Authority for making grant decisions for the Capital Endowment Fund sits with the Council.

3.5       Allocations must be consistent with any policies, standards or criteria adopted by the Council

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

3.7       The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

3.8       Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion

3.9       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund is as below.

Available for allocation

Balance if staff recommendation adopted

$ 630,138

$345,288

 

3.10    Based on the current Council approved Capital Endowment Fund criteria, the applications listed above are eligible for funding.  The attached decision matrices provide detailed information for the applications.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

3.11    There is currently a balance of $630,138 remaining in the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund. Should all applications be approved by the Council $345,288 would remain in the 2018/19 budget.  This will be carried forward to the 2019/20 financial year, assuming no further allocations this financial year.

3.12    This will be the final scheduled round of applications for the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund. The next scheduled round of applications will be considered by Council in June 2019.  Approximately $1,483,000 will be available for allocation, mainly in the Civic and community category of the fund, at this time for the 2019/2020 financial year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

CEF Decision Matrix - Livings Springs

206

b

CEF Decision Matrix - Shirley Pump Track

207

c

CEF Decision Matrix - Botanic D'Lights

208

 

 

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

Nicola Thompson - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

Bruce Moher - Manager Planning & Reporting Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

21.   2019 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents

Reference:

19/252712

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly, Electoral Officer

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the ordering of candidates’ names on voting documents for the 2019 local authority elections 2019.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       Under the Local Electoral Act 2001 and Local Electoral Act Regulations 2001 the Council is able to determine by resolution the order in which names for candidates will be published in voting documents for the 2019 Christchurch City Council elections for Mayor, Councillors and Community Board Members.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve that the names of candidates at the 2019 Christchurch City Council elections be arranged in random order.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Act Regulations 2001 allows the Council to decide on whether the names of candidates are arranged on voting documents in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order or random order.  The features of each arrangement are described below:

4.1.1   Alphabetical order of surname:  The order used for all local authority elections prior to 2004 and is self-explanatory.

4.1.2   Pseudo-random order:  An arrangement where the order of the names of candidates is determined randomly and all voting documents use that order.

4.1.3   Random order:  An arrangement where the order of names of candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

4.2       Before the electoral officer gives further notice of under section 65(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act), a local authority may determine by a resolution, which order the candidates’ names are to be arranged on the voting paper.  If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates’ names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

4.3       If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must sate in the public notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time and place at which the order of candidates’ names will be arranged any person is entitled to attend. 

4.4       The Council has used random order for voting documents at all triennial elections since 2004.

4.5       The Council’s decision on this matter applies only to elections for the position of Mayor, Councillor and Community Board member.  Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury District Health Board will each consider this matter and pass separate resolutions if pseudo-random or random order is to be used for their elections.

4.6       The cost of printing voting documents using either of the three arrangements will be identical. 

4.7       This report supports the Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-28 activity Governance and Decision-Making.

 

 

 

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

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

   

 


Council

28 March 2019

 

 

22.   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 March 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

23

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 28 February 2019

 

 

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

 

24

Cyber Security Programme Update and Vulnerability Assessment

s7(2)(c)(ii)

Prevent Damage to the Public Interest

Disclosure of our approach to cyber security and identified areas of low maturity will increase the risk of Council being a target, resulting in potential service disruptions and / or information breaches that will not be in the public interest.

When the Chief Executive is satisfied that there is no longer grounds for withholding the information

25

Internal Audit Status Report

s7(2)(e), s7(2)(f)(ii), s7(2)(j)

Prevention of Material Loss, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Prevent the use of Internal Audit findings being utilised for improper advantage.

When the Chief Executive determines there are no longer any reasons to withhold the information under the Act and the relevant Internal Audit findings have been resolved.

26

Risk Management Status Report

s7(2)(c)(ii), s7(2)(f)(ii)

Prevent Damage to the Public Interest, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

Prevent the improper use and misinterpretation of information

When the Chief Executive determines there are no longer any reasons to withhold the information under the Act

27

Fraud Status Report

s7(2)(f)(ii)

Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

To allow for protected disclosures and the ongoing effective management of concerns raised.

When the Chief Executive determines there are no longer any reasons to withhold the information under the Act.

28

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 8 March 2019

 

 

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

 

29

Public Excluded Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 27 February 2019

 

 

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

 

30

Contract Extension - Maintenance of Waterways Land Drainage Contract

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

To maintain the commercial confidentiality of our current supplier  and to ensure the future commercial strategic direction is not compromised

When the Chief Executive determines there are no longer grounds for withholding the information under the Act

31

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

 

 

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

 

32

Christchurch Performing Arts Precinct - Court Theatre Business Case

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities

The report and attachments contain financial information relating to the project business case and operations of the Court Theatre.

28 March 2020

In consultation with the General Manager, Citizens and Community

 

 



[1] Data used in this document has been collected by co-author Vicky Steel (Project Wingz) and is not for use or publication outside of Christchurch City Council without consent

[2] Note that it is possible that the predation may skip a year (as per 2017) when the returning numbers to the colonies are smaller than usual.