Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 31 October 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 Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

25 October 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

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

31 October 2019

 

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.        Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................ 4

2.        Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga................................................. 4

3.        Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui.......................................................... 4

3.1       Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui........................................................................................ 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga.................................................... 4

4.        Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga.......................................................... 4

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 24 October 2019....................................................................... 5

Staff Reports

6.        Mayor's Report: Council committee structure for the 2019-2022 triennium............. 11

7.        Mayor's Report: Appointments to Local Government New Zealand sector groups..... 17

8.        Covering Report: Use of the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility and investment in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor................................................... 19

9.        Otākāro Avon River Corridor Investment Case..................................................... 23

10.      Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility - Roading and Transport Investment Case..................................................................................................................... 89

11.      Establishment of the Co-Governance Group for Transitional Land Use of Christchurch Red Zones........................................................................................................... 237

12.      Water Supply Security Update......................................................................... 263

13.      Draft submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.......................... 271

14.      Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area................................................. 281

15.      Policy and Practices 2018/19 - Section 10A Requirement Dog Control Act 1996....... 329

16.      Local Government Funding Agency - Annual General Meeting Voting Instructions... 335

17.      Appointments Committee for the appointment of Councillors to director roles on the boards of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd........................................................................... 493   

 

 

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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 / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

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 / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

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

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 24 October 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1248251

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 24 October 2019

6

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

6.     Mayor's Report: Council committee structure for the 2019-2022 triennium

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1221542

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present a Council committee structure for the 2019-2022 triennium.

1.2       This report is prepared under the Mayor’s powers in Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.   Mayor’s Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives this report.

2.         Notes the Council committee structure established by the Mayor under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002, including, where applicable the Chairs and Deputy Chairs:

Committees of the Whole

a.         Finance & Performance Committee, Chair - Deputy Mayor Turner, Deputy Chair - Councillor MacDonald

b.         Sustainability & Community Resilience Committee, Chair – Councillor Templeton, Deputy Chair – Councillor Coker

c.         Three Waters Infrastructure & Environment Committee, Chair – Councillor Cotter, Deputy Chair – Councillor Daniels

d.         Urban Development & Transport Committee, Chair – Councillor Davidson, Deputy Chair – Councillor Mauger

Standing Committees reporting to Council

e.         City Momentum Committee, Joint Chairs - Mayor Dalziel and Councillor Gough, with only one chairing at any time

f.          Civic Awards Committee, Chair - Councillor Johanson

g.         Regulatory Performance Committee, Chair - Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Chair – Councillor Keown

h.         Youth Advisory Committee, Chair – Councillor Galloway, Deputy Chair – Councillor McLellan

i.          Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee, Chair – Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Chair – Deputy Mayor Turner

j.          Multicultural Committee, Chair – Councillor Chen, Deputy Chair – Councillor Chu

k.         Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga; Audit & Risk; and Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committees were not discharged at the end of the last triennium and carry over the current Chairs


 

Subcommittees

l.          Insurance Subcommittee reporting to the Finance and Performance Committee, Chair – Mayor Dalziel

m.       Funding Committee reporting to the Sustainability & Community Resilience Committee, Chair – Councillor Johanson, Deputy Chair – Councillor Chu

Working Parties

n.         Accessibility Regulatory Working Group, reporting to the Regulatory Performance Committee, Chair - Councillor Keown

o.         District Plan Working Group, reporting to the Urban Development & Transport Committee

p.         Central City Momentum Working Group, reporting to the City Momentum Committee, Chair – Councillor Gough, Deputy Chair – Councillor McLellan.

Portfolios

q.         Accessibility Portfolio - Councillor Keown

r.          Children, Young Persons & Older Persons - Councillor Galloway

3.         Notes that the Mayor is a member of a committee by virtue of her role (ex officio).

4.         Notes that any working groups created will be on a task-based basis with a definitive sunset provision.

5.         Revoke the delegation to the Mayor and Chief Executive (acting jointly) to appoint Council Hearings Panels on matters under the Resource Management Act 1991, and to delegate to the Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive (acting jointly) to appoint Council Hearings Panels under the Resource Management Act 1991.

6.         Notes that the District Plan Appeals Subcommittee and the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee are discharged.

7.         Notes that any reference to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee in the Annual Plan List of Fees and Charges is read as a reference to the Urban Development and Transport Committee.

8.         Notes that the Council amends the delegations to the Chief Executive and the Mayor on page 20 of the Delegations Register (Part A, Sub-part 2) by replacing references to the “Finance Committee” with references to the “Finance and Performance Committee”.

9.         Adopts the Terms of Reference (to be separately circulated) of the committees, subcommittees and working groups.

10.       Adopt the schedule of meetings (to be separately circulated) delegating to the Hearings and Council Support Manager the ability to amend the schedule as required.

11.       Appoints Mayor Dalziel, Councillor Davidson (as the Chair of the Urban Development & Transport Committee) and [insert name] as the Council’s representatives on the Greater Christchurch Partnership with effect from 1 November 2019.

12.       Appoints Councillor Davidson (as the Chair of the Urban Development & Transport Committee) and [insert 2 names] as the Council’s representatives on the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee with effect from 1 November 2019.

13.       Appoints the Mayor as the Council’s representative on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group for the Canterbury Region, with the authority to appoint, if necessary, an elected member as the Mayor’s alternate and to delegate authority to that person to act for her.

14.       Delegates to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (acting jointly) any appointments to other joint committees should appointments be required before the next meeting of Council.

 

3.   Background / Context /Te Horopaki

3.1       Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that Mayors have the power to establish the committees of Council and appoint the chairpersons of those committees. The appointment of the chairperson can be made before the other members of the committees are determined.

3.2       Note that section 41A does not limit or prevent the Council from discharging or reconstituting a committee established by the Mayor; appointing more committees in addition to any established by the Mayor; or discharging the appointment of the chairpersons.  In addition, a committee may appoint the subcommittees it considers appropriate unless it is prohibited from doing so by the local authority.  If Council resolves to take any of these actions they must follow the process as set out in Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.3       Members of a committee or subcommittee of Council need not be elected members. The Council, committees and subcommittees may appoint a person who is not an elected member if that person has the skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee. At least one member of a committee must be an elected member of Council.

3.4       The Local Government Act provides that the Mayor is a member of every committee of Council.  The current Standing Orders state “the Mayor is a member of a committee by virtue of his or her role (ex officio).  The Mayor will have the same rights and privileges as other members of the committee, including the right to vote.  However, the Mayor will not be counted in determining the number required for a quorum, nor in determining whether or not a quorum is present.”  This provision will not apply where the Mayor has been specifically appointed to a committee, in which case the Mayor will be counted for the purpose of determining a quorum.

3.5       The intention of the committee structure for the 2019-2022 triennium is to support the oversight and monitoring of the Council’s strategic directions and future growth of the city.

3.6       The committee structure, and the proposed membership of those committees, has been discussed with Councillors.

3.7       Council makes decisions on behalf of the public interest, taking into account the needs of current and future generations and the resiliency outcomes for the city. The appointment and establishment of Council committees ensures that the decision-making processes are robust and open, transparent, and democratically accountable. 

4.   Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

Committee structure

4.1       The committee structure is outlined in Attachment A.

4.2       The main points of the committee structure are as follows:

4.2.1   There are four committees of the whole with full delegations: Finance & Performance Committee, Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee, Three Waters Infrastructure & Environment Committee, and Urban Development & Transport Committee.

4.2.2   In addition, there are nine standing committees reporting to Council: Audit & Risk; Health, Safety & Wellbeing; City Momentum; Civic Awards; Regulatory Compliance; Youth Advisory; Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga; Multicultural; and CE Performance & Employment.

4.2.3   The Audit & Risk Management; Health, Safety and Wellbeing; and Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committees were not discharged from the last term. The Terms of Reference for these committees will (initially) remain the same but the membership will need to be updated. A review of the Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference and membership is currently underway so the proposed membership for this committee is interim until the outcome of the review is determined.

4.2.4   Working groups are oriented to be “task and finish” with a definitive sunset provision. The purpose of a working group is to bring together membership to work on a specific topic in order to achieve a set objective. The group will then report their findings to the appropriate committee or to Council as the case may be.

4.2.5   It is expected that the committees will determine any outstanding Terms of Reference, including delegations, for their subordinate subcommittees and working groups.

4.2.6   The delegation to appoint membership to Resource Management Act Hearings panels is to be amended to the Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive (acting jointly). The current delegation sits with the Mayor and Chief Executive.

4.2.7   The delegation to appoint other hearings panel membership will remain with the Hearings and Council Support Manager with the addition of being in consultation with the Deputy Mayor.

Portfolios

4.3       I intend to also introduce the use of portfolios. Portfolios will allow Councillors to be the spokesperson and champion for particular areas of responsibility. The portfolio holders will ensure their areas of responsibility are considered in Council’s planning and decision making.

4.4       Portfolios will include accessibility; children, young persons & older people. Additional portfolios may be added as required.

Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee

4.5       The Greater Christchurch Partnership (GCP) is a voluntary coalition of local government, iwi, health and government agencies working collaboratively for the prosperity of Greater Christchurch. The Partnership is a joint committee established under the Local Government Act 2002. The Council has previously resolved that the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee (CNCL/2017/00109) is not discharged following triennial general elections.  

4.6       In order to support both a level of consistency and foster succession planning in the membership, and to support alignment between roles held within Council and the focus of the GCP, it is recommended that the Mayor continue as member of the Committee and that Councillor Davidson as Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee, be appointed as the Council’s second representative on that committee.

Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee

4.7       The Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee was established in July 2016 between the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury), Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council to foster collaborative and decisive leadership regarding the provision of public transport services and infrastructure in Greater Christchurch. The committee membership includes three Council members from Christchurch City Council.

Civil Defence Emergency Management Group for the Canterbury Region

4.8       A Civil Defence Emergency Management Group has been established for the Canterbury region (CDEM Group).  As required by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act), this is a joint committee of the participating local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.9       The CDEM Group cannot be discharged, either as permitted by the LGA 2002, or by a decision of the participating Councils (s. 12(2) of the CDEM Act).

4.10    Under s. 13(4) of the CDEM Act, the Council can only have one representative on the CDEM Group, either the Mayor or an elected member who has delegated authority to act for the Mayor. In accordance with this provision, the Mayor is currently the Council’s representative.  It is recommended the Council gives the Mayor the authority to appoint, if necessary, an elected member as an alternate with delegated authority to act for the Mayor.

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Megan Pearce

Approved By           Mayor Lianne Dalziel

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Committee Structure 2019-2022

16

b  

Terms of Reference (Under Separate Cover)

 

c  

Schedule of meetings (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

7.     Mayor's Report: Appointments to Local Government New Zealand sector groups

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1247113

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to recommend the Council’s appointments and attendance to Local Government New Zealand Metropolitan sector and Zone 5 groups.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is the national organisation of local authorities in New Zealand. LGNZ represents the interests of councils and leads best practice in the local government sector, and provides advocacy and policy services, business support, advice and training to member councils

2.2       The rules for Local Government New Zealand includes six geographical and four sector groupings of member authorities. These groupings provide a means of input from members to LGNZ on matters relating to territorial local authorities in New Zealand. Each member authority is entitled to belong to one zone and one sector grouping. More information on the structure of LGNZ can be found at https://www.lgnz.co.nz/about-lgnz/.

2.3       Christchurch City Council is a member of LGNZ Zone 5 and LGNZ Metropolitan sector.

3.   Mayors Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1.         Note that Christchurch City Council can appoint up to five elected members to attend the biannual Local Government New Zealand Zone 5 and 6 meetings to represent the Council.

2.         Appoint up to five councillors to represent Christchurch City Council at the Local Government New Zealand Zone 5 and 6 meeting on 18 and19 November 2019.

3.         Note that the Deputy Mayor will represent the Christchurch City Council on the Local Government New Zealand Metropolitan Sector for the 2019-2022 triennium.

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Zone 5

4.1       Zone 5 includes all member authorities within the area bounded by the Canterbury and West Coast Regional Councils, the Tasman and Marlborough District Councils, the Nelson City Council, and the Chatham Islands County Council but excluding any part of the Waitaki District.  The biannual Zone 5 meetings are held jointly with Zone 6 councils.

4.2       The Council has previously appointed five Councillors to represent the Council at Local Government New Zealand Zone 5 for the whole of that triennium. The Mayor’s recommendation is that permanent appointments not be made to Zone 5 for the 2019-2022 triennium to allow Councillor attendance at Zone 5 meetings to be shared, and to enable as many councillors as possible to participate.

4.3       The first meeting for Zone 5, combined with Zone 6 is scheduled for 18 and 19 November 2019 in Oamaru, this is a joint meeting between Zone five and Zone six.  Dates for meetings in 2020 are to be advised.

4.4       Costs associated with Local Government New Zealand representation and meetings are provided for in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

Metropolitan Sector

4.5       The purpose of sector groups, as set out in the LGNZ constitution, is to act as an electoral college for the appointment of National Council representatives. Each sector group develops their own set of priority issues which are addressed, with assistance from LGNZ, with the objective of simultaneously pursuing the particular interests of each sector and the general interests of local government.  

4.6       Christchurch City Council is a member of the LGNZ Metropolitan Sector grouping. Other member Councils can be found here https://www.lgnz.co.nz/about-lgnz/membership-representation/sector-groups/metropolitan-group/

4.7       The Metropolitan Sector meets four times per year. The first meeting is scheduled for 31 October and 1 November 2019, in Dunedin. The Deputy Mayor represents the Christchurch City Council on Metropolitan Sector.

4.8       Costs associated with Local Government New Zealand representation and meetings are provided for in the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

8.     Covering Report: Use of the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility and investment in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1202977

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning;
David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an overview to Council on the following three reports on the agenda for this meeting, and the relationship between the three reports. The three reports are titled as follows and described below:

·    Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Investment Case;

·    Christchurch Capital Regeneration Acceleration Funding – Roading and Transport Investment Case; and

·    Establishment of the Consultative Group for Transitional Land Use of Christchurch Red Zones.

1.2       Collectively, these reports and the associated decisions for Council represent an opportunity to demonstrate the Council’s commitment and ambition to make a significant investment in two key projects – firstly, the regeneration of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor; and secondly, the provision of improved roading and transport across the city. 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives this report for information purposes only.

 

3.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Investment Case

3.1       The report titled ‘Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Investment Case’  seeks endorsement of the Investment Case to the Crown for the proposed allocation of $40 million from the  Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) to encourage people and investment into the Otākāro Avon River Corridor (OARC) through the following projects:

·        creation of pathways and connections along the full length of the corridor (to a value of $7.7M);

·        establishment of basic public facilities at up to seven landing sites along the Otākāro Avon River (to a value of $6.6M); and

·        commencing the restoration of ecological areas and community activation at a number of priority sites within the corridor (to a value of $25.7M).

3.2       The projects above will enable commencement of development of the Green Spine, a central and foundation element of the Otākāro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan and defined in the Greenprint, attached to the report (Attachment A).  Establishment of the Green Spine is important as it sets the boundaries of the naturalised river corridor through the formation of natural and engineered structures, including native planting, reshaping and stopbanks. 

3.3       The report also seeks support for a proposal to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust for additional funding to enable the establishment of three pedestrian and cycle footbridges (two replacement and one new) and potentially up to two further landings (to an estimated value of $15M), with conceptual illustrations in Attachment C to the report. This complements Council’s planned infrastructure projects within and through the corridor.

3.4       A key objective for the proposed (combined) ten-year programme is to bring people into the area and provide core public facilities along the whole length of the corridor to support a broad range of other land use activities.  It does not seek to fund large scale commercial ventures, but will provide a strong platform for such investments by the private and philanthropic sector – including joint funding at many of the locations where Council will lead the investment.

3.5       No detailed decisions are sought on specific projects at this juncture – however, there is urgency to confirm the investment case and seek the final Cabinet approval of this funding (ideally before the Christmas recess period).  Further detailed work on individual projects will proceed in parallel with the investment case being considered by Cabinet and these will be reported back to Council or the appropriate Committee as necessary.  Detailed engagement will also occur with each of the Community Boards.    

Christchurch Capital Regeneration Acceleration Funding – Roading and Transport Investment Case

3.6       The report titled ‘Christchurch Capital Regeneration Acceleration Funding – Roading and Transport Investment Case’ seeks endorsement of an Investment Case to the Crown for the proposed allocation of $40 million from the CRAF for roading and transport improvements, additional to the $40 million of funding proposed in the report above.

3.7       If approved, the funding would enable delivery of roading and transport improvements to provide for a high-quality, safe and reliable transport network, including:

·    $30M to deliver integrated safety, modal choice and asset improvements to the transport system in a number of areas, including Richmond, New Brighton, Linwood / Woolston, Spreydon / Somerfield / Waltham / Beckenham, and Riccarton. This will benefit 138 streets, with the types of treatments varying on a street by street basis and including footpath improvements, safe and slow speed treatments, access improvements and asset condition improvements.

·    $5M to accelerate targeted safety improvements to reduce death and serious injury crashes in areas that have received increased traffic, due to changes to land use and traffic patterns following the earthquakes. This includes intersection safe system treatments, school safety, red light running initiatives, speed management along corridors, signalised intersections and right turn safety, active speed management at intersections, route treatments, and Community Board road safety initiatives.

·    $5M towards the implementation of bus priority measures on key public transport routes across the city.

Establishment of the Consultative Group for Transitional Land Use of Christchurch Red Zones

3.8       The report titled ‘Establishment of the Consultative Group for Transitional Land Use of Christchurch Red Zones’ proposes a process for establishment of a consultative group, as set out in the Global Settlement Agreement, to provide advice to LINZ and Council on transitional uses in the Residential Red Zones. This would enable increased community involvement in transitional land use decision-making.

3.9       A phased approach is proposed, with the consultative group advising both Council and the Crown in the first phase during a period when the Crown will have ownership of the red zone. As ownership transfers to Council (phase 2), Council can assume decision-making powers through a community co-governance entity; the final details for this will be determined in the future and via a Council decision at that time.

3.10    As well as the process to establish the consultative group, the report includes a recommendation for community funding allocated in the 2019/20 Annual Plan for seed funding and activation projects over the next two years within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  The funding would support the community advisory group, technical assessment of the transitional land use and funding applications and grant funding for activation projects.

Relationship between reports

3.11    The first two reports seek endorsement of Investment Cases for use of the CRAF, supporting implementation of the vision for the Otākāro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, and wider transport improvements across the City. The third report relates to governance for transitional uses in the Otākāro Avon River Corridor, consistent with the outcomes sought in the Regeneration Plan.

3.12    The above is an overview of the three reports and their relationship and further detail can be found in the reports themselves.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader - City Planning

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

9.     Otākāro Avon River Corridor Investment Case

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1046163

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Sarah Oliver, Principal Planner, Planning and Strategic Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the proposed $40m allocation from the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) to encourage people and investment into the Otākāro Avon River Corridor (OARC). Further, to seek support for a Council proposal to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust for additional funding, which together with the CRAF and Council’s planned funding under the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, will make significant progress towards implementing the Otākāro Avon River Regeneration Plan and achieving its vison and objectives.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       On the 23rd of August 2019 the Honourable Dr Megan Woods, Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, approved the Otākāro Avon River Regeneration Plan (refer to Attachment A – “The Greenprint”).  The Regeneration Plan outlines the vision and objectives for best use of the former residential red zone and reflects a long process of public engagement and input.  Prior to this, in 2018, the Council had agreed that $40M of funding from the CRAF would be used to accelerating regeneration within the OARC - once the Regeneration Plan was approved.

2.2       It is proposed the $40M will be focused on commencing development of the Green Spine; being a central and foundation element of the Regeneration Plan.  It will be used to create pathways and connections along the full length and across the corridor (to a value of $7.7M); establish basic public facilities at up to seven landing sites (to a value of $6.6M); and commence the restoration of ecological areas at a number of priority sites within the river corridor (to a value of $25.7M). A plan illustrating this proposal is included within Attachment B of this report.

2.3       The CRAF funding and allocation to the above features, will complement Council’s planned (and funded under the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan) infrastructure projects within and through the corridor, including the Pages Road bridge replacement (to a value of $20.3M); City to Sea major cycleway (to a value of $31.1M); stormwater treatment facilities (to a value of $9.8M) and floodplain management (to a value of $83.1M). 

2.4       In addition, Council officers have submitted to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust (CEAT) a draft funding proposal to enable the establishment of three pedestrian and cycle footbridges (two replacement and one new) and potentially up to two further landings (to an estimated value of $15M).  Conceptual illustrations of the bridges and landings is included within Attachment C.

2.5       Should the CRAF and CEAT funds be approved (by Cabinet and the CEAT Trustees, respectively), the combined value (with Council’s own LTP input) of investment over the next ten years is approximately $200M. This level of investment and commitment to delivering the Regeneration Plan, will provide much needed business and community confidence that the benefits promoted in the plan can be achieved.  It is also expected that this commitment from the Council will galvanise and give confidence to a number of private investments that are currently considering their own commitment.

2.6       A key objective for the proposed (combined) ten-year programme is to bring people into the area and provide core public facilities along the whole length of the corridor to support a broad range of other land use activities.  It does not seek to fund large scale commercial ventures, but will provide a strong platform for such investments by the private and philanthropic sector. Most importantly, the proposed programme seeks to deliver what the community sought most, namely a “city to surf” green ecological corridor with a wide network of walkways and cycle ways, to provide access along and to a healthier river.

2.7       Should Council endorse the proposed approach to allocation of the $40M CRAF for the Otākāro Avon River Corridor and the CEAT funding proposal, the next steps are to formally submit to the Crown the supporting Better Business Case for the CRAF (refer to Attachment D) and finalise the required contractual arrangements with the CEAT (subject to the Trustees agreement in principle to fund the proposed bridges and landings which is currently being sought). 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Endorses the Investment Case (Attachment D) for the Otākāro Avon River Corridor, which will allocate $40M of the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility to create pathways and connections along the full length and across the corridor; establish basic public facilities at up to seven landing sites; and commence the restoration of ecological areas and community activation at a number of priority sites within the river corridor.

2.         Supports a proposal to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust seeking the funding of three pedestrian and cycle bridges and two landings.

3.         Authorises the General Manager Strategy and Transformation to negotiate and enter into such documentation as shall be required or necessary to give effect to the Council’s decision.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       Whilst a significant milestone has recently been achieved with the approval of the Otākāro Avon River Regeneration Plan, without early public investment many of the plan’s benefits may fail to be realised. There is real opportunity to achieve major progress in implementation of the plan, and more specifically to the key public contribution, being the Green Spine that runs the length of the Otākāro Avon River Corridor (refer to Attachment A). 

4.2       The proposed allocation of $40M (from the CRAF) will enable the construction of currently unfunded Green Spine elements, specifically connecting pathways and parts of the cultural trail, ecological restoration of prioritised areas, and the creation of community focal points along the corridor (through the construction of basic public facilities at up to seven landings). As set out in the supporting draft Investment Case ([Better Business Case] refer to Attachment D), a number of benefits can be realised through the proposed funding of the Green Spine elements, including:

 

·        improved level of community connection between east Christchurch and the rest of Christchurch, importantly the Central City;

·        increased use of the area and a greater sense of well-being, safety and security;

·        enhancing the quality of the physical environment thereby improving community identity, quality and function of neighbourhoods, and as a result improved physical, social and mental wellbeing;

·        improved health of the natural environment and extending opportunities for mahinga kai tikanga;

·        demonstrated progress towards climate change goals through ecological restoration and planting;

·        improved perceptions of Christchurch, in particular eastern Christchurch, being an increasingly desirable and liveable place for locals, new business, new migrants and visitors;

·        the potential to increase local employment opportunities; and

·        the potential to increase property values (broadly within 1km of the Area).

 

4.3       It is also proposed that funding be sought from the CEAT to design and construct three pedestrian and cycle bridges and up to two landings as identified in the Greenprint (refer to Attachment A).  It is understood that the Trust has $17M, which may be made available to deliver projects that are otherwise difficult to fund; will achieve outcomes in the short term and deliver tangible and long term ‘backbone’ facilities; and do not offset works that are typically Council or Crown funded.  It is Council officers’ view that the footbridges and landings meet these criteria for the benefits identified above and as they do not have funding under the Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, nor are they planned to be funded through the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility.  There is preliminary support for this approach from officials supporting the CEAT Trustees. 

 

4.4       Further, these elements were specifically identified by the community (in the development of the Regeneration Plan) as essential to bringing people back into the area and encouraging greater activation of the land. The footbridges in particular will significantly improve connectivity across the river and re-establish community connections severed by the earthquakes. The estimated combined value of the works proposed to be funded by the CEAT is $15M (approximately $3M per bridge and $2M per landing). Illustrative concepts for the footbridges and landings are included in Attachment C of this report. 

 

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

4.5.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.7.3 Plan for a focused and expedited regeneration of the residential red zone and earthquake affected areas of the city.  Comments on Regeneration Plans produced by partners are provided within statutory timeframes.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.6       The purpose of this report is to seek support for funding proposals to the Crown and Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust. The Crown and CEAT have the final decision making authority on whether the funding sought is to be provided.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.7       On the 13 September 2018, the Council agreed $40M from the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility was to be used to accelerate regeneration within the Otākāro Avon River Corridor (OARC). This report and supporting Better Business Case sets out in more detail how the $40M can be allocated so as to best achieve the first phases of the Regeneration Plan; being to “Create the Platform” (refer to pages 64-67 of the Regeneration Plan) and “Welcome People In” (refer to pages 68-71 of the Regeneration Plan).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

4.8       The decision in this report is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Significant public consultation has occurred in the development of the Otākāro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, and the proposals in this paper are consistent with, and give effect to, the views and preferences expressed in this consultation.  Community preferences are further detailed in Section 6 of this report.

 

Financial implications

4.9       Should the proposed allocation of the CRAF and CEAT proposal be approved, it will over time, result in new assets (such as paths and bridges) for the Council to maintain and, as a consequence, require allocation of operational funding.  $3M of operational funding has already been provided for all former residential red zone areas as part of the Global Settlement (via LTP and Annual Plans) commencing on 1 July 2020.  As individual projects are planned and delivered, any requirements for additional Opex will be reported and Council approval sought before the relevant capital project commences.  

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.1       The Regeneration Plan broadly sets out what activities and uses are expected to be delivered in the early stages of implementation, namely to “Create a platform” (Phase 1) and “Welcome people in” (Phase 2).  As it is not proposed to deviate from this direction, a range of alternative programme options have not been considered. What has been considered is the range of projects that could deliver each phase but in a slightly different manner or pace. 

5.2       Greater expenditure of the CRAF could be focussed towards more extensive ecological restoration and less towards constructed elements, thereby achieving more of the naturalisation aspects of the plan.  Alternatively, less ecological restoration could occur with a greater focus on more built structures. Another alternative approach could be to fund a major visitor attraction; edge and adaptable housing; or a “world-leading living laboratory” (being one of the plan’s objectives). 

5.3       Whilst each of the above land uses would significantly benefit from CRAF and CEAT investment, there are inherently greater risks and uncertainty as to their associated costs, and/or the Council’s necessity in funding some of these elements.  The recommended funding proposals aim to fund those core public realm elements, which will best visually demonstrate significant progress towards the corridor’s regeneration, support transitional uses and attract private investment. Should the proposed programme of works not be funded (i.e. the status quo), activities undertaken over the next ten years will be limited to the Council planned infrastructure improvements and transitional uses, resulting in limited activation of the corridor and failure to create the expected level of amenity purported under the Regeneration Plan.

Options Descriptions

5.4       Preferred Option:

5.4.1   Allocation of the CRAF funding to create pathways and connections along the full length and across the corridor; establish basic public facilities at up to seven landing sites; and commence the restoration of ecological areas at a number of priority sites within the river corridor; and

5.4.2   A proposal to the CEAT for their funding of three pedestrian and cycle bridges and two landings.

5.4.3   Option Description: To extend the  construction of the City to sea pathway (commenced from the Central City) and supporting connections to the major cycleway using a combination of existing adequate paths and roads (9.4 km), widening low stop banks (3.6 km), adapting and repairing existing carriageways (8.9 km), widening existing paths and creating new connections (5.4 km).

To establish basic facilities for up to seven landings including where necessary public toilets, signage/interpretation, water fountain, seating and steps to the river. In some priority locations (i.e. high use areas), parking, shelters, larger platforms and grassed areas will be provided.

To begin restoration of ecological areas through planting of native forest, wetland, river habitat and associated land preparation works.  Included in the proposed costs for these physical works is specialist ecological and landscaping planning advice to ensure appropriate and best use ecological values are achieved.  This will ensure that restoration is site specific and reflects the unique cultural and ecological values of different locations along the river corridor. 

Where possible we will work with other funders (such as the MPI Billon Trees programme) and philanthropic sources to co-invest and increase the overall impact of public and private co-investment. 

5.4.4   Option Advantages

·     Will result in significant progress in achieving the first phases of the Regeneration Plan, to return people to the area and activity, with the specific intention to stimulate further investment.

5.4.5   Option Disadvantages

·     Funding in this manner may only result in the provision of core and basic public realm facilities, not high-value bespoke visitor attraction facilities.

5.5       Alternative Option: Funding is allocated in another manner to that set out in the preferred option.

5.5.1   Option Description: Funding could be allocated to more structured elements, transitional or temporary activities, recreational activities (including river widening), commercial ventures, or more extensive open space and ecological restoration.

5.5.2   Option Advantages

·     However the funding allocation was recast, benefits would arise from the associated land use, and could be social, environmental, economic and/or cultural benefits depending on the land-use.

5.5.3   Option Disadvantages

·     The Regeneration Plan acknowledges that achieving the Green Spine will need to come from public funds.  Whilst the Council’s Long Term Plan includes approximately $144M of funding for infrastructure, this will only achieve limited improvements and activation of the area. No other significant Council funding is available to undertake large scale restoration of ecological areas, nor develop landings and connecting pathways (including footbridges and the Cultural Trail). These more aesthetic elements are critical to achieving the Green Print vision and attracting community, philanthropic and private investment. Whilst submissions could be made to future Long Term Plans for Council to fund such works, there is no guarantee these proposals would be successful in the short to medium term, particularly in light of the extensive funding demands for a many number of regeneration and community projects across the City. The proposed approach to allocation of the funds and resulting extent of activation of the corridor could not be achieved if these funds were allocated to alternative land-uses. 

6.   Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

6.1       In preparation of the Regeneration Plan, Regenerate Christchurch considered more than 5,000 ideas submitted by the community, as well as surveys, technical reports and studies. As consultation with the community has been extensive and it is not proposed to deviate from the directions for the first phasing of projects set out under the approved plan, no further engagement with the community is considered to be required.  Council staff have however, on an informal basis, met with the Coastal-Burwood and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards, Avon Otākāro Network and Riverside Community Network, to discuss the proposals and received generally positive and supportive feedback.  There will be future opportunities for community engagement as the projects and more detailed designs are developed and any necessary consents acquired.

6.2       Ngāi Tahu/ Ngāi Tūāhuriri, and Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha before them, have a long history and strong connection with the area. Ngāi Tahu have had a close involvement in developing the plan, which includes specific objectives regarding the practising of mahinga kai.  As with the broader community, it is taken that any decisions on how and when the elements of the approved plan are to be funded and implemented will have the same level of interest and importance. Ngāi Tahu/ Ngāi Tūāhuriri have been engaged in respect of this report and the subject supporting proposals. Further, they will be directly involved in the development of the Council’s Implementation Programme and those projects of particular importance and interest.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       Programme risks have been identified as part of the Council’s OARC Implementation Programme and follow the common risks for large scale capital programmes.  A more detailed risk analysis will be undertaken as part of the development of the Implementation Programme and individual projects, including how these risks will be managed.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Submitting a formal application and the supporting Investment Case / Better Business Case to the Crown and formalising the funding proposal to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust.

9.2       Subject to Crown and CEAT approval, confirming projects within the Council’s OARC Implementation Programme and progressing the first stages of design and site investigations.

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

OARRP The GreenPrint

30

b

OARC Proposed Pathways Connections and Ecological Restoration

31

c

OARC Proposed bridges illustrations

32

d

OARRP CRAF BBC Final draft 2019-09-18

34

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader - City Planning

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

31 October 2019

 


Council

31 October 2019

 


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


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

31 October 2019

 

 

10.   Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility - Roading and Transport Investment Case

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1059969

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Lynette Ellis, Manager Planning and Delivery
Richard Osborne, Head of Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the investment case for $40M Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) for roading and transport improvements.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Council is seeking $40M of funding through this investment case to secure approval and funding to accelerate delivery of roading and transport improvements considered critical to the ongoing recovery and regeneration of Christchurch.

2.2       The Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) investment in roading and transport improvements will help provide a high-quality, safe and reliable transport network that will transform connectivity and the customer experience across Christchurch City.  It will improve safety outcomes and encourage more people to walk, cycle or take public transport.

2.3       The investment case prioritises investment in the areas most in need, and is expected to contribute to a more equitable and liveable city.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Endorses the submission of the investment case for $40M Christchurch Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility for roading and transport improvements to Treasury.

2.         Authorises the General Manager Strategy and Transformation and/or General Manager City Services to negotiate and enter into such documentation as shall be required or necessary to give effect to the Council’s decision.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       This investment case (refer Appendix A) has been developed from the $300M CRAF announcement by the Labour Party in August 2017 as part of its pre-election “Plan for Canterbury” to accelerate the Canterbury recovery from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011.

4.2       The coalition Government confirmed the establishment of the CRAF in the Budget 2018, and allocated $300M to reflect the unique circumstance of Christchurch, and the commitment of the coalition Government to address the remaining shortfalls in Crown funding for a number of local priorities.

4.3       The purpose of the CRAF is to provide certainty for key Christchurch regeneration projects, to ensure that they occur as quickly as possible, including horizontal infrastructure projects (i.e. roading and transport improvements).

4.4       The Crown has advised that funding will be released upon completion of a two-step process a) an investment proposal, and b) consideration of a more detailed investment case.

4.5       Council has completed an initial investment proposal for the roading and transport improvements.  The final draft investment proposal was submitted for consideration in March 2019, and approval to proceed to the next step was received from the Minister responsible for Greater Christchurch Regeneration and the Minister of Finance in June 2019.

4.6       The investment proposal indicated the following breakdown of the $40M:

4.6.1   Approximately $25M to $30M for improvements to the transport system within five suburban areas, to address three key issues of accessibility, safety and asset condition in a coordinated and integrated manner.

4.6.2   Approximately $5M to $7M for minor safety improvements to allow for the implementation of low cost / high value interventions to improve safety in areas that have received increased traffic due to land use and traffic pattern changes following the earthquake sequence.

4.6.3   Approximately $5M to $8M towards the acceleration of projects to improve bus priority on a key route across the city and / or at specific intersections on a core route.

4.7       The key objectives developed to underpin this investment case are:

4.7.1   To improve liveability and support the ongoing regeneration of Christchurch;

4.7.2   To reduce transport fatalities and serious injury crashes; and,

4.7.3   To improve journey time and reliability of public transport services to increase patronage.

4.8       The investment case recommends that the roading and transport improvements include:

4.8.1   $25M to $30M to deliver integrated safety, modal choice and asset improvements to communities which experienced significant damage and disruption, or increased transport demand / travel use due to a change in travel patterns following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence 2010-2011.  The five proposed suburban areas are Richmond, New Brighton, Linwood / Woolston, Spreydon / Somerfield / Waltham / Beckenham, and Riccarton.

4.8.2   $5M to $7M to accelerate targeted safety improvements to reduce death and serious injury crashes.

4.8.3   $5M to $8M towards the implementation of bus priority measures on key public transport routes in the city.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

4.9.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.7.2 Plan for a focused and expedited regeneration of the residential red zone and earthquake affected areas of the city.. - Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration planning completed by 31 December 2019 at the latest, or as otherwise agreed by

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.10    The decision makers at each step of the CRAF process are the relevant Crown Ministers (i.e. Minister of Finance, and the Minister responsible for Greater Christchurch Regeneration) and / or Cabinet.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.11    The Council approved the submission of an investment proposal to Treasury on 13 September 2018. Resolution CNCL/2018/00195.

4.12    The investment proposal was accepted by Treasury in June 2019.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.1       The targeted roading and transport improvements for CRAF investment are proposed in five priority suburban areas.  This will result in approximately 130 streets benefiting from improvements, and will address corridors where collectively 268 crashes have occurred (including 1 fatal crash, 24 serious injury crashes, 101 minor injury crashes and 142 non injury crashes).

5.2       The types of treatments proposed vary on a street by street basis depending on the particular challenges and constraints identified.  Examples of the types of treatments include footpath improvements, slow speed treatments, access improvements, and asset condition improvements.

5.3       The CRAF investment will transform the transport network in each of these five suburban areas to make the transport system safer, more accessible and will improve asset condition and value for money, which in turn all support the regeneration of the city.

5.4       To address critical safety constraints and challenges the investment case proposes to progress targeted road safety initiatives across the Christchurch transport network, and recommends the programme targets corridors where collectively 829 crashes have occurred, including 9 fatal crashes and 107 serious injury crashes.

5.5       Eight themes of road safety improvements are proposed through the investment case including intersection safe system treatments, school safety, red light running initiatives, speed management along corridors, signalised intersections and right turn safety, active speed management at intersections, route treatments, and Community Board road safety initiatives.

5.6       A separate business case is being progressed by the Greater Christchurch Partnership through the Public Transport Foundations Business Case to determine the public transport routes that should be prioritised for improvements as part of the recommended programme. 

6.   Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

6.1       The investment case has been developed collaboratively with key stakeholders including the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Minister of Finance, NZ Treasury and the NZ Transport Agency.

6.2       The investment case has incorporated public input from recent consultation processes, including submissions to the Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, and the 2018 Life in Christchurch: Transport Survey, which received more than 3,000 responses from Christchurch residents.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       Programme risks have been identified as part of the Council’s Transport Programme, and follow the common risks for large scale capital programmes.

8.2       A more detailed risk analysis will be undertaken as part of the development of the individual projects, including how these risks will be managed.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Submit the investment case to seek formal approval from Treasury and the Crown.

9.2       Funding received goes into the Annual Plan / Long Term Plan process to accelerate the delivery of these improvements.

9.3       Delivery of these improvement projects using the Council capital delivery processes is undertaken within the next three - five years.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft CRAF Roading and Transport Improvements Investment Case

93

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kirsty Mahoney - Project Manager

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Emily Taylor - Capital Programme Development Coordinator

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

31 October 2019

 

 

11.   Establishment of the Co-Governance Group for Transitional Land Use of Christchurch Red Zones

Reference:

19/689850

Presenter(s):

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Council on:

·        the process set out in the Global Settlement Agreement regarding the Red Zones Transitional Land Use Governance;

·        the process proposed to establish the consultative group (as phase one) referred to in the agreement; and

·        funding matters, including delegations, which require Council consideration and determination.

1.2       The report arises as a result of the Council decision to approve the Global Settlement Agreement and also to provide funding in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 Annual Plan to support community input into Transitional Land Use decisions for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  The 2019/2020 Annual Plan resolution states:

That the Council reallocates funding it had budged for Regenerate Christchurch over 2019/20 and 2020/21 to the following regeneration initiatives:

b.            $800,000 in 2019/20 and $800,000 in 2020/21 for regeneration activities including

i.             $350,000 seed funding in 2019/20 and $350,000 in 2020/21 for activation projects within the Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor.

1.3       Note that the annual plan states that the funding is for activation projects within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  There is no specific funding to support other red zone activation.  This is discussed in this report in the section ‘Funding’ (section 4.17)

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       The Global Settlement Agreement sets out that the Crown and the Council will work together to establish a consultative group (phase one) to provide advice to LINZ and Council on transitional uses in Christchurch red zones; with a phased move to a community co-governance group (phase two) as land ownership is also transferred.

2.2       This report proposes a process for Council to follow, that will enable the first part of the agreement to be implemented, and sets Council up to positively consider phase two in due course.

2.3       While activation funding[1] has been allocated in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 Annual Plans, it is currently specifically allocated to the Otākaro Avon River Corridor.  There is no funding available to support activation projects for other red zones in Christchurch – the Port Hills, Southshore/South New Brighton and Brooklands.  This report includes a recommendation for Council to apply this funding to all red zone land, albeit, that limited applications are expected in these other locations. .

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu 

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the establishment of the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group, including the draft Guiding Principles and Terms of Reference (Attachment 2 and 3);

2.         Endorse the establishment of the Christchurch City Council Red Zones Transitional Use Fund and the draft Terms of Reference (Attachment 4);

3.         Endorse the process for determining membership, including the independent chair, of the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group and notes that staff will report back to Council for decision on this matter.

4.         Note that the final approval by the Crown, Council and LINZ for the establishment of the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group (and associated documentation) will occur in February 2020 once appointments and further engagement with Community Boards is completed.

5.         Approve the $350,000 funding allocated in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 annual plans to be applied to transitional land uses in all Christchurch red zones.

6.         Delegate funding decisions up to and including $20,000 for any one application to the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group.

7.         Delegate funding decisions above $20,000 to the relevant Council Committee

8.         Make a funding determination in relation to the community funding proposal from the Avon-Otakaro Network:

a.         Approve the allocation of $91,000 of grant funding from the Christchurch City Council Red Zones Transitional Use Fund in each of the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 years subject to:

i.          the Chief Executive or her delegate being satisfied that any risks are managed; and

ii.         agreeing any appropriate conditions, monitoring and reporting;

or

b.         Request that the funding application be considered by the Consultative Group under their delegations and conditions (assuming these are approved by Council).

9.         Note that appointment of a Ngai Tuahuriri and a Ngati Wheke representative for the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group will be confirmed by each of these runanga and their roles relative to their areas are outlined in attachment 2.

 

 

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Key Points

4.1       The Global Settlement Agreement, Section 19, (which was signed by the Crown on 23 September 2019) sets out the agreement between the Crown and the Council for transitional land use governance arrangements for the red zones in Christchurch (Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, and other areas of red zone, Brooklands, the Port Hills and Southshore).  Attachment 1 sets out Section 19.

4.2       In summary, under the Global Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to take a phased approach to increasing community involvement in transitional land use governance; this phased approach will anticipate the current and proposed future red zones land ownership. 

4.3       Currently, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), are responsible for making transitional land use decisions.  They do this at a staff level under delegations, but within a policy framework approved by their Minister.  There is strong support, including from LINZ, to improve this approach and process.  

4.4       LINZ is the current landowner of most of the land within the red zones in Christchurch, although Council remains the landowner of the roads and other infrastructure.  As owner of the land, the Global Settlement envisages that LINZ remains the final decision-maker for transitional land use applications until land ownership is transferred to Council (unless such decision making can be delegated by LINZ to other entities).

4.5       The Global Settlement outlined:

4.5.1   Phase 1. The Council and LINZ will establish a Consultative Group to advise both parties on transitional land use while land ownership remains with the Crown, as well as parameters for a possible dedicated grants fund.  This report focuses on Phase 1.

4.5.2   Phase 2. Will occur as parcels of land are transferred from LINZ to Council ownership, Council will assume decision-making powers over this land.  Council proposes establishing a community co-governance entity to make decisions on Council’s behalf; the exact nature of co-governance is for Council to determine at that time.  This report does not make any detailed reference to Phase 2.

4.6       Phase 1 requires a number of matters to be resolved to enable the establishment of the consultative group: role and functions; terms of reference and operating procedures; grants quantum and criteria; and membership. Phase 1 will also test a pilot that delegates certain decisions to the Consultative Group that will inform Phase 2.

4.7       As per the Global Settlement, the Crown and the Council agree that transitional land use (amongst other things) may:

·     Support any Regeneration Plans or planning or more permanent uses of residential red zone land;

·     Strengthen the connection between the residential red zone land and adjacent communities;

·     Provide a range of recreational and other opportunities for Christchurch residents;

·     Improve the environmental health of residential red zone land; and

·     Enable the testing of new and innovative ideas.

4.8       Transitional land use is defined as a range of uses from one-off events to longer lasting activities, which assist with the transition to the permanent use of red zone land.

4.9       The Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan was approved by the Minister in August 2019.  The plan includes reference to transitional uses that are consistent with the anticipated character of the areas set out in the plan and do not foreclose preferred land uses. 

Proposed process to achieve the Global Settlement requirements

4.10    An initial workshop was held with the Coastal-Burwood and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards on 27 August 2019 to seek their feedback on a process that would address the requirements set out in the Global Settlement.  Feedback included that the Boards wished:

·   the community to have an input into the development of the phase 1 process and would like to see workshops throughout the area.  The Board seeks that these locations are representative of the communities surrounding the red zones.

·   that the membership of the consultative group is arrived at via a fair and transparent process, considers the role of community boards and enables representation from across the geographic spread of red zones.

4.11    Staff have taken on board these comments, recognised the need for expediency in establishing the group and consequently recommend an engagement process whereby a draft Terms of Reference is presented to the community for discussion and feedback.  These engagement sessions will also be an opportunity to raise awareness of the membership and nomination process. 

4.12    This report and attachments include the proposed Guiding Principles (Attachment 2), Terms of Reference (Attachment 3), Grant Funding Terms of Reference and Criteria (Attachment 4) and proposed group membership (paragraph 4.13).  Staff are seeking Council endorsement of the process; noting the final approval by the Crown, LINZ and Council will occur once all establishment steps are completed in early 2020.  The process to seek nominations and confirm the establishment of the consultative group is set out in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Proposed process for the RZ Transitional Land Use Consultative Group


 

Membership

4.13    To enable good representation from the communities of interest (including citywide) membership is proposed as follows:

Number

Title

Details

1

Independent Chair.

Appointed by Council, in consultation with Ngāi Tahu and LINZ.

1

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representative.

As democratically elected by the local community.

1

Coastal Burwood Community Board representative.

As democratically elected by the local community.

Banks Peninsula Community Board representative.

As democratically elected by the local community.

2

Ngāi Tahu appointees – Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngati Wheke (as required).

Appointed by Ngāi Tahu.

5

Community members and members of representative groups. Of the five representatives, three must represent the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and one of the five must be a youth representative (aged under 30)

Community members with demonstrated ability to hold a good strategic oversight and understanding of existing plans, strategies and processes relating to resolution of earthquake legacy issues, regeneration planning for the red zones,  and adaptation to natural hazard risk.

 

4.14    An independent chair is recommend to lead the group.  This role will foster the governance approach for the group, provide an independent voice as spokesperson and lead a collaborative, consensus-driven consultative group.  It is proposed that this role is appointed in December by the Council, in consultation with the Crown, to enable prospective members to understand who they may be working with.  The independent chair would be expected to have a strong understanding of the existing networks, community groups, and community expectations for the residential red zone/s.   

4.15    Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is recognised as a treaty partner and will be represented on the consultative group and any longer term governance group which is established.  Staff are working with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on their appointment process; Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke have mana whenua over the red zone land within Christchurch.

4.16    Note that an early task for the independent chair will be to work with mana whenua to confer a name for the group.

4.17    Note that a review of the structure of the co-governance group will occur in the second year of operation to identify whether more bespoke community models are a more effective approach.


 

Funding

4.18    In the 2019/2020 Annual Plan the Council approved a fund of $350,000 for each of the following two years for activation projects within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  This funding will need to be applied to support any governance arrangements, Council officer support required and a community contestable grant fund.

4.19    This report recommends that the annual plan funding is applied across all red zones.  To date the majority of transitional land use applications have been for uses in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  Some applications have been received for the Port Hills and none for Southshore/South New Brighton or Brooklands.  It is expected that most applications will continue to be for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

4.20    In order to effectively establish the group, the annual plan funding will need to: support the community advisory group; fund secretariat support, fund administration, technical advice to assess the transitional land use and funding requests; and provide contestable grant funding for activation projects.

It is proposed that the $350,000 funding be allocated as follows:

Table 1: Transitional Land Use funding options

 

Proposed Funding Year 1

Proposed Funding Year 2

Governance and ancillary support for meetings (breakdown as follows)

Up to 28,000

Up to 28,000

Independent chair

8,000

8,000

Koha

11,000

11,000

Catering

1,700

1,700

Child care

2,500

2,500

Misc costs

4,800

4,800

Technical and professional support / advice

Up to 90,000

Up to 90,000

Community grant funding

232,000

232,000

Total

350,000

350,000

Budget available

350,000

350,000

 

Grant funding decision-making and delegations

4.21    The options for grant funding decision-making and delegations are set out in Table 2.

4.22    The preferred option is for the Christchurch Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group to be delegated authority to make individual funding decisions up to and including $20,000 (from a proposed total of $232,000).  For any applications received above that amount, it is recommended that the relevant Council Committee is delegated decision-making authority for this fund.

 


 

Table 2: Options for grant funding decision-making and delegations

Option Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Delegate decision making for allocating grant funding of up to and including $20,000 to the Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group (preferred option)

 

The group would be a sub-committee of the relevant standing Committee of Council, with appropriate delegated decision-making.  Best practice is that a member of the Council Committee is a member of the consultative group.  Would be subject to LGOIMA

·    Provides for partial community involvement in funding decision-making.

·    Supports the Council’s aspiration for community involvement in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

·    Assists deliver of the Strategic Priority ‘Enabling Active Citizenship and Connected Communities’.

·    More likely to enable rapid decision-making on funding applications up to and including $20,000.

·    Lower risk level.

·    Opportunity to test processes for the Phase 2 Co-Governance process.

 

·    Small risk that could result in inconsistent funding and land use decisions if not carefully managed.

·    Additional Council staff time required to review and make recommendations on applications.

·    Additional Councillor time to make funding decisions.

·    Funding decisions for applications over $20,000 could be perceived as delayed.

·    Could be perceived as setting a precedent outside of Council processes to delegate grant funding decisions to a community group (up to $20,000).

·    Some reputational risk for Council if controversial funding decisions are made.

Delegate decision making for allocating all grant funding to the Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group

 

The group would be a sub-committee of the relevant standing Committee of Council, with appropriate delegated decision-making.  Best practice is that a member of the Council Committee is a member of the consultative group. Would be subject to LGOIMA.

·    Proactively supports community involvement in funding decision-making.

·    Supports the Council’s aspiration for community involvement in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

·    Assists delivery of the Strategic Priority ‘Enabling Active Citizenship and Connected Communities’.

·    More likely to enable rapid funding decision-making.

·    No additional Councillor time to make funding decisions.

·    Opportunity to test processes for the Phase 2 Co-Governance.

·    Small risk that could result in inconsistent funding and land use decisions if not carefully managed.

·    Could be perceived as setting a precedent outside of Council processes to delegate grant funding decisions to a community group

·    Risk of precedent setting for the Phase Co-Governance group.

·    Reputational risk for Council if controversial funding decisions are made.

Council (or the relevant Standing Committee) retains decision making for allocating all grant funding to the Red Zones Transitional Land Use.  Council or Committee receives recommendations from the Red Zones Transitional Land Use Consultative Group.

 

The group would be a working group reporting to Council or the relevant Standing Committee.  Would not be subject to LGOIMA.

·    Provides for partial community involvement in funding recommendations only (not decision-making).

·    Risk and public perception of decisions is retained by Council, who in this option are the decision maker.

 

·    Does not set any precedent for Council delegation of funding decision-making.

·    May be seen to create an additional decision-making layer.

·    Gives no decision making power to this group.

·    Additional Councillor time to make funding decisions

·    May delay timing of funding decisions for applications.

·    Does not trial any process which may provide insight for Phase 2 Co-Governance.

 

Community Group Funding Proposal

4.23    Council staff have been working closely with a number of community groups in the development of this proposal / paper, including many that are currently active in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  

4.24    As part of the development of this paper Council staff have received a funding proposal from the Avon-Ōtākaro Network (on behalf of a number of different community groups). This funding is to support facilitation of six overarching programmes (with multiple projects within) for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor which are ready to go, will result in immediate activation, and are aligned with proposed land uses under the Regeneration Plan.  Delivered by a variety of different community groups, these programmes will support;

·   Schools and nature play initiatives (delivered by Avon-Ōtākaro Network)

·   Community natural restoration Initiatives (delivered by Avon-Ōtākaro Forest Park Inc)

·   Community food Initiatives  (delivered by Food Resilience Network Inc)

·   Community corridor initiatives  (delivered by Avebury House Community Trust)

·   Tiny House initiatives (Riverlution Tiny House Village Inc)

·   Community activation initiatives (delivered by Avon-Ōtākaro Network)

4.25    The total funding sought from Council for facilitation of these six programmes is $182,120 (for a 12 month period). Funding has already been secured alongside the Council funding sought.  Council can make decisions to approve funding for this proposal (but under the Global Settlement Agreement it cannot make land use decisions until land ownership is transferred).

4.26    The Avon-Ōtākaro Network, and each of the partner organisations / trusts detailed above, are already well known to Council and have been active across the central and eastern part of the city for a number of years.  They have a good track record of deliver and therefore allocation of funding represents a low risk, but with potential for significant and meaningful activation – as is the intention of the Council funding.    

4.27    However, given the level of detail currently available, it is recommended that if Council approves this funding that it would be subject to further information being provided and the Chief Executive or their delegate, being satisfied that any risks are managed.  It is likely that any approved funding would also be subject to standard conditions for similar grants.

4.28    The above proposals is not deemed to fall within the Council’s Unsolicited Proposals Policy, because the Council organisation has already agreed there is a need for transitional land use activation in the Christchurch Red Zones and Council has established a fund to support such activity (in the 2019 Annual Plan).

Options Analysis

4.29    The advantages of accepting the facilitation of some or all of the projects in the proposal is that the Avon-Ōtākaro Network is an established group working within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.  The proposal includes projects which can contribute to the transitional land uses in this part of the city in the current financial year.

4.30    The disadvantages of accepting this facilitation proposal is that a decision made to fund the Avon-Ōtākaro Network and the other partner organisations now, is in advance of the consultative group being established.  This could be seen as pre-empting the consultative group and risking its success.   Providing this funding now may also unintentionally create tensions or pressure within the community, although, this is expected to be mitigated once the community consultative group is established. 

4.31    If Council does wish to fund this facilitation proposal, the preferred option would be to fund from the Red Zones Transitional Use Fund (refer para 4.20).  The total of $182k could be split across the current and next financial year ($91k each year) and thus the remaining community grant funding available for allocation for this and next financial year would be $141k each year (rather than $232k, assuming full allocation of other costs such as governance support)[2].  This is possible because there is a delay in establishing the consultative group.  Any funding approved would need to include conditions relating to reporting and monitoring requirements which officials can develop with the Network. 

4.32    Alternatively Council could request that the proposal from the Avon-Ōtākaro Network follows the standard application process and is considered by the Consultative Group for funding or recommending to Council Committee.  The disadvantage of this options is most obviously that it would delay the activations and implementation of these projects.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.33    This proposed option in this report aligns with the following:

4.34    Community Outcomes:

·    Strong communities

Strong sense of community

Active participation in civic life

·    Liveable City

21st century garden city we are proud to live in

·    Healthy environment

Unique landscapes and indigenous biodiversity are valued

4.35    Strategic Priorities:

·    Enabling active citizenship and connected communities;

·    Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st century city

4.36    Key Plans and Strategies:

·    Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan;

·    Ōtākaro Avon River Regeneration Plan.

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

4.37.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.20.4 Place-based policy and planning advice to support integrated urban regeneration and planning. - Allocate grant funds as per operational policy and terms of reference.

·     Level of Service 4.1.18 Participate in democratic processes – satisfaction with opportunity to have a say in what Council does

·     Level of Service 4.1.27.2 Community Development projects are provided, supported and enabled

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Wahaktau

4.38    As this report responds directly to a Council resolution and does not relate to a matter captured in delegations to any committee, the Council is the decision-making authority.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.39    The only decision made to date is for this report to come to Council.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.41    The level of significance was determined by the fact that this this report relates to the implementation of decisions Council has already made (with requisite engagement and consultation). 

Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

4.43    There are no legal implications relating to the decisions in this report.  As noted in 4.40, Council has already approved the Global Settlement Agreement and funding for transitional land use.

 

5.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

5.1       Should the Council approve the recommendations in this report, the next steps are set out in Figure 1 under para 4.12.


Council

31 October 2019

 

6.   Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Delegate funding decision-making up to $20,000

Option 2 – Delegate all funding decision-making

Option 3 – Do not delegate decision-making; remains with Council/Committee

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

2018/19 Annual Plan  OPEX provided

2018/19 Annual Plan funding decision

2018/19 Annual Plan funding decision

Maintenance/Ongoing

Report notes that annual plan opex funding will need to provide for staff resource to support the fund and the consultative group.  Note: Global Settlement Agreement sets out that CCC will provide this support.

Report notes that annual plan opex funding will need to provide for staff resource to support the fund and the consultative group.  Note: Global Settlement Agreement sets out that CCC will provide this support.

Report notes that annual plan opex funding will need to provide for staff resource to support the fund and the consultative group.  Note: Global Settlement Agreement sets out that CCC will provide this support.

Funding Source

2018/19 Annual Plan OPEX funding provided – resolution 7.3.b.i

2018/19 Annual Plan OPEX funding provided - resolution 7.3.b.i

2018/19 Annual Plan OPEX funding provided - resolution 7.3.b.i

Impact on Rates

neutral

neutral

neutral

Governance Implications

Council or Committee only making funding decisions above $20,000.

Council or Committee making no funding decisions.

 

Council or Committee making all funding decisions.

 

Climate Change Impacts

Projects are expected be sustainable.

Projects are expected be sustainable.

Projects are expected be sustainable.

Accessibility Impacts)

Decisions on this report won’t impact on accessibility

Decisions on this report won’t impact on accessibility

Decisions on this report won’t impact on accessibility

Health & Safety Impacts

LINZ responsibility in relation to transitional land use. H&S plans requested where necessary.

LINZ responsibility in relation to transitional land use. H&S plans requested where necessary.

LINZ responsibility in relation to transitional land use. H&S plans requested where necessary.

Future Generation Impacts

Included in Regeneration Plan and Terms of Reference.  Youth representative is a member of consultative group.

Included in Regeneration Plan and Terms of Reference.  Youth representative is a member of consultative group.

Included in Regeneration Plan and Terms of Reference.  Youth representative is a member of consultative group.

Impact on Mana Whenua

Global Settlement Agreement - Mana Whenua are members of consultative group

Global Settlement  - Mana Whenua are members of consultative group

Global Settlement  - Mana Whenua are members of consultative group

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Consistent with Global Settlement Agreement and Otākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan

Consistent with Global Settlement Agreement and Otākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan

Consistent with Global Settlement Agreement and Otākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan

 

 

 

 

·  


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Global Settlement section 19: Transition Planning for Governance Arrangements for Residential Red Zone.

250

b

Red Zones Transitional Consultative Group Guiding Principles

252

c

Christchurch Red Zone Transitional Land Use Governance Consultative Group Terms of Reference

253

d

Grant Funding Terms of Reference and Criteria

259

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

12.   Water Supply Security Update

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1049580

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Helen Beaumont – Head of 3 Waters & Waste

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       To update the Council on the progress of the updated Water Safety Plan and water supply security improvements.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       The current Christchurch City and Lyttelton Harbour Basin Water Safety Plan was approved by the Drinking Water Assessor for the Community and Public Health division of the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) in March 2018. The Council must comply with this Water Safety Plan until a new Plan is approved.

2.2       A revised Christchurch City and Lyttelton Harbour Basin Water Safety Plan has been prepared in accordance with the new Ministry of Health guidelines for water safety plans issued in May 2019. This Plan was submitted to the Drinking Water Assessor for approval on 30 September 2019 with a further update on 4 October 2019. The Council has also submitted revised Water Safety Plans for five Banks Peninsula water supplies in accordance with the new guidelines.

2.3       Sufficient progress has been made on well head improvement works to supply 100 per cent of the city with water from wells that have been certified as secure by an independent expert, or receive UV treatment – the wells at Main Pumps. One unsecure well at Grassmere pump station will come back into service for some weeks over summer while we drill a new well.

2.4       Water restrictions are proposed over summer in the Central zone, to allow the drilling of the new well at Grassmere and repairs to the Hackthorne reservoir.

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Notes the report and advice from staff contained within it

2.         Authorise the General Manager City Services to introduce water restrictions over the summer period to facilitate ongoing works on the water supply network.

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       The outbreak of gastroenteritis in Havelock North in August 2016, and the subsequent Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry reports, has resulted in a much lower tolerance for risk across water suppliers, expert assessors and the regulatory agencies. The Government has recently announced proposals for strengthening the regulatory arrangements for drinking water. These arrangements will significantly strengthen compliance, monitoring and enforcement of drinking water standards and regulations.

Timeline of water supply changes

4.2       In December 2017 the expert assessment of well heads for the Christchurch supply concluded that they did not meet the drinking water standards and the Drinking Water Assessor advised Council that the status of the supply would be changed from ‘provisionally secure’ to ‘unsecure’. As a result the Council made the decision (January 2018) to temporarily chlorinate the supply until the well heads could be upgraded – the initial dose was 1 milligram of chlorine per litre of water (mg/L). Over time the dose was reduced to 0.5mg/L (with a longer contact time before the first customer connection) and removed.

4.3       The Drinking Water Assessor for the Community and Public Health division of the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) approved the Christchurch City and Lyttelton Harbour Basin Water Safety Plan in March 2018. This confirmed the management process for a safe and secure supply of drinking-water in Christchurch, Lyttelton, Governors Bay and Diamond Harbour.

4.4       In June 2019 a Council report outlined the opportunity for a comprehensive improvement programme for water supply to be developed for the next Long Term Plan. Two proposals – backflow prevention and network monitoring technology – were funded through the 2019/20 Annual Plan. This report raised questions for the Drinking Water Assessor and the Medical Officer of Health who wrote to Council and advised of their preference for residual disinfection across the network until their questions and concerns were addressed.

4.5       The Council reached agreement with the Medical Officer of Health that concerns would be addressed by revising the Water Safety Plan in accordance with the new framework and guidelines published by the Ministry of Health.

4.6       In July 2019 the Drinking Water Assessor was instructed by the Ministry of Health not to approve any more well head security reports. Therefore, in accordance with our current Water Safety Plan, where well heads have been signed off as secure by the expert and approved by the Drinking Water Assessor there is no chlorine at the pump station; where signed off by the expert but not by the Drinking Water Assessor, a chlorine dose of 0.2 mg/L is being maintained; where unsecure wells need to be used to meet peak and/or unusual demand, these are dosed at 0.5 mg/L.

Water Safety Plan Progress

4.7       The revised Christchurch and Lyttelton Basin Water Safety Plan was submitted to the Drinking Water Assessor for approval (as required by the Health Act) on 30 September 2019, with a further update to include the risks around reservoirs and backflow prevention on 4 October 2019.

4.8       The revised Water Safety Plan was developed with input from staff from Council, Citycare, CDHB and the Ministry of Health. It describes the Council’s drinking water supply system from source through to consumer, identifies potential hazardous events and outlines the preventative measures put in place and the barriers to contamination.  The Plan outlines an improvement plan to address the risks identified and the monitoring undertaken to verify compliance with the drinking water standards. 

4.9       The Water Safety Plan maintains the approach of using chlorine as a temporary, targeted and response based preventative measure – that is in response to incidents, during repairs or when required to address an issue until remedial actions are completed.

4.10    The Water Safety Plan is being assessed by a panel of four Drinking Water Assessors, from Wai Comply and the Canterbury District Health Board, with input from a group of up to five technical experts. The group of technical experts has not yet been confirmed but Wai Comply will provide the information when it becomes available.

4.11    The assessment and feedback on the Water Safety Plan will be provided through a series of workshops. Proposed workshop dates and associated site visits are:

·      7-8 November 2019

·      21-22 November 2019

·      2-3 December 2019

4.12    It is anticipated that the Drinking Water Assessor will deliver the Water Safety Plan Adequacy Report to the Council by the end of December 2019. While the Council is waiting for the revised Water Safety Plan to be reviewed, work on addressing the identified risks and the well head remediation programme will continue.

4.13    It is always possible that the Drinking Water Assessor comes to a different conclusion on acceptability of risks and associated prevention measures than that of the Council’s experts and that they or the Medical Officer of Health require ongoing residual chlorine. The Health Act provides that the Director-General of Health could require the Medical Officer of Health to serve a compliance order on the Council requiring the Council to take an action (such as residual chlorination) if they believe that this is necessary to protect public health.

4.14    Revised Water Safety Plans have also been submitted for five Banks Peninsula water supplies (Akaroa/Takamatua, Duvuachelle, Little River, Wainui and Pigeon Bay). The Drinking Water Assessor has provided comments on these plans, and work is underway to respond to these comments.

5.   About our water supply

5.1       Christchurch city is fortunate to be located above the Christchurch West-Melton aquifer system which contains very high quality water (see Figure 1 for a simplified schematic). About three quarters of the aquifer system is recharged by seepage from the Waimakariri River and the remainder by infiltrating rainfall on the plains to the west and north of the city. Groundwater modelling in 2018 found that an area north of the Waimakariri River could also contribute to Christchurch’s aquifers.

5.2       Water for the public supply is pumped from confined aquifers to the city’s residential and commercial water users via 148 wells at 50 primary pump station sites into 1,648 km of water mains and 1,600 km of submains throughout the city and to Lyttelton, Governors Bay and Lyttelton. There are 68 reservoirs on the Port Hills which provide pressure and storage, and 23 suction tanks at pump stations which provide some storage. Figure 2 provides a schematic overview of Christchurch’s water supply.

Figure 1: Schematic of the Christchurch-West Melton Groundwater System

 

Figure 2: Schematic of Christchurch’s Water Supply System

6.   Compliance with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand

6.1       The approach the Council takes to comply with the Drinking Water Standards for Christchurch is to achieve secure bore water status, which means that the water does not need to be treated. There are three criteria that must be met to achieve secure bore water status:

1.    The groundwater must not be affected by surface or climatic influences, as demonstrated by water younger than a year old not being detectable in the aquifer

2.    The well head must be judged to provide satisfactory protection by an expert, so that contaminated water cannot enter the water supply via the well head

3.    E. coli must be absent from the groundwater.

6.2       Age dating of groundwater samples and groundwater modelling are underway to demonstrate compliance with Criterion 1.

6.3       The well head security improvement programme that the Council has implemented over the past 18 months means that almost all wells supplying the city now comply with Criterion 2, or the water receives UV treatment. If a pump station is fed by any wells that don’t meet Criterion 2 (at times of high demand or in response to incidents) then the water is dosed with chlorine at 0.5 mg/L.

6.4       The Council continues to be compliant with Criterion 3, with no E. coli detected in any operational wells for the past five years.

7.   Our risk management approach

7.1       The Council has provided untreated water from confined aquifers safely and securely for many years and is committed to maintaining constant vigilance over its supply of drinking water.

7.2       This relies on managing the risk of contamination and incorporates continuous improvement of the Council’s water supply network – including the wells, pump stations, mains and sub‑mains, reservoirs and associated equipment – and management systems.

7.3       The Council currently has a number of preventative measures to manage the risks identified in the distribution network in accordance with the current and revised Water Safety Plans. These include:

·   Installing and maintaining high quality infrastructure

·   Ensuring network water pressure is maintained within safe operating limits

·   Network controllers on duty 24 hours a day / 7 days a week to manage operations and respond to incidents

·   Strict hygiene procedures for any work on the network and an approved installer programme

·   Backflow prevention programme

·   Using chlorine when necessary to protect public health.

7.4       On the advice of Dr Humphrey, Medical Officer of Health (Canterbury), the Council resolved on 25 January 2018 to temporarily disinfect its water supply in the Christchurch city urban zone by adding chlorine for a period of up to 12 months.

7.5       Chlorine was initially introduced to each pump station as a temporary measure, in response to the wellhead security concerns, at a level of 1.0 milligram per litre (mg/L) after a one minute contact time, on the advice of an independent expert.  Upon review a dosing level of 0.5 mg/L was agreed where the first consumer was in excess of 2 minutes away from the point of chlorination.

7.6       Since then Council staff have varied the dosage according to the progress of the wellhead remediation works and an assessment of risk at each pump station. The regime today is as follows:

·   Water extracted through wellheads certified as secure by an independent expert and approved by  the Drinking Water Assessor is chlorine-free

·   Water extracted through wellheads certified as secure by an independent expert but not yet approved by the Drinking Water Assessor (in the audit phase) is dosed at 0.2 mg/L

·   Water extracted through wellheads that are not certified as secure is dosed at 0.5 mg/L

·   Water extracted through wellheads at the Main Pumps pump station is being dosed at 0.2 mg/L.    

7.7       To date 106 of the Council’s wellheads at 148 operating water supply bores have been remediated, with work in progress on 25. Three are currently at the design stage and 13 will be abandoned.  Sufficient progress has been made to supply the whole of the city with water from wells that have been upgraded and certified as secure by an independent expert, or receive UV treatment in the case of the wells at Main Pumps.

7.8       As at 31 October 2019 approximately 30 per cent of the water delivered to the network has no chlorine treatment and 70 per cent is dosed at 0.2 mg/L. Enough additional wells will have been made by secure by summer that we can continue to supply enough water to the city using only secure wells, apart from at the Grassmere pump station.

7.9       Over summer we will be drilling a new deep well at Grassmere to replace a shallow well. We will need to continue using this shallow well in the meantime and because it hasn’t been upgraded, we will be dosing this pump station at 0.5 mg/L. Grassmere supplies about 3% of the city’s water. We will also be completing repairs to the Hackthorne reservoir over summer.

7.10    To support this repair and drilling the new well at Grassmere, we propose implementing water restrictions over summer in the Central zone. Otherwise, we would need to bring further unsecure wells back into service and dose these with chlorine at 0.5 mg/L.                                   

7.11    The network controllers will only have to use wells that are not yet secure if there is a significant additional demand for water (due to an event such as a major fire or a mains break) or if there is an infrastructure failure or power outage affecting our pump stations. Remediation work will continue on a small number of wells over the summer period and deeper wells drilled to replace shallow wells over the next two years.

8.   Our broader water supply improvement programme

8.1       The well-deepening programme for the Northwest supply zone is nearly complete with the last two wells drilled at Wrights Road to be commissioned in November this year. This programme was already underway before the results of the Havelock North Inquiry were known.

8.2       Work is underway on reservoirs and suction tanks to make sure that in every case there are hatch alarms, adequate mesh on overflows and vents and that the roof is in adequate condition to prevent contamination. A comprehensive condition assessment of all reservoirs and suction tanks will be undertaken and this will inform the next Long Term Plan.

8.3       Commercial and industrial properties are being checked to make sure they have adequate backflow prevention, to prevent potentially contaminated water flowing back into the water supply network. A comprehensive register of backflow prevention devices is planned.

8.4       Planning has started for reconfiguring eight supply zones into 14 more evenly sized zones and lowering the pressures in the east and central parts of the city (to bring them in line with other zones).  A larger number of evenly sized zones with consistent operating pressures will deliver a number of benefits:

·   Optimal pressure management

·   Reduced pipe burst frequency

·   Reduced water leakage

·   Reduced pressure transients and improved stability of supply

·   Faster recovery from natural disasters.

8.5       Further improvements planned include:

·   The accelerated renewal of pipes and improved security at pump stations

·   The development of a ‘smart network’ that will improve real time monitoring of the water supply to give better operational control.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sarah Hemmingsen - Senior Advisor

Peter Doolin - Director Strategic Support City Services

Bridget O'Brien - Programme Manager

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters & Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

13.   Draft submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1139699

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mark Stevenson – Team Leader – City Planning
Peter Eman – Principal Advisor, City Planning
Brent Pizzey - Associate General Counsel

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the changes proposed in the Resource Management Amendment Bill, including their implications for Council, and to seek approval of the draft submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill that Parliament is currently inviting submissions on.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       The Government are currently consulting on the Resource Management Amendment Bill, one of two stages to their review of the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Amendment Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Resource Management Act that seek to ‘reduce complexity, increase certainty, reinstate public participation and improve freshwater management and outcomes’.

2.2       It is recommended that Council make a submission, expressing support for a number of provisions in the Resource Management Amendment Bill while not supporting others. Matters to draw to Council’s attention and/or that are not supported in the draft submission include:

2.2.1   A proposed exemption from financial contributions for the Ministers of Education and Defence in the context of a Notice of Requirement;

2.2.2   New enforcements powers to the Environmental Protection Authority, enabling the EPA to assist Council (with agreement) or intervene in matters that the Council is investigating;

2.2.3   A new freshwater planning process to implement the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, including establishment of a Hearings Panel appointed in part by the Minister for the Environment, greater discretion to the Regional Council in their decision-making, and reduced appeal rights; and

2.2.4   Provisions in the Bill continuing to preclude appeals on boundary activities i.e. a directed affected person is unable to challenge a decision on a resource consent through the courts. 

2.3       The draft submission will be circulated under separate cover.


 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approves the draft submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill for lodgement to the Select Committee subject to: (1) Any directions provided by Council to staff on any changes to the draft submission; and (2) The Mayor and General Manager Strategy and Transformation incorporate any changes to the submission resulting from those directions.

2.         Requests staff to present the submission to the Select Committee and to provide the Select Committee with any additional technical comments that support the Council’s submission.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       The Government are currently inviting submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. This is stage 1 of a two-stage review of the Resource Management Act, which is aimed at improving the resource management system. The Government has expressed that it wants the RMA to “Support a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy” (and) “Be easier for New Zealanders to understand and engage with”.

4.2       There is a history of amendments to the RMA, with the most recent amendment being passed in 2017. A number of the changes introduced by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 are proposed to be repealed under the Resource Management Amendment Bill, which is summarised below.

4.3       The Council has an opportunity to submit its views by making a submission.

4.4       The details of the Bill can be found at: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_91358/resource-management-amendment-bill

4.5       Written submissions can be made on the Bill until the 7th November 2019.

Summary of the Resource Management Amendment Bill, implications and draft position

4.6       The purpose of the Resource Management Amendment Bill is to “reduce complexity, increase certainty and reinstate public participation opportunities”. A number of the changes under this theme are summarised below, including the implications for Council and a summary of the position proposed and/or where direction from Council is sought to inform the draft submission.

Reducing powers of the Minister for Environment to overturn rules in a District Plan

4.6.1   The Bill repeals existing provisions of the Act that enable regulations to prohibit or remove specified rules or types of rules in the District Plan that duplicate, overlap or deal with the same subject matter under other legislation. As an example, rules in the previous City Plan that prescribed limits on hazardous substances were identified through the District Plan Review as duplicating requirements under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The draft submission does not currently express a position on this aspect and any views of Council can be included.

Enabling submissions and appeals, where appropriate, for applications for subdivision and residential activity, and removing the ability to prevent notification of other types of applications.

4.6.2   The amendments repeal some sections of the Act, which currently preclude public or limited notification of certain activities as specified, including subdivision and residential activity, defined as the construction, alteration or use of 1 or more dwellings.

4.6.3   The Bill also repeals those parts of the Act, which currently preclude appeals on subdivision and/or residential activity. This enables appeals to be made against Council’s decisions where an applicant for a resource consent or submitter wishes to challenge the decision.

4.6.4   The draft submission expresses support for the amendments described above on the basis that the current provisions preclude and may result in directly affected persons not being notified of an application that could affect them, or the inability to appeal a decision.

4.6.5   The Bill does, however, still preclude public notification where an activity is controlled (Resource consent must be granted subject to conditions) or a boundary activity e.g. non-compliance with a setback. In respect of the latter i.e. a ‘boundary activity’, it can still be limited notified to those deemed to be affected e.g. neighbours. The Council’s views on this particular matter are sought to inform the draft submission.

4.6.6   The Bill maintains the current provisions that preclude appeal rights on a decision relating to a boundary activity. Subject to Council’s views, a further change sought in the submission is to provide for rights of appeal on boundary activities, enabling a process for directly affected persons to challenge a decision where they are not satisfied with the outcome. This is likely to lead to increased costs for an applicant but there are anticipated to be a small number of applications where this arises.

4.6.7   Provisions that remove the ability for the Minister to make Regulations that enable ‘prescribed activities’ to be precluded from limited notification are supported in the draft submission, having regard to the importance of determining affected persons through a public process.

Repeal of the ability to fast-track some types of activities, or prescribe information requirements for such applications.

4.6.8   The Bill repeals existing provisions of the Act that enable regulations to be prepared that identify activities or methods to identify activities that should be subject to a fast-track application process. It also repeals provisions that enable regulations that identify where activities are precluded from public or limited notification.

4.6.9   The proposals are supported as any decision on the types of activities or methods for determining this for a fast-track process should be made in a carefully considered manner with an opportunity for Council’s input. The risk is that applications are assumed to be appropriate for a fast-track process and for which there are issues arising or that require more time to process e.g. where technical input is required. On this basis, the draft submission supports the Bill.

Reversing subdivision presumption

4.6.10 The Bill changes a presumption that subdivision is permitted unless otherwise stated in a District Plan to requiring resource consent unless permitted by a District Plan. The District Plan currently requires resource consent for all subdivision so the change proposed is not material. The draft submission does not currently express a position on this aspect and any views of Council can be included.


 

Reinstating the use of financial contributions

4.6.11 It was proposed under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 that Councils could not impose resource consent conditions that require financial contributions from 2022 onwards under the Act. Reinstating the ability of Councils to impose those consent conditions requiring financial contributions, if this is provided for in the District Plan, enables Councils to obtain contributions to offset the effects of an activity or development authorised by resource consent. They can be used in addition to or in place of Development Contributions although development and financial contributions cannot be charged for the purpose of funding the same infrastructure.

4.6.12 The Council does not currently have rules in its District Plan enabling financial contributions to be charged but it could be provided for at a future date if the changes in the Bill are adopted. Further assessment is required of the benefits and costs but having the option to assess that in a change to the District Plan to enable financial contributions is supported in the draft submission.

Exemptions from financial contributions for the Ministers of Education and Defence

4.6.13 The Bill proposes an exemption from financial contributions for Notices of Requirements lodged by the Minister of Education or Minister of Defence for the designation of land for a specified purpose e.g. school. The consequence is that the adverse effects arising from an activity could not be offset by a financial contribution to Council, e.g. traffic effects could not be mitigated by contributions towards roading improvements, and other methods would be required to mitigate effects.

4.6.14 Staff have concerns with the exemption, having regard to the potential adverse effects arising that cannot be off-set by other methods and for which financial contributions would otherwise be recommended. There is also insufficient justification for the proposal. On this basis, the Bill is not supported as expressed in the draft submission.

Improving resource management processes and enforcement provisions

Enabling applicants to have the processing of their application put on hold.

4.6.15 The Bill proposes to enable an applicant for a resource consent, where deemed to be non-notified, to request their application to be put on hold for up to 20 working days. This can be of benefit to Council and the applicant, for example, the applicant may wish to amend their application in response to issues raised.

4.6.16 The timeframe that the application can be suspended for is however short and the submission seeks a longer period of 40 working days for an application to be suspended for, having regard to practice.

Enabling Council to not process an application until the deposit is paid.

4.6.17 The bill proposes to make it explicit that an application for resource consent need not be processed until a deposit is paid. This is supported in the draft submission, recognising that the costs of consent processing are charged to the applicant.

Extending the timeframe for a retrospective application to be made for resource consent for emergency works.

4.6.18 Under the Act, an activity e.g. earthworks can be carried out to remove the cause of or mitigate any adverse effect of an emergency in the event of a state of emergency. Where the effects continue, the retrospective resource consent application must be lodged within 20 working days of the Council being notified. The Bill proposes that this is extended to 60 working days, enabling a longer period for preparation of the application. The draft submission supports this having regard to the time required for technical assessment to support an application and the focus being on recovery immediately following an emergency . 

4.6.19 There is however, no similar extension of time proposed in the Bill for a retrospective resource consent application for other circumstances where emergency works are required as prescribed under section 330 of the Act. The draft submission could therefore seek that the extension of time be applied more broadly.

Enabling the Regional Council to review conditions of multiple resource consents

4.6.20 The Bill enables Environment Canterbury to review multiple resource consents concurrently, including land use consents, upon a rule in a Regional Plan becoming operative. The effect of the Bill supports a more integrated approach to review by enabling consideration of multiple resource consents for related discharges together in achieving minimum standards of water quality. On this basis, the draft submission is in support.

4.6.21 The proposed change enables review to be initiated as soon as a rule in a Regional Plan becomes operative unlike at present, which is when the Plan has been made operative. There is potential for ECan to proceed with a review of consents held by the Council multiple times where rules become operative in a staged manner, leading to inefficiencies and uncertainty in the use of those resource consents. It is however a matter that relies on good practice rather than an amendment to the Bill. The submission therefore expresses support for the proposal.

Increasing the maximum infringement fees under the RMA for offences.

4.6.22 At present, the Act enables Regulations to set a maximum of $1,000 to be charged by Council for infringements under the Act and the Bill proposes that this is increased to $2,000 for natural persons, and $4,000 for others e.g. companies, trusts. The draft submission supports an increase in the maximum as a greater deterrent, the current maximum fine under the regulations being $300, which Council staff consider does not have a material effect. However, an increase in the maximum infringement fee that the Act enables Regulations to set does not achieve anything unless the Minister changes the Regulations. The submission recommends that the Regulations be updated.

Enabling a longer period for a person to file charges for offences under the RMA

4.6.23 The Bill enables Council to file charges for offences up to 12 months (rather than 6) after the contravention of the Act became known (or should have been known), enabling sufficient time to investigate the alleged breaches thoroughly. It is supported in the draft submission.

Enabling the Environmental Protection Authority to take enforcement action.

4.6.24 The Bill provides the Environmental Protection Authority[3] with powers to assist and/or intervene in enforcement action that is otherwise carried out by the Council. This may be beneficial in dealing with cross-boundary issues but raises concerns of overlap, duplication and inconsistency in the approach taken between Council and the EPA.


 

4.6.25 The amendments to the Act enable the EPA to

·    assist the Council with enforcement action with its agreement;

·    take enforcement action where the Council has not commenced its own action;

·    intervene in Council’s enforcement action that is underway and not completed;

·    review the Council’s performance in exercising its responsibilities under the Act;

4.6.26 The draft submission supports the first point, having regard to the benefits of additional resources.

4.6.27 The inability for the EPA to intervene where the Council has completed enforcement action in any particular case is also supported. If the EPA was able to intervene in those circumstances, it could lead to uncertainty on the part of a person subject to action. Notwithstanding the above, staff have concerns regarding the limits of the agency’s powers, what it means for Council, and the circumstances of when the EPA may intervene. The draft submission therefore expresses opposition to a number of the provisions proposed in the Bill as described below and which Council’s position is sought on.

·     The power given to the EPA in respect of bullet points 2 – 4 above, particularly the ability for the EPA to intervene in Council’s actions, and to review Council’s actions and the extent to which it is performing its duties under the Resource Management Act. 

·     The Bill requires Council to cease enforcement action where the EPA intervenes, while still enabling Council to continue investigations i.e. without the power to determine the appropriate action. This has resourcing and cost implications for Council while also reducing its powers.

·       The ability for the EPA to intervene could lead to a different response by the EPA than what Council may otherwise determine. This may affect Council in its role as regulatory authority but also as a consent holder. In respect of the latter, Council holds a number of resource consents from ECan. Under the Bill, the EPA could take enforcement action that is not consistent with the position taken to date by ECan, presenting a risk to Council.

Clarification of the steps for preparation of a National Environmental Standard, consistent with a National Policy Statement.

4.6.28 The Government currently has the ability to give direction on nationally significant matters through preparation of National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards.  The Bill proposes to align the procedural steps in preparation of a National Environmental Standard with those currently in place for a National Policy Statement. This is supported in the draft submission.

Changes to decision making in freshwater management

4.7       In addition to the above, the Resource Management Amendment Bill introduces a number of changes to facilitate the implementation of new national direction on Freshwater, namely the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management that Council made a submission on. The proposed amendments introduce a new process for proposed Regional Policy Statements or Regional Plans (or changes to these documents)  for freshwater management purposes, including the following:

4.7.1   A requirement that Regional Councils notify changes to their plans to implement the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management no later than 31st December 2023.

4.7.2   A panel is to hear submissions and provide recommendations to the Regional Council on submissions and related matters unlike the Christchurch District Plan process, whereby the Hearings Panel made the decisions. The Regional Council must make decisions on those recommendations within 20 working days.

4.7.3   Enabling appointment of freshwater hearings commissioners by the Ministry for the Environment.

4.7.4   Requirements for the composition of hearings panels, including 2 freshwater hearings commissioners, 2 accredited local councillors (or commissioners nominated by a Council) and 1 accredited person with an understanding of tikanga Maori and matauranga.

4.7.5   Rights of submitters to appeal to the Environment Court against the merit of a Regional Council decision are limited to circumstances in which the Regional Council rejected a Panel recommendation, followed by the High Court on points of law.

4.7.6   If the Regional Council accepts a Panel recommendation, the submitter’s appeal right is limited to appeal to the High Court on points of law only, and thereafter, the Court of Appeal.

4.8       The proposed freshwater planning process is to replace a collaborative planning process introduced by amendments in 2017, which is repealed under the Resource Management Amendment Bill. The Collaborative Planning Process has not been used to date and the draft submission supports it being removed.

4.9       The new process is supported in general in the draft submission. However, there are a number of matters that may be of concern and to bring to Council’s attention that the submission could express a view on, including the following:

·        The Minister for the Environment is responsible for appointment of 2 of the panel that hear submissions, including the chairperson. The chairperson has a casting vote if the vote is split, therefore holding power in any decision-making on amendments to the Regional Policy Statement or Regional Plans;

·        In any freshwater planning process that Council participates in, rights of appeal on the merit of the Regional Council decision are limited to matters raised in the Council’s submission (where one is made) and only where the Regional Council have rejected the recommendations of the Hearings Panel on the matter subject to the submission.  If the Regional Council accepts a recommendation by the Panel on a matter that the submitter submitted on, the submitter’s appeal right is limited to appeal to the High Court on point of law. The rights of appeal are more limited than a ‘normal’ RMA process in this regard.

·        There is the ability for the Panel to permit any party at the hearing to question and cross-examine another person or party. This is akin to the process for the Christchurch District Plan Review, which contributed to a formal legal process akin to a court setting.

·        The Hearings Panel has the power to decline to hear a submission if submitters required to attend a pre-hearing meeting did not attend “without reasonable excuse”. This could preclude parties from having an opportunity to present evidence.

·        The Panel may make recommendations on changes to a Regional Policy Statement or Regional Plans that are outside the scope of matters raised in written submissions, including matters raised by anyone at the hearings. This could result in changes that there has not been an opportunity to submit on and for which there would not be a right of appeal.

·        ECan in rejecting any of the panel’s recommendations can propose its own alternative approach without re-hearing submissions, subject to it being in the scope of submissions. In the absence of hearing evidence or questioning witnesses, this could be viewed as unreasonable and lacking transparency.

·        Variations to address an error or omission can be sought by the Regional Council by request to the Commissioner. However, it is not clear what the process is if the variation is accepted by the Commissioner including whether it needs to be notified.

 

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.10    A decision is sought from Council on the draft submission to enable it to be lodged with the Select Committee by the 7th November.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

4.11    The decision in this report of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This has regard to the varying effect of the changes proposed and level of impact and interest.

4.12    In a number of respects, the Resource Management Bill facilitates greater participation in decision-making, including removing preclusions on public notification and appeals, a new process for changes to planning documents to address freshwater management, and removal of powers of the Minister for the Environment to prohibit or overturn District Plan rules. However, there are matters that could be of greater significance, including the exemption from financial contributions for the Ministers of Education and Defence and the ability for the Environmental Protection Authority to intervene in enforcement Action.

 

5.   Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

5.1       There has not been the opportunity to engage with the community in preparing this submission. However, anyone can make a submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

6.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.1       There are legal implications of the Resource Management Amendment Bill for Council in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under the Resource Management Act. In some respects, the amendments will not have a material effect on Council’s activities. For example, enabling the processing of resource consent applications to be suspended until charges are paid, which reflects Council’s current practices. However, some of the amendments could impact on Council’s work, an example being the power given to the Environmental Protection Authority to take enforcement action.

6.2       This report and the accompanying draft submission has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

7.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

7.1       There are no risks associated with Council making a submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

8.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

8.1       Submissions will be considered by the Select Committee with an opportunity for Council to present its submission at a hearing. Thereafter, the following steps are proposed:

8.1.1   The Select Committee will prepare a report on the Resource Management Amendment Bill for the House with recommended amendments;

8.1.2   A second reading enables debate and a vote;

8.1.3   A Committee of the whole House considers the Resource Management Amendment Bill in detail and votes on the proposed changes;

8.1.4   A third reading enables final debate and a vote. If successful, the Resource Management Amendment Bill is passed and is then subject to Royal Assent. 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Draft Submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader - City Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Associate General Counsel

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

14.   Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1175060

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Marie Pollisco, Policy Planner
Mark Stevenson, Team Leader City Planning

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the report of Commissioner Sarah Dawson, who was appointed by Council to conduct a hearing on Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area, and to recommend that Council adopt the Commissioner’s recommendation as its decision.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Plan Change 1 (PC1) to the Christchurch District Plan was notified on 20 March 2019. It seeks to amend provisions in the District Plan, included through the Christchurch Replacement District Plan (CRDP) process, that:

2.1.1   Manage low  probability but potentially high impact risks which would arise from the location of sensitive activities, including preschools, in close proximity to the two fuel terminals in Woolston;

2.1.2   Enable the ongoing efficient use of the facilities and prevent reverse sensitivity effects from arising; and

2.1.3   Continue to require other new discretionary or non-complying activities seeking to establish in the area to consider the issue of risk and ensure they meet relevant risk acceptance criteria appropriate to the nature of the proposed activities when applying for resource consent, but without the need to undertake individual Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRA).

2.2       A total of five submissions were received requesting 21 separate decisions, which attracted 38 further submissions from six submitters opposing or supporting the decisions requested in the submissions. Commissioner Sarah Dawson was appointed by Council to conduct a hearing and consider the submissions.

2.3       The Council’s planning recommendation report (also called a s42A report) was provided to all parties on 11 September 2019, which sets out recommendations for amendments to proposed PC1, including those agreed between submitters and the Council. On 27 September 2019, Commissioner Dawson received a Joint Memorandum from counsel for the four submitters, who wished to be heard, stating that they agree with the amended provisions, map, and map legend recommended in the Council’s planning recommendation report. The four submitters consequently withdrew their wish to be heard on all parts of their submissions or further submissions on the basis that the recommendations in the planning recommendations report are adopted.

2.4       After considering the submissions and planning recommendations report, Commissioner Dawson recommends that the Council adopt PC1 as set out in Appendix 1 of her report, being:

2.4.1   The amendments to the District Plan as publicly notified in proposed PC1;

2.4.2   The further amendments recommended in her report to proposed Policy 16.2.1.4 and its Advice Note; and

2.4.3   Accept, Accept-in-part, or reject the submissions and further submissions as set out in Appendix 2 of her report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives the report and recommendations of Commissioner Dawson on Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area.

2.         In accordance with clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, adopt as the decision of the Council the recommendations of Commissioner Dawson that Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area be approved as modified, for the reasons set out in the Commissioner’s report.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       PC1 relates to the Risk Management Areas identified on Planning Map 47A of the Christchurch District Plan and the policies and rules applying to those areas, which include restrictions for sensitive and other activities. The Risk Management Areas surround two bulk fuel storage terminals located in Woolston, which are both identified in the District Plan as ‘Strategic Infrastructure’. The terminal located at 79 Chapmans Road (Woolston Oil Terminal) is owned by Mobil Oil New Zealand and used by Mobil, BP Oil and Z Energy (the Oil Companies). The other site located at 50 Chapmans Road (Liquigas Terminal) is owned by Liquigas Limited (Liquigas).

4.2       While agreeing that risk management areas were appropriate, the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP), who determined the content of the District Plan, was not satisfied that they should be included on a permanent basis. This had regard to the QRA for the Liquigas Terminal being seven years old and prepared prior to the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence; and there not being a QRA prepared for the Woolston Oil Terminal. The IHP thus included an expiry date of 31 March 2019 for the non-complying activity rule for sensitive activities in the risk management area, and an advice note indicating that the extent of the risk management areas may be subject to a future plan change to have effect by that date, and which would need to be based on a QRA.

4.3       Following the IHP decision, both terminal operators completed their new QRAs in 2018. The QRAs confirmed that ongoing intervention through the District Plan is necessary to manage the risks associated with activities locating in close proximity to the bulk fuel terminals.

4.4       Although a plan change was needed before Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 expired on 31 March 2019, the legislative environment at the time did not allow for plan changes. An Order-in-Council  under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act prevented the Council from notifying a plan change under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. Although the Order-in-Council was subsequently revoked on 18 March 2019, there was insufficient time to notify, hear and decide upon a plan change prior to the expiry date of 31 March 2019.

4.5       In accordance with Council Resolution CNCL/2019/00053 dated 14 March 2019, proposed PC1 was publicly notified on 20 March 2019 immediately after the Order-in-Council was revoked and, at the same time, the Council made an application to the Environment Court for part of the proposed plan change to have immediate legal effect so as to avoid a gap in the provisions of the District Plan. The Environment Court issued its decision on 29 March 2019 giving immediate legal effect to proposed Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and the associated changes to Planning Map 47A. That Court decision is just a temporary holding position until the Council makes a decision on the Plan Change. It does not limit the ability of the Council to decide to not make the change, or to vary it, provided that the Council decision follows a reasonable process (further described below)

4.6       The Council received five submissions requesting 21 separate decisions.  These attracted 38 further submissions from six submitters, opposing or supporting the decisions requested in the submissions. The key issues raised were:

4.6.1   Amendments to the extent of the Woolston Risk Management Area overlay – Lyttelton Port Company Limited sought a review of the extent of the overlay as it applies to its City Deport in Woolston.

4.6.2   Addition of requirements for Site Emergency Management Plans for properties in the vicinity of the bulk fuel terminals – Lyttelton Port Company sought a new rule and associated appendices requiring both the Oil Companies and Liquigas to engage an appropriate expert to prepare Site Emergency Management Plans in consultation with affected property owners or occupiers, at the cost of the terminal operators. The Oil Companies, on the other hand, sought that PC1 include a new rule and requirements for neighbouring property owners to prepare and implement Site Emergency Management Plans.

4.6.3   Amendments to Policy 16.2.1.4(b) and its Advice Note – Lyttelton Port Company made several submissions seeking amendments to Policy 16.2.1.4(b) and its Advice Note.

4.7       The hearing was initially scheduled for the 15 July 2019 but Commissioner Dawson rescheduled the hearing to 21 October 2019, following a request from counsel for Liquigas and the Oil Companies, who sought a rescheduled hearing date to allow Council and the submitters to consider the issues above. As a result of the postponement of the hearing, the following outcomes were achieved:

4.7.1   Following peer review of the QRAs and the feedback received, Lyttelton Port Company advised the Council that it no longer wished to pursue that part of its submission relating to the extent of the Woolston Risk Management Area overlay.

4.7.2   Following discussions between Council and the submitters, both the Oil Companies and Lyttelton Port Company advised the Council they no longer wished to proceed with seeking Site Emergency Management Plan provisions in relation to PC1.

4.7.3   Following discussions and agreements between Council and the submitters, further amendments were proposed in the planning recommendations report.

4.8       The Council’s planning recommendations report was provided to all parties on 11 September 2019, which sets out recommendations for amendments to proposed PC1, including those agreed between submitters and the Council.

4.9       On 27 September 2019, Commissioner Dawson received a Joint Memorandum from counsel for the four submitters, who wished to be heard, stating that they agree with the amended provisions, map and map legend recommended in the Council’s planning recommendations Report. The four submitters consequently withdraw their wish to be heard on all parts of their submissions or further submissions on the basis that the recommendations in the section 42A report are adopted.

4.10    Following a determination on 1 October 2019 from Strategy and Transformation General Manager Brendan Anstiss, acting under delegated authority, that a hearing for PC1 is not needed, Commissioner Dawson considered the submissions and the Council’s planning recommendations Report. Attached is the Commissioner’s report and recommendations on PC1.


 

Options available to the Council

4.11    The Council can adopt the Commissioner’s recommendation as its decision but it cannot reject a recommendation outright or substitute its own decision because it has not considered the submissions, unless it goes through one of the following processes.

4.12    The options available to the Council if it is not minded to adopt the Commissioner’s recommendation as its decision are to either:

4.12.1 refer the matter back to the Commissioner with a direction that she reconsider some or all of the issues, and then adopt the Commissioner’s recommendation, or take one of the following options,

4.12.2 Have a hearing of the submissions by the Council, or by another Commissioner or Hearings Panel. Legal advice is that natural justice principles would be infringed if the Council were to make a decision on the plan change that differs from the recommendation given by the Commissioner unless it gave submitters the right to be heard when it reconsiders the proposed plan change.

4.12.3 withdraw the plan change, as it was initiated by the Council itself.

4.13    If the Council wishes to refer the matter back to the Commissioner or to someone else to reconsider, it must have good reasons for doing so – for example, has the commissioner overlooked an important issue, or has she failed to apply a correct test. We consider that those reasons are not present in this case. The likelihood of a different outcome, and the costs involved, are matters that should also be weighed in the consideration.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.14    This report supports the following activity in Council’s Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 – Service Plan for Strategic Planning and Policy:

4.14.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

4.15    The target under this Level of Service is to “Maintain operative District Plan”, which this plan change supports by amending the provisions.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.16    The Council has the responsibility to adopt or approve the recommendations of the commissioner.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.17    The Council approved public notification of Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area on 14 March 2019 (CNCL/2019/00053).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.19    The level of significance reflects the limited number of properties affected within the proposed Woolston Risk Management Area. Any disruption however to the petroleum and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) supply chains would have a major impact on the availability of fuel supplies across the city and beyond, and therefore on people’s ability to meet their social and economic needs. The level of impact on those people affected is expected to be of low probability but potentially high impact.

 

5.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

5.1       The Resource Management Act 1991 sets out a process for considering changes to district plans. This process has been followed so there is no particular legal risk associated with adopting the recommendations. Submitters have the right to appeal to the Environment Court against a Council decision on the plan change. They are fairly unlikely to do that if the Council has adopted a plan change that they have supported.

5.2       Other legal considerations concerning risks if the Council does not adopt the plan change are set out above. .

5.3       This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

 

6.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

6.1       Following Council decision on PC1, the following are the next steps:

6.1.1   Submitters may appeal Council’s decision to the Environment Court within 30 working days of the decision being served.

6.1.2   Following the expiry of the appeal period and the final resolution of any appeals, the plan change can be made operative.

6.1.3   There will be a final formal decision point for Council to give final approval for the plan change to become operative.

6.1.4   Once the resolution is made by the Council, public notice must be given that the change will become operative on a date specified in the notice. This date must be at least 5 working days after the notice is published.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

PC1 - Commissioner Recommendation Report_20191009

287

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Marie Pollisco - Policy Planner

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader - City Planning

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

15.   Policy and Practices 2018/19 - Section 10A Requirement Dog Control Act 1996

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1089516

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mark Vincent – Team Leader Animal Management

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report is required to be submitted by each Territorial Authority to Local Government annually under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.  The report covers Policy and Practices delivered for the reporting period year ending 30 June 2019.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       This report is for information purposes and supports the requirements of section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, relating to the Councils administration of its dog control policy and practices by providing information in respect of the 2018/19 Dog Registration period relating to:

2.1.1   the number of dogs registered in the territorial authority, and

2.1.2   the number of probationary and disqualified owners within the territorial authority, and

2.1.3   the number of dogs classified as dangerous and menacing within the territorial authority, and

2.1.4   the number of infringement notices issued, and

2.1.5   the number of complaints for the year, and

2.1.6   the number of prosecutions taken by the Council.

2.2       The Council are required to give public notice of the report and to make this report publicly available.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Adopt the 2018/19 Annual report to Local Government, as set out in section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.1       Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, requires the Territorial authority to report on dog control policy and practices.

1)    A territorial authority must, in respect of each financial year, report on the administration of—

a)  its dog control policy adopted under section 10; and

b)  its dog control practices.

2)    The report must include, in respect of each financial year, information relating to—

a)  the number of registered dogs in the territorial authority district:

b)  the number of probationary owners and disqualified owners in the territorial authority district:

c)  the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as dangerous under section 31 and the relevant provision under which the classification is made:

d)  the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as menacing under section 33A or section 33C and the relevant provision under which the classification is made:

e)  the number of infringement notices issued by the territorial authority:

f)   the number of dog related complaints received by the territorial authority in the previous year and the nature of those complaints:

g)  the number of prosecutions taken by the territorial authority under this Act.

3)    The territorial authority must give public notice of the report—

a)  by means of a notice published in—

i.     1 or more daily newspapers circulating in the territorial authority district; or

ii.    1 or more other newspapers that have at least an equivalent circulation in that district to the daily newspapers circulating in that district; and

b)    by any means that the territorial authority thinks desirable in the circumstances.

4)    The territorial authority must also, within 1 month after adopting the report, send a copy of it to the Secretary for Local Government.

Christchurch City Council’s Policies (Section 10A (1a))

4.2       The Council adopted the “Control of Dogs” Policy (“the policy”) in September 2016. The Policy has provisions relating to the control of dogs in public places, which are enforceable under the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016.

4.3       The objectives of the policy are to:

·   set the framework for Dog Registration Fees and Classification of Owners;

·   identify mechanisms for promoting responsible dog ownership and interaction with dogs;

·   set the framework for Issuing of Infringement notices and Impounding of Dogs;

·   specify the requirement for neutering of dogs classified as dangerous or menacing; (sections 32(1) (c) and 33E (b));

·   provide adequate opportunities to fulfil the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners;

·   set the framework for categories of Dog Control;

·   Notify areas where specific dog control status has been designated for reasons such as public health, safety and hygiene and protection of wildlife, animals and stock;

·   Identify the matters to be covered by bylaws.

Christchurch City Council’s Practices (Section 10A (1b))

4.4       To satisfy the requirements of section 10A of the Dog control Act 1996, the following information is provided.

4.5       Dog Registration

4.5.1   The total number of dogs recorded on the Councils dog registration database for the period was 39,127 compared to 38,500 last year. 

4.6       Probationary and Disqualified Owners

4.6.1   The Council recorded 9 owners as probationary and 1 owner as disqualified over the period.

4.7       Dangerous Dog Classifications

4.7.1   The Council classified 4 dogs as dangerous under section 31 of the Dog control Act 1996, adjusting the total number of dogs on the dangerous dog register to 55.

4.8       Menacing Dog Classifications

4.8.1   The Council has two separate menacing dog classifications:

·     Section 33A (1) (b) (i) of the Dog control Act 1996, provides for dogs to be classified   as menacing (based on the dogs aggressive behaviour). For the period 50 new dogs were classified as menacing, adjusting the total number of dogs classified in this category on the Council’s register to 241.

·     Section 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996, provides for dogs to be classified as menacing (based on the dogs breed or breed type). For the period 20 new dogs were classified as menacing, adjusting the total number of dogs classified in this category on the Council’s register to 147.

4.9       Infringement Notices Issued

4.9.1   The Council issued 1,609 infringement notices for breaches against the Dog Control Act 1996.

4.10    Dog related complaints

4.10.1 The Council investigated 575 priority one complaints (dogs attacking persons, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife or traffic hazards relating to wandering stock on roads).

4.10.2 The Council received 8355 complaints relating to dogs barking, wandering, fouling rushing, dog attacks on domestic animals and unregistered dogs.

4.11    Prosecutions

4.11.1 The Council took 1 prosecution resulting in a conviction where the dog owner was disqualified from owning dogs for four years.


 

4.12    Statistical Summary

Total number of registered dogs

39,127

 

 

Total number of probationary owners

9

 

 

Total number of disqualified owners

1

 

 

 

Total number of dogs classified as dangerous (live records only)

 

S.31 (1)(a) Section 57A conviction

S.31 (1)(b) Sworn evidence

4 out of 55

S.31 (1)(c) Owner admits in writing

 

 

 

Total number of live dogs classified as menacing

S.33A Observed or reported behaviour (deed)

50 out of 241

S.33A Breed characteristics (breed)

20 out of 147

S.33C Dogs listed in schedule four.

 

 

Number of infringement notices issued (not waived or cancelled)

1,609

Number of dog related complaints -

 

Dog attacks on people

134

Dog attacks, rushing, intimidating people, stock, poultry, domestic animals, protected animals 

229

Dog rushing

212

Dogs that barked, roamed or fouled (covers self-generated bylaw, roaming dogs and miscellaneous matters)

8,355

Number of prosecutions taken

1

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Vincent - Team Leader Animal Management

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

Carolyn Gallagher - Acting General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

16.   Local Government Funding Agency - Annual General Meeting Voting Instructions

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1092293

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report seeks voting instructions on the matters that the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) is bringing before shareholders for resolutions at the 2019 Annual General Meeting (AGM).  It also includes a summary of the LGFA’s Annual Report for 2019.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       The Local Government Funding Agency’s AGM will be held in Wellington on 21 November 2019.

2.2       The Agenda includes the appointment / reappointment of directors, changes to director’s remuneration and changes to the shareholder agreement and foundation policies.

2.3       The General Manager, Finance and Commercial was appointed as proxy for the Council and given voting instructions on several of the Agenda items prior to the local body election.  Voting instructions are now sought on the remaining Agenda items.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Directs the Council’s proxy or alternate to vote in favour of the following proposals for the Local Government Funding Agency’s 2019 Annual General Meeting on 21 November in Wellington:

a.         increase in director’s fees;

b.         changes to the Local Government Funding Agency’s foundation policies; and

c.         changes to the Shareholders’ Agreement;

2.         Notes that the Council previously directed the proxy or alternate to vote at the 2019 Annual General Meeting in favour of the reappointment of current directors – Mr Mike Timmer and Mrs Linda Robertson to the Local Government Funding Agency’s Board and the re-election of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Auckland Council to the Shareholders’ Council;

3.         Notes that resolutions were passed at the Local Government Funding Agency’s 2018 Annual General Meeting for its development of a framework and process for lending directly to Council-controlled organisations; and

4.         Delegates the responsibility for executing amended Local Government Funding Agency legal documentation in accordance with shareholder resolutions passed at the 2019 Annual General Meeting reflecting changes in foundation policies including direct lending to Council-controlled organisations.

 

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Role of LGFA

4.1       The Council’s relationship with the LGFA includes as an owner, borrower and a guarantor of losses incurred by LGFA arising from defaults by borrowers.  There is an inherent tension in the various interests that the Council has in the LGFA (discussed below).  What may seem beneficial for a borrower (e.g. low margins on lending) may be less so for an owner (e.g. reduced profitability).  The strategic approach agreed by all shareholder Councils at the LGFA’s inception was for the focus to be on lowering of-lending margins for council borrowers rather than dividends for equity holders.

4.2       The following information relates to the LGFA’s position as at 30 June 2019:

Ownership:  There are 30 Council-owners of LGFA plus the Crown.  The Christchurch City Council’s ownership stake is 8.3%.  Eight other councils own the same percentage stake and the Government owns 11.1%.  All other councils own between 3.3% and 0.4% each.  The full list of shareholders and their stakes is in the LGFA’s Annual Report. 

All shareholders have signed up to a Shareholders’ Agreement which, among other things establishes a Shareholders’ Council to advise shareholders on relevant matters that require shareholder resolutions as well as reporting on LGFA performance and any other matters concerning the company.  The Shareholders’ Agreement also contains foundation policies for LGFA lending.

There are 10 members of the Shareholders’ Council, elected by all council-shareholders.  They are those Councils with the largest shareholdings and the Government.  The Council’s appointee is Carol Bellette, General Manager Finance and Commercial.

The Council’s stake is valued at around $6.2 million (based on total shareholder equity from the 2019 Annual Report).  Ownership entitles the Council to an annual dividend of $95,865 for 2019.  This compares with $106,655 million in 2017/18. 

Borrower:  Total loans of $9.3 billion have been issued by the LGFA to 63 of the 64 participating councils.  At 30 June 2019, the Council had LGFA loans owing of $1.75 billion, most of it being long-term debt.

Guarantor:  There are 52 Council guarantors of the LGFA’s total lending, of which the Council has an 8.6% share (based on a proportionate share of rates income).  Total debt less Council debt is $7.5 billion, making the contingent liability the Council is exposed to $645 million. 

The LGFA has a number of options available to it to recoup any default on loans before it calls on the council guarantees.

These include access to additional capital and liquidity from a $1 billion standby facility from the Crown, borrower notes that can be converted to equity, a liquid assets portfolio and uncalled capital.   

Staff consider the risk of being called on the guarantee to be relatively low due to the policies, systems and risk control processes that LGFA has in place, the credit-worthiness of its borrowers and the retained capital of $49 million on its balance sheet from which any losses would be met before calling on guarantors.

4.3       LGFA’s performance is largely a result of the spread between what it pays to finance its lending, and what it receives from council borrowers.  Demand for LGFA debt is driven by LGFA’s ability to advance loans on better terms and conditions than a council could receive in the market itself.

Decisions taken on proxy and voting instructions for LGFA’s AGM 2019

4.4       In September 2019, staff reported to the Council seeking its voting instructions on matters that we expected to be brought before shareholders at the forthcoming LGFA AGM for 2019.  Staff sought the Council’s voting decisions ahead of receiving the AGM Agenda in case there would not be time to do so owing to the timing of the local body elections and uncertainty over subsequent Council meeting dates. 

4.5       At its meeting on 9 September 2019 (FPCO/2019/00092 refers) the Council resolved to appoint Carol Bellette, General Manager Finance and Commercial as its proxy to vote on its behalf at the AGM.  The Chair of the LGFA Board was agreed as an alternate if required. 

4.6       Resolutions were also passed for the proxy or alternate to vote in favour of the following:

4.7       re-appointment of Ms Linda Robertson to the LGFA board as an independent director, and Mr Mike Timmer as a non-independent director; and

4.8       re-election of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Auckland Council to the Shareholders’ Council.

4.9       The Council also delegated to the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor the decision rights on how the Council’s proxy should vote at the LGFA’s AGM on any other agenda items should they arise.

AGM Notice of Annual Meeting and Agenda

4.10    The LGFA has issued its Notice of Annual Meeting (Attachment A) to be held on 21 November 2019 in Wellington.  The Notice of Proxy with voting instructions (at Attachment B) must be received by the LGFA no later than 48 hours before the meeting commences.

4.11    The AGM Agenda (Attachment C) includes items that are of significance to the company and its shareholders.  This has led us to seek resolutions from the Council since timing permits, instead of using the delegated authority provided to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.  The items are:

·   increase in directors’ fees;

·   amendments to the LGFA’s foundation policies; and

·   changes to the Shareholders’ Agreement.

5.   Proposals requiring shareholder resolutions

5.1       The Shareholders’ Council has provided advice to the LGFA’s shareholders on the proposals for which resolutions are sought at the AGM (refer Attachment D).  The proposals are as follows:

Increase in board remuneration

5.1.1   The LGFA seeks independent advice on directors’ fees every second year, the last one being 2017.  This year’s review was commissioned as an update to the 2017 resolution. 

5.1.2   The proposed increases in directors’ remuneration are shown in the table below, and are compared with the fees in 2011 when three of the current five independent directors were appointed.  The proposed fees are then compared with the 2011 inflation-adjusted fees. 


 

 

Board role

2011

 

2017

2019 (proposed)

% increase 2011 – 2019

2011 fee inflation adjusted[4]

Additional cost

Directors (1)

$44,000

$55,000

$57,000

29.5%

$55,000

$2,000

Members A&R Committee (3)

$44,000

$55,000

$59,000

34.0%

$55,000

$12,000

Chair of the A&R Committee (1)

$46,800

$60,000

$63,000

34.6%

$59,000

$4,000

Board Chair (1)

$78,000

$97,000

$102,000

30.8%

$98,000

$4,000

Total fees

$300,800

$377,000

$399,000

5.8%

$377,000

$22,000

 

5.1.3   Although running one two-year cycle ahead of expected inflation impacts, staff consider this is not unreasonable.  In forming this view, the significant size of the investment portfolio and loan book has been taken into account. 

5.1.4   The Shareholders’ Council recommends the increase in directors’ remuneration be approved.  It notes that the new fees are within the range recommended by the independent review, which was an update to the 2017 review. 

Changes to foundation policies

5.1.5   LGFA’s foundation policies record financial covenants and rules for its lending.  The two proposed changes are (refer Attachment E):

Increasing Treasury Policy limits

5.1.6   The LGFA’s proposed changes to its Treasury Policy limits reflects the size of its balance sheet which has grown from $3.9 billion in 2014 to $9.3 billion at June 2019.  These loans are mostly backed by LGFA bonds and bills in the market of the same value. 

5.1.7   LGFA has tailored its product offerings to meet the varied needs of councils with a view to reducing the costs of financing for local authorities.  This includes providing loans outside normal tender dates, and on bespoke terms and conditions.  However, this improved service is creating bigger mismatches between LGFA’s borrowing and lending. 

5.1.8   Staff consider the proposed changes to the Treasury Policy limits proposed by the LGFA are reasonable and conservative.

Lending to CCOs

5.1.9   At the LGFA’s AGM in 2018 shareholder approval was given for it to establish a framework and process to lend directly to CCOs.  The LGFA has provided a paper with background information and update on CCO lending which is at Attachment F.  Work has been undertaken over the past year to develop the structure, process and drafting changes for LGFA’s legal documentation.  Minor changes to the foundation policies are proposed reflecting the final CCO lending structure.


 

5.1.10 The key aspects of the agreed CCO lending framework are that lending will only be available to CCOs if its obligations are guaranteed by the Council parent, or in the case of CCTOs, the lending is supported by uncalled capital.  Bespoke covenants can be negotiated in the same way that they can with council borrowers.

5.1.11 Credit analysis of the Council shareholder and ongoing compliance with LGFA-/ covenants will be undertaken on a parent basis and reported on a parent and consolidated group basis. 

5.1.12 Lending under this process will only be made to CCOs that are wholly owned, directly or indirectly by one or more councils or central Government.  Therefore, the CCHL group will be able to use this facility. 

5.1.13 The proposed changes to the foundation policies are minor to reflect the process of lending to CCOs.  The most significant addition is that the LGFA is obligated to report to the Council shareholder of the borrowing CCO on the Council’s compliance with its financial covenants on an individual and consolidated group basis.

5.1.14 Following shareholder resolutions at the AGM on the changes to the foundation policies, legal documents will be amended and forwarded to shareholders for execution.  It is proposed that the Council delegates authority for executing the legal documentation (comprising Multi Issuer Deed, Notes Subscription Agreement, Guarantee and Indemnity and Shareholders' Agreement) so long as the amendments are in accordance with the shareholder resolutions taken at the AGM.

6.   Annual Report 2018/19

6.1       The LGFA’s Annual Report the year to 30 June 2019 and accompanying letter from the Chief Executive are at Attachments G and H respectively. 

6.2       The LGFA notes the following performance:

·   Eight new member councils;

·   New lending of $2.5 billion was advanced, reflecting the refinancing of loans that expired in March 2019 of around $1 billion, increased lending to fund infrastructure and new source of funding for new members;

·   Total lending stands at $9.3 billion with a range of maturities out to 2033;  

·   LGFA bonds of $2.5 billion were issued to finance the loans to councils, of which $1 billion was refinanced on maturity date through a syndication process (i.e. where the issue price is set after consultation with investors and arranging banks, rather than an on-the-day auction); and

·   continued demand from 30 councils for short-term (12 months or less) borrowing amounting to $360 million.


 

Performance

6.3       The following table sets out LGFA’s actual outturn versus the prior year and its SOI targets.

 

2018/19

Actual

$m

2017/18

Actual

$m

2018/19

SOI Target

$m

Net interest income

18.7

19.0

18.6

Expenses

7.5

7.2

7.7

Net operating profit

11.2

11.8

10.9

Portfolio size

9,311

7,976

8,105

6.4       The 2018/19 net profit is lower than the previous year by $0.6 million (5.1%) due in most part to higher issuance and operating costs from the syndicated borrowing process taken during the year in which $1 billion of loans were refinanced. 

6.5       Against target, net profit increased by $0.3 million, largely as a result of there being a lower level of LGFA bonds by offshore investors than expected.  This had the effect of lowering Approved Issuer Levy payments.

6.6       The overall portfolio size is higher than both last year and target by $1.2-$1.3 billion reflecting higher than expected demand for loans, particularly with short-term maturities. 

6.7       The LGFA has met one of its four targets for 2018/19 – that lending is greater than, or equal to $8.105 billion (actual $9.3 billion).  It has not achieved the following performance targets:

·   Target:  Average margin above LGFA’s cost of funds charged to the highest rated participating local authorities for the period to be less than or equal to 0.1%. 

·   Actual: 0.101%, target missed due to increased short term lending where the margin includes LGFA’s cost of borrowing.

·   Target:  Savings to council borrowers relative to other sources of financing.

·   Actual:  Not achieved due to a lack of single-name issuance by councils as well as record issuance of LGFA bonds to councils which has created a supply-demand imbalance reducing savings to councils.  LGFA has previously noted that this is an increasingly difficult indicator to measure due to the lack of comparable council debt in the market (most sector debt is now sourced from LGFA).  LGFA’s SOI (that was reviewed by the Council earlier this year) has replaced the method of assessing this target with a survey-based approach to identify the benefits its lending provides to councils over private debt providers. 

·   Target:  Annual issuance and operating expenses (excluding the annual issuer levy) for the period less than or equal to $5.67 million. 

·   Actual:  Expenses (as per the table above) were $5.85 million due to Stock Exchange fees and legal fees related to the larger than expected bond issuance and council lending.

6.8       The LGFA dividend was in line with the dividend policy.

·   Target dividend:  LGFA cost of funds +2%

·   Actual dividend:  $1.155 million (2018: $1.285 million), which is equal to LGFA cost of funds of 2.62% +2%.

6.9       Treasury Policy – there was one breach where a Council had inadvertently breached the limit that no more than the greater of $NZD100 million or 33% of a council’s borrowings from the LGFA will mature in any 12-month period.  The breach was remedied in June 2019.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

LGFA - Notice of Annual General Meeting for 2019 with explanatory notes to resolutions sought

342

b

LGFA - Proxy Form for 2019 AGM

352

c

LGFA - Agenda for 2019 AGM

354

d

LGFA Shareholders Agreement for 2019 AGM

355

e

LGFA - Amended Foundation Policies for 2019 AGM

398

f

LGFA - CCO lending background and update from the Shareholders' Council

402

g

LGFA - Annual Report 2019

408

h

LGFA - Letter to Shareholders about Annual Report 2019

492

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

  


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

31 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 October 2019

 

 

17.   Appointments Committee for the appointment of Councillors to director roles on the boards of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1092230

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report provides advice on the process for appointing Councillors as directors to the boards of Council-controlled organisations and seeking approvals to convene an Appointments Committee. 

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       In accordance with the Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors, it is proposed that Christchurch City Holdings Ltd establishes an Appointments Committee on behalf of the Council to recommend the appointment of Councillor-directors to the boards of the Council’s commercial and commercially-oriented organisations – Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, Vbase Ltd[5], Civic Building Ltd and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd[6].

2.2       It would be desirable for new appointments to the Council-controlled organisations’ boards to be made as soon as possible to ensure they remain at full strength over the transition period.   

2.3       Immediately following this Council meeting, Councillors will receive a memorandum detailing the process and timing for applying for the available board positions.  In the first instance an expression of interest will be sought with a short turnaround time. 

2.4       Final recommendations of candidates will be provided to the Council by late November / early December.

2.5       Christchurch City Holdings Ltd staff and Chair of the Board have been consulted in the preparation of this paper.

 


 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Agrees that the Chair of the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd convenes an Appointments Committee to recommend the appointment of Councillor-directors to the boards of the Council’s directly-owned organisations –Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd and ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd;

2.         Delegates the responsibility for appointing and convening the Appointments Committee to the Chair of the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd to be undertaken in accordance with the Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors; and

3.         Agrees that the Appointments Committee provides a Memorandum to Councillors as soon as possible providing information about the process to be conducted, and identifying the members of the Appointments Committee;

4.         Notes that a report will be provided to the Council with recommendations for appointments by late November/early December 2019.

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Background

Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors

4.1       The Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors (the Policy) underpins the appointment of Councillors as directors to the boards of Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) as follows:

·   as soon as practicable after each local body triennial election, or as otherwise required, the Council will establish an Appointments Committee (the Committee) for the purpose of recommending the appointment of Councillor-directors to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL), (as well as independent directors when required); and

·   as a matter of general principle elected members are not eligible for appointment to CCOs other than CCHL, unless there are compelling reasons for the Council deciding otherwise, or it is provided for in an entity’s constitution, rules or specific legislation.

4.2       The CCOs that the Committee will recommend appointments to are noted below, together with recent practice:

·   CCHL – three Councillor-directors plus the Mayor in an ex-officio capacity (pursuant to para 7.2 of the Policy);

·   Vbase Ltd – one Councillor-director, with provision to appoint a second;

·   Civic Building Ltd – three Councillor-directors;

·   ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd (CNZHL) – two Councillor-directors (its constitution requires a majority of the board to be independent directors).

4.3       Not all Councillors are appointed to CCO boards, and some Councillors may be appointed to more than one CCO board. 

4.4       Appointments of Councillors to CCO directorships are for the three-year term until the next triennial election, or until the elected member vacates office during the current term.  Under the Policy, a maximum of three terms is provided for, unless the Council decides otherwise.


 

4.5       The Policy also provides that:

·   CCHL is responsible for appointments to commercially-focussed entities that are directly owned by the Council - Civic Building Ltd, Vbase Ltd and CNZHL, and is required to establish a Governance and Appointments Committee to recommend the appointments;

·   the Council may ask CCHL to undertake an appointments’ process for any other CCO; and

·   the appointments to the CCHL board and the other CCO boards are required to be approved by the Council before being finalised.

4.6       The optimal size of a CCO board, its mix of Councillor and independent directors and/or the skills and expertise required for a particular board are outside the scope of this report.

Constitutions

4.7       The constitutions of the four CCOs have the following provisions relating to Councillor-directors’ exiting directorships:

·   CCHL/CNZHL - Councillor-directors must resign from their Board positions within three months of the local body election (ie by 12 January 2020); and

·   Vbase/Civic Building – a Councillor-director ceases to hold office if he or she is no longer a member of the local authority, or at the annual general meeting (AGM) immediately after the expiry of three years from the date of appointment.   

Appointments Committee

4.8       The key objective for the appointments process is for it to mirror that which would be conducted for the appointments of independent directors.  This will ensure councillors who best meet the needs of the board are appointed.

4.9       The Policy provides that the Council is to establish the Committee to make recommendations on the appointment of Councillor-directors to the CCHL board.  It further provides that the members of the Committee include the Chair of the CCHL Board, an external commercial advisor with relevant experience and knowledge and up to two other members nominated by the Council. 

4.10    It is important the Committee has members that have a good understanding of local government processes, governance and accountabilities, commercial acumen and experience in making senior appointments to organisations.

4.11    It is proposed that the Council delegates the responsibility of appointing and convening the Committee consistent with the requirements of the Policy. 

4.12    To facilitate a more efficient appointment process Council and CCHL staff propose to have the Committee also make recommendations for appointments to Vbase Ltd, Civic Building Ltd and CNZHL.  This would be instead of CCHL convening two separate committees to address these appointments as provided for in the Policy.  These provisions did not anticipate the need to appoint to multiple CCOs at one time.

4.13    The Committee’s recommendations will require the Council’s approval, whether they are new appointments or reappointments of incumbent Councillor-directors. 

4.14    The Committee will identify the key skills and expertise that the boards require to ensure it has an optimal mix and to take into account key Council requirements such as diversity and core competencies (as per the Policy).  As well, there will be CCO-specific competencies.  The core competencies as set out in the Policy are:

·   Sound judgement and decision-making;

·   A public service ethos;

·   A high standard of personal integrity;

·   Commercial and governance experience;

·   Clear communication skills and an ability to debate in a reasoned manner;

·   Effective teamwork and collaboration;

·   Ability to think strategically;

·   Risk assessment and contingency management;

·   Commitment to the principles of good corporate citizenship; and

·   Understanding of the wider interests of the Council, as a publicly accountable shareholder.

4.15    The Committee will engage with the relevant board chairs during the appointments’ process.  Where the Councillor-applicant has previously been a CCO board member, the Committee may discuss his/her previous performance with the Chair. 

Councillor considerations

4.16    When considering whether to seek appointment to a CCO board, Councillors should consider:

·   the time commitment required as a board member of the commercial CCOs, particularly CCHL which requires that in addition to the regular board meeting commitments the Councillor-directors are likely to also be appointed to the CCHL Board’s Audit Committee or its Governance and Appointments Committee.  Both of these board subcommittees have a significant workload outside of the monthly meeting commitments and the ability to commit the time to these subcommittee roles is a crucial requirement to fulfil the expectations of the CCHL Councillor-directors;

·   the personal risks involved in acting in a governance role which candidates may wish to seek legal advice about prior to accepting a role;

·   CCHL has two bonds listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) and accordingly as a Listed Issuer, CCHL directors are subject to the requirements of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the NZX Listing Rules including the constructive knowledge requirements of the Continuous Disclosure Rules.  In certain instances, these requirements could see CCHL directors being held personally liable for non-compliance;

·   CCHL has total assets under management of $4.25 billion, which the board is ultimately responsible for maximising the value of;

·   whether a conflict of interest could arise, actual or perceived that may be difficult to manage;

·   under the Policy, directors’ fees are not payable to Councillors, in recognition of the element of public service the roles provide (note that the fees that would have been paid are instead donated to the Council’s preferred recipients); and

·   the role of a CCO Councillor-director is distinct from a Councillor role, and they may conflict at times.  Each role carries legal obligations.  Directors’ powers and duties are the subject of Part 8 of the Companies Act 1993, which includes the duty of acting in good faith and in the best interests of the company.  Obligations of Councillors when making decisions is detailed in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.17    The Institute of Directors has a wide range of information that is relevant to new director which can be found on its website (www.iod.co.nz).


 

Available roles

4.18    The following Councillor-directorships are available:

CCOs

Number of Councillor-directors

Website

CCHL

3

www.cchl.co.nz

Vbase Ltd

2

www.vbase.co.nz

Civic Building Ltd

3

www.cbl.govt.nz

CNZHL

2

www.christchurchnz.com

4.19    In addition to the three Councillor-directors to be appointed to CCHL, the Mayor is automatically offered a position on an ex-officio basis, as provided for in the Policy. 

4.20    A memorandum will be provided to Councillors as soon as possible which will advise the Committee’s membership, the process to be run and its timing and the information required from Councillors wishing to express interest in the Councillor-director roles.  An initial expression of interest will be asked for, with a short turnaround time.

4.21    Applications and the names of all applicants will remain confidential; it is intended that only the successful applicants will be identified at the conclusion of the process. 

4.22    Staff expect to report back to the Council for decisions on the recommended appointments in late November or early December. 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

   

 



[1] This is in addition to the $3m maintenance funding that has been budgeted as part of the Annual Plan.

[2] The Fund draft Terms of Reference allow for any unallocated funding to be carried forward. 

[3] The EPA is a Crown agency responsible for a range of matters including processing applications for resource consent and/or designations for proposals of national significance; regulating activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone; administering the Emissions Trading Scheme; and approving the importing and manufacture of hazardous substances.

[4] The inflation adjusted fee amount has been calculated using the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator for wages.

[5] Vbase board members are also the members of the Transition Board that is in place for the reorganisation of Vbase.

[6] CNZHL board members are also the members of the board of ChristchurchNZ Ltd (CNZ).  References to CNZHL also include the board for CNZ.