Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Thursday 28 November 2019

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

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

 

 

22 November 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@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.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 


SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE committee of the Whole - Terms of Reference / Ngā Ārahina Mahinga

 

 

Chair

Councillor Templeton

Deputy Chair

Councillor Coker

Membership

The Mayor and All Councillors

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Delegations

The Council delegates to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee authority to oversee and make decisions on:

·                Enabling active citizenship, community engagement and participation

·                Implementing the Council’s climate change initiatives and strategies

·                Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·                Heritage

·                Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·                Overseeing the Council’s housing asset management including the lease to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust

·                Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·                Museums

·                Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·                Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·                Hagley Park, including the Hagley Park Reference Group

·                Community facilities and assets

·                Suburban Master Plans and other local community plans

·                Implementing public health initiatives

·                Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·                Civil defence including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·                Community events, programmes and activities

·                Community development and support, including grants and sponsorships

·                The Smart Cities Programme

·                Council’s consent under the terms of a Heritage Conservation Covenant

·                Council’s consent to the removal of a Heritage Conservation Covenant from a vacant section.

Bylaws

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to:

·                Oversee the development of new bylaws within the Committee’s terms of reference, up to and including adopting draft bylaws for consultation.

·                Oversee the review of the following bylaws, up to and including adopting draft bylaws for consultation.

o      Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018

o      Brothels Bylaw 2013

o      Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

o      Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2016

o      Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

o      General Bylaw 2008

o      Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2018

o      Public Places Bylaw 2018

Community Funding

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to make decisions on the following funds, where the decision is not already delegated to staff:

·                Heritage Incentive Grant Applications

·                Extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants

·                Applications to the Events and Festivals Fund

·                Applications to the Capital Endowment Fund

·                Applications to the Enliven Places Projects Fund

·                Applications to the Innovation and Sustainability Fund

·                Applications to the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund [The Funding Committee will make recommendations on applications to this fund and report back to this Committee]

Limitations

·                This Committee does not have the authority to set project budgets, identify preferred suppliers or award contracts. These powers remain with the Finance and Performance Committee.

·                The general delegations to this Committee exclude any specific decision-making powers that are delegated to a Community Board, another Committee of Council or Joint Committee. Delegations to staff are set out in the delegations register.

·                The Council retains the authority to adopt policies, strategies and bylaws.


 

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

As may be necessary from time to time, the Committee Chairperson is authorised to refer urgent matters to the Council for decision, where this Committee would ordinarily have considered the matter. In order to exercise this authority:

·                The Committee Advisor must inform the Chairperson in writing the reasons why the referral is necessary

·                The Chairperson must then respond to the Committee Advisor in writing with their decision.

·                If the Chairperson agrees to refer the report to the Council, the Council may then assume decision-making authority for that specific report.

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Timatanga................................................................................................... 8 

C          1.        Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha........................................................................ 8

B         2.        Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga......................................... 8

B         3.        Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui................................................................ 8

B         4.        Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga............................... 8

B         5.        Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga.................................................. 8

Staff Reports

C          6.        Community Organisation Loan Scheme - Ōtautahi Urban Guild........................ 9

C          7.        Assisted Housing Programme Annual Report for the period 1 July 2018- 30 June 2019............................................................................................................. 45

C          8.        Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa...................... 83

C          9.        Proposed Amendments to Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018... 105

C          10.      Governance Matters............................................................................... 119  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

Karakia Timatanga 

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 Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

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

4.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

4.1

Ōtautahi Urban Guild

James Stewart will speak on behalf of the Ōtautahi Urban Guild regarding item 6 – Community Organisation Loan Scheme.

 

5.   Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga  

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

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

6.     Community Organisation Loan Scheme - Ōtautahi Urban Guild

Reference:

19/1324251

Presenter(s):

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report to provide relevant information and a recommendation to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on an application from Ōtautahi Urban Guild to the Council’s Community Organisation Loans Scheme.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       Ōtautahi Urban Guild (OUG) have applied to the Council's Community Organisation Loan Scheme for a $450,000 loan towards the design and other pre-consent costs toward building a housing development on Madras Square.  The staff recommendation to decline this application is primarily based on financial advice that there are substantial risks as to whether OUG could repay the loan and the insufficiency on the security offered.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report and the attached Community Loans Scheme decision matrix.

2.         Decline the loan application of Ōtautahi Urban Guild Ltd to fund the design and other pre-consent processes involved in building a proposed housing development on Madras Square.

3.         Ask staff to meet with the Ōtautahi Urban Guild Ltd, explain the rationale behind Council’s decision and explore any other ways the two organisations can work together expedite residential development in the City Centre.

 

 

4.   Context/Background

Key Points:

4.1       Ōtautahi Urban Guild (OUG) have applied to the Council's Community Organisation Loan Scheme for a $450,000 loan towards the design and other pre-consent costs toward building a housing development on Madras Square, see Attachment A.  This is the site of the Breathe Urban Village Competition by Ōtākaro ltd.  The background to the Breathe Competition is attached as Attachment B.

4.2       The decision matrix for a community loan to Ōtautahi Urban Guild Ltd is attached as Attachment D. The matrix summarises the loan request and provides information, commentary and recommendations from staff.

4.3       OUG describe themselves as a "collective team of city makers, not developers, made up of four entities". These entities are:

4.3.1   The Viva Sustainable Urban Village Project Incorporated, known as Viva! Project: a not-for-profit group of over 400 people passionate about the idea of building sustainable urban villages for Christchurch.

4.3.2   Urban Apostles: a real estate development and consulting service business specialising in regenerative development.

4.3.3   Ohu Foundation Trust; providing professional services for people with a common purpose to work together to collectively create and own assets that generate both social and economic/financial returns.

4.3.4   Matapopore Charitable Trust; providing cultural advice that combines professional expertise with traditional knowledge in the areas of ecology, architecture, landscape architecture, fine arts, whakapapa, natural and cultural heritage, mahinga kai, tikanga and Te Reo Māori.

4.4       The main objective of the OUG is to unlock affordable, sustainable and community-centric Central City residential development to help reinvigorate urban living in the CBD post-earthquakes.

4.5       OUG’s application states that Central City residential development in Christchurch is being hampered by:

·   High land prices (held artificially high by insurance pay outs).

·   High construction costs nationwide.

·   A flat/sprawling city/region with strong transport networks to lower-cost suburban developments.

·   Little pre-earthquake Central City apartment culture.

4.6       The Madras Square residential development project proposed by OUG seeks to overcome these barriers by using a different development methodology, which has been successful in Australia and involves:

·   Removing the developer's margin/profit from the equation (delivering housing at cost/not-for-profit).

·   Customer-led design through a series of design workshops with interested, and eventual, buyers thus removing the sales agent fee.

·   Shared facilities based on demand, such as shared laundry, rooftop garden and workshop, which both lowers the cost per dwelling and enhances the community connectedness; rare in other urban developments.

·   The construction company proposes to build ‘open-book’ with only 50% of the usual builder’s margin – leaving 4% of the building costs in the project.

·   OUG aim to work with the Outahati Housing Trust and include about 4-6 social housing units in the proposed development.

4.7       Through this methodology, OUG aims to deliver build value for 20% less than the traditional development model.

4.8       Further information on the proposed project, its Expressions of Interest brochure, is attached in Attachment A.

4.9       The staff recommendation to decline a community loan is primarily based on financial advice that:

·   There are substantial risks as to whether OUG could repay the loan.

·   The security for the loan is insufficient.  Council's security over the assets of OUG would be 3rd tier behind the bank and Ōtākaro.

4.10    The information provided by OUG is high-level and not supported by detailed design, costings and valuation advice.  OUG propose that the loan will be spent up front to establish whether the project proceeds or not.  Operative risks include:

·   Repayment of the loan is reliant on the project proceeding and being successfully completed.

·   The component of the project covered by the loan is entirely funded from debt.  The balance of the funding needed to complete the project to the consent stage will come from a loan application to the Rata Foundation for $450,000.

·   There would be no ability to obtain meaningful security for the loan.

·   The apartments may be more expensive than currently available/planned alternatives. 

·   The project requires 100% presales off design and concept, to proceed to the next phase. It is believed that this would be unprecedented for a development of this nature.

·   The Central City is widely reported to be experiencing issues with the sale of apartments.

·   There could be more risk than currently represented as construction costs, consultancy fees, contingencies and debt financing the project as presented in the application make it marginally financially viable.

·   The loan is assessed to be high risk, unsecured, and therefore should be approached on the basis that it may need to be written off.

Strategic Alignment

4.11    Council’s Urban Regeneration Team have confirmed that the OUG project aligns with a number of the Council’s strategic initiatives, more particularly:

4.11.1 The Strengthening Communities Strategy:  The proposed project aims to be built with community connectedness at is core.  OUG believe that through the participatory design process, people will come together to help create the spaces they will live in.  Community is built prior to moving in. Spaces are designed to encourage interaction, meetings and chance encounters. Shared spaces like roof-top terraces, community gardens, green spaces, shared facilities and bump-spaces provide the infrastructure for community connectedness and the associated mental health and emotional well-being outcomes that stem from it.

4.11.2 Pre-earthquakes, the Central City had a residential population of approximately 8,000. Increasing residential activity in the Central City has been a consistent priority for the City and Greater Christchurch for many years, as reflected in the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (2007) and Central City Revitalisation Strategy Stages 1 (2001) and 2 (2006).

4.11.3 The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (2011) recognises that a diverse residential population is essential to support business growth and development, and create a high level of activity.  Our Space 2018-2048 (Greater Christchurch Settlement Pattern Update) – a review of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy – likewise encourages Central City living as a preferred location for housing growth and identifies the role planning can play in encouraging housing diversity.

4.11.4 The Central City Action Plan, known as Project 8011 includes, as one of its five main priorities, more proactively attracting a greater number and mix of residents in the central city.  Project 8011 (adopted by Council in September 2018) aspires to increase the supply of homes and demand for living in the Central City. Two of the sub-projects prioritised during the first three years of this programme have a particular focus on assisting new and alternative development approaches of the nature OUG is proposing.  These are summarised below:

·     Funding opportunities and incentives aims to evaluate and identify a range of investment, incentive and funding options by which the Council can support residential development within the Central City.

·     Support alternative housing approaches and projects will support alternative residential development projects that bring a diversity of housing typologies, tenures and price points (including social and affordable) to the Central City. The consideration given this report contributes towards achievement of both of these ends.

4.12    The project was recently assessed against the criteria in the Best For City Decision Making Framework and was found to have strategic alignment.

4.13    Conversely the Council has prioritised its contribution to housing by working with the Ōtautahi Housing Trust and others toward the availability of social housing which is not the focus of the proposed development. 

4.14    Community loans were not intended or structured for this purpose.

The Community Organisation Loan Scheme

4.15    The total amount of funding available in the Community Organisation Loan Scheme for new applicants as at 1 November 2019 is $2,235,721.

4.16    The total loan pool is $3,179,059 with the balance of all current loans at $943,337.

4.17    A schedule of all current outstanding Community Loans is attached as Attachment C.

4.18    The Community Organisation Loan Scheme is a revolving fund and distributions from the fund are dependent on all loan recipients being able to meet and service their debts as they fall due.  The Council take out a loan to fund the loan it makes to the applicant.

4.19    The Community Organisation Loan Scheme is a low-interest finance scheme designed to assist not-for-profit community organisations to improve or develop new or existing sport, recreation or community facilities and major projects. The loan interest rate is currently set at 4.5% per annum. The Council has the ability to award loan terms up to a maximum of ten years.

4.20    Applications to the Community Organisation Loan Scheme are invited from eligible not-for-profit groups whose activities provide community, social, recreation, sports, arts, environment or heritage opportunities to the wider community, or to specifically defined communities of interest. To be eligible, an organisation must be incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and have provision in their constitution to borrow money. 

4.21    The application under consideration satisfies the criteria in that it is not-for-profit and does have a community and social focus.  OUG will need to make changes to their constitution to ensure eligibility.  These are discussed in sections 4.28 to 4.32 of this report.

Request to Council for a Community Organisation Loan

4.22    OUG have budgeted costs of $900,000 prior to confirming resource consent and therefore incurred before presales and development finance. This will be used to:

4.22.1 Build the community, refine the design on its feedback and confirm presales.

4.22.2 Obtain resource consent for the development.

4.23    As a not-for-profit project, speculative investment is not available to kick-start the project.  As a result OUG propose that the project is entirely debt funded from community loan schemes.

4.24    OUG have applied to the Christchurch City Council and Rātā Foundation for community loans of $450,000 each.

4.25    The project implementation, phasing, timing and cash flows propose that the loan from both the Council and Rātā Foundation is expended at the front end of the project, see the table below:

Expenditure

Total Cost

Amount sought in this application

Marketing engagement / Demand assessment

   $85,200

   $42,600

Design

$529,000

$265,500

Consent

    $8,000

    $4,000

Commercials

  $35,500

  $17,750

Funding

  $31,500

  $16,750

Legal / Governance Structures

  $36,000

  $18,000

Management

$124,800

$62,400

Contingency

  $50,000

  $25,000

 Total

       $900,000

       $450,000

 

4.26    Ōtākaro gave a $50,000 grant to the applicant for pre-feasibility work that supported this application.  Ōtākaro is not in a position to offer further incentives.

Type of Legal Entity Applying

4.27    OUG are a Limited Liability Company with its constitution containing some social enterprise principles.  The Community Organisation Loan Scheme requires that the applicant must be incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 or the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.  A clear not-for Profit status and a community focus are needed.

4.28    There is no precedent in Council for allowing a Community Organisation Loan Scheme loan to another form of entity (such as a limited liability company).

4.29    Legal advice identifies that if Council was minded to allow a limited liability company to be the borrower under the Community Organisation Loan Scheme, then Council could rightly expect the borrower to be restricted as to potential personal gain of shareholders, as an incorporated society or trust would be in relation to its members.  Other changes Council could expect to be included in OUG’s constitution include:

·     Clearly stating social or community enterprise/not for profit purposes.

·     Records that the company is not for the pecuniary profit of its directors or shareholders.

·     Restricting distributions to shareholders (in that there are no dividends to shareholders, there are no share buy backs or other returns of capital, there is no ability for surplus assets to be paid to shareholders upon liquidation or wind up (i.e. those surplus assets, to the extent they exist, need to go to a similar charity or social enterprise)).

·     Restricting share transfers and share issues to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the above, (i.e. avoid the shares to be transferred to a commercial developer, for example).

·     The above provisions would need to be entrenched so that the constitution on those points cannot later be changed in a manner which overrides or is inconsistent with those requirements.

4.30    For Council staff to be able to recommend that approach, however, independent Legal Advice confirms that the OUG’s constitution would need the amendments outlined above.  Even then, there may be concern that this could create a precedent effect of other companies applying to the Scheme, when the understanding has always been that it is applicable to trusts and societies only.  This is not considered a significant risk.

4.31    OUG have agreed to amend its constitution to meet the Council’s requirements under the Community Organisation Loan Scheme. 

Repaying the Loan

4.32    Due to the interactive and collaborative design process, the build can be staged/sized based on demand.

4.33    OUG will only proceed with 100% presales per stage.

4.34    With said presales OUG expects to receive development finance through bank developer finance. At Council’s choice it could then:

·     Immediately repay the loan in full.

·     Repay the loan over the period of the project, four years.

4.35    Council's security over the assets of OUG would be 3rd tier behind the bank and Ōtākaro.

4.36    A principal of $450,000 plus interest on a five-year loan is $551,250. This would be a one-off 0.10% impact on rates. Spreading this over the life of the loan the impact would be 0.02% for five years

Risk Profile

4.37    The request for a loan from the Council’s Community Organisation Loan Scheme is supported by a property development feasibility and cash flow along with other documentation and information.  Analysing these from a property and financial perspective gives rise to a number of detailed questions. However, there is enough information in the documents and subsequent information as provided to form a view on the project and risks as they relate to the loan.

4.38    A summary of the risk profile is presented earlier in this report in section 4.10.  There are substantial risks that the loan can not be repaid and any loan security offered is inadequate.


 

4.39    OUG propose that the loan money is spent up front to establish whether the project proceeds or not. During this period there could be stages, each with milestones and exit points, should demand not be as strong as expected. These milestones could be suitable for staged release of funding to limit Council’s exposure (but not manage the risk), should Council support the application.  These are summarised below:

 

Milestone / Stage

Percentage

Total

CCC

Rātā

Signing 

3%

         27,000

     13,500

     13,500

First community design workshop

3%

         27,000

     13,500

     13,500

Brand development /marketing

15%

       135,000

     67,500

     67,500

Second community design workshop

10%

         90,000

     45,000

     45,000

Third community design workshop

9%

         81,000

     40,500

     40,500

Master plan

10%

         90,000

     45,000

     45,000

 7 

Concept Design

20%

       180,000

     90,000

     90,000

 8 

Preliminary Design (RC)

30%

       270,000

   135,000

   135,000

 

 Total

100%

       900,000

   450,000

   450,000

 

Additional Information for Consideration

4.40    The estimated rates revenue of proposed project would be approximately $500,000 p.a. This is based on estimates of 200 homes between $400k-$700k in value paying conservative average of $2,500 p.a.  It is noted that services paid for by rates would be required for the residents.

4.41    The project is potentially eligible for a Central City Rebate, meaning Development Contribution fees would be $0.  This has an estimated value of $4,000,000. With the proviso that as of July 2019 the balance of the Central City Rebate fund was $9,700,000; and Central City Rebate applications over $1m go to Council for approval.

4.42    The applicant has confirmed that finance from Council and Rātā Foundation represents the last option to progress the project, if declined the project will cease.  The applicants confirms that there are no development incentives or other alternatives.  This demonstrates the vulnerability of the project.

4.43    Staff are in dialogue with Rātā Foundation regarding the application. Rātā staff:

·   See similar benefits and risks as Council however recognise that the project aligns more closely with Council’s priorities than with theirs, as Rātā Foundation’s priority centres on the community and social outcomes.

·   Will await a Council decision on the application before making a decision on presenting the application to their Board and if so, how.  If Council approves the application, it is likely that Rātā Foundation staff will present the application to their Board.

4.44    The following Council departments have been engaged on this application.  Urban Regeneration Design and Heritage, Financial Management, Finance Business Partner, Facilities, Property & Planning, Legal Services, Strategic Policy and Community Support, Governance & Partnerships.

4.4       The following external organisations have been engaged, DCL, Rātā Foundation and Ōtākaro.


 

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

5.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

5.1.1   Decline the application (Preferred option).

5.1.2   Approve a $450,000 5 year loan.

Options Descriptions

5.2       Preferred Option: Decline the application

5.2.1   Option Description: Decline the community loan application

5.2.2   Option Advantages

·    The risk of non-repayment is mitigated.

·    The loan pool can be used for other community focused projects.

5.2.3   Option Disadvantages

·    The applicant as advised that that finance from Council and Rātā Foundation represents the last option to progress the project; if declined the project will cease.

·    The Council may be seen as appearing unresponsive to supporting the development of housing in the city centre.

5.3       Option Two: Approve a $450,000 5 year loan

5.3.1   Option Description: Approve a $450,000 loan over 5 years at 4.5% interest. Subject to the following conditions:

·     The applicant raising sufficient funding to allow the project to progress to a point where it can confirm the requisite pre-sales to allow the repayment of the loan.

·     OUG make the requisite changes to their constitution summarised in section 4.29 of this report to the satisfaction of the General Manager Citizen and Community.

·     The payment in made in four instalments each dependent on the applicant demonstrating to Council’s Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships that current and future instalments can be repaid.  Instalments are:

         Instalment 1:              $27,000 on signing.

         Instalment 2:              $67,500 on completion of stages 1 and 2.

         Instalment 3                $85,500 on completion of stage 3.

         Instalment 4:              $270,000 on completion of stage 5.

·     That the Council community loan contribution is used for customer engagement, community design initiatives, concept design, master planning and preliminary design.  It is not used for brand development or marketing.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·    The Council are assisting in an innovative and strategically aligned approach to assisting residential activity in the central City.

·    The payment is made in instalments to minimise the Council’s exposure to bad debt should OUG fail to demonstrate the ability to repay the loan.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     There are substantial risks as to whether OUG could repay the loan.

·     The first instalment is essentially speculative.

·     The security for the loan is insufficient.

·     Council could be seen as subsidising speculative development in the city centre amid an environment where reported sales of inner city housing is sluggish.

Analysis Criteria

5.4       In assessing this application, the following information has been taken into consideration.

5.4.1   The Council’s Community Grants funding outcomes and funding priorities.

5.4.2   Alignment with Council’s strategic priorities and Community Outcomes.

5.4.3   Alignment with the primary intent of the loans fund to support immediate capital expenditure requests to undertake capital purchases, development and improvements.

5.4.4   Ability to meet all debt servicing commitments as they fall due without compromising the operational and financial stability of the applicant organisation and without recourse to Council grants funding.

5.4.5   Risk to the Council and also to the applicant organisation.

5.4.6   Ability to provide appropriate security in return for loan undertakings.

6.   Community Views and Preferences

6.1       Support for this project drives from the community organisation Viva Sustainable Urban Village Project Incorporated, known as Viva! Project. It is a not-for-profit group of over 400 people passionate about the idea of building sustainable urban villages for Christchurch.  This network of building and design professionals, academics, sustainability experts, government body officials, investors, as well as enthusiastic and creative people from all walks of life are the community behind the design workshops, networking meetings and other events associated with the project.

6.2       Wider community preferences and views have not been sought.

7.   Legal Implications

7.1       There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision, outlined in section 4.25 to 4.29 of this report above.

7.2       Legal Services Unit staff have been involved in assessing this application but have not approved this report.

7.3       Legal Services will prepare any loan or other documentation into the future if required.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Madras Square - Ōtautahi Urban Guild - Expression of Interest

19

b

The Breathe Urban Village Competition - Why did it fail to deliver - Lincoln University

29

c

All Current Community Loans - 13 November 2019

43

d

Loan Matrix

44

 

 

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

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 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


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

7.     Assisted Housing Programme Annual Report for the period 1 July 2018- 30 June 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1167252

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Carmen Lynskey – Social Housing Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       Annually staff provide a status report on assisted housing matters, including future programs of work. 

1.2       “Assisted housing” refers to activities that the Council undertakes to assist homelessness, emergency and transitional housing, social housing and affordable housing. 

1.3       The purpose of this report is to provide the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee with a status report on assisted housing matters for the 2018-19 financial year and to provide information about future housing programmes of work. 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information supplied in the Assisted Housing Annual Report for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       As at 30 June 2019 the Council’s social housing portfolio consisted of 2224 units over 95 complexes across Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula.

3.2       This represents a reduction of 254 since 30 June 2018 and is largely accounted for by the transfer of ownership of 204 units, across nine complexes, to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) during this reporting year. The transfer of ownership has been undertaken pursuant to the Housing Accord agreement, and subsequent Council resolutions, to capitalise a community housing entity through the injection of land and other assets to the value of $50m.

3.3       2195 units or 98.6% of the total portfolio are tenancy managed by OCHT under a deed of lease agreement that has been in place since October 2016.  The remaining 29 units are leased by nine additional Community Housing Providers for the purposes of supported housing activities. 6 properties are still owned by the occupier.

3.4       In addition to ensuring compliance to changes in legislation influencing Council’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA),  the social housing team have continued to deliver asset management activities including earthquake (EQ) repair, renewal, compliance  and ongoing major reactive maintenance programmes.

3.5       The post 2010/11 earthquake repairs and renewal works have been largely managed by the Capital Delivery Unit under the Social Housing EQ repair and renewal programme. During the 2018/19 reporting year the programme completed 39 open unit and 8 closed unit repairs, the demolition of 18 units, and the rebuild of five units (Akaroa).  Procurement for the 2019 tranches of work was undertaken in the early part of the financial year.

3.6       Other strategic Social Housing programme work that has continued throughout the 2018/19 reporting year includes:

·   The inclusion of the $30 million financing instrument in Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. In August 2018 the Council undertook public consultation on the Council resolution to approve a loan of up to $30 million to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (for the purposes of developing at least 130 new social housing units on the basis that all borrowings and costs are to be repaid by the Trust within 25 years of the initial advancement of funds). Subsequent to this consultation, work proceeded on the development of the agreement to proceed with this loan.

·   The Council has continued to work towards meeting its Housing Accord obligation (and subsequent Council resolutions) to capitalise a community housing entity “with an injection of $50 million of land and other assets.”   In 2018/19 Council approved the final portion of the gift component and the transfer of assets valued at $29,541,000 by way of loan.

3.7       Elsewhere in the assisted housing programme, significant work has been undertaken through:

·   The successful development and implementation of the Housing First programme

·   The Christchurch Housing Initiative, a shared equity scheme.

4.   Background

The Portfolio

4.1       As a pioneer of social housing, Christchurch City Council has been providing rental accommodation for people with a serious housing need since 1938, when its initial build of pensioner units was undertaken. The first 16 units were opened at Barnett Avenue on 26th August 1939 ‘for use by married pensioner couples’. The second development was the Willard Street complex which opened in 1940.

4.2       Prior to the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the Christchurch City Council was the second largest provider of social housing in New Zealand, with a portfolio of 2649 units.

4.3       The earthquakes had a substantial impact on the Council’s Social Housing portfolio, both in terms of unit numbers, and requirements for repair and rebuild of the portfolio.

4.4       The demolition of 113 Red Zone properties, under CERA management, was completed by January 2016, and the ensuing demolition of units due to damage sustained in the earthquakes saw a total demolition loss of 367 units.

4.5       The Social Housing portfolio was predominantly managed by the Christchurch City Council up until 4 October 2016.  At this time, and under a Deed of Lease approved by the Council on 25 August 2016, the tenancy management services of the majority of the Social Housing portfolio transferred to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT).

4.6       Pursuant to the Housing Accord agreement (and subsequent Council resolutions), 2016/2017 saw the first two tranches of assets transferred to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust on 10 February 2017 and 21 June 2017 respectively. 

4.7       As a continuation of the asset capitalisation agreement a further 10 properties encompassing 178 units were transferred to OCHT ownership during the 2018/19 financial year.

4.8       As a result of these changes, at 30 June 2019 the Council’s social housing portfolio consisted of 2224 units over 95 complexes across Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula (2).

4.9       In addition to the units managed under lease to OCHT there are 29 other units that are leased and managed by Community Housing Providers including: Beckenham Community Housing Trust - Lancewood Courts (11), YWCA (9), Home and Family (1), Anglican Care/Ka Wahine (2).

4.10    Historically the Council had a number of units owned by the occupier, however under a buy back scheme operating since post Canterbury earthquake events this number has reduced. The scheme was introduced to support, in part, the replacement of units lost due to red zone purchasing or demolitions. There are still a small number of units (6), retained and occupied by private owners.

 

Policy and Legislation

4.11    The Council has a number of policy documents for its wider housing direction, with social housing imperatives included in these.

4.12    The Housing policy 2016 and the Social Housing Strategy 2007 (under review), incorporate several goals that support the ongoing management and delivery of the Council’s social housing portfolio and the sustainability of social housing across Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula.

4.13    Such key imperatives in the Housing Policy 2016 include:

·   Retaining affordable housing - Develop a range of creative, collaborative and innovative ways to ensure the co-ordinated long term promotion, provision and retention of both social and affordable housing.

·   Housing quality - Improve the standards, regulations and monitoring on housing design and quality to achieve healthier housing for households irrespective of their income.

4.14    The Social Housing Strategy 2007 recognises that the Council has a leadership role in the provision and facilitation of social housing in Christchurch with key goals of Partnership, Managing Demand, Location, Brokerage and Advocacy, Compatibility and Integration, Facilitation and Resourcing and Service and Sustainability.

4.15    The Social Housing Strategy is currently under review. In 2019/20 staff undertake to consult with key stakeholders across all housing related and dependant sectors within Christchurch to ensure that the strategy is reflective of current need, and to identify what strategic roles and actions the Council can take to help ensure adequate social housing is provided for in Christchurch. It is being assisted by Community Housing Aotearoa (CHA). 

4.16    Following a situation analysis, stakeholder workshops and review of relevant research, a draft strategy has been developed to a point where it can soon be reported to the Council to approve for public consultation. The review has identified the following themes for the draft Strategy:

·   Community Housing – housing that is grounded and linked into the wider ‘Housing Continuum’

·   Key infrastructure – community housing as a cornerstone of all housing provision

·   Wellbeing – community housing contributes to the wellbeing of people and their communities

·   Integration – developing more mixed housing and mixed tenure models

·   Participation – including community and tenant voices in housing renewal and regeneration.

·  

4.17    In December 2017 the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act (No 2) was passed into law, with a subsequent discussion document released by the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in October 2018. The corresponding standards for compliance were announced in February 2019.

4.18    These standards were drafted into the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, and became law on 1 July 2019. The final standards provide further detail on information released in February, particularly requirements for tenancy agreements and record keeping.

4.19    The aim of the legislation is to ensure that all people living in rental accommodation in New Zealand have a warm and dry home to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders and their families. The Healthy Homes Standards set the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation and also addresses moisture ingress, and drainage and draught stopping.

4.20    Community Housing Providers (CHP’s) have until 30 June 2023 to comply with the standards. As the Council is an asset owner of social housing properties we have the responsibility to ensure that all owned stock comply with standards under the regulations.

4.21    Table 1. below details  the Healthy Homes standards (MHUB)

Standard

Required standard

Heating

There must be fixed heating devices, capable of achieving a minimum temperature of at least 18°C in the living room only. Some heating devices are inefficient, unaffordable or unhealthy and will not meet the requirements under the heating standard.

Insulation

The minimum level of ceiling and underfloor insulation must either meet the 2008 Building Code, or (for existing ceiling insulation) have a minimum thickness of 120mm. 

Ventilation

Ventilation must include openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms. Also an appropriately sized extractor fan(s) in rooms with a bath or shower or indoor cooktop.

Moisture ingress and drainage

Landlords must ensure efficient drainage and guttering, downpipes and drains. If a rental property has an enclosed subfloor, it must have a ground moisture barrier if it’s possible to install one.

Draught stopping

Landlords must stop any unnecessary gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, and doors that cause noticeable draughts. All unused chimneys and fireplaces must be blocked.

Compliance timeframes

1 July 2021 – From this date, private landlords must ensure that their rental properties comply with HHS within 90 days of any new tenancy.

1 July 2021 – All boarding houses must comply with the HHS.

1 July 2023 – Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities and registered Community Housing Provider houses must comply with the HHS.

1 July 2024 – All rental homes must comply with the HHS.

Table 1


 

Looking Back – July 2018 to June 2019

4.22    A key component underpinning the work of the social housing team is to ensure that all properties meet compliance and legislative requirements, and that property condition assessment are undertaken.

4.23    A Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF), where required, is undertaken annually. Current BWOFs are in place at:

4.23.1    Airedale Courts – fire alarm and sprinkler system, self-closure of fire doors;

4.23.2    Gloucester Courts - fire alarm and sprinkler system, self-closure of fire doors;

4.23.3    Hornby Courts - fire alarm and sprinkler system, hand-held fire extinguisher;

4.23.4    Jecks Place Resident's Lounge – fire alarm system;

4.23.5    Tommy Taylor Courts - fire alarm and sprinkler system;

4.23.6    Whakahoa Village (multi-level structure only) – fire alarm system.

4.23.7    Property assessment and condition information has been collected and recorded from 72 complexes with 269 building systems (asset categories) audited within that system.

Insulation

4.24    Insulation improvements have been a key consideration for the Council for a number of years and work to increase insulation standards in units has been in place since 2013. The assessment and insulation of properties became more formalised and processed in 2015 when the Council began funding a programme under CEA.

4.25    From 1 July 2019 ceiling and underfloor insulation is compulsory in all rental homes where it is reasonably practicable to install.  It must comply with the regulations and be safely installed. There are some exemptions where the design of the building inhibits installation or access for installation.

4.26    In accordance with the amendments to the RTA, and as a continuation of the insulation programme, 818 units were assessed during the 2018/19 FY. Following this assessment top-up or full installation was completed in 257 units.  561 were found to be already compliant, or exempt.

4.27    It is important to note that, while the RTA requirements for existing ceiling insulation require that it must be 70-100mm thick and in good condition, Council continue to follow the optional EECA recommendations of R3.3 ceilings (approx. 160-170mm thick) and  R1.5-R1.8 underfloor wherever possible, which is higher than the RTA minimum requirement of R1.3.  This means that where a unit is currently deemed RTA compliant, Council are choosing to top up those units with additional product, making them warmer.

Methamphetamine

4.28    The Council Housing Team have been testing for methamphetamine use as part of its Repair and Renewal and Vacant Unit Evaluation (VUE) work since mid-2016; and if identified, consideration is made on a case-by-case basis to determine the economic viability of remediating the property.

4.29    While the RTA does not specify the acceptable level of methamphetamine (meth) level for rental properties , the Council Housing Team use the 2010 Ministry of Health (MoH) Guidelines, and more latterly the 2017 New Zealand Standard Methamphetamine Testing and Remediation Standard (NZS 8510), to determine remediation requirements.

4.30    In May 2018 the Office of the Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor released ‘the Gluckman Report’ which suggested that only levels of meth above 15 µg/100cm2 should require remediation, and this has subsequently been used as a determinate for the Tenancy Tribunal decisions on liability for damage.  However, Christchurch City Council have determined that until such time as the MoH standards change, that intervention will be undertaken if the levels exceed 1.5 µg/100cm2. As a comparison the maximum health intervention level in Australia is 0.5 µg/100cm2, and 0.1µg/100cm2 in most states in the USA.

4.31    The table below reflects the methamphetamine data for the 2018/19 financial year:

Indicator tests completed

 

452

Meth detected

 

32

Results above the MoH threshold

 

21

Units decontaminated as at 30 June 2019

 

17

Table 2

Planned or Scheduled Works

4.32    Scheduled Maintenance Plans are in place as part of councils overall Facilities Maintenance (FM) Contract with City Care.  Regular maintenance undertaken as part of this schedule include building wash downs, chimney sweeping (one complex in Akaroa) , HVAC systems maintenance, fire specified systems maintenance, lawns maintenance on closed units and  grounds maintenance on vacant land, equipment hire maintenance for laundries (four complexes), lift maintenance (one complex), and road sweeping and sump maintenance ( four complexes).

4.33    Under the Social Housing Team planned works programme the following works were assessed and completed:

4.33.1       Roof replacements & major roof repairs – Halswell Courts and Palliser Place.

4.33.2       Exterior painting whole complex – 12 complexes were completed: Hennessy Place, William Massey Courts, Angus Courts, Hadfield Courts, MacGibbon Place, Berwick Courts, Palliser Place, Resolution Courts, Clent Lane, Harold Denton Place, Dover Courts and Bridgewater Courts.  Figure 2 below shows before and after examples of this work

4.33.3       Major tree maintenance and pruning programme- 13 complexes were completed: Glue Place/Sparks Road, Berwick Courts, Palliser Place, Bryndwr Courts, Aorangi Courts, Guise Lane, Resolution Courts, Harold Denton Place, MacGibbon Place, Mackenzie Courts, Waltham Courts, Reg Adams Courts, and Walsall Courts.

4.33.4       Internal redecoration occurred in 9 units.  Other redecoration work was added to the scope of the EQ programme.  As the current EQ programme draws to a close in December 2019 there will be an increased focus on internal redecoration which will incorporate the minor residual EQ works not yet completed.

4.33.5       Fire remediation was undertaken with completed via insurance on one unit at Innes Courts, and assessment commenced on a further unit at Barnett Avenue.

4.33.6       Other major works – releveling of Block H Waltham Court and car park install at Fred Price Courts.

 Figure 2

 

Minor Maintenance Variations

4.34    As of 1 July 2017, OCHT are responsible for the minor (reactive) maintenance in relation to all complexes under that lease agreement. This includes vacant unit turnaround works.

4.35    If works fall outside of the OCHT scope of responsibility those works are referred through to Council as a variation to the minor maintenance agreement.

4.36    Under the variations process with Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, council approved the replacement of five stoves and 44 heaters in the first quarter of the 18/19 FY. From September 2018 OCHT took on the budget and responsibility for stoves and heaters.  Council have undertaken 208 hot water cylinder replacements and the full interior redecorations of 17 units.

Repair and Renewal Programme

4.37    The Social Housing Repair and Renewal Programme has been largely project managed by the Capital Delivery Community Facilities Team.

4.38    Since 2013, 795 open unit and 133 closed unit repairs have been undertaken either as part of the EQ Repair and Renewal Programme or as part of the Vacant Unit Evaluation (VUE) process.  A further 99 units were repaired prior to the commencement of this programme. This brings the total overall number of closed or open units either repaired or under repair to 1027 as at 30 June 2019. A total of 367 demolitions have been managed under this programme.

4.39    In this reporting period 39 open unit (currently tenanted) repairs were completed at Lancewood, Huggins Place and Vincent Courts with ancillaries and roofing works completed at St Johns Court. Closed unit repairs were undertaken on eight units at HP Smith courts enabling Block B, which had been closed due to structural issues resulting from the 2011 earthquakes, to be used as temporary accommodation while repairs and upgrades were completed on the remaining 11 units. One unit at HP Smith had EQ repairs and asbestos removal completed as part of the VUE undertaken in 2016.

4.40    As part of the programme to replace the three existing units at Bruce Terrace, Akaroa, the build of five new fully accessible Lifemark accredited units were competed in May 2019, with Tenants moving into the units early June, and demolition of the existing units (3) occurring immediately after. The project was completed in July of 2019. (Figure 3)

Figure 3.

4.41    Works commenced on the approved repair programme, comprising the following complexes, in April 2019 and is scheduled to be completed by December 2019:

·   Walsall Courts – 26 units

·   Allison Courts – 9 units

·   Bryndwr Courts – 32 units

·   Reg Adams Place – 14 units

·   Cleland Street – 7 units

·   Waltham Courts – 26 units

·   Mackenzie Courts – 24 units

·   Nayland Street  – 5 units

4.42    All units within a complex have their own site specific scope, but typically include earthquake damage repairs, refurbishment and code upgrades.

4.43    Health and Safety management of workers, public, tenants and staff is paramount and to date there have been no significant incidents.

4.44    Pursuant to the release of the 2019 RTA regulations, significant additional works have been undertaken to complete Healthy Homes requirements not otherwise scoped, with mechanical ventilation being checked and upgraded or installed where required across the programme. Significant window and door upgrades have also been completed in a number of complexes with aluminium or uPVC double glazing installed and water ingress remediation undertaken as identified.

4.45    Reporting is completed on all asbestos testing and removal, insulation assessment upgrade and install, with methamphetamine testing completed prior and after works.

4.46    Tenant consultation and engagement continues to be a key component of all housing works programmes, and undertaken prior to the commencement of any significant complex-wide works. Tenants are given the opportunity to provide feedback. Tenants are communicated with individually in regards to any work planned for their individual respective units and regularly throughout the works programme.

4.47    Tenants are supported with moving to temporary accommodation during significant internal repairs, with the opportunity to either move to Council provided temporary accommodation or make their own arrangements. Generally Council incur the cost of temporary accommodation and associated move costs and these are accounted for under the total cost of the project.

4.48    Relocations require a co-ordinated approach to ensure the smooth running of the repair and renewal programme. Housing staff work closely with OCHT, or one of the four other community housing providers, to ensure this work happens without undue effect on the tenant or the project.

4.49    67 households were supported by Housing Team Project Delivery Officers to move to and from temporary accommodation, for the purpose of earthquake related repairs, during this reporting period.

Other Housing Activities

$50 Million Capitalisation

4.50    The capitalisation has occurred as a series of tranches.  The first tranche was transferred in 2016/17 and involved the gifting of two properties (Charles Street and Louisson Courts)

4.51    The second tranche occurred in 2017/18 and involved the gifting of the following properties:

239a Opawa Road, Lot 1 & Lot 3 Deposited Plan 82941

241 Opawa Road, Part Lot 8 Deposited Plan 412

243 Opawa Road, Part Lot 9 Deposited Plan 412

245 Opawa Road, Part Lot 10 Deposited Plan 412

247 Opawa Road, Part Lot 11 Deposited Plan 412

249 Opawa Road, Part Lot 12 Deposited Plan 412

251 Opawa Road, Part Lot 13 Deposited Plan 412

253 Opawa Road, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 25769

255 Opawa Road, Part Rural Section 91

263 & 265 Opawa Road, Part Lot 2 DP 35997

267 Opawa Road, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 364580

269 Opawa Road, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 19432

269a Opawa Road, Part Lot 15 Deposited Plan 27317

271 Opawa Road, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 13838

273 Opawa Road, Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 13838

275 Opawa Road, Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan 13838

277 Opawa Road, Part  Lot 4 Deposited Plan 13838

1r Curries Road, Part  Lot 2 Deposited Plan 473254

133 Prestons Road, Lot 8 Deposited Plan 19819

16 Alderson Avenue, Lot 2 Deposited Plan 83201

 

4.52    The second tranche also involved the gifting of the former Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Services houses at Linwood Park.  These houses are relocatable and are to be removed from Linwood Park by 2021.

4.53    The third tranche was the first to include “loaned” properties and has occurred progressively from February 2019 to June 2019.  Properties included the following:

Property Transfers

356-402 Brougham Street, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 50616

51-63 Salisbury Street, Pt Lot 1 Deposited Plan 23551

133 Wilsons Road, Pt Lot 1 & Lot 2 Deposited Plan 19340

86a Beachville Road, Lot 3 Deposited Plan 29982

27 Glovers Road, Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11723

4b Curries Road, Lot 12 Deposited Plan 15293

502 Greers Road, Lot 3 Deposited Plan 46164

1 Gowerton Place, Lot 2-3, 6 Deposited Plan 71401 and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 365834

1 Alma Place, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 71179

27 Arran Crescent, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 30160

21 Coles Place, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 17261

72a Olliviers Road, Pt Lot 12 DP 1763

37 Dunarnan Street, Part Rural Section 161 and Defined On Lot 1 Deposited Plan 21354

1 Maurice Hayes Place, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 35644

1 Mabel Howard Place, Lot 6-7 Deposited Plan 21331

22 Northcote Road, Lot 1 Survey Plan 464500

$500K Loan Transfer (Gift)

 

Christchurch Housing Initiative

4.54    During 2018/19 the Council procured the services of a Canterbury registered Community Housing Provider to deliver the Christchurch Housing Initiative, a shared equity scheme jointly funded by Council and the government (totalling $6.14m).

4.55    A Custodian entity, in the form of a Trustee Company, has also been sourced to hold the Crown and Council contributions for the Initiative, and also to hold the Initiative’s equity share in participating households' homes.

4.56    A three way Deed of Participation has been negotiated between the Council, the Provider (Habitat for Humanity) and the Trustee Company (Covenant Trustee Services) to establish and operate the Initiative.

4.57    The Deed supports the Initiative’s aim to assist more modest income households into home ownership who would not normally be able to do so.  It is expected that between 45 and 50 households will be able to participate in the Initiative, which is to commence in November 2019.

Housing First

4.58    A joint initiative between the Christchurch Methodist Mission, Emerge Aotearoa, Comcare and the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, the Christchurch Housing First Partnership commenced in May 2018. Based on a model developed overseas, and launched in Auckland in 2018, Council approved in principle to support the pilot programme which is aimed at ending chronic homelessness in Christchurch by 2020., and supports those men and women without homes and ‘sleeping rough’.

4.59    In its first four months of operations, in 2018, the project had housed 15 people. As at 30 June 2019 82 people had been accepted onto the programme with 43 of those housed.

4.60    At the time of writing this report a further 15 people had been housed. Figure 4 below shows the accumulated programme data for the period ended 30 September 2019.

  Figure 4

Update from Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT)

4.61    As previously noted within this report, on 4 October 2016 and under a Deed of Lease approved by the Council on 25 August 2016, the tenancy management services of the majority of the Social Housing portfolio transferred to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT).

4.62    OCHT have submitted an annual report update in relation to these activities and this is provided in Attachment 1 of this report.

Engagement and Liaison

4.63    Council Social Housing staff actively network with Community Housing providers, participating in forums such as the Te Waipounamu Community Housing Network providers forum and the Christchurch Housing Forum, to ensure active engagement with the wider housing sector to support Community Housing provision in Christchurch.

 

Looking forward

4.64    Key tasks and imperatives for the coming year include the completion of a 5 year work plan for social housing with the key initial component of that being the implementation of any required installations and upgrades to meet the 2023 deadline for the Healthy Homes 2019 standards.

4.65    Staff have already instigated a number of programmes of work in respect of the new standards with significant work having been completed or in progress as part of the planned programmes of work under the EQ programme and VUE works.

4.66    At the time of writing this report, and directly in response to the Healthy Homes Legislated Standards and changes to the RTA, bathroom fans and either range-hoods or kitchen specific mechanical ventilation had been installed in 78 units currently under repair as part of the EQ repair and renewal programme. A further 88 units will have bathroom and kitchen upgrades or installation completed by December 2019. In addition to this mechanical ventilation will be installed either through the Warm and Dry Program or as part of other renewal works across the portfolio.

4.67    Additional insulation along with retrofit or replacement ceilings into a number of units is being undertaken with a planned completion date of December 2019.

4.68    Growing social housing continues to be a key strategic focus as Council work to support the provision of some additional 2,000 to 2,500 social housing units nationally, per year until 2030. This estimated required increase takes into account the growing number of private rental users who will reach retirement age within the next 15-20 years, and aligns with aging population estimates for Christchurch which anticipate the requirement for an additional 50 units per year.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Housing Annual report attachment 1 OCHT AGM PowerPoint Presentation 2019

58

b

Housing Annual Report 2019 attachment 2 OCHT Annual Report_ Fin

79

c

Social Housing Stock Summary

82

 

 

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

Claire Milne - Programme Liaison Advisor

Approved By

Carmen Lynskey - Manager Social Housing

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Leonie Rae - Acting General Manager Corporate Services

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

8.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1203547

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Fiona Wykes, Senior Heritage Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       This report proposes approval for a Heritage Incentive Grant for maintenance works to the building at 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa for repainting of the property.

2.2       Council staff are recommending a grant of up to $3,600 (50% of the works). A comparable grant was made to the neighbouring building, 9A Aubrey Street in October 2018 for re-roofing.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,600 for conservation and maintenance work to the property at 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

9 Bruce Terrace is scheduled as ‘Significant in the Christchurch District Plan and is listed as a Category 2 place with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The Statement of Significance for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

9 Bruce Terrace, May 2013

4.1       The cottage has historical and social significance as one of the earliest cottages in Akaroa in conjunction with the neighbouring cottage at 9A Aubrey Street, and for its association with Captain James Bruce who was one of Akaroa’s first European settlers, who established the Bruce Hotel on the foreshore of the town. The building is currently owned by Heather Scott.

4.2       The cottage is one of two that Captain Bruce built in the mid-1850s for members of his extended family when they immigrated to New Zealand. Both cottages still remain and are a key part of the streetscape in this area of Akaroa.

4.3       The cottage was extended in the early 20th century, and then a further small addition was added in the late 20th century. Its original form is still easily recognisable and this becomes even more obvious when it is seen in conjunction with the neighbouring cottage at 9A Aubrey Street.

4.4       The current owner would like to repaint the building to ensure its ongoing maintenance and retention. This work is essential to keeping the building fabric in good condition, especially given it is a timber framed building with weatherboard cladding.

4.5       The Heritage Incentive Grant scheme is intended to assist owners of scheduled heritage places and significant moveable heritage items to achieve positive heritage outcomes when they undertake maintenance, conservation, repairs and code compliance works.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

4.6.1   Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

4.6.2   Heritage Conservation Policy

4.6.3   International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010

4.7       The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes: “Strong Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport’ and “Liveable City” – ‘21st century garden city we are proud to live in’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for the outcome ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations.’

4.8       The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme supports delivery of the overarching strategic principle of wellbeing and resilience, as heritage contributes to our personal and community sense of identity and belonging, and enhances high levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

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

4.9.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.10    The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. This established funding source requires staff to present applications to the relevant Committee or Council for their approval. The delegated authority for these decisions has been confirmed to be with this Committee.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.11    Previously similar grants have been supported by this committee for domestic buildings for various types of maintenance. A sample is included in the table below. From this it can be seen that this proposal is in line with other grants awarded through the HIG process.

Date

Nature of grant

Grant

3/10/2018

53 Oxford Street – re-roofing and re-painting

$21,544 (30%)

3/10/2018

9A Aubrey Street – re-roofing

$6,500 (50%)

3/10/2018

23 Mandeville Street – re-roofing

$5,136 (50%)

 

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

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

4.14    There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

4.15    It is noted that Onuku Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area where this building is located.

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

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

·   Option 1: a grant of $3,600 (50%) for the works to the property at 9 Bruce Terrace;

·   Option 2: a grant of $2,160 (30%) for the works to the property at 9 Bruce Terrace.

5.2       The following options were considered but ruled out

·   Option 3 – no grant.  This option was discounted as the proposed works will comply with the Operational Guidelines and Policy for the Heritage Incentive Grant scheme. The heritage outcome for the property will be positive if the maintenance is undertaken, and the work is in line with other grants that have been awarded previously. There are sufficient funds remaining in the HIG Fund to cover this grant.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3       Preferred Option: Option 1 – Heritage Incentive Grant of $3,600 to support the re-painting of the building. The preferred option.

5.3.1   Option Description: The owner of the property has submitted a cost estimate for the work of $7,200 (excluding GST). The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grant provide for a grant of up to 50% of the total heritage related costs. The building has historical, social, architectural and contextual significance and its retention and maintenance is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of $3,600 is appropriate.

Proposed heritage grant (50% of works)

$3,600

 

The cost of implementation of preferred options of all the grant applications presented at this committee meeting:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                             

$697,700

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 26 Canterbury St. Lyttelton

$100,000

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 544 Tuam Street

$128,491

Approved grant to 159/161 High Street (22%)

$90,668

Approved grant to 117 Rue Jolie, Akaroa (40%)

$35,642

Approved grant to 1 Ticehurst Road, Lyttelton (12%)

$50,888

Approved grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20%)

$39,535

Approved grant to 141 High Street (11%)

$45,334

Approved grant to St David’s Church, Belfast (30%)

$37,000

Approved grant to the tug ‘Lyttelton’ (50%)

$41,620

Proposed grant to 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa (50%)

$3,600

Total Available Funds 2019/2020

$54,922

 

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     The work will ensure the ongoing conservation and maintenance of the heritage building at 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The heritage building is one of the earliest surviving cottages in Akaroa and is a key part of the streetscape in this area of Akaroa;

·     Retention of this dwelling will contribute to community resilience: heritage enhances high levels of social connectedness, a sense of belonging and develops cohesive communities;

·     The proposal of repainting the building is the type of work that the grant was intended for, namely ongoing maintenance and repair;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2019/2020 financial year.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     None known

5.4       Option 2 – A lower level of funding of $2,160 (30%).

5.4.1   Option Description: The lower level of funding would be approximately 30% of the funding requested, which would still provide a degree of support to the owner.

The cost of implementation of Option 2 of the grant applications presented at this committee meeting:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                             

$697,700

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 26 Canterbury St. Lyttelton

$100,000

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Commitment from the 2018/19 financial year for 544 Tuam Street

$128,491

Approved grant to 159/161 High Street (22%)

$90,668

Approved grant to 117 Rue Jolie, Akaroa (40%)

$35,642

Approved grant to 1 Ticehurst Road, Lyttelton (12%)

$50,888

Approved grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20%)

$39,535

Approved grant to 141 High Street (11%)

$45,334

Approved grant to St David’s Church Belfast (30%)

$37,000

Approved grant to the tug ‘Lyttelton’ (50%)

$41,620

Proposed grant to 9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa (30%)

$2,160

Total Available Funds 2019/2020

$56,362

 

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     As for Option 1 above;

·     The lower level of grant would leave more funds for other applications to the HIG Fund, but would still provide some support to the owner of the building.

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     This would be a lower level of support from Council for the maintenance of a ‘Significant’ heritage building in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

Analysis Criteria / Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.5       The analysis of the options is based on the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines, which state that:

‘The primary purpose of the grant scheme is to assist owners of heritage buildings and significant moveable heritage to achieve positive heritage outcomes when they are undertaking maintenance, conservation, repairs and code compliance works to these buildings and objects. Positive heritage outcomes will be achieved through the appropriate and timely practice of conservation and maintenance of heritage fabric, the retention of the overall form and appearance of the heritage item and the protection of its heritage values.’

             When determining the proposed amount of a grant, the following is applicable:

‘Each grant shall equate to a percentage of the value of the work required as detailed in the Grant Application. When determining the amount of a proposed grant consideration will be given to the criteria in Paragraph 2 above which includes the heritage significance of the place. The increased significance of heritage buildings, places and objects in the city and on Banks Peninsula following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 is recognised. A grant approval of 0-50% of the total value of the agreed scope of works scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan will be considered. This reflects and recognises the significant loss of heritage following the earthquakes, and the increased heritage value and significance to the people of Christchurch of the listed items which remain.’

 

The Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines (2019) are included as Attachment B to this report.

Options Considerations / Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

5.6       The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource, which also contributes to the visitor experience and provides an economic benefit for the district. It recognises heritage as contributing to the identity and wellbeing of our communities and the district.

5.7       The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural, natural, and significant moveable heritage items, areas, and values, which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and which provide links to the past.

5.8       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, and heritage education and advocacy. Other relevant considerations include the overall aims for heritage retention and promotion in the city.

5.9       Heritage Incentive Grants provide opportunities to achieve positive heritage outcomes. These include the retention and protection of more heritage fabric and values than the resource consent process requires, and alignment with the conservation principles of the ICOMOS NZ Charter.

5.10    Additional considerations which the Committee may take into account are: the ongoing level of financial input from the owner; the overall percentage of funding support still being relatively low; and the comparable levels of grant support to similar heritage buildings and items.

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

6.1       Through the work on Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029, extensive community engagement was undertaken and community input was key to the outcomes. One of the requirements noted in the strategy is:

‘This strategy recognises the need to provide:

• Increased opportunities for collaboration and partnership in heritage identification, protection and celebration.

• More support through increased access to information, advice and funding…’[1]

6.2       The Heritage Incentive Grant Fund is one way in which Council is undertaking this support.

6.3       The community have indicated that they believe the retention of heritage has social, cultural, educational, recreational and economic benefits, and contributes to their community wellbeing. It also celebrates our diversity through respecting and promoting the stories of all our cultures.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

7.1       There is no known legal context, issues or implications relevant to this decision.

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

7.3       Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties or items that receive Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 - $149,999. A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

7.4       Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. Due to the level of funding recommended, no conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works; certification by Council staff that the works have been undertaken in alignment with the ICOMOS NZ Charter 2010; presentation of receipts and confirmation of the conservation covenant (if required) having been registered against the property title or on the Personal Properties Securities Register. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Once approval has been gained the applicant will have a period of eighteen months to complete the agreed work to the building.

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

10. Options Matrix / Te Poukapa

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - <enter text>

Option 2 - <enter text>

Option 3 - <enter text>

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$3,600

$2,160

N/A

Maintenance/Ongoing

$0

$0

 

Funding Source

LTP Heritage Incentive Grants

LTP Heritage Incentive Grants

 

Impact on Rates

0

0

 

Criteria 1 Climate Change Impacts

The fabric of the building with its embodied energy will be retained, rather than new fabric being required due to poor maintenance.

The fabric of the building with its embodied energy will be retained, rather than new fabric being required due to poor maintenance.

 

Criteria 2  Accessibility Impacts

The building is not fully accessible to the public but the building can be clearly viewed from the street and the proposed works will ensure this continues.

The building is not fully accessible to the public but the building can be clearly viewed from the street and the proposed works will ensure this continues.

 

Criteria 3 Social & Community Impacts

The building will be retained as a key part of the historic Akaroa streetscape. This supports the development of cohesive communities with higher levels of social connectedness, as heritage contributes to a sense of belonging for community members. Social connectedness will assist in building communities that can withstand adversity, whether caused by economic, social or environmental shocks.

This contributes to the wellbeing of our communities.

The building will be retained as a key part of the historic Akaroa streetscape. This supports the development of cohesive communities with higher levels of social connectedness, as heritage contributes to a sense of belonging for community members. Social connectedness will assist in building communities that can withstand adversity, whether caused by economic, social or environmental shocks.

This contributes to the wellbeing of our communities.

 

Criteria 4 Future Generation Impacts

Heritage will be preserved for future generations.

Heritage will be preserved for future generations.

 

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3 -

Impact on Mana Whenua

No impact

No impact

N/A

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Yes, particularly ‘Our Heritage Our Taonga, Heritage Strategy 2019-2029’. Also supports delivery of community outcomes and strategic principles.

Yes, particularly ‘Our Heritage Our Taonga, Heritage Strategy 2019-2029’.  Also supports delivery of community outcomes and strategic principles.

 

Consistency with other grants of a similar nature

The proposal would be in line with previous grants for similar works.

The proposal would be in line with previous grants for similar works.

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

9 Bruce Terrace, Akaroa - Statement of Significance

94

b

Heritage Incentive Grants Operational Guidelines (2019)

98

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

9.     Proposed Amendments to Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1286988

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst
Evangeline Emerenciana, Policy Analyst

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report reviews the effectiveness of a temporary alcohol ban for rugby league playing fields and recommends that the Council consult the community on a proposed bylaw amendment to create a permanent alcohol ban.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Council requested staff to conduct this review by resolution (CNCL/2019/00061) at its meeting on 11 April 2019.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       In April 2019, the Council decided to put a temporary alcohol ban on rugby league playing fields for the 2019 rugby league season. At the same time the Council resolved that staff review the effectiveness of the ban at the end of the season and report back by December 2019 with recommendations as to whether a permanent ban should be made. 

2.2       In September 2019 Staff and representatives of Canterbury Rugby League (CRL) presented information to the Regulatory Performance Committee on the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban over the 2019 rugby league season. The ban, as part of a suite of initiatives, contributed to a remarkable and positive change of attitude towards drinking alcohol during games. Detailed discussions on the effectiveness of the alcohol ban are summarised in section 4 of this report.

2.3       Having considered the positive contributions of the temporary ban, the Committee recommended that staff prepare options for making a permanent alcohol ban under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw).  

2.4       This report presents two options for the Committee’s consideration:

·      Option 1 - The preferred option: an amendment to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 making new Permanent Alcohol Ban areas for rugby league playing fields and related areas, to apply from April to August each year when the fields are in use for rugby league games and training sessions. Staff recommend this as the preferred option.

·      Option 2 - Retain the current bylaw with its existing Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas and extend the temporary alcohol ban for rugby league playing fields on an annual basis.  Staff do not recommend this option for the reasons detailed in items 5.2.

Staff have prepared  (Attachment A) a draft proposed amendment to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 to this report together with an analysis of the preferred option in terms of S155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) (Attachment B).

2.5       Should the Committee adopt the draft bylaw amendment for consultation, the bylaw amendment will be publicly notified in mid-December with written submissions closing in late January and a hearing of submissions in mid or late February.  Staff anticipate that the hearing panel could report back to the Council in March which would allow a new ban to be in place by April 2020 before the start of the new rugby league season.

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Resolves that:

a.         with respect to the areas to which the proposed permanent alcohol ban will apply, there has been a high level of crime or disorder that has been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption; and

b.         the alcohol ban area is appropriate and proportionate  in the light of the evidence.

2.         Determines that the proposed amendment to Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 fulfils the requirements of sections 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that the proposed amendment is (subject to changes made as a result of consultation):

a.         the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem;

b.         the most appropriate form of bylaw amendment; and

c.         justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Act.

3.         Resolves that the proposed bylaw amendment (Attachment A), which would create permanent alcohol ban areas for rugby league playing fields and related spaces – is adopted for consultation;

4.         Notes that a hearings panel will be appointed to hear submissions on the proposed bylaw amendment, deliberate on those submissions and report to the Council on the final form of the amendment to the Bylaw in March 2020.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       In 2018, Canterbury Rugby League (CRL) made a submission on the draft Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw (the Bylaw) asking that the Council make a ban for rugby league playing fields. CRL reported that local league clubs had been dealing with ongoing problems caused by supporters and club members drinking on ‘the side-lines’. In 2018 seventy percent of clubs had reported that alcohol related incidents occurred on a weekly basis including the abuse of officials and spectators, confrontational challenges to volunteers, threats including those involving a weapon and even assaults.  CRL considered that the impacts of the alcohol related disorder created significant difficulties in retaining club members and volunteer officials.

4.2       CRL considered that alcohol bans together with a range of non-regulatory measures would create safer environment for rugby league games.

The Temporary alcohol ban on 2019 rugby league winter season      

4.3       In April 2019 the Council approved a temporary alcohol ban area on Council allocated fields being used for rugby league games. The ban area covered the playing fields and adjoining public places such as car parks, changing rooms, and children’s playground areas from 3pm to 8.30pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 6pm on Saturday and Sunday of each week from April to August 2019.

4.4       In September 2019, staff and Canterbury Rugby League reported to the Regulatory Performance Committee on the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban together with other non- regulatory measures that they had adopted. They reported the ban contributed to a positive change in the attitude of club members, spectators, and players and helped create a friendlier environment during rugby league games.

Effectiveness of the Temporary Alcohol Ban on Rugby League Playing Fields

4.5       In comparison with the 2018 season, CRL reported only eight alcohol-related incidents over the five month (April to August 2019) season. No incidents of abuse of officials, or other problematic behaviour were recorded and club executives managed all incidents without needing to engage the Police to enforce the ban.

4.6       The incidents reported by local clubs in 2019:

·    Five occasions when visitors drinking on the side line were advised of the temporary alcohol ban and removed the alcohol without issue.

·    One occasion when players were seen drinking in the car park, were informed about the bylaw ban and removed the alcohol.

·    Two occasions when players were seen taking alcohol into changing room and were reminded of the bylaw ban. The alcohol was removed with no complaint.

4.7       In addition to the dramatic reduction in alcohol related misbehaviour clubs reported other positive changes including an increase in ‘patronage’ of club facilities and in the number of volunteer match officials recruited. Other Rugby League Districts wish to adopt similar initiatives and intend to approach their local councils to introduce similar bylaws.

4.8       Positive views on the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban from other clubs and stakeholders included:

·    ‘A safer and more enjoyable experience for teams, officials, spectators and visitors especially with children present and for the general public using the park at the same time. Tidier grounds, changing rooms & car park areas. Increased bar takings’.  (Riccarton Knights Club)

·    Praised the changes they have seen on the side lines and noted it has been more enjoyable to watch rugby league and be involved with a club this year than in previous years. Ashburton are also keen to engage with their council of the introduction on a similar bylaw.’ (Ashburton Barbarians Club)

·    Local community police in Papanui have expressed appreciation of the great work being done in rugby league in the Papanui area.

·    Sport Canterbury acknowledged the inspiring work of local clubs with people listening and adapting their behaviour without incident.

5.   The proposed bylaw amendment

5.1       The draft bylaw amendment is Attachment A to this report. The proposal will amend Schedule 1 of the Bylaw- Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas by the addition of a new permanent alcohol ban for sport fields allocated by the Council to Canterbury Rugby League.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.2    This option specifically aligns with the following

·      Strategic Priorities

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

·      Community Outcomes

Strong communities with strong sense of community, active participation in civic life, and safe and healthy communities.

·      Safer Christchurch City Strategy

Proactive partnerships that have a shared commitment to a Safe City

Reducing and preventing incidence and effects of crime

·      Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan (CAAP)

The proposed Permanent Alcohol Ban Area fits within the CAAP multi-agency approach to alcohol harm reduction.  It will contribute to meeting the CAAP priorities to create safer spaces, to collaborate, coordinate and communicate, and to reduce exposure, accessibility and availability of alcohol.

5.3       The decisions in the report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.3.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

5.4       Section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 enables the Council to make and amend bylaws for the purpose of controlling alcohol in certain public places.  Section 147B sets out the criteria for making resolutions relating to alcohol control bylaws.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

5.5       On 4 September 2019, the Regulatory Performance Committee recommended that staff prepare an options report for amending the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 (to include a new permanent ban for rugby league playing areas) for presentation to the Council. 

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

5.7       The level of significance was determined by the relatively small number of people likely to be affected by the decision.

5.8       The proposed permanent ban would apply only on rugby league sports fields and adjoining areas while the fields are being used for rugby league. Only those people who wish to drink on the side-line of rugby league games are likely to be negatively affected by any ban. Larger number of people (players, official, spectators and other park users) will enjoy the benefits of the ban: feeling safe and enjoying the games without risks, disorderly behaviour, and fear of threats caused by people drinking alcohol.

 

6.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

6.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered in this report:

·   Option 1 – An amendment to the 2018 alcohol bylaw to include a new Permanent Alcohol Ban Area for rugby league playing fields and related areas, to apply from April to August each year when the fields are in use for rugby league games and training sessions.

·   Option 2 - Retain the 2018 Bylaw unamended and put in place temporary alcohol bans for rugby league playing fields  for 2020 and where requested for subsequent years.

 

6.2       Option 2 was considered but is not preferred because of the following:

·   Staff consider that making another temporary alcohol ban for rugby league games for next year (2020) and coming years is not appropriate given that a temporary ban should be time bound and one-off. Each application of a temporary ban would require a further Council decision and would not be an efficient use of the Council’s or stakeholders’ resources.

·   The 2019 temporary alcohol ban has proven to be effective, creating positive results in reducing alcohol-related harm. Not adding this ban to the schedule of Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas would appear inconsistent with the purpose of the Bylaw.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.3       Option 1 (Preferred Option): Amend the current Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 by making new Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas for rugby league.

6.3.1   Option Description: The Council amends the bylaw by including a new Permanent Alcohol Ban Area in Schedule 1 of the bylaw. The proposed Permanent Alcohol Ban Area for rugby league sports fields would cover designated playing fields and ‘run off areas’ (20 meters either ends and 10 meters both sides) and adjoining public spaces such as children’s playgrounds, changing sheds, and car parks. The ban would apply from April to August each year when the fields are in use for rugby league games and training sessions.

6.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Reduces disorder and offensive behaviour caused by people drinking alcohol at rugby league matches and training sessions. 

·     The alcohol ban on rugby league game sessions (trainings and matches) provides a consistent message that drinking on the side-lines is prohibited and alcohol-free games must be observed.

·     Supports the clubs with a regulatory backstop if other measures are not effective.

·     Gives the police a tool to deal with those people whose misbehaviour is associated with drinking alcohol.

·     A safer environment for spectators, players, volunteers, club members and other park users.

·     The success of the rugby league alcohol ban with control management applied by local clubs showcases a good practice to other codes that alcohol harm can be prevented and games can be enjoyed while ensuring the safety of the people.

·     It influences people’s attitude by shifting away from an alcohol drinking culture during games.

6.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     An alcohol ban will limit the freedom of responsible alcohol consumers to drink within the ban area during the periods that the ban applies.

·     May result in moving alcohol-related behaviour to other open spaces within the parks which are not covered by the ban.

6.4       Option 2: Retain the current 2018 Bylaw with its Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas option and extend another Temporary Alcohol Ban on rugby league games (Not the preferred option)

6.4.1   Option Description: The Council decides not to amend the current 2018 Bylaw and its Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas and considers another temporary alcohol ban for all sports fields allocated by the Council for rugby league games in 2020 winter season.

6.4.2   Option Advantages

·     A temporary alcohol ban will not require wider consultation for the Council to make a decision.

6.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Requires a Council resolution on an annual basis if another alcohol ban is needed to control the occurrence of alcohol-related disorder whenever rugby league games are being played.

·     Requires additional Council resources (e.g. staff time) whenever a temporary alcohol ban is requested and processed for Council decision.

·     Alcohol ban reduces choices for responsible people to drink at rugby league games.

·     The wider community would have no opportunity to comment on the ban.

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

7.1       In preparing this report, staff consulted a number of relevant stakeholders including the New Zealand Police, Canterbury District Health Board, Canterbury Rugby League, and the Council’s Alcohol Licensing Team and Recreation and Sports Team. Staff have also informed the newly constituted community boards about the proposed bylaw amendment through a memorandum.

7.2       Stakeholders strongly support amending the current alcohol bylaw to make the rugby league alcohol ban permanent. They believe that the restrictions on drinking alcohol at 2019 rugby league games have created positive changes across the rugby league community.

7.3       The Police support the processes in place and the proposal to make the alcohol bans permanent for the rugby league seasons.  With the feedback from clubs as further evidence of the success of the bans, the Police will continue to support rugby league in this effort.

7.4       Canterbury District Health Board strongly support a permanent alcohol ban at rugby league games and would like to see the initiative extended to other sporting codes. They believe the ban supports the creation of a safe sports environment that promotes positive social networking and role modelling of behaviour to younger people.

7.5       Council staff (Alcohol Licensing Team, and Recreation and Sports Services Team) support amending the current alcohol bylaw to make the rugby league alcohol ban permanent.

7.6       CRL, local clubs and the wider rugby league community have acknowledged the positive change that has occurred with the introduction of the alcohol ban and have expressed support to continue the alcohol-free rugby league games through a permanent alcohol ban.

7.7       Sport Canterbury and Healthy Families have endorsed the proposal for a permanent ban.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.2       The legal consideration is detailed below.

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

Criteria for amending a bylaw

8.4       The Council has the power to amend bylaws for the purpose of prohibiting, regulating or controlling the consumption, bringing, and possession of alcohol in public places in Christchurch District.  The bylaw is intended to protect the public from nuisance, maintain public health and safety, and minimise the potential occurrence of offensive behaviour in public places.

8.5       Before amending a bylaw, the Council must determine that the bylaw amendment –

·    is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems

·    is in an appropriate form

·    is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bills of Rights Act 1990

8.6       The process for making, amending or revoking bylaws under the Act is outlined in sections 83, 86, 155 and 156.   The Section 155 analysis for the proposed amendment (Attachment B) has been undertaken by assessing the following:

·     the perceived problem

·     whether the bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the problem

·      whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw

·      whether the bylaw gives rise to the implications under the NZ Bills of Rights Act 1990

 

Enforcement of the Bylaw

8.7       The Police are empowered by the Local Government Act 2002 to enforce the provisions of the Bylaw made for controlling the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places. Section 169 of the LGA 2002 gives the Police powers of arrest, search and seizure in relation to enforcing the alcohol ban bylaw.  Section 170 sets out the conditions applicable to the power of search.

8.8       Police can also issue ‘instant fines’ of $250 for individuals breaching the bylaw.

9.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

9.1       The risks of adopting the proposed bylaw amendment for consultation are low.  The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal.

9.2       There is risks however, in terms of the timetable for the adoption of the proposed bylaw. The consultation has to be completed by February for the amended bylaw to take effect by April 2020 in time for rugby league games commencement.

10. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

If the Committee of the Whole approves to proceed with the wider consultation, staff propose the following timeline as next steps:

·      Public notification of an amendment to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 –-mid-December 2019

·      Closure of the period for written submissions – late January 2020

·      Hearing of submissions – Mid February 2020

·      Decision by the Council – March 2020.  [Note; the full Council must make the final decision not the Committee of the Whole.]

·      If the Council approves the bylaw change, the permanent alcohol ban will be made operative – April 2020.


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Amendment to Bylaw SCHEDULE 1-Permanent alcohol bans

114

b

Section155 Report

117

 

 

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

Evangeline Emerenciana - Policy Analyst

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Vivienne Wilson - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Emma Davis - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

28 November 2019

 

 

10.   Governance Matters

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1337754

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Nicola Shirlaw, Senior Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1   Approve the recommendations of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to recommend the appointments of Councillors to the joint committees named in this report; and

1.1.2   Approve the recommendations of the Council Organisation Appointments Panel for the appointments of Councillors to council organisations named in this report; and

1.1.3   Approve the membership of a Council committee and a working group.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Christchurch City Council is a member of several joint committees with other territorial authorities and regional partners. Councillors are appointed to represent the Christchurch City Council on joint committees and to contribute to updates to Councillors on the work of these committees as required. 

2.2       The Council has an interest and the right to make appointments to a number of council organisations. The statutory definition of a council organisation includes those entities to which the Council has the right to appoint one or more trustees, directors or members (S6, Local Government Act 2002).

 

3.   Recommendations 

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience committee:

1.         Approve the following appointments, as recommended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor:

a.         Deputy Mayor Turner to the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee.

b.         Councillor Galloway to the Selwyn-Waihora Management Zone Committee.

c.         Councillor Daniels to the Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee.

d.         Councillor Cotter to the Regional Water Management Committee.

e.         Councillors Galloway and Daniels to the Water Management Committee Selection Working Group.

f.          Councillor Cotter to Te Waihora Co-Governance Group.

g.         Councillors Cotter and Turner to the Central Plains Water Joint Committee.

h.         Councillors MacDonald, Mauger and Chen to the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee.

i.          Councillors MacDonald, Mauger and Chen to the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee.

j.          Deputy Mayor Turner to the Whakaraupo Partners Governance group.

k.         Councillor Scandrett to the Summit Road Protection Authority.

l.          Councillor Scandrett to the Summit Road Protection Authority Advisory Committee.

2.         Approves that the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board’s appointee to the Summit Road Protection Authority be the Council’s second nominee to the Summit Road Protection Authority Advisory Committee.

3.         Approves the recommendations of the Council Organisation Appointments Panel to appoint:

a.         Councillor Galloway (as Chair) and Councillor Johanson to the Mayors Welfare Fund Committee.

b.         Councillors Cotter and Davidson to Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust.

c.         Councillor Daniels to the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutahi Trus.t

d.         Deputy Mayor Turner to the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trus.t

e.         Councillor Mauger to the Nga Hau e Wha National Marae Charitable Trust.

f.          Councillor Chen to the Riccarton House and Bush Trust.

g.         Councillor Galloway and 1 other Councillor to the Creative Communities Assessment Committee.

h.         Deputy Mayor Turner to the Banks Peninsula Predator Free Governance Group

4.         Nominates Councillor Chen for appointment to the Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum Trust Board.

5.         Approves, further to the decision of Council 31st October 2019 confirming the council committee structure and membership, the membership of the following:

a.         City Momentum Committee: Mayor Dalziel and Councillor Gough (Co-chairs), Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillors Chen, Chu, Mauger, Daniels and Templeton.

b.         Central City Momentum Working Group: Councillor Gough (Chair), Councillor McLellan (Deputy Chair) Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor MacDonald.

6.         Notes the Mayor’s appointment, under delegation, of Councillor Galloway to the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust Working Party.

7.         Notes that the Council’s appointments to the Canterbury Museum Trust Board will be deferred to a later meeting of Council (noting that the Canterbury Museum Trust Board Act 1993 requires the Council to make appointments within three months of the local body elections).

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Joint committees

4.1       Christchurch City Council is a member several joint committees with other territorial authorities and regional partners. Councillors are appointed to represent the Christchurch City Council on joint committees and to contribute to updates to Councillors on the work of these committees as required. 

4.2       The Council resolved at its meeting of 31st October to delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (acting jointly) appointments to joint committees should appointments be required before the next meeting of Council (CNCL/2019/00128).   The Mayor and Deputy Mayor have met and discussed with Councillors their membership of the joint committees listed below. In making these recommendations the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have considered ward representation, committee membership and those Councillors interested in continuing their membership of some committees. Note that the Deputy Mayor took no part in the recommendations for appointment to the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee, the Central Plains Water Joint Committee and the Whakaraupo Partners Governance Group.

4.2.1   Water Management Zone Committees: The Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn-Waihora zone committees are joint committees of Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District Council and the Council. The Banks Peninsula zone committee is a joint committee of Environment Canterbury and the Council. The purpose of the zone committees is to develop zone implementation programmes (ZIP) to give effect to the fundamental principles and targets of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy within each zone and to monitor the progress in implementing the actions and recommendations in their ZIP.

4.2.2   Regional Water Management Committee:  The Regional Committee has representatives from Environment Canterbury, territorial authorities, rūnanga and Ngāi Tahu, as well as one member from each of the zone committees. The committee takes a broad view of water issues in the region, and as well as cross-zone issues that may arise. The Regional Committee is responsible for the development and review of the Regional Implementation Programme for water management.

4.2.3   Water Management Committee Selection Working Group Zone committee membership is made up of a wide range of people with interest in water issues and who have a strong connection to that zone. The purpose of the selection working group is to shortlist candidates for appointment to water management zone committees and assists in the interview process as required.

4.2.4   Te Waihora Co-Governance Group: The Te Waihora Co-Governance group members -   Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council - respectively hold kaitiaki and statutory responsibilities in relation to Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and its catchment.  The Council is a signatory to a Co-Governance Agreement providing direction for all those who have a role in, or responsibility for, restoring the mauri of Te Waihora while maintaining a prosperous land based economy and thriving communities for current and future generations.

4.2.5   Central Plains Water Joint Committee:  is a joint committee of Christchurch City and Selwyn District Councils.  The committee was established to liaise with the Central Plains Trust, and oversees appointments to the Trust. 

4.2.6   Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee: Membership of this joint committee is Christchurch City Council and the Ashburton, Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui District Councils as shareholders of Kate Valley Landfill owned by Transwaste Canterbury Ltd.  The joint interests of the councils on the Board of Transwaste are managed through this committee, including the appointment of the Council’s representative on the Transwaste Board.

4.2.7   Canterbury Waste Joint Committee: Joint committee of Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury District Councils responsible for advancing regional solid waste and hazardous waste minimisation in Canterbury. The three Councillors appointed to the Regional Landfill Committee are also appointed to this committee in recognition of the nexus of the issues in front of both committees.

4.2.8   Whakaraupo Partners Governance Group   Voluntary governance group to implement the Whakaraupō / Lyttelton Harbour Catchment Management Plan.

4.2.9   Summit Road Protection Authority: Joint committee of Christchurch City and Selwyn District Councils.  Appointments are under the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001.  The appointment of a second elected member is delegated to Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board. The Council and Board appointee are also the Council’s nominees to the Summit Road Protection Authority Advisory Committee.

Council Organisations

4.3       The Council has an interest and the right to make appointments to a number of council organisations.   The statutory definition of a council organisation includes those entities to which the Council has the right to appoint 1 or more trustees, directors or members (s 6, Local Government Act 2002).

4.4       In accordance with the Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations, the Council resolved at its meeting on 31 October 2019 to establish a Council Organisation Appointments Panel, for the purposes of recommending appointees to Council Organisations and other bodies (CNCL/2019/00128). The Mayor and Deputy Mayor were appointed as the members of the Panel. 

4.5       In making the recommendations for appointment to the organisations listed below the Panel considered ward representation, committee membership and those Councillors who expressed interest in continuing as the Council’s representative.  Note that the Deputy Mayor took no part in the recommendations for appointment to the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust and the Pest Free Banks Peninsula Governance Group.

4.5.1   Mayors Welfare Fund Committee: provides assistance to families and individuals in the Christchurch community who are in extreme financial distress.  The Fund works with other agencies in the city.

4.5.2   Christchurch Agency for Energy: established by the Council in 2010 the Trust is focused on supporting the uptake of renewable energy and enhanced energy efficiency projects

4.5.3   Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust: The Trust is a non-profit organisation formed in 2002 by the general public for the restoration and protection of the Estuary.   A  Memorandum of Understanding between Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Avon Heathcote Estuary and the Trust provides for each Council to make an appointment to the Trust.

4.5.4   Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust: Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust was established by the Council on 12 July 2010.   The Trust promotes the sustainable management and conservation of the natural environment of the Banks Peninsula.

4.5.5   Nga hau e Wha National Marae Charitable Trust:   The Marae is managed as a community facility by Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka, an Urban Maori Authority.  Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka provides a range of services on site including social housing, support for disadvantaged members of the community, educational and recreational services and support for operations of Government entities and NGOs.

4.5.6   Riccarton House and Bush Trust: the Trust manages the 6.4 hectare native bush remnant gifted to the people of Canterbury in 1914.  The Trust manages Riccarton House and its grounds including Deans Cottage.

4.5.7   Creative Communities Assessment Committee:  The Creative Communities Scheme (CCS) provides funding to local communities to support involvement in local arts activities.  The Council’s  agreement with Creative NZ requires Council to administer the creative communities scheme and assessment.

4.5.8   Pest Free Banks Peninsula Governance Group:  Pest Free Banks Peninsula/Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū is a collaborative programme to protect and enhance biodiversity on the Peninsula through the widespread eradication of animal pests. This community-led initiative has been formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by 14 foundation signatories in November 2018, including the Council.

4.5.9   Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum Trust Board. The Museum Trust Board has governance responsibility for the Air Force Museum of New Zealand, located at the RNZAF base in Wigram.    The Council can nominate a Councillor for appointment to the Board.

Other governance matters

Committee membership

4.6       At its meeting of 31st October 2019 the Council noted the council committee structure established by the Mayor under s 41A of the Local Government Act 2002; and resolved (CNCL/2019/00128) that any amendments to membership could be referred to the next Council or Committee of the Whole meeting, with that Committee having the delegation to make those amendments.

4.7       The Mayor’s recommendation is that the committee membership of the City Momentum Committee and the Central City Momentum Working Group be amended to:

4.7.1   City Momentum Committee: Mayor Dalziel and Councillor Gough (Co-chairs), Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillors Chen, Chu, Mauger, Daniels and Templeton.

4.7.2   Central City Momentum Working Group: Councillor Gough (Chair), Councillor McLellan (Deputy Chair) Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor MacDonald.

Councillor Appointment to Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust Working Party

4.8       In 2019 the Council formed the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust Working Party to provide options and recommendations to the Council about the future of the Trust.  At its meeting of 12 September 2019 the Council resolved (CNCL/2019/00224) to delegate to the Mayor, in consultation with the Banks Peninsula ward councillor, the appointment of a further councillor to the working party.

 

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

Nicola Shirlaw - Senior Advisor

Approved By

Alistair Crozier - Chief of Staff

   

 



[1] Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029, Pg. 16