Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 19 December 2019

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

13 December 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Timatanga................................................................................................... 5

Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour Korowai.......................................................................... 5

1.        Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................ 5

2.        Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga................................................. 5

3.        Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui.......................................................... 5

3.1       Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui........................................................................................ 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga.................................................... 5

4.        Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga.......................................................... 5

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

5.        Christchurch Red Zones Transformation Land Use Consultative Group Membership... 7

Regulatory Performance Committee

6.        Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 4 December 2019............................ 19

Audit and Risk Management Committee

7.        Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 27 November 2019..................... 25

8.        Audit New Zealand Report to Council on the 2018/19 Audit of Christchurch City Council..................................................................................................................... 31

Health and Safety Committee

9.        Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 4 December 2019.................... 109

Hearings Panels

10.      Hagley Oval lighting towers proposed lease...................................................... 113

Staff Reports

11.      Governance Matters....................................................................................... 135

12.      LTP 2021-31 Letter of Expectation and Strategic Framework............................... 139

13.      Report Of The Social Housing Working Group..................................................... 153

14.      Christchurch City Council submission on Local Government New Zealand Reinvigorating Local Democracy discussion paper................................................................... 155

15.      Triennial Agreement between Local Authorities in the Canterbury Region............. 169

16.      Regenerate Christchurch Board letter of advice on residential red zone................ 179

17.      Appointment of Council Recess Committee 2019/20........................................... 189

18.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 191

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

Karakia Timatanga

Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour Korowai

Te Whakaraupō/Lyttelton Harbour Group will attend the meeting to pass the Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour korowai to the Council.

 

Te Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour plan has been developed by a partnership of five organisations — Environment Canterbury, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Christchurch City Council and Lyttelton Port Company — in collaboration with the Whakaraupō/Lyttelton Harbour community.

 

A korowai made of the feathers representing the kaitiaki (guardian) for each band in the plan has been wrapped around the document signifying its importance and the commitment made by the partners and community to fulfil the vision. Te korowai moves around the partner organisations to signify the commitment they have made.

 

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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

3.   Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

A period of up to 30 minutes 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.

3.2   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

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


 

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

4.1

Joanne Hayes MP, will present a petition of 803 signatures to the Council. The Prayer of the Petition states:

 

We, call on the Christchurch City Council to urgently prioritise the extension of Oram Ave and the redevelopment of New Brighton Business Mall in their 2020/2021 Annual Plan.

 

With construction of the new saltwater hot pools underway and a completed playground, it is now time for council and councillors to make New Brighton Mall a priority. Anchor projects alone cannot be the only council initiatives to improve patronage of the mall and encourage investment.

 

The 2015 New Brighton Master Plan provided results of public consultation on the strengths and weaknesses of the New Brighton mall. Top of the list of perceived weaknesses was; “The size, function and viability of the commercial center and its appeal to developers and investors.”

 

We ask that the City Council act on this petition making it a priority for all residents of New Brighton and surrounding suburbs.

 

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 2 December 2019

 

5.     Christchurch Red Zones Transformation Land Use Consultative Group Membership

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1418890

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō :

Kelly Barber, Community Board Chairperson

 

 

1. Consideration / Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

As part of the consideration of its Area report, the Board received a memo recommending they appoint a representative to the Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group (RZTLUCG). A copy of this memo is attached as Attachment A.

 

During discussion, the Board expressed concerns that given the extensive residential Red Zone land within their wards, that the Board representation on the Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group should recognise this. The Board considered that one additional representative would address this imbalance.

 

Staff were present to answer questions from the Board and were present for the consideration of the item. Staff have advised that they are supportive of amending the terms of reference for the Group given the proportion of Red Zone land in the Board Area. Staff have provided the attached memo and advice as Attachment B.

 

 

4. Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         When finalising the establishment of the Christchurch Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group (RZTLUCG), considers the appointment of Jo Zervos as a second representative from the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu to the Community Board

 

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Considers the information and appoints a Board member as a representative for the Christchurch Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group (RZTLUCG).

 

3. Decisions Under Delegation / Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Considered the information and appoints Bebe Frayle as a representative for the Christchurch Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group (RZTLUCG).

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Community Board Representatives for the Red Zones Transformation Land Use Co-Governance Group

9

b

Staff Memorandum Regarding Appointing an Additional Representative to the Red Zones Transformation Land Use Co-Governance Group

16

 

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

6.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 4 December 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1425040

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 4 December 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 4 December 2019.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 4 December 2019

20

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

7.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 27 November 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1397967

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mark Saunders – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 27 November 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 27 November 2019.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 27 November 2019

26

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 27 November 2019

 

8.     Audit New Zealand Report to Council on the 2018/19 Audit of Christchurch City Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1397977

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Len van Hout, Manager, External Reporting and Governance

 

 

1. Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration / Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

Andrew Timlin of Audit New Zealand joined the table for this item, and in discussion with him it was agreed that the Committee resolve additional recommendations noting that Audit New Zealand will revise the wording in their report “Council provided us with limited range of documentation” to reflect that the Council were only asked to provide a limited range of documentation and all documentation requested was provided, and that their offer to be involved in developing the terms of reference for the independent lessons learned report for the Town Hall project has been accepted.

Secretarial Note: Audit New Zealand’s amended report, reflecting the discussion at the Committee meeting, is now appended as Attachment B. Audit New Zealand advised in providing this that: The edits are on page 17 and 18, removing the reference to ‘limited documentation’, to avoid confusion around the level of documentation requested and provided. The revised sentence reads:

 

We requested from Council and were provided with, a range of documentation for the Project including the Capital Delivery Major Facilities – Key Operational Standards, several progress reports, Terms of Reference for the Project Steering Group and Project Control Group, a Project Management Plan and a Communications Plan. We interviewed eleven Council staff and two elected members of Council’.

 

Audit New Zealand further advised two other edits to reflect discussions with staff:

-      specific reference to the ‘Capital Delivery Major Facilities – Key Operational Standards’ document that was provided to us, and

-      replaced the sentence ‘We understand that there were 850 unresolved contractor claims at one point’, with ‘we understand that there were a large number of unresolved contractor claims at one point’.  

 


 

 

4. Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019.

2.         Note that Audit New Zealand will revise the wording “Council provided us with limited range of documentation” to reflect That the Council were only asked to provide a limited range of documentation and all documentation requested was provided.

3.         Note that we have accepted Audit New Zealand’s offer to be involved in developing the terms of reference for the independent lessons learned report for the Town Hall project. 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu to Committee

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information and consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019 and management’s responses to these.

2.         Recommend to Council that the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019 is received.

 

3. Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation / Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information and consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019 and management’s responses to these.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Audit New Zealand Report to Council on the 2018/19 Audit of Christchurch City Council

33

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Audit New Zealand Report on the Christchurch City Council for the year ended 30 June 2019.

36

b

Updated Audit New Zealand Report on the Christchurch City Council for the year ended 30 June 2019

72

 

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

Audit New Zealand Report to Council on the 2018/19 Audit of Christchurch City Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1347870

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Len van Hout, Manager, External Reporting and Governance

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Receive the information and consider the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand in the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019 and management’s responses to these.

2.         Recommend to Council that the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to the audit of the financial statements and annual report for the year ended 30 June 2019 is received.

 

3.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Key Point

3.1       The Report to the Council on the audit of Christchurch City Council and group for the year ended 30 June 2019 is Attachment A.

3.2       The report sets out Audit New Zealand’s findings from their audit of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2019.

3.3       The report draws attention to areas where the Council is doing well or where Audit New Zealand has made recommendations for improvement.

Report back on Audit Plan items

3.4       The 2018/19 audit sought to focus on the following matters:

3.4.1   Valuation of property, plant and equipment;

3.4.2   Fair value assessment of non-revalued property, plant and equipment;

3.4.3   Capital asset additions and work in progress;

3.4.4   Early adoption of accounting standards (the Council and group);

3.4.5   Risks of management override of internal controls;

3.4.6   Procurement and contract management;

3.4.7   Project governance; and

3.4.8   Other issues

·   Global Settlement with the Crown; and

·   Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust.

3.5       Overall Audit New Zealand were satisfied with the accounting for these items, or verified that they were treated appropriately.

3.6       Audit New Zealand have reported detailed findings on their review of procurement and contract management and Project Governance.

Update on previous Audit New Zealand Recommendation

3.7       The two previous recommendations, categorised as necessary, from Audit New Zealand have now been implemented or closed.

3.7.1   The recommendation following the review of the revenue in advance accounts has been implemented.

3.7.2   The recommendation following the road safety performance measures has been closed.

Key findings from the audit

3.8       As public sector audits have a wider scope than the private sector and Audit New Zealand reviews not only the financial statements of the Council but also activity and services statements.  See page 15 of their report for a full explanation of the potential issues covered in their review.

3.9       The following areas of interest reviewed by Audit New Zealand have resulted in recommendations to management for comment with a view to enhancement in the future:

3.9.1   Procurement

3.9.2   Project governance – review of Christchurch Town Hall project

3.9.3   Prudent expenditure decision

·   Approval of Chief Executive expense claims

·   Sensitive expenditure policy

3.9.4   Pecuniary interests register

3.10    Staff have provided comments on the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Audit New Zealand Report on the Christchurch City Council for the year ended 30 June 2019.

 

 

 

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

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

9.     Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 4 December 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1428025

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mark Saunders – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee held a meeting on 4 December 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 4 December 2019.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee - 4 December 2019

110

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

Report from Hearings Panel  – 6 December 2019

 

10.   Hagley Oval lighting towers proposed lease

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1446148

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Councillor Coker – Hearings Panel Chairperson

 

 

1Hearings Panel Comment

 

Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council. 

1.2       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations as outlined below.  A link to the written submissions is available via the Hearings Panel report from its meeting 6 December 2019.

Context

1.3       The question before the hearings panel related exclusively to whether a new ground lease should be granted by the Christchurch City Council to the Canterbury Cricket Trust (CCT) for the proposed six new permanent lighting towers.

1.4       To put this new lighting tower configuration into effect necessitates both District Plan rule changes to make it a permitted activity and for a new ground lease (subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (“the Reserves Act”)) for the new tower ground positions to be granted. These two matters are processed by different authorities separately and independently of each other. It is up to the Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration (“the Associate Minister”), to exercise powers under Section 71 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (“the Regeneration Act”) to amend the Christchurch District Plan (“the District Plan”). Issues for the panel to consider fall solely under the Reserves Act. This meant that during the hearing the panel couldn’t take into consideration issues relating to the environment that usually take place under the Resource Management Act. This would be the case irrespective of the use of the Regeneration Act. This made it a very challenging process.

1.5       The general purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 includes (from Section 3(1)(a)) ‘providing, for the preservation and management for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand possessing—

1.5.1   recreational use or potential, whether active or passive; or

1.5.2   wildlife; or

1.5.3   indigenous flora or fauna; or

1.5.4   environmental and landscape amenity or interest; or

1.5.5   natural, scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, biological, geological, scientific, educational, community, or other special features or value.’

1.6       In the context of the decision making, the Hearings Panel needed to be mindful of the nature (non - retractable) and scale (height limit), and the purpose and benefit, of the lighting towers proposed to be erected, and how these lighting towers may further support and enhance the provision of recreation on, or detract from the landscape and heritage values of, Hagley Park.

Potential reasons to support the application

1.7       There were many reasons put forward to support the application:

1.7.1   2,221 written submissions were received by the closing date. Of these, 2,060 (93 %) were in support of the granting of the proposed lease and 159 (7 %) opposed and two did not state a preference.

1.7.2   The Reserves Act includes the purpose to provide areas for recreation and sporting activities for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

1.7.3   Flood lighting up to 30m in height is currently permitted throughout all of South Hagley Park, including the Hagley Oval heritage setting.

1.7.4   The four lighting poles currently allowed at the Hagley Oval through the CCT’s resource consent (to which a Reserves Act lease is already in place) are insufficient to achieve the level of lighting required to host day/night and night-time domestic and international cricket games to the standards required by the New Zealand Cricket (NZC), the International Cricket Council (ICC) and international broadcasters. ICC recommend six mast installation via the “Lighting Specification – International Cricket” document prepared by Philips and the Lighting Design and Application Centre (the LiDac recommendations).

1.7.5   Cricket has a very long history in Hagley Park, with the first international match played at the Hagley Oval in 1864. The lighting infrastructure will future proof the amenity, allowing it to be used to its full potential.

1.7.6   It is a critical time in the development of women’s cricket, with the Women’s Cricket World Cup being held in 2021. If Hagley Oval can attract day-night matches during this competition that will allow more young women in Christchurch to watch top international female sports people in action.

1.7.7   More international and domestic matches at Hagley Oval will strengthen junior cricket, as there is a strong connection between exposure to international sportspeople and the strength of grass roots sport. This is an opportunity to build well-being and encourage participation in sports. Meeting cricket heroes can motivate youngsters to get into sport. Canterbury Cricket Association: “Inspire through our game”.

1.7.8   Current CCC Strategic Framework: Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st century city. Christchurch is a city of opportunity for all. Christchurch community spirit could be lifted with the anticipation and experience of large international matches. We need to build on the growing positivity and optimism in the city.

1.7.9   An opportunity for an increased profile of Christchurch city due to increased numbers of international and domestic matches at Hagley Oval, and start to create a new brand, post the earthquakes. This could occur either via international broadcast, or by visitors coming to Christchurch to watch live games.

1.7.10 Manaakitanga: Giving New Zealand visitors an experience of true hospitality.

1.7.11 Changing lifestyles mean that night games may be appealing to those who are working, including in the weekends. 

Potential reasons to not support the application

1.8       There were also many reasons presented against the application that the hearings panel needed to consider.

Visual amenity and open space integrity of Hagley Park

1.9       One anticipated concern by those opposed to the proposal was the potential visual impact of the lighting towers. The same concerns were raised during the Environment Court hearing in 2013, consequently, the resource consent was granted with conditions, including having the lights headframes retractable and removable. This meant the panel was to consider six permanent poles with light head frames at a height of 48.9m, versus the currently allowed four retractable poles (to 30 m) that also need the light head frames removed.

1.10    The Council officers’ assessment of the landscape technical report commissioned by Regenerate Christchurch for the Regeneration Act Section 71 proposal found that the six proposed lighting towers will detract from the natural character of the Hagley Park setting. Also, there was deduced to be an impact on visual amenity when the towers are viewed against the skyline from within Hagley Oval, from the surrounding parts of Hagley Park or from the Christchurch Botanic Gardens. Additionally, that the towers will be visible from other parts of Christchurch, notably the Port Hills, and particularly evident at night when the lights are illuminated.

1.11    With these in consideration, there seemed to be no doubt to the panel that the lights will have an impact on visual amenity. Thus, the lights may detract from the landscape of Hagley Park. This is particularly important when considering the vision of the Hagley Park Management Plan (HPMP). A key element includes “the form of the park, with its long vistas and margins and avenues of trees, is continued into the future”. However, there are many other opportunities within Hagley Park to enjoy the view of the skyline, and it’s the panel’s view that the lighting towers will not fully detract from this either.

1.12    Other key elements of the vision include “the park retains a landscape character that reflects the central city’s open space heritage”. The panel believes that as the new lighting poles proposed are relatively slender, along with their strategic placement, they will have a less than minor effect on the open space nature of Hagley Oval and Hagley Park.

Commercial activity and exclusiveness of Hagley Oval

1.13    Several submitters in opposition were very concerned that as most domestic and international games require spectators to purchase tickets, this is a commercial activity. These submitters then brought into question whether, through the Reserves Act Section 54 (leasing powers in respect of recreation reserves), whether the lease should be to a voluntary organisation (Section 54(1)(a)) or to a ‘trade, business or occupation’ (Section 54(1)(d)).

1.14    As the Canterbury Cricket Trust is a registered charitable trust, the CCT qualifies as a voluntary organisation, which means it meets the requirement under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act that a lease may only be granted to a voluntary organisation. CCT’s wider objectives are to foster and support the game of cricket in Canterbury and Westland and to provide charitable community benefits.

1.15    In terms of freedom of access, some submitters expressed concerns that Hagley Oval would not be freely accessible to the public during pay-to-view matches. This was a concern for at least two members of the panel. However, Section 53 (1)(d) of the Reserves Act states that ‘an administering body, from time to time may prescribe, as to not more than 40 days in any year as it thinks fit, that the public shall not be entitled to have admission to the reserve or to any part or parts thereof set apart for a particular purpose or purposes unless on payment of a charge or charges’. Thus, it is allowable under the Reserves Act for organisations to close off an area that they are using for commercial purposes, if that purpose fits with Section 17 of the Act. Also, Hagley Oval is open for all access at all other times.

1.16    It should also be noted that the Canterbury Cricket Association mentioned in their submission that domestic games for the Canterbury cricket team would often be free for the public to attend.

Hazards, traffic concerns and car parking

1.17    Many submitters commented that they were concerned about:

1.17.1 hazards for helicopters due to the height of the proposed lights

1.17.2 increased traffic around Hagley Park during large domestic and international cricket events; and

1.17.3 pressures on car parking in the area.

1.18    These concerns are not matters relevant to the Reserves Act, so could not be considered by the panel when coming to a decision, however, and are still worth mentioning for ease of mind.

1.19    In relation to hazards for helicopters, the panel was assured that the lighting towers would not be in the flight path of any hospital helicopters. In addition, the lighting head frames would have lights on top to make them visible at all times to aircraft.

1.20    In regard to traffic, concern about access to the hospital was raised. The panel was informed that events at Hagley Oval should not increase traffic levels around Hagley Park more than current levels during large games. However, it may increase the frequency of higher use parking. It is a requirement of the lease to have a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), prepared in consultation with CCC staff, to deal with these issues. Also, the CDHB submitted in favour of the proposal, assuming issues contained in Appendix 1 of their submission to the Regeneration Act process are dealt with to their satisfaction.

Wildlife

1.21    A few submitters commented on concerns regarding the effect of the proposed lights on wildlife in Hagley Park. This concern was shared by at least one panel member.

1.22    A general purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 is (from Section 3(1)(b))  ‘ensuring, as far as possible, the survival of all indigenous species of flora and fauna, both rare and commonplace, in their natural communities and habitats, and the preservation of representative samples of all classes of natural ecosystems and landscape which in the aggregate originally gave New Zealand its own recognisable character’. However, the assessment of the effect of light from the proposed towers on any native, endemic or other species could not be considered by the panel, as this is a district planning matter. It was heartening for the panel to hear that there are no known native, endemic or endangered species that are known to be affected by the existing or proposed floodlights.

Final recommendation

1.23    As previously mentioned, the panel was limited in its consideration to matters relevant to the Reserves Act (refer to 1.5 above). A number of matters were raised that are not relevant to the decision to be made by the Council in relation to the lease request.

1.24    These factors include economic considerations, the use of section 71 Regeneration Act, the 2013 resource consent, parking, and effects on the hospital.

1.25    After considering all aspects brought up during the hearing, it became very clear to panel members that the only potential reason to not support the application was due to visual amenity issues. However, the panel felt this was a relatively minor issue when balanced against the benefits of the proposal.

1.26    Hence the panel supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor Melanie Coker
Hearings Panel Chair

11 December 2019

 

2Hearings Panel Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the granting of a ground lease, subject to section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 and the surrender of the existing four leased areas for lighting towers, to the Canterbury Cricket Trust for a period terminating on 30 November 2046, for six areas, each compromising approximately 128 square metres for the purpose of lighting towers, as shown on the premises plan in Attachment A (indicating the Canterbury Cricket Trust’s proposed location of lease areas for the installation of six new lighting towers and 3D visualisation of lease volume).

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Hagley Oval lighting towers proposed lease

118

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Plan of Premises

126

b

Attachment B - Officer response of Not to Be Heard Submissions

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/12/BLHP_20191206_AGN_4146_AT.htm#PDF3_Attachment_25770_2

127

c

Attachment C - Submissions Analysis

128

 

 


Hearings Panel

06 December 2019

 

 

Hagley Oval lighting towers proposed lease

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1286883

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Derek Roozen, Senior Network Planner Parks

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       To provide the Hagley Oval Hearings Panel (“the Panel”) with all relevant information to enable the Panel to hear, consider and determine on the written public submissions received on the proposed new ground lease for lighting towers on Hagley Oval in South Hagley Park.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       An issue with Hagley Oval’s existing and allowable facilities has been raised by the cricket ground’s current main occupier, the Canterbury Cricket Trust (“the CCT”).  The CCT have stated the allowable facility for floodlighting does not permit them to meet the current standard lighting requirements in order to be successful in bids for key international night-time cricket matches.

2.2       Regenerate Christchurch, on behalf of the CCT, proposed to the Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration (“the Associate Minister”), to exercise powers under Section 71 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (“the Regeneration Act”) to amend the Christchurch District Plan (“the District Plan”).  The proposed amendments would allow the necessary development on Hagley Oval to enable the CCT to meet international television broadcasting standards for international day/night cricket matches.  The Associate Minister agreed to start the process.

2.3       The proposed developments require replacing the current consented four retractable lighting towers with removable headframes (retracting from 48.9 to 30 metres) with six fixed (non- retractable) permanent lighting towers at different positions around Hagley Oval.  The lighting towers will require associated electrical utility cabinets and transformers.

2.4       To put this new lighting tower configuration into effect necessitates both District Plan rule changes to make it a permitted activity and for a new ground lease (subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (“the Reserves Act”)) for the new tower ground positions to be granted.

2.5       These two matters are processed by different authorities separately and independently of each other.  Public consultation on each matter is also dealt with separately, although both consultations have been run concurrently.  Consultation on the proposed District Plan amendment was facilitated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (“the DPMC”).  Consultation on the proposed new ground lease for the proposed lighting towers at Hagley Oval was run by the Council.

2.6       The question before the Hearings Panel, and ultimately the Council, relates exclusively to whether a new ground lease should be granted by the Council to CCT for the proposed six new lighting towers.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Hearings Panel:

1.         Receive this report, consider the submissions and all other relevant information presented, and make determinations and recommendations to the Council for a decision.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       Hagley Oval is a long time cricket field feature in Hagley Park.  It lies within, and comprises just over four hectares (5.7%) of, South Hagley Park, which itself is 70.5 hectares in extent.  The whole of Hagley Park is approximately 169 hectares in area.

4.2       Hagley Park consists of land vested in the Christchurch City Corporation by Section 5(1) of the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1971 for an estate in fee simple as a reserve for recreation purposes.  This reserve is now classified as a Recreation Reserve subject to Section 17 of the Reserves Act.

4.3       Details of South Hagley Park are included in the following table.

Park Name

Land Parcel

Reserve

Gazetted

Certificate of Title

Area (hectares)

South Hagley Park

Rural Section 41182 (formerly part Reserve 24) Survey Office Plan 15236

Recreation Reserve

New Zealand Gazette 1980, page 2706

24B/260, 24B/460, 24B/461, 30A/95

70.5070

                                                                                                                           

4.4       The Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 guides the management of the park.  References to Hagley Oval in the management plan include that:

·   It is defined by trees and buildings and that the circular shaped Oval provides a unique sports ground ideally suited to the game of cricket.

·   The Oval, established in 1866, has had a long association with cricket.

·   The historical Umpires Pavilion, erected in 1866, located at the north-eastern corner of the Oval, has been fully restored.  It is believed to be the oldest cricket pavilion in the Southern Hemisphere.

4.5       The park sits in the Open Space Community Parks (OCP) Zone in the Christchurch District Plan.  This zoning enables formal and informal recreation activities on a variety of public open spaces and neighbourhood parks, including larger ones accommodating minor sports facilities and public amenities, while providing amenity values through predominance of open space, landscaping, and large trees. The zone also includes heritage and urban parks, such as Hagley Park and Latimer and Cranmer Squares, which have important heritage, scenic, botanical, cultural and recreational values.

4.6       Following the earthquakes in 2011 The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (Te Mahere ‘Maraka Ōtautahi’) was written and finalised in 2012.  Sitting within the recovery plan, the Blueprint Plan (Te Hononga Mokowā) defined locations of rebuild ‘anchor’ projects, including a Cricket Oval involving enhancement of the existing Hagley Oval in South Hagley Park to a venue capable of hosting community, domestic and international cricket.  This enhancement was anticipated to provide:

·   A domestic and international purpose-built cricket venue.

·   Grass embankments with spectator capacity of 15,000 with ability to expand to 20,000 using temporary seating.

·   Training and coaching facilities with indoor and outdoor nets.

·   Sports lighting to international broadcast standards.

·   A pavilion with lounge and media facilities.

It was expected for full public access to Hagley Oval to be maintained during non-event days, and that the essential village green character of Hagley Park would be retained.

4.7       The Council, at its meeting on 14 February 2013, resolved that the resource consent application lodged by the CCA for the proposed facilities at Hagley Oval be referred directly to the Environment Court for the hearing of submissions.  At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 August 2013 the Environment Court granted resource consent to allow the development of facilities at Hagley Oval that enabled domestic and international cricket matches to be undertaken, including tests, one day internationals and Twenty/20 fixturesAmongst other things, this included the installation and operation of (1) four 48.9 metre high, partly retractable, lighting towers with demountable headframes, and (2) a two-story cricket pavilion.  An operational condition of the consent for the lights was that the retractable headframes, which were to be able to bring the height of the tower down to 30.9 metres when retracted, be removed and stored out of sight in the cricket off-season.

4.8       The Council at its meeting on 15 July 2013 agreed to Christchurch City hosting Cricket World Cup games in early 2015 at Hagley Oval.

4.9       The Council approved the granting of a ground lease on 29 August 2013 to the Canterbury Cricket Association (“the CCA”).  The lease was for the erection of a pavilion and lighting towers at Hagley Oval.  The Reserves Act Section 54(2) requirement for prior public notification of the proposed lease was exempted by application of Section 54(2A) of the Reserves Act, which provides for an exemption where a proposed lease is contemplated in a management plan or follows public consultation on the granting of a resource consent.

4.10    A Deed of Lease was signed by the Council and the CCA on 2 December 2013 formalising CCA’s occupation of parts of Hagley Oval for the purpose of constructing a cricket pavilion with adjoining permanent seating and ancillary areas, and erecting four lighting towers at separate sites on the perimeter of Hagley Oval, each site comprising an area of approximately 120 square metres.  It is to be emphasised that this existing ground lease relates only to the areas under the pavilion building and the existing four lighting tower sites.  Hagley Oval per se was not leased to the CCA.  The pavilion and seating have been established.  The lights have never been installed.  Reasons are various and include both construction and operational costs of retractable lights, changing international design requirements and concern over potential impact of closing Hagley Oval to public access twice per annum for a few days as a construction zone and to repair the subsequent ground to the ground surrounds from movements of heavy vehicles and cranes needed to install and remove the light headframes at the start and end of each season.  Concern has also been raised by the Council’s Parks staff regarding the potential damage to the root zone of the heritage trees that surround Hagley Oval from the heavy vehicle movements.

4.11    At its meeting on 25 September 2014 the Council approved the assignment of the lease to the CCT.  This was for the reason that the CCT is in effect the owner of the pavilion and lighting towers, with it having had the function as a charitable trust to raise the funds for the above but which could not be transferred to the CCA.  However, the CCA remains responsible for the rights and obligations under the lease.  On 19 May 2015 a Deed of Variation of Trust Deed between the CCA and the CCT was signed by both parties, formalising the CCT in the capacity of lessee at Hagley Oval from that point on.

4.12    In October 2019 the Associate Minister decided to commence the process under Section 71 of the Regeneration Act to amend the District Plan to add rules that permit development at Hagley Oval, including proposed six permanent lighting towers to provide lighting that meets the current international television broadcasting standards for international day/night cricket matches.

Staff Assessment of the lease application / Te Aromatawai i ngā kaimahi mō te tono riihi

4.13    In respect of the prospect of new rules in the District Plan being adopted, rules that relate to a new allowance for design and number of lighting towers can only be put into effect by the granting of a new ground lease for the areas proposed to be occupied by those towers.  This required the full and independent process required by Section 54 of the Reserves Act to be followed.  It included public consultation, which is covered in Paragraphs 4.36 to 4.45 of this report.

4.14    A ground lease to an occupier of a public park that is a recreation reserve requires the occupier to be a voluntary organisation that provides opportunities for the public to experience and enjoy recreation, whether that is playing a sport or viewing it.  The CCT meets this requirement and, through the actions of the CCA, provides a high-level recreation experience for the public.

4.15    Hagley Oval has already proved to be very successful, and popular with the public.  The provision of floodlights, especially ones that meet the international television requirements, will enable both night and key international matches to be enjoyed by the public moving forward.

4.16    One anticipated concern is the potential visual impact of both the lighting towers and the operation of the lights themselves on the Hagley Park environment and on the capacity of visitors to continue to enjoy the park.  The same concern were raised during the Environment Court hearing in 2013.  Consequently, the resource consent was granted with conditions, including having the lights headframes retractable and removable. 

4.17    The proposed amendment to the District Plan under Section 71 of the Regeneration Act, if approved by the Associate Minister, will mean that the proposed six permanent lighting towers will become a permitted activity in the District Plan.  However, for these towers to be able to be erected on sites in Hagley Oval requires the granting of a new ground lease under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act for the areas covering these sites.

4.18    The Council officers’ assessment of the landscape technical report commissioned by Regenerate Christchurch for the Regeneration Act Section 71 proposal finds that the six proposed lighting towers will detract from the natural character of the Hagley Park setting.  Also, that the impact on visual amenity will be when the towers are viewed against the skyline from within Hagley Oval, from the surrounding parts of Hagley Park or from the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.  Additionally, that the towers will be visible from other parts of Christchurch, notably the Port Hills, and particularly evident at night when the lights are illuminated.

4.19    The current leased sites have the four lighting towers positioned to avoid being within ten metres of the Umpires Pavilion heritage building.  With the six lighting tower proposal, a “Floodlight and TV Scaffolding Exclusion Zone” around this building is proposed to be inserted in the District Plan.  The nearest proposed tower will be positioned well outside this zone.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.20    This report is to inform the Hearings Panel of the due process of response to an application by an existing lessee to enhance an important recreation facility on Hagley Park.  The application is being processed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Reserves Act, including full public consultation, and assessed for compatibility with Council planning direction, including objectives and policies of the Hagley Park Management Plan 1997.

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

4.21.1 Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.5 Satisfaction with the range and quality of recreation opportunities within parks. - Resident satisfaction with range and quality of recreation facilities within Parks: >= 85%.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.22    The limit of the decision making authority in this case is for the approval of the proposed new lighting tower sites in the ground lease to the CCT.  In the context of that decision making, the Hearings Panel needs to be mindful of the nature (non-retractable) and scale (height limit), and the purpose and benefit, of the lighting towers proposed to be erected, and how these lighting towers may further support and enhance the provision of recreation on, or detract from the landscape and heritage values of, Hagley Park.  However, the decision making as to the proposed lighting towers being a permitted activity under the District Plan is that to be made by the Associate Minister.

4.23    The full Reserves Act process, as laid out in Section 54 of the Reserves Act, is being followed.  This includes having received written submissions or objections over one calendar month, with submitters given the opportunity to indicate if they wished to be heard in support of their submission or objection.

4.24    The role of the Hearings Panel is to consider the submissions and all other relevant information, determine its response and make recommendations to the Council for a decision.

4.25    The terms of reference for the decision making is for the resolutions to recommend and approve the granting or non-granting of a new ground lease to the CCT for six new lighting tower sites on the perimeter of Hagley Oval.   In the event approval is recommended by the Hearings Panel, and given by the Council, CCT will need to surrender its existing leased premises for four lighting towers at Hagley Oval, and the six new towers to be facilitated by way of variation to CCT’s existing ground lease.  The CCT will retain the lease termination date of 30 November 2046.

4.26    The proposed leased premises for the six lighting tower sites will include, in addition to the underground extent of the tower foundations, the horizontal spread of the lights headframes as mirrored on the ground surface, along with representation of this horizontal area in a vertical dimension up to the proposed maximum height.  This will be illustrated in the Plan of Premises included in the new Deed of Lease.  An indication of this is shown in Attachment A.

4.27    The CCT was formed by the CCA in 2007 to act as a foundation and fundraiser for CCA.  The CCT’s wider objectives are to foster and support the game of cricket in Canterbury and Westland and to provide charitable community benefits.  As a registered charitable trust, the CCT qualifies as a voluntary organisation, which means it meets the requirement under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act that a lease may only be granted to a voluntary organisation.

4.28    Due to this being a proposed new lease, upon its granting the Minister of Conservation’s consent is required to be obtained.  The Minister’s power has been delegated to the Council, and this has been sub-delegated to the Chief Executive to make on behalf of the Minister.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.29    The Council consented on 14 February 2013 to the CCA’s resource consent application being referred directly to the Environment Court.

4.30    The Environment Court on 13 August 2013 granted resource consent for the number (four), design (partly retractable and removable) and scale (up to 48.9 meters high) of lighting towers.

4.31    Council on 29 August 2013 granted the current ground lease to the CCA for the ground footprint of the pavilion and the four lighting tower sites (121 square metres for each tower site; 2,469 square metres for the total land area leased).

4.32    On 25 September 2014 the Council approved the assignment of the lease to the CCT.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.34    The level of significance was determined by the high level of interest in the proposed development, the potential social and environmental impacts and possible benefits to the wider community in carrying out the decision.

4.35    The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report and attachments reflects this assessment.

Public Consultation / He Kōrerorero mo te Katoa

4.36    The Council at its meeting on 22 August 2019 approved public consultation of the proposed new lighting towers lease to be implemented in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act.

4.37    Public notice was made on 16 October 2019, inviting interested parties to make written submissions or objections up to and including 18 November 2019.  Parties were able to indicate if they wished to be heard in support of their submission or objection.

4.38    Various news items were published on the Council website and picked up by both local and nation news providers.

4.39    Letters and a public information leaflet were forwarded to, and/or contact made with, key parties, including the Department of Conservation and Ngāi Tahu.

4.40    Emails were sent to all key stakeholders and an information leaflet was posted to all people who submitted to the Environment Court in 2013.

4.41    Meetings with the Hagley Park Reference Group were held to discuss the proposed changes at Hagley Oval.  The Hagley Park Reference Group subsequently provided a submission for consideration.

4.42    Public information leaflets were available at all Council libraries and service centres.

4.43    A public drop-in information session was held at Hagley Oval between 6.30pm and 7.30pm on Monday 4 November 2019.  Council officers and representatives of the CCT were present to provide information and answer questions.  Approximately 40 members of the public attended.

4.44    At the close of the receipt of written submissions on 18 November 2019, 2,221 had been received. Reference to these is made in Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of this report.

4.45    All submitters have had their submission or objection acknowledged – by email if the address of that was provided; otherwise by posted letter.

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

5.1       2,221 written submissions were received by the closing date.  Of these, 2,060 (93 %) were in support of the granting of the proposed lease and 159 (7 %) opposed and two did not state a preference.  32 submissions were received from 28 businesses and official organisations and of these, five were not in support, 22 were in support and one did not state a preference.

5.2       A table of all the “not heard” submissions, including Council officer response when required, is presented in Attachment B.

5.3       Analysis of all submissions is provided in Attachment C.

6.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.1       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision, as it will be the consequence of the required full and robust Reserves Act process being followed.

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

7.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

7.1       For the hearings Panel, once it has heard, considered and deliberated on the public submissions received on the proposed new lease, it will need to formulate its recommendation for decision by the Council, and to effect that with adoption of this report, with amendment and addition to it as required and necessary.

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A - Plan of Premisis

 

b  

Attachment B - Officer response of Not to Be Heard Submissions

 

c  

Attachment C - Submissions Analysis

 

 

 

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

Derek Roozen - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

11.   Governance Matters

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1415632

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mayor Lianne Dalziel
Megan Pearce Hearings & Council Support Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to approval additional Councillor appointments to various Trusts and joint bodies not already covered by previous decisions.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       A number of Councillor appointments were made by Council at its meetings of 31 October and 5 December 2019, and at the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting on 28 November 2019.

2.2       There are a number of appointments outstanding and this report aims to address some of those outstanding appointments.

3.   Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Appoints members to the Canterbury Museum Trust

a.         Reappoints Councillors Cotter and Galloway

b.         Reappoints Mr Tom Thomson

c.         [The Mayor will bring a recommendation for the fourth appointment to the meeting]

2.         Appoints three members to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) as follows:

a.         Reappoints Deputy Mayor Turner

b.         Reappoints Ms Vicki Buck

c.         Appoints Councillor Mauger

3.         Reappoints Councillor Cotter to Keep Christchurch Beautiful Inc.

4.         Appoints Councillor Coker to the Rockfall Protection Structures Committee, noting that additional, existing membership comprises Deputy Mayor Turner and Councillors Johanson, Scandrett and Templeton.

5.         Notes the following membership on the Sister City Committees:

a.         Councillor Johanson, Christchurch-Seattle Sister City Committee

b.         Deputy Mayor Turner, Christchurch- Songpa-Gu Sister City Committee

c.         Councillors Cotter and Galloway, Christchurch-Adelaide Sister City Committee

d.         Councillor Chen, Christchurch-China Sister City Committee

e.         Deputy Mayor Turner, Christchurch-UK England Sister City Committee

f.          Christchurch-Kurashiki Sister City Committee membership not yet determined

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Council Organisations and Trusts

4.1       The Council has an interest and the right to make appointments to a number of council organisations and external bodies. 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 (s6, Local Government Act 2002).

4.2       Councillors were asked to express interest in the list of appointments to be made, as listed below and these have been taken into account in the recommendations in this report.

4.2.1   Canterbury Museum Trust: this is a non-profit making permanent institution with a purpose to ensure the long term sustainability of the Canterbury Museum. The Trust is a joint body with the Council required to appoint four members (these need not be all elected members). The Council is required to appoint four people within three months of the local body elections as per the Canterbury Museum Trust Board Act 1993.

4.2.2   Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT): the OCHT leases the Council’s social housing portfolio and in addition operates housing owned by the Trust. OCHT provides tenancy management services and minor maintenance services.

4.2.3   Keep Christchurch Beautiful Inc: is a voluntary, not-for-profit organisation which aims to promote a litter free, cleaner and more beautiful environment within Christchurch. The organisation aims to raise the level of awareness of what individuals can do to improve their community.

Council Committees

4.3       The following Council Committees require membership appointment following the October 2019 triennial local elections or reinstatement of the committee. Councillors were asked to express interest in the list of appointments to be made as outlined below and these have been taken into account in the recommendations in this report.

4.3.1   Rockfall Protection Structures Committee: was not discharged following October 2019 triennial local elections, however the Council may wish to review the membership. The Committee has delegated authority to make decisions with respect to the Port Hills Rockfall Protection Structure Funding Policy.

4.3.2   Christchurch Sister City Committee: Sister City Committees are community committees which support the Council’s Sister City partnerships.  The role of elected members on Sister City Committees is to represent the Council’s interests as an active and equal member of the Sister City Committee whilst appointed by Council; to assist Sister City Committees and the Mayor in the hosting of Sister City delegations; and to formally and informally communicate the activities of the Sister City Committee to the Council.  Elected members are encouraged to consider remaining vacancies on each of the following Sister City Committees for the 2019-22 triennium:

·     Christchurch-Seattle Sister City Committee

·     Christchurch- Songpa-Gu Sister City Committee

·     Christchurch-Adelaide Sister City Committee

·     Christchurch-China Sister City Committee

·     Christchurch-UK England Sister City Committee

·     Christchurch-Kurashiki Sister City Committee

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Megan Pearce - Manager Hearings and Council Support

Darel Hall - Advisor, Mayor's Office

Approved By

Alistair Crozier - Chief of Staff

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

12.   LTP 2021-31 Letter of Expectation and Strategic Framework

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1422664

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Peter Ryan, Head of Performance Management

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       For the Council to note the Mayor’s Letter of Expectation to the Chief Executive for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-31.

1.2       For the Council’s Strategic Framework,

1.2.1   to seek Council approval of the revised Strategic Framework developed by elected members (revisions are in red);

1.2.2   to confirm that the revised Strategic Framework is to be used as the foundation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan; and

1.2.3   to flag follow up work and confirm the timing of Strategic Priorities reporting.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Mayor’s Letter of Expectation to the Chief Executive regarding the LTP 2021-31 has been finalised.

2.2       The Council’s Strategic Framework was revised by elected members and is supported by staff.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Notes the Mayor's Letter of Expectation for the LTP 2021.

2.         For the Council’s Strategic Framework,

a.         Approve the attached revised Strategic Framework and confirms that it is to be used as the foundation for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

b.         Agree that staff should continue to report to Council six-monthly on progress on the Strategic Priorities.

c.         Note that the community engagement/consultations on the Annual Plan due to take place in the first quarter of 2020 will be the first opportunity for the Council to consult the community on the revised Strategic Framework.

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       During the last Council term, elected members worked with the Executive Leadership Team and staff to prepare a new Strategic Framework.  The Framework set out the Council’s intended strategic direction for the following three years and beyond, and provided the foundation for the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

4.2       Following the election of the new Council in October and November, the Mayor and Councillors have met to discuss and confirm their priorities.  These are captured in the attached revised Strategic Framework which has a new title underlining the importance of building the city’s resilience.

4.3       The Framework has four main tiers:

4.3.1   A top tier setting out the Council vision and a whakataukī or proverb which sums up the mutual commitment of the Council and Ngāi Tahu to a partnership relationship based on understanding and respect.  This tier also includes principles which are to underpin all Council work – these principles have been revised to more closely draw on section 14 of the Local Government Act;

4.3.2   Community Outcomes which describe what we aim to achieve for the city and which are well-aligned to the four wellbeings which are at the heart of local government.  The Mayor and Councillors propose minor changes to the wording of some Outcomes, which will have no impact on the Council’s whole-of-community view. These proposed changes will be discussed with the community as part of the consultation on the revised Strategic Framework.

4.3.3   Strategic Priorities which identify key areas in which the Council wants to see a change in approach or increase in focus.  Elected members have reviewed the Priorities section, and staff will work with them to develop an implementation plan and to embed these priorities into work programmes and budgets.

4.3.4   Ensuring we get core business done and deliver on our vision:  this tier has been re-named to indicate the role core Council processes have in delivering on the Framework’s vision.

4.4       The purpose of the Framework is to capture on one page what the Council aims to achieve, working with the community, and to set the strategic foundation for the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.  Staff are already working to build the existing Strategic Framework into the Activity Plans which are a key building-block of the Long Term Plan. This work will be adjusted to take account of the changes to the Framework agreed today. 

4.5       Work to embed the Strategic Framework into Council work programmes and budgets will continue to be led by the Strategic Alignment Steering Group, which proposes to report to Council every six months.  As indicated above, an implementation plan will also be prepared to give effect to the Strategic Priorities, which will be presented to Council. Support is also being provided by the LTP Programme Group managing the LTP process. 

 

Legal Considerations

4.6       Under the Local Government Act 2002 changing Community Outcomes would require amending the LTP by way of the special consultative procedure. However it is the advice of the Legal Services Unit that given the very low significance of the changes and the fact that consultation on the revised Strategic Framework will include the Community Outcomes there is little risk to the Council from taking the approach recommended in this report.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Letter of Expectation for LTP 2021-31

142

b

Strategic Framework - updated December 2019

151

 

 

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

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

13.   Report Of The Social Housing Working Group

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1407721

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Mayor Lianne Dalziel - Chair of the Social Housing Working Group
Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the recommendations of the Social Housing Working Group on a reporting framework for Social Housing.

2.   Chairperson’s Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Note that the Working Group’s terms of reference assume a policy outcome of reinstating provision of social housing to at least pre-earthquake levels by the end of this Council term.

2.         Agree that the adoption of a target of reinstating social housing to pre-earthquake levels by the end of this triennium be considered as part of the Social Housing Strategy.

3.         Agree the Council publish a pre-earthquake Baseline Database of Council owned social housing, including those units operated by other community housing providers.

4.         Note the involvement of community housing providers in the provision of the Council’s broader social housing portfolio.

5.         Note that the monthly performance, project and finance reports will continue to be made to the appropriate committees.

6.         Adopt a Comprehensive Social Housing quarterly reporting framework described below:

a.         Status of units categorised into the following groupings:

i.          Council owned Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) operated

ii.         OCHT owned and operated

iii.        Council owned community housing provider operated

iv.        Other

b.         Repairs/rebuilds

c.         Healthy Homes Standards including Warm & Dry Programme

d.         Maintenance

e.         Levels of Service

f.          Residents Satisfaction

g.         Housing Fund

7.         Note the need to ensure good understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of Council and OCHT, and the significance of the rates neutrality policy.

8.         Request that the report information be provided visually as a “dashboard” or similar, suitable for both presentation to the Council, through its reporting process, and the community, through digital and other means. 

9.         Request that the methamphetamine testing standard be considered by the Committee as a separate matter.

10.       Note that the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee of the Whole will adjust the Comprehensive Social Housing quarterly reporting framework from time to time to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

 

3.   Background / Context /Te Horopaki

3.1       The Council has set up and tasked the Social Housing Working Group with:

Working with staff to recommend a regular comprehensive reporting framework for both Council and the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [OCHT] to report on the following:

1.    Baseline information

2.    The warmth & dryness initiative

3.    The programme to repair and replace social housing units with a view to reinstate provision to a pre-earthquake quantity by the end of this Council term

4.    Any related matters with respect to ensuring sufficient quality and quantity of social housing for Christchurch

 

3.2       The Working Group met on 25 November 2019 and discussed a possible reporting framework.

3.3       The Terms of Reference for the Working Group delegated authority to approve the reporting framework to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee of the Whole, with the framework to be completed by the end of 2019.  As the report of the Working Group could not be completed in time for the only 2019 Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee of the Whole meeting, the Chair of that Committee has approved submission of the report to Council.

 

4.   Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

4.1       The reporting framework contains suggestions for both quarterly reports to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee of the Whole and, to increase transparency, a standing database of information about Council’s portfolio on the Council website.

4.2       The key focus of the report will be on matters relating to the operation and future direction of Council’s social housing portfolio, including the activities of the community housing provider who leases the majority of the portfolio, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust. 

4.3       Financial matters will separately be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee of the Whole through existing reporting mechanisms.

4.4       Information about the replacing social housing units with a view to reinstate provision to a pre-earthquake quantity by the end of this Council term will be presented as a separate report planned for February 2020.  Regular reporting on the actions arising from the planned February 2020 report will occur through the quarterly reports described in this framework.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

14.   Christchurch City Council submission on Local Government New Zealand Reinvigorating Local Democracy discussion paper

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1362340

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Nick Adams, Policy and Project Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the submission to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) in response to their request for feedback on the Reinvigorating Local Democracy discussion paper.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       LGNZ and the NZ Initiative think tank have developed a Reinvigorating Local Democracy (https://localism.nz/) discussion paper promoting the concept of Localism for central government consideration.  LGNZ has requested that local government authorities provide feedback by 15 December, but are able to accept feedback until mid-January.

2.2       Localism is the realignment of incentives and powers from central to local government. The submission broadly supports the discussion paper, but reinforces the importance of any devolution of roles and responsibilities to be at the request of local government, under mutual agreement on funding, service delivery levels, and appropriate transfer of resources.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve the Christchurch City Council submission to Local Government New Zealand's discussion paper on Reinvigorating Local Democracy.

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       LGNZ initiated its Localism project in 2018. Localism is essentially a way for local government organisations to gain greater autonomy over decisions that have direct impact on their citizens and communities. Accordingly, this also allows local governments to pursue greater funding, resources, decision-making and accompanying legislative changes to empower local government.

4.2       LGNZ's discussion paper highlights the high level of centralised services and expenditure in New Zealand comparative to other international economies, and suggest that decentralisation would increase overall prosperity and well-being through a bottom-up approach to service delivery.

4.3       The paper is based around five central themes:

4.3.1   Devolution of roles and responsibilities from central to local government, through either a process led by central government, through a negotiated approach from local government, or through the removal of legislative constraints.

4.3.2   An adjustment of existing funding or taxation mechanisms to allow local government to successfully carry out the increased roles and responsibilities.

4.3.3   Development of mechanisms to allow local government to inform and influence the central government well-being budget.

4.3.4   To better empower citizens and communities to be part of decision-making through providing mechanisms for meaningful engagement.

4.3.5   The elimination of costs being shifted from central to local government through insufficient funding or the imposition of service level changes.

4.4       The discussion paper poses 15 questions as the primary form of response. Council's response to the Localism discussion paper is embedded under these questions. Broadly these are:

4.4.1   Any devolution of roles, responsibilities and services should be through a negotiated process initiated by local government, and should include the mutually agreed transfer of resources.

4.4.2   Funding mechanisms should be reviewed by the NZ Productivity Commission, noting their previous work on consideration of budget transfers, local levy's and other potential local charges.

4.4.3   A regulatory reform process should be instituted that allows local government to directly request the removal or amendment of legislation and regulations.

4.4.4   Input into the national well-being budget process is welcomed on a triennial basis as part of Long Term Plan development.

Strategic Alignment

4.5       Localism is aligned with the Council's overarching principle of working together in a way that best utilises the skill and talent across the Council and city communities. Increased roles and responsibilities at the local government level will increase our accountability for decisions that directly impact our communities and citizens.

4.6       Instituting local well-being plans that blend into the Long Term Plan development process and national budget cycle creates an opportunity for greater public participation in long-term community development. This also directly raises the profile of democratic practices to enable greater levels of public participation.

4.7       This submission also highlights an opportunity to support the Christchurch District Plan and other Council Strategies through influencing amendments to national level legislation.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.8       Council has the authority to make the decision to approve the submission.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

4.9       The submission recommended by this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

4.10    The level of significance was determined due to the non-binding nature of the submission and discussion paper.

4.11    Engagement with Community Boards and internal consultation is reflected in the submission.

Consultation

4.12    This submission is being led by the Community Support, Governance and Partnership unit, and has consulted via workshop and feedback with the Policy team, Community Boards and Governance Managers, and the Monitoring & Research team.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

LGNZ Reinvigorating local democracy (Localism)_submission letter

158

 

 

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

Nick Adams - Policy & Project Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

15.   Triennial Agreement between Local Authorities in the Canterbury Region

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1420397

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Ross Pringle, Chief Advisor to Chief Executive

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of the report is for the Council to approve the draft Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2020-22 (the Agreement).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2020-22.

2.         Approve the Mayor signing the Triennial Agreement on behalf of the Council.

 

3.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

3.1       Section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires local authorities within a regional council area to enter into a Triennial Agreement (the Agreement) by 1 March following triennial local body elections.

3.2       The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that appropriate levels of communication, co-ordination and collaboration are maintained between local authorities within the region. Agreements must include:

·    protocols for communication and co-ordination between councils

·    the process by which councils will comply with section 16 of the Act, which applies to significant new activities proposed by regional councils

·    processes and protocols through which all councils can participate in identifying, delivering and funding facilities and services of significance to more than one district.

3.3       The first Triennial Agreement was entered into by local authorities in Canterbury in 2003.

3.4       A Triennial Agreement mandates the work of the Mayoral Forum, the Chief Executives’ Forum and other regional forums and working groups.

3.5       It is a commitment to keep each other informed about matters with cross-boundary implications and outlines the roles for the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and Chief Executives’ Forum.  It does not preclude local authorities from entering into other agreements among themselves or outside their region to facilitate their responsibilities.

3.6       A triennial agreement may be varied by agreement between all the local authorities within the region, and remains in force until local authorities ratify a new agreement.

3.7       The Agreement was drafted at the direction of the outgoing Mayoral Forum. A draft was discussed and refined at the May and August 2019 meetings of the Mayoral Forum.

3.8       The Agreement was adopted by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum at its meeting on 29 November 2019 with the inclusion of the following minor changes:

·     Triennial Agreement, para 15, 2nd bullet: “develop and lead implementation of a sustainable development strategy for Canterbury region for the local government triennium 2020–22” – replacing previous wording about a “Canterbury regional development strategy”.

·     Mayoral Forum terms of reference, para 5(c) – to reflect discussion on representation, attendance and participation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in meetings of the Mayoral Forum.

3.9       All that is required to give effect to the Agreement is ratification by the 11 councils listed in the Agreement.  When all councils have ratified the Agreement, the secretariat will publish it on the Mayoral Forum website at https://canterburymayors.org.nz/

 

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

3.10    The parties to the Agreement are the 11 local authorities of Canterbury. To comply with the Local Government Act, all councils are required to ratify the Agreement no later than 1 March 2020.

Significance and Engagement

3.11    The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.11.1 The level of significance was determined by the legislative requirement to enter into a Triennial Agreement.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2020–22

172

 

 

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

Ross Pringle - Chief Advisor

Approved By

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

16.   Regenerate Christchurch Board letter of advice on residential red zone

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1450847

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Brendan Anstiss, General Manager Strategy & Transformation

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council, as one of the shareholders of Regenerate Christchurch, to receive and consider advice from the Board of Regenerate Christchurch on the residential red zone areas in the Port Hills, Southshore and South New Brighton, and Brooklands. The letter of advice is included as Attachment A, and outlines the status of the areas along with an assessment of the available options to support their regeneration.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       The Board of Regenerate Christchurch has prepared advice on the status of areas of the residential red zone along with an assessment of the available options to support the regeneration of these areas. The areas included are the Port Hills, Southshore and South New Brighton, and Brooklands. Council staff had an opportunity to provide comment on an earlier draft of this letter, and are broadly comfortable with its final contents.

2.2       Under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act (GCR Act), only Regenerate Christchurch is able to propose a Regeneration Plan or an exercise of power under section 71 of the Act in relation to an area that includes any of the residential red zone. Regenerate Christchurch’s advice concludes that the performance of these functions is not currently required or appropriate in the Port Hills, Southshore or South New Brighton. However, the advice leaves open the possibility that these functions could be utilised in Brooklands. It recommends engagement is initiated with the Brooklands red zone community in partnership with the Council, in order to determine whether this is necessary.

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives and considers the advice from Regenerate Christchurch (included as Attachment A) which concludes that use of the powers under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act are not required or appropriate, at this juncture, for the Port Hills, Southshore or South New Brighton residential red zone areas, but may be applicable for Brooklands, and that engagement is initiated with the community of Brooklands.

2.         Notes that Council and Regenerate Christchurch staff will continue to define and specify the engagement proposed with the Brooklands Community and will also engage with the Community Board throughout this process.

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       Under the GCR Act, only Regenerate Christchurch is able to propose a Regeneration Plan or an exercise of power under section 71 of the Act in relation to an area that includes any of the residential red zone. The attached advice examines whether there is a need for Regenerate Christchurch to perform these functions in relation to the residential red zone areas in the Port Hills, Southshore, South New Brighton, and Brooklands.

4.2       Regenerate Christchurch’s advice has been prepared in accordance with its updated Letter of Expectations 2019/20, Statement of Intent 2019-21 and Statement of Performance Expectations 2018/19.

4.3       Regenerate Christchurch’s advice acknowledges that the agency is now focused on a plan to transition the majority of its strategic leadership and regeneration functions to other locally-based institutions over the next six months to a year. This must be kept in mind as Regenerate Christchurch’s role in the residential red zones areas is considered.

4.4       Regenerate Christchurch’s advice on each area is considered in further detail below.

Port Hills

4.5       Regenerate Christchurch’s advice concludes that action in the Port Hills red zone areas, to withdraw or amend the various overlays where appropriate, is best dealt with by Council through the RMA in line with our rolling District Plan review programme.

4.6       Staff agree with this position, which reflects recent discussions between Council and Regenerate Christchurch staff.  Council staff already have this work underway.

Southshore and South New Brighton

4.7       As outlined in Regenerate Christchurch’s letter, Council staff have investigated the possibility of proceeding with estuary-edge works in South New Brighton through the exercise of section 71 powers under the GCR Act. Staff have concluded that it is likely that work will continue through a resource consent process with no disadvantage to the timeline for delivery.

4.8       In relation to Southshore, the letter is also an accurate reflection of Council’s position. The option of a section 71 process under the GCR Act remains a possibility, however there would be timing constraints if we were to decide to proceed down this route (as alluded to in paragraph 24 of the attached letter) and it is also not clear if any application would meet the purposes (including necessity test) of the Act.

Brooklands

4.9       Regenerate Christchurch has proposed that an engagement process with the Brooklands residential red zone community is initiated as a matter of priority, to inform an assessment of whether Regenerate Christchurch could play a role in supporting the regeneration of the area.

4.10    Council is currently establishing a coastal hazards adaptation planning programme, with Brooklands likely to be one of the first communities we will engage with and proceed through the ten-step adaptation planning process set out in the Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Guidance for Local Government (2017). One of the first steps in the process is to commission an updated coastal hazards assessment, which will form the basis of initial community engagement. It is anticipated that this assessment will be completed by August 2020 and community engagement could then begin. As the Council and the Brooklands community gains a clearer understanding of the hazards faced by this locality, Council will work with the community to identify adaption pathways that respond to these hazards. The timing of Council processes may create some challenges in aligning with Regenerate Christchurch’s desire to undertake engagement as a matter of priority.  The Council’s adaptive planning engagement is likely to be over a sustained period of time.

4.1       There may also be some risks associated with an open-ended engagement process with the Brooklands community, as proposed by Regenerate Christchurch. It would be helpful to first understand what preliminary assessment Regenerate Christchurch has done regarding the potential use of the GCR Act in response to the issues raised by the Brooklands community. Council could then seek to align its coastal hazards adaptation planning processes with any proposals by Regenerate Christchurch to progress regeneration issues. Understanding this work to date would also inform Council’s views on the proposed timing and nature of any partnered engagement. Council staff have had positive preliminary discussions with Regenerate Christchurch and welcomes the offer to engage in further discussions with Regenerate Christchurch on these matters.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch Board's advice on residential red zone

182

 

 

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

Katie McFadden - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

19 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

17.   Appointment of Council Recess Committee 2019/20

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1393394

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Jo Daly, Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to resolve to appoint a Recess Committee to consider any issues that require a Council decision from 20 December 2019 to 22 January 2020.

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       There is a period of five weeks between the last ordinary Council meeting of 2019 and the first ordinary Council meeting of 2019. It is recommended, as is standard practice, that the Council establish a Recess Committee to deal with any urgent business during this time.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor or Councillor Davidson and a minimum of any three Councillors (quorum to include the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Councillor Davidson) to be authorised to make any urgent decisions of the Council required during the period 20 December 2019 to 22 January 2020 (both days inclusive).

2.         Note that the notice of any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and forwarded to all Councillors, all of whom can participate.

3.         Note that any decisions made will be reported to the Council for record purposes.

 

4.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

4.1       There is a period of five weeks between the last ordinary Council meeting of 2019 and the first ordinary Council meeting of 2020. It is recommended, as is standard practice, that the Council establish a Recess Committee and authorise it to deal with any issues requiring a Council decision that cannot wait until the first ordinary meeting of 2020, on 23 January 2020.

4.2       Notice of any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and forwarded to all Councillors, all of whom can participate.

4.3       Any decisions made by the Recess Committee will be reported to the Council for record purposes.

 

 

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

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

   

 


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

18.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

19 December 2019

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

19

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 27 November 2019

 

 

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

 

20

Internal Audit Status Report

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

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

Prevent the use of Internal Audit findings and identified control weaknesses from being used for improper advantage.

The information in this report will be released once the findings raised have been resolved and further advice has been provided to the Chief Executive.

21

Risk Management Status Report

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

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

Prevent the improper use and misinterpretation of information

When the Chief Executive considers what information in the Risk Management status report can be released.