Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 14 May 2020

Time:                                   10am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Video Link
The meeting is open to the public through access to the live broadcasting of the meeting, and a recording of the meeting will be available on the Council website: https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

 

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

 

 

8 May 2020

 

 

 

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

14 May 2020

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Timatanga................................................................................................... 4 

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 23 April 2020............................................................................ 5

6.        Council Minutes - 30 April 2020.......................................................................... 13

Staff Reports

7.        Update by the COVID-19 Incident Management Team Lead.................................... 21

8.        Financial Performance Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2020............... 23

9.        2020/21 Annual Plan process............................................................................. 47

10.      LTP 2021 Programme Update April 2020............................................................. 53

11.      Mayor's Report - March and April 2020................................................................ 57

12.      Development Contributions - Central City Rebate Schemes................................... 59

13.      Plan Change 2 - Port Hills Slope Instability Management Areas Overlay Update........ 77

14.      Revocation of Council Decision - Marshland Road Proposed Signalised Intersection. 85

15.      Establishment of a Coastal Hazards Working Group.............................................. 93

16.      Approval of Extension of Time for Central City Landmark Heritage Grants for 31 Cathedral Square and 92 Lichfield Street........................................................................... 99

17.      Community Waterways Partnership Charter...................................................... 105

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18.      Outcome of Property Review Process - 1 Carlyle Street....................................... 117

19.      Outcome of Property Review Process - 113 Huxley Street.................................... 127

20.      17 Hills Road - Land for Road Widening............................................................. 137

21.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 144

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

Karakia Timatanga 

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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

3.   Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Deputations may be accepted to be submitted in writing on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda. As the meeting will be held by audio/video link presentations will not be received at the meeting.

Deputations in writing should be submitted two days prior to the meeting.

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

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

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 23 April 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/425633

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Jo Daly, Council Secretary - jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive - dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 23 April 2020.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 23 April 2020.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 23 April 2020

6

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

6.     Council Minutes - 30 April 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/430118

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Jo Daly, Council Secretary, jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 30 April 2020.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 30 April 2020.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 30 April 2020

14

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

7.     Update by the COVID-19 Incident Management Team Lead

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/439820

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Mary Richardson, COVID-19 Incident Management Team Lead, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Update

1.1       Mary Richardson, COVID-19 Incident Management Team Lead will give an update on matters relating to COVID-19 and the Council response, including Council’s transition to Alert Level 2.

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the update from the COVID-19 Incident Management Team Lead.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

8.     Financial Performance Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/300546

Report of:

Diane Brandish, Head of Financial Management, diane.brandish@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager:

Carol Bellette, General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO), carol.bellette@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on the financial results to the quarter ended 31 March and the current forecast for the full financial year.

1.2       In the period since this report was written the April results have become available and the forecast has been updated. This information is included in paragraph 4. The balance of the report focuses on the March results.

2.   Officer Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report for the nine months ending 31 March 2020.

2.         Notes the brief update on the April results.

3.   Overview

3.1       Financial information reported to Council covers two key areas. Operational (expenditure and revenue) covers the day to day spend on staffing, operations and maintenance, and revenues. Capital covers the delivery of the capital programme and funding relating to it.

3.2       Generally operational revenues will exceed expenditure. This is because included in the rates revenue is funding for capital renewals and debt repayment. This is removed in the table below to show a true (rate funded) operating result.

3.3       The residual source of funding for the Capital programme is borrowing.

4.   Updated full year forecasts

4.1       The COVID-19 crisis has had a major impact on the Council’s financial situation which has resulted in us updating our forecasts during April 2020.

4.1.1   The April forecast operating result for the year has increased to a $33.2 million deficit. The key factors causing the deficit are the removal of the CCHL final dividend which is no longer expected to be received, ($26.3 million), reduced revenue due to our facilities being closed ($9.4 million which includes lower parking and fine revenues ($1.1 million). This deterioration is not reflected in the results below.

4.1.2   The forecast Covid-19 impact on this year’s result is $34.3 million, being a $38.1 million loss in revenue partly offset by $3.8 million of reduced costs. 

4.1.3   The April forecast capital spend is $345.3 million, a decrease of $20.9 million. The budget is $533.8m and the funded budget $397.7m.

4.1.4   A number of actions have been implemented to reduce costs until such time as it becomes clearer when normal Council operations can resume. These include a hiring freeze, a reduction in the number of contractors, review of other operating costs for possible reductions and reprioritisation of capital expenditure. 

4.2       The March forecast operating deficit at the time the forecast for this report was prepared of $5.2 million included the impacts of the COVID-19 one month lock-down of $6 million. This has resulted in lower forecast operational revenues of $9.4 million, partially offset by expenditure savings of $3.4 million. This is based on a four-week lockdown period, but does assume facilities will be closed until the end of June.

Note there is no allowance in the current forecast for the cashflow impact of the six month payment deferral of rates for those that qualify.

4.3       Since the last quarterly report ending 31 December 2019, forecast capital delivery has been reduced by $62.7 million, with $56.1 million pushed into next year to reflect the impact of the vast majority of projects being put on hold due to the COVID-19 lockdown. This forecast assumes no delivery during April, and 50% of what was previously forecast for May.

The full year forecasts in the remainder of this report have been superceded by the information above.

 


Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

 

Forecast

Plan

Var

 

Carry Fwd

Var

 

Operational

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues

(559.3)

(564.4)

(5.1)

 

(755.4)

(776.8)

(21.4)

 

(3.4)

(18.0)

 

Expenditure

444.8

459.9

15.1

 

598.2

617.5

19.3

 

6.7

12.6

 

Funds not available for Opex

121.5

121.4

(0.1)

 

159.1

159.3

0.2

 

-

0.2

 

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

7.0

16.9

9.9

1.9

-

(1.9)

3.3

(5.2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gross Programme Expenditure

271.6

315.4

43.8

 

366.2

533.8

167.6

 

170.9

(3.3)

 

Less planned Carry Forwards

-

(80.0)

(80.0)

 

-

(136.1)

(136.1)

 

(136.1)

-

 

Capital Programme Expenditure

271.6

235.4

(36.2)

366.2

397.7

31.5

34.8

(3.3)

Revenues and Funding

(392.0)

(386.5)

5.5

 

(472.8)

(495.7)

(22.9)

 

(17.9)

(5.0)

 

Borrowing required

(120.4)

(151.1)

(30.7)

(106.6)

(98.0)

8.6

16.9

(8.3)

 


 

5.   Key Points

The year to date figures summarised below are accurate for the first nine months of the year.  Note however that the full year forecasts should be ignored because they have been superceded.

 

Operating Deficit                     Full year forecast[1]              $5.2mñ

                                                                                  Budget                                                     $0m

 

Key drivers:  COVID-19 lockdown - loss of revenues of $9.4 million overall for Council, mainly within Citizens & Community $4.1 million (Rec & Sport $3.2 million), parking / enforcement revenues $2.1 million, building inspection and consenting revenue $1.9 million, and three month rental holiday to tenants ($0.7 million). The loss of revenue is partially offset by reduced maintenance and operating expenditure $3.4 million.

Excluding the impacts of COVID-19 the business as usual forecast has a $0.8 million surplus. Unfavourable variances including lower Trade Waste revenues ($1.8 million), higher Water Supply and Wastewater maintenance costs ($1.7 million) and additional chlorination costs ($1 million) are now offset by higher rates/penalties ($2 million), lower insurance costs ($0.9 million), Heathcote River Dredging savings ($0.9 million) and other various smaller cost savings found throughout the organisation.

Operating Revenue

Year to date $559.3mò            Full year forecast1            $758.8mò

Budget                   $564.4m                               Budget                                               $776.8m

 

Key drivers: COVID-19 loss of revenues, Lower Vbase recoveries (offset by lower costs below), lower Trade Waste Revenues, lower Housing revenues, and lower Consenting volumes, partially offset by higher rates income.

(Ref. 5.1 and 5.2 for variances and explanations)

 

 

Operating Expenditure

Year to date $444.8mò            Full year forecast1                      $604.9mò

Budget                   $459.9m                               Budget                                                 $617.5m

 

Key drivers – full year forecast – lower Vbase salaries paid via Council, COVID-19 savings, lower insurance costs, and Consenting cost savings, partially offset by higher Water Supply and Wastewater maintenance, and additional chlorination costs.

(Ref. 5.3 – 5.4 for variances and explanations)

 

 


 

Capital Expenditure

Year to date $271.6m  Forecast delivery       $366.2m      Budget $397.7m

Budget                   $235.4m             Forecast carry forwards       $170.9m¹              32% of gross budget

                                                               Forecast over spend              $3.3m  ñ      

                                                                           

The forecast overspend is due to: additional equity injection into CCHL to enable DCL to purchase land off Council (offset by the asset sale under Revenues and Funding) (Ref. section 6). Forecast savings across the capital programme now largely offset the forecast Town Hall spend this year of $4.9 million ($1.8 million is now forecast in FY2021).

 ¹$136.1 million of carry forwards are budgeted.


6.   Operational Details

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Operating revenue

(109.6)

(117.8)

(8.2)

(141.0)

(165.2)

(24.2)

(3.4)

(20.8)

Interest and dividends

(54.4)

(53.3)

1.1

(88.0)

(87.2)

0.8

-

0.8

Rates income

(395.3)

(393.3)

2.0

(526.4)

(524.4)

2.0

-

2.0

Revenue

(559.3)

(564.4)

(5.1)

(755.4)

(776.8)

(21.4)

(3.4)

(18.0)

 

 

 

 

 

Personnel costs

154.0

154.6

0.6

207.2

213.7

6.5

-

6.5

Less recharged to capital

(30.3)

(31.3)

(1.0)

(40.5)

(41.5)

(1.0)

-

(1.0)

Grants and levies

35.3

36.8

1.5

46.7

46.9

0.2

-

0.2

Operating costs

129.8

137.3

7.5

180.8

183.5

2.7

1.7

1.0

Maintenance costs

84.2

90.6

6.4

108.8

119.1

10.3

5.0

5.3

Debt servicing

71.8

71.9

0.1

95.2

95.8

0.6

-

0.6

Expenditure

444.8

459.9

15.1

598.2

617.5

19.3

6.7

12.6

 

 

 

 

 

Net Cost

(114.5)

(104.5)

10.0

(157.2)

(159.3)

(2.1)

3.3

(5.4)

Other Funding

 

 

 

Transfers from Special Funds available

(11.2)

(9.8)

1.4

(12.8)

(12.6)

0.2

-

0.2

Borrowing for capital grants

(1.9)

(3.4)

(1.5)

(7.5)

(7.5)

-

-

-

Less Rates for capex and debt repayment

134.6

134.6

-

179.4

179.4

-

-

-

Funds not available for Opex

121.5

121.4

(0.1)

159.1

159.3

0.2

-

0.2

 

 

 

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

7.0

16.9

9.9

1.9

-

(1.9)

3.3

(5.2)

Revenue

6.1       Revenue is $5.1 million lower than budget year to date.  Large variances include slower Lancaster park demolition recoveries ($3.2 million - offset by slower expenditure) (a carry forward of $3.1 million is forecast), decreased Trade Waste revenue ($1.3 million), decreased Building Consent volumes ($1.2 million), and lower Housing revenue ($1.1 million). These are partially offset by higher rates/penalties revenues ($2 million). 

6.2       The revenue forecast variances include;

1.1.1    5.2.1 Lower Operating revenue ($20.8 million - after adjusting for carry forwards), largely due to:

·     COVID-19 related loss of revenues ($9.4 million),

·     Lower Vbase recoveries ($6.6 million) due to lower salary costs recharged (Vbase now pay direct),

·     Lower Trade Waste revenues ($1.8 million) - the plan included revenues from a new client, however extra infrastructure capacity is required to be built, and negotiations are underway with the client in regards to this. Also impacting is the Gelita Head office announcing in late June 2019 that they would not be rebuilding the damaged factory to the level of production that it previously had,

·     Decreased Building Consent volumes (excl. COVID-19 impact) ($0.9 million) – offset by lower costs,

·     Lower Housing revenues ($0.8 million) – due to property transfers largely completed last year,

·     LTP contractor bonds initiative ($0.4 million) – which will not eventuate, and,

·     Lower revenues from Private Plan Changes ($0.4 million).

1.1.2    5.2.2 These are partially offset by higher Rates income ($2 million) due to higher rating growth late in the 2018/19 year ($1.2 million), and higher penalties than planned; the Transwaste dividends were $0.5 million higher.

Expenditure

6.3       Operational expenditure is $15.1 million below budget year to date, mainly due to:

·   Slower than budgeted Lancaster Park demolition costs ($3.2 million) – offset by matched recoveries, with $3.1 million of budget forecast to be carried forward,

·   Timing of Central City Heritage/Heritage Incentive ($1.8 million),

·   Slower spend on the Earthquake Rebuild/Repair Programme ($1.7 million) – with $1.4 million carry forward forecast,

·   Lower Flood Protection costs ($1.7 million); there is a forecast under spend on Heathcote Dredging costs of $2.3 million, with a $1.4 million carry forward requirement to complete work in the following financial year,

·   Lower spend in Transportation ($1.5 million), includes Bus Interchange savings of $0.8 million (the budget assumed the Council would bear these costs for the entire year).

·   Lower Building Consenting costs ($0.9 million) – offset by lower revenue volumes,

·   Reduced Refuse Disposal costs ($0.7 million), driven by organics material collection costs being lower than planned due to reduced volumes, and,

·   Lower insurance costs ($0.5 million).

6.4       The $12.6 million below budget forecast expenditure variance after adjusting for carry forwards is mainly due to:

·   Lower Vbase salaries paid via Council ($6.6 million) – offset by lower recoveries,

·   COVID-19 related savings ($3.4 million),

·   Lower Building Consent costs ($0.9 million – excluding COVID-19 savings above) – driven by lower volumes,

·   Decreased spend in Transportation ($0.9 million – excluding COVID-19 savings above), driven by the Bus Interchange savings,

·   Lower insurance costs ($0.9 million),

·   Heathcote River Dredging savings identified ($0.9 million); partially offset by,

·   Higher Water Supply and Wastewater maintenance costs ($1.7 million), these are necessary to deliver the minimum levels of service for these two activities under business as usual conditions.

·   Additional chlorination costs ($1 million), to meet the revised Drinking Water Standards implemented post the annual plan and due to indications that some chlorination beyond the indicated timeframes and peak times will be required.

6.5       The net cost of individual activities is shown in Attachment A.

7.   Capital Programme

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Three Waters

83.0

103.0

20.0

101.4

129.8

28.4

27.1

1.3

Roading and Transport

48.1

61.9

13.8

74.3

99.9

25.6

25.2

0.4

Strategic Land

2.7

-

(2.7)

5.8

24.8

19.0

19.0

-

IT

15.2

15.9

0.7

19.5

23.9

4.4

4.3

0.1

Other

34.9

42.5

7.6

51.7

72.3

20.6

20.0

0.6

Works Programme

183.9

223.3

39.4

252.7

350.7

98.0

95.6

2.4

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure

19.6

29.5

9.9

22.9

45.3

22.4

21.1

1.3

Transitional / Recovery Projects

3.3

7.6

4.3

4.9

15.1

10.2

9.9

0.3

Facilities Rebuild

61.6

50.9

(10.7)

70.1

109.9

39.8

44.3

(4.5)

Rebuild Programme

84.5

88.0

3.5

97.9

170.3

72.4

75.3

(2.9)

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Works Programme

268.4

311.3

42.9

350.6

521.0

170.4

170.9

(0.5)

Equity Investments

7.4

4.1

(3.3)

20.6

12.8

(7.8)

-

(7.8)

Vbase recovery - Town Hall

(4.2)

-

4.2

(5.0)

-

5.0

-

5.0

Gross Capital Spend

271.6

315.4

43.8

366.2

533.8

167.6

170.9

(3.3)

Unidentified Carry forwards

-

(80.0)

(80.0)

-

(136.1)

(136.1)

(136.1)

-

Capital Programme Expenditure

271.6

235.4

(36.2)

366.2

397.7

31.5

34.8

(3.3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Contributions

(25.1)

(16.5)

8.6

(31.7)

(21.9)

9.8

-

9.8

Less DC Rebates

1.7

6.7

5.0

4.2

11.3

7.1

7.1

-

Crown Recoveries

(104.7)

(103.6)

1.1

(103.6)

(114.5)

(10.9)

(10.9)

-

NZTA Capital Subsidy

(18.6)

(35.4)

(16.8)

(20.5)

(48.1)

(27.6)

(13.0)

(14.6)

Misc Capital Revenues

(9.4)

(1.1)

8.3

(10.9)

(8.4)

2.5

-

2.5

Asset Sales

(27.1)

(4.9)

22.2

(27.3)

(5.0)

22.3

-

22.3

Capital Revenues

(183.2)

(154.8)

28.4

(189.8)

(186.6)

3.2

(16.8)

20.0

 

 

 

 

Rates for Renewals

(98.9)

(98.9)

-

(131.8)

(131.8)

-

-

-

Reserve Drawdowns

(109.9)

(132.8)

(22.9)

(151.2)

(177.3)

(26.1)

(1.1)

(25.0)

Other Available Funding

(208.8)

(231.7)

(22.9)

(283.0)

(309.1)

(26.1)

(1.1)

(25.0)

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowing Required

(120.4)

(151.1)

(30.7)

(106.6)

(98.0)

8.6

16.9

(8.3)

Capital Expenditure

7.1       Gross capital expenditure of $271.6 million has been incurred year to date. A further $94.6 million is forecast to be spent by year end. The forecast includes the impact of the vast majority of projects being put on hold due to the COVID-19 lockdown. This forecast assumes no delivery during April, and 50% of what was previously forecast for May.

7.2       The forecast is $3.3 million ahead of budget after carry forwards, mainly due to the additional CCHL equity injection ($2.9 million) that enabled DCL to purchase land off Council (offset by asset sales under Revenues and Funding). There is forecast spend for the Town Hall this year of $4.9 million ($1.8 million is now forecast in FY2021). (Council approved up to $15 million additional spend on the project to be found from the capital programme - $7 million of this was spent in the 2018/19 financial year with offsetting savings identified). The March forecast would indicate that a number of savings across the capital programme will help offset this spend.

7.3       Group of Activity level variance commentary for the capital programme is shown in Attachment A.

7.4       Financial results of significant (>$250,000) capital programme projects are shown in Attachment B.

Capital Revenues

7.5       Development contributions are higher than budget year to date because new development has been higher than anticipated. Development contribution rebates have been slower than planned, pending compliance with the scheme criteria (unallocated rebate funding is carried forward).

7.6       Crown recoveries forecast carry forward reflects slower recoveries for the Multi Use Arena. 

7.7       NZTA capital revenues are $16.8 million behind budget year to date and forecast to be $27.6 million behind at year end. After a forecast carry forward of $13 million (subsidies on delayed capital spend) there is a permanent variance forecast of $14.6 million. Subsidies have not been forecast where the funding team deems these unlikely to eventuate based on interactions with NZTA. 

7.8       Miscellaneous capital revenues are ahead of budget year to date, mainly driven by timing of Ngā Puna Wai funding ($5.7 million), forecast to be $0.4 million higher. Water connection fees year to date and forecast are $0.4 million ahead. The remainder of the variance is made up of unplanned capital grants received across the capital programme.

7.9       Asset sales year to date reflects Housing assets sold to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust ($18.9 million). There is an interest free loan receivable from the Trust in recognition of these assets and funds transferred, repayable in the event of windup. Also included is the sale of land to DCL ($2.9 million higher than plan), offset by the equity injection above (ref. 6.2). 

7.10    Reserve net drawdowns are $22.9 million lower than budget year to date, mainly due to a lower drawdown from the Housing Fund due to the sale of Housing assets above and higher development contributions set aside for future drawdown.

7.11    During March a receipt of $90 million from the Crown was received, relating to the Global Settlement and Acceleration Fund items. Budget for the $90 million has been created with offsetting budget for the spend side to be included in the Annual Plan/LTP, as most spend is in future years. There is no borrowing requirement this financial year. The $8.3m unfavourable variance after carry forwards is driven by lower NZTA capital subsidies; partially offset by higher Development Contributions.  

Special Funds

7.12    The current and forecast movements and balance of the Housing Account, Capital Endowment Fund and Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund are shown in Attachment C.

7.13    The balance of 2019/20 funds available for allocation from the Capital Endowment Fund at 31 March 2020 was $30,244.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Financial Performance

32

b

Significant Capital Projects

40

c

Special Funds

45

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

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.

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


Council

14 May 2020

 


 


 


 


 


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

9.     2020/21 Annual Plan process

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/474819

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Ian Thomson, Special Counsel Governance
ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz
Peter Ryan, Head of Performance Management
peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Carol Bellette, GM Finance and Commercial
carol.bellette @ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       Christchurch City Council’s operations and financial position have been heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent Level 4 alert. The draft Annual Plan 2020/21 released for consultation in March 2020 requires significant updating to take into account the impacts and implications of this event.

1.2       It is proposed that these changes be made available to the community so that written and oral submissions can be received prior to adopting the final Annual Plan.

1.3       However there are legal, rating and logistical considerations (see Attachment 1) that require Council to adopt a final Annual Plan by the end of July 2020. To achieve this very tight deadline Council will employ some of the streamlining processes recently developed by central government expressly for this purpose. These are being used across NZ local authorities to deal with this unusual situation.   

1.4       The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval of a process for the adoption of the 2020/21 Annual Plan and the setting of rates for the 2020/21 financial year.

1.5       Councillors, Chief Executive, finance and communication staff and committee support were all consulted in creating the process described below.

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council approves the following process for adopting the 2020/21 Annual Plan:

a.              The Council’s proposals for responding to the COVID-19 crisis are considered and approved at an extraordinary meeting on Friday 29 May 2020;

b.              At the same meeting the Council approves the resumption of consultation and a second Consultation Document that will set out the changes required to the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan as a result of the COVID-19 crisis;

c.              Consultation resumes, and the second Consultation Document made available to the public on Friday 12 June 2020;

d.              The period for lodging submissions expires at 5.00pm on Monday 29 June 2020;

e.              People who have indicated they wish to present their views orally (including those who requested this before 9 April) will be given the opportunity to do so during the consultation period, in a manner and format that has yet to be confirmed;

f.               Submissions will be processed and available for consideration by the Mayor and Councillors during the consultation period;

g.              The Mayor and Councillors will complete their deliberations by Friday 10 July 2020 and meet to adopt the 2020/21 Annual Plan on  Thursday 30 July 2020;

h.              Once the Plan has been adopted the Council will, at the same meeting, set the rates for the 2020/21 financial year;

i.                It should be noted that like all Councils moving through a second Annual Plan consultation the timeline is exceptionally tight. There are risks around several of the key milestones. Success will depend on close co-operation between staff and councillors around process, information and decision making.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Legal Considerations

49

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

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

Ian Thomson - Special Counsel Governance

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Approved By

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

10.   LTP 2021 Programme Update April 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/239172

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Peter Ryan, Head of Performance Management, peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Carol Bellette, GM Finance & Commercial, carol.bellette@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The Finance and Performance Committee requested ongoing monthly updates on the implementation of the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021 project plan and Elected Members’ Letter of Expectation.

1.2       At the April LTP 2021 Management Group meeting, the Chief Executive directed all LTP work stream leaders to:

a)    incorporate impacts of and responses to Covid-19, including financial constraints.

b)    continue work towards a solid version 1 of all LTP documents by 1 June for councillors to consider during the period June-November.

1.3       The Infrastructure Strategy (IS) team presented a “direction of travel” draft IS to Councillors on 21 April. A summary of most likely scenario was well received. The team is on track to deliver a solid draft IS on 1 June.

1.4       Financial Strategy – A presentation of Financial and Rating Issues was made to Councillors on 28 April. Councillors met again on 1 May to further discuss and provide direction.

1.5       Asset Management Plans (AMP) – the asset team has extended deadline for completion by 2 weeks to 15 May. This new deadline must be met if Activity Plans are to be fully completed.

1.6       Capital Programme Prioritisation weightings to be reviewed by ELT. This will be a key tool for prioritising capital works in the current environment of financial constraints. An analysis of capital deliverability in the post Covid-19 environment (with recommendations on a deliverable capital programme) will be critical to the LTP.

1.7       LTP budgets are dependent on the budget review of the 2020/21 Annual Plan which is still in flux. This will affect the availability of draft LTP 2021 budgets by 1 June.

1.8       All Activity Plans are on track for 1 June delivery, based on undertakings from asset planning.

1.9       The External Advisory Group is now meeting fortnightly and reviewing work-in-progress. Challenge questions on proposed LTP content, budgets etc are now generated regularly and have been incorporated into Activity Plans for manager response. Questions and responses are visible to councillors in the LTP 2021 folder on BigTinCan and will form part of the councillors briefings on each plan.


 

1.10    The Chair appointed by Council to the External Advisory Group is Garry Moore. He has provided the following progress update on their review:

“The EAG has been briefed by the CEO, and members of the Finance team. We have not experienced any of the impediments we experienced last time when we conducted the EAG review. Members have divided into specialty areas to ensure that each is contributing their personal expertise; and all have full access to the BigTinCan. Our questions, when raised, are all entered there. We meet fortnightly by Zoom. At our next meeting we will be receiving feedback from the questions which have been raised by EAG members already. I would expect the CEO to report back to full council on her follow-up questions, and suggestions made by EAG members, in the near future.

1.10.1 The style adopted by the EAG will be to use a surgeon’s knife when considering finances rather than blunt percentage reductions in expenditure. We are considering what drives costs; and which costs can be reduced, or removed, because they are no longer necessary. The CEO has challenged us to be bold and brave, and we will rise to this challenge.

1.10.2 We have been very grateful for the support of staff, and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. The EAG is merely an advisory panel and the decisions will be either accepted, or rejected, at the Council table.  However, we are all working on this together.”

1.11    In keeping with the co-development process requested in Elected Members’ Letter of Expectation, LTP work-in-progress continues to be updated in the BigTinCan. Councillors have full access to LTP content as it is being developed.

1.12    Decisions from the 2020/21 Annual Plan process will impact the LTP. Final decisions on this process (including further consultation, rates increase etc) are not known at the time of writing. It is likely that some decisions arising from the Annual Plan process over May, June and July will need to be reflected in draft LTP budgets and plans.

1.13    Prior to the Covid-19 level 4 lockdown a schedule of LTP briefings time for councillors had been built. It provided certainty on when components (strategies, activity plans) would be going to councillors so they could prepare for discussion. A schedule needs to be reinstated and booked into councillor and staff diaries so that there is certainty around process and timing. 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Notes that the fundamental premise of the Long Term Plan process is that all components (Financial and Infrastructure Strategies, Activity Plans, Asset Management Plans, the capital programme) will be completed by staff in draft form by 1 June 2020. 

2.         Notes that this will provide councillors reasonable time to work through proposals, options and budgets in a measured way before finalising a draft Long Term Plan in December 2020 and formally adopting the draft in February 2021.

3.         Notes that potential changes to the 2020/21 Annual Plan process to take into account Covid-19 impacts may drive changes to the draft LTP 2021 documents after 1 June.

4.         Notes that a schedule of LTP briefings with councillors should be established (commencing in June) as a priority.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

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

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

11.   Mayor's Report - March and April 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/394676

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Lianne Dalziel, Mayor, mayor@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to report on external activities she undertakes in her city and community leadership role; and to report on outcomes and key decisions of the external bodies she attends on behalf of the Council and other matters.

The report will be circulated under separate cover prior to the meeting.

1.2       A decision is sought regarding an appointment to the Canterbury Museum Trust. David East has been asked to continue his contribution as a member on the Canterbury Museum Trust until Council makes a permanent appointment.

1.3       This report is compiled by the Mayor’s office.

2.   Mayors Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         That David East’s appointment to the Canterbury Museum Trust be extended to expire on 31 December 2020 or earlier on the Council making an appointment for the balance of the current Council term

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Mayor's Report - March and April 2020 (Circulated under separate cover)

 

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

12.   Development Contributions - Central City Rebate Schemes

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/297055

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Gavin Thomas, Principal Advisor Economic Policy gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Brendan Anstiss, GM Strategy and Transformation brendan.anstiss@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to have elected members decide whether the central city development contributions rebate schemes should continue past their current expiry date of 30 June 2020; and, if so, on what basis. 

1.2       The report includes analysis of the rebate schemes in the context of Covid-19 and within the context of the Council’s signalled strategic and tactical economic recovery directions.

1.3       The decisions in this report have been assessed as being of low to medium significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the potential impact on central city property developers being between low and high (but with no means of quantifying by developer or development) and the financial cost to the Council being of low/ medium significance.

Development contributions rebate policy

1.4       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) enables territorial local authorities to require developers to pay development contributions to help fund infrastructure to service growth development. Development contribution requirements must be framed within the provisions of the Act and the Council’s Development Contributions Policy. This requires a consistent and transparent approach to be taken when assessing and collecting development contributions with very little scope for adapting to meet the Council’s broader strategic objectives.

1.5       The Council’s Development Contributions Rebate Policy was established to enable the Council to promote strategic objectives by providing financial incentives (rebates) for strategically desirable development.

Central city development contribution rebate schemes

1.6       The central city development contributions rebate schemes were established to encourage post-earthquake redevelopment in the central city. The central city was targeted for promotion of development due to the importance of a thriving central city to a successful modern city and the degree of damage to buildings in the central city.

1.7       The rationale for having the rebates funded from rates is that there is considered to be community-wide benefit from a vibrant and successful central city and it is therefore appropriate for the wider community to fund the rebates.  There are also significant rates revenue benefits for the Council (and other existing ratepayers) from increases to the capital value resulting from new developments in the central city.  Our analysis has shown that these benefits outweigh the cost of the schemes within a relatively short period. 

1.8       The residential scheme was established in 2014 and rebates all development contributions for residential development within the 4 Avenues. The scheme limits the development contribution revenue to be foregone to $20 million. As at April 2020 the value of rebates confirmed was $12.9 million with over 1,000 residential units being developed with the support of the scheme. The financial position of the scheme is detailed in Table 1. 

1.9       The non-residential rebate scheme was established in 2015 and rebates all development contributions for non-residential (commercial) development in the commercial central city business zone of the Christchurch District Plan. The scheme has a $5 million limit. As at April 2020 the value of rebates confirmed was $2.7 million. The current financial position is detailed in Table 2.

Responding to COVID-19

1.10    It is expected the post-COVID-19 recession will result in negative impacts on house prices and commercial rents, and subsequently on confidence in the residential and commercial property sectors. Residential and commercial development is expected to decline in the short term.

1.11    The recession will intensify challenges associated with central city development. The central city remains a preferred location for new residential development from a Council strategic and efficiency point of view.  It is possible that the combination of low interest rates, easier access to mortgage loans and continuation of the residential rebate scheme could combine to make the central city a more attractive development proposition vis-à-vis other parts of the city.

1.12    The central city commercial property sector has different challenges ahead. Historically, the central city has struggled to attract businesses due to high rents and the long period of displacement, although this was starting to improve prior to Covid 19.   Property owners have provided discounted rents and other significant incentives to attract quality tenants. 

1.13    A recession and limitations on retail and hospitality activity will put further downward pressure on central city commercial rents and will have similar effects on commercial property throughout the city. New commercial development in the central city may, therefore, exacerbate the existing lack of demand for space in the short to medium term.

Opportunity to consider options regarding the future of the rebate schemes

1.14    The Council has the opportunity to consider options other than simply having the schemes expire on 30 June 2020. In summary, analysis in this report has found:

·   Both rebates schemes are considered to be well-aligned to the Council’s central city strategic outcomes around increasing the residential population and encouraging urban regeneration.

·   Both rebate schemes are considered to have contributed to achieving the outcomes sought with the residential scheme in particular seen as having ongoing value.

·   The non-residential rebate scheme is considered to have served its purpose and wasn’t seen by developers as an important factor in development decisions going forward.

·   The residential rebate scheme was strongly supported by developers and is seen as a significant enabler in the provision of affordable central city housing – consistent with Council strategic objectives for central city residential living.

·   In the post-COVID-19 the residential rebate scheme could further promote the central city as a comparatively more attractive development location vis-à-vis other city locations.

Preferred Option

1.15    Extend the residential rebate scheme by removing the expiry date, and undertake another detailed review of the scheme during the period of the next Long Term Plan (2021-24) – while retaining the existing funding limit;

1.16    Close the non-residential rebate scheme on 30 June 2020 or when the funding limit is reached, whichever is reached first.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the Central City Residential Development Contributions Rebate Scheme Criteria 2020 (Attachment A), noting that the revised criteria removes the expiry date of the scheme;

2.         Agrees that the central city non-residential development contributions rebate scheme will close according to its current criteria - when the current expiry date of 30 June 2020 is reached or the funding limit is reached, whichever occurs first;

3.         Requests that staff review criteria options for the central city residential development contributions rebate scheme in more detail and report back to the Christchurch Momentum Committee on criteria options and recommendations;

4.         Requests that staff identify and assess options to repurpose the residual funding limit of the non-residential rebate scheme and to report back to the Christchurch Momentum Committee with options that take account of the effects of COVID-19; including an option that the unallocated funding is not specifically repurposed.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

Advantages

3.1       Feedback from developers is that the residential rebate scheme has enabled some development to proceed that wouldn’t have without the rebate.

3.2       Extending the residential rebate scheme provides the opportunity to more fully explore options to:

·    refine the residential rebate scheme criteria to deliver better outcomes (such as urban design, limitations based on usage, environmental efficiency and responding to impacts of COVID-19)

·    leverage the residential rebate scheme with Christchurch 8011 initiatives

3.3       Extending the residential scheme demonstrates commitment to Council priorities regarding central city residential regeneration and post-COVID-19 requirements.

3.4       Feedback from developers is that the non-residential rebate scheme has achieved its purpose and that there is little or no benefit in it continuing.

Disadvantages

3.5       Further (as yet undetermined) financial commitment may be required if Council considers and decides this in the future.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Option One: Status quo – both central city rebate schemes expire 30 June 2020

Advantages

4.1       The financial commitment will be less than originally provided for.

4.2       Follows the original intent of the schemes – to be available for a fixed period of time to encourage faster development.

Disadvantages

4.3       Evidence suggests the residential rebate scheme has enabled some development to proceed that may not have without the rebate – closing both schemes would mean this would no longer occur.

4.4       Closing both schemes would leave the Council with no supply side incentives for residential development in the central city.

4.5       Council withdrawing support for residential development in the central city may be perceived as being at odds with its stated priorities in this area.

4.6       Doesn’t promote intensified efficient residential development in the central city.

Option Two: Extend both rebate schemes and increase funding limits (say five years plus further funding)

Advantages

4.7       Evidence suggests the residential rebate scheme has enabled some development to proceed that may not have without the rebate – this enables the scheme to continue.

4.8       May promote development during the forecast post-COVID-19 recession.

4.9       Possible future opportunities to leverage Christchurch 8011 initiatives.

4.10    Shows commitment to the Council’s priorities of central city regeneration.

4.11    Gives developers a further period of certainty regarding development contributions.

4.12    Defers the impacts of development contributions previous use credits expiring.

Disadvantages

4.13    Further (as yet undetermined) Council financial commitment may be required.

4.14    Feedback from developers suggests the non-residential rebate scheme has achieved its purpose (with little or no benefit in continuing).

4.15    Non-residential development in the central city in the short to medium term is likely to exacerbate pre-existing oversupply of and low demand for central city commercial space. 

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Central city residential strategic issues and objectives

5.1       Increasing the population of the central city has been a Council priority since 2007 when it adopted the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. Following the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/11 the population of the central city fell from 8290 (estimated resident population) a low of 5050 in 2014.

5.2       In 2018 the Council approved the Christchurch Central City Residential Programme (Project 8011) as a key action of the Council’s strategic priority: Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st Century City. The aspiration is to increase the residential population of the central city from 6,000 in 2018 to 20,000 people in 2028.


 

5.3       The central city development contributions rebate scheme is a key intervention to achieve three of the six Project 8011 goals:

·   Encourage delivery. The risks of development are reduced, feasibility is improved.

·   Support delivery. Effective support and advice is provided to and used by Central City housing developers.

·   Accelerate delivery. Delivery of Central City housing is accelerated and sustained.

5.4       Interviews with developers found unanimous support for the continuation of the residential rebate scheme. This is consistent with research undertaken for the Council by Development Christchurch Ltd. (DCL). The DCL report into central city residential development found:

“The Development Contribution rebate scheme scored well. The issue seems to be a pain point for developers. There are two ways to consider it.  A standard central city development contribution of $22K as against an affordable end product of $450K to $550K does not seem to be significant. However, in the context of a profit and risk margin for the developer of 20% being $90-$110K, not having to pay development contributions has a large effect on the profitability of the project. The development contribution rebate scheme seems to be effective and it is recommended it is resourced and continued beyond its current timeframe”.[2]

5.5       Any as-of-right incentive that can demonstrate an increase in the developer’s margin on a project may help a developer to secure development finance. Access to finance is often one of the major hurdles to overcome in commencing a housing development project.

5.6       Economic forecasts are for the COVID-19 pandemic and recession to result in a 5 – 10 per cent fall in house prices. This will make it difficult for new development to compete with existing housing at reduced prices. However, mortgage interest rates are at historic lows and the Reserve Bank has removed loan to value ratio limits on bank lending which is expected to attract first home buyers and investors into the housing market. There may also be central city land owners who need to cash in holdings over the short to medium term.

5.7       This all points to the possibility that central city residential development may become attractive vis-à-vis other parts of the city. This indicates that continuation of the residential rebates would help to further incentivise central city development.

Central city non-residential strategic issues and objectives

5.8       The central city non-residential development contributions rebate scheme is less directly connected to wider Council strategic and tactical responses to commercial development in the central city. The Council’s focus in the central business district has been on infrastructure repair and provision, streetscape and activation. It has also been an active partner in promotion of the central city and its opportunities.

5.9       Despite this the aim of the scheme has been essentially the same as that for the residential scheme – to promote more and faster building development in the central city.

5.10    Interviews with commercial developers (undertaken pre-COVID-19) indicated the non-residential rebate scheme may have served its purpose. Developers said the rebates had limited effect on their development decision-making and that demand for commercial space was driving investment decisions.

5.11    The central city commercial property sector appears to have different challenges ahead than the residential sector. The central city has struggled to attract businesses due to high rents and the long period of displacement for many businesses. Property owners have provided discounted rents and other significant incentives to attract quality tenants. 

5.12    The expected post-COVID-19 recession and limitations on retail and hospitality activity put further downward pressure on central city commercial rents (and will have similar effects on commercial property throughout the city). New commercial development in the central city may, therefore, exacerbate the demand problem in the short to medium term.

5.13    The Council may be better to focus its efforts on central city (and wider city) business retention rather than on new commercial property development.

 

Detailed current position of the central city development contribution rebate schemes

5.14    The following tables detail the current financial position of the rebate schemes.

Table 1: Current position of the residential rebate scheme as at 22 April 2020 (ex. GST)

Value of rebates confirmed to date

$12.9 million

Developments with rebates confirmed

100

Residential units built receiving confirmed rebates

1,066

Average value of confirmed rebate per development

$118,005

Value of rebates pending confirmation

$5.6 million

Developments pending confirmation

36

Residential units pending confirmation

513

Unallocated funding

$2.5 million

Residual unconfirmed plus unallocated funding

$7.1 million

 

Table 2: Current position of the non-residential rebate scheme as at 22 April 2020 (ex. GST)

Value of rebates confirmed to date

$2.7 million

Developments with rebates confirmed

27

Average value of confirmed rebate per development

$99,633

Value of rebates pending confirmation

$860,000

Developments pending confirmation

10

Unallocated funding

$1.44 million

Residual unconfirmed plus unallocated funding

$2.3 million

 

Views of developers:

5.15    We interviewed six developers on their views about the rebate schemes. A thematic summary of those interviews is Attachment 2 to this report.

·   Residential developers believe the residential rebates have had a positive effect on residential development, with developers saying some developments wouldn’t have proceeded without the rebates being available.

·   Commercial developers indicated the non-residential rebate scheme has served its purpose. Developers said the rebates had limited impact on their development decision-making and that demand for commercial space was now driving investment.

·   All non-residential developers we interviewed strongly supported continuation of the residential rebate scheme.

Financial and rates implications:

5.16    A developed property has a significantly higher capital value than an undeveloped lot and pays more in rates. New development increases the overall capital value of the district and spreads the rates requirement more widely. This means that (all other things being equal) new development results in existing ratepayers paying less in rates.

5.17    The effect development has had on the rates of properties that have received a development contributions rebate are included in Table 3. This shows the change in rates for indicative actual examples – and the relatively short payback period from the investment.

Table 3: Differences in rates for priorities before and after development showing rebate provided

Location and type of Development

Rates Before Redevelopment

DC Rebate Provided

Rates After Redevelopment

4 Aves residential

$ 2,307

$21,660

$13,474

4 Aves apartment complex

$10,630

$373,978

$60,117

Central city – mixed use building

$11,249

$61,760

$97,392

Central city - commercial

$79,535

$478,864

$271,804

 

Other issues to be considered

Expiry of previous use credits

5.18    The Council’s Development Contributions Policy provides for credits that reflect the previous demand a property placed on infrastructure. The credits apply for 10 years. This means redevelopment on a like-for-like basis won’t pay development contributions and intensified developments only pay development contributions for demand on infrastructure over and above the previous use demand.

5.19    Credits attached to development lots in the central city will begin to expire in large numbers from September 2020 in line with post-earthquake building demolitions. This will increase the draw on rebate funding if the rebates continue past the 30 June 2020 expiry date.

5.20    The possible draw on rebate funding will also depend on future central city development contributions charges, the overall quantum of intensification development and any limits the Council puts on rebate funding such as new criteria or any limits on rebates available.

Rebates for residential units used for short-term guest accommodation

5.21    The Central City Momentum Working Group has asked staff to look at options to have residential units used for short-term accommodation ineligible for a development contributions rebate. Staff will continue to look at how to efficiently and effectively achieve this and report back to the Committee.

5.22    It is expected that all or most residential properties used for short-term guest accommodation will be put to other uses due to border controls and physical distancing requirements in response to COVID-19. This may, therefore, be an opportunity to develop an effective regulatory framework for this type of land use.   

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

Alignment with strategic planning and delivery:

6.1       The central city development contributions rebate schemes are intended to enable the Council to promote achievement of the following community outcomes:

·   Vibrant and thriving city centre – the rebate schemes are designed to promote city centre residential and commercial development

·   Sufficient supply of, and access to, a range of housing - the rebate schemes are designed to promote city centre residential development and the housing options that provides

·   Great place for people, business and investment - the rebate schemes are designed to make the Christchurch city an attractive and interesting place to be and to attract investment relative to other locations

6.2       The central city development contributions rebate schemes are intended to enable the Council to promote achievement of the following strategic priorities:

·   Meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available – the schemes promote intensive development offering living and working in the central city using active and public transport, reducing our greenhouse gas emission per person.

·   Accelerating the momentum the city needs – the rebates are intended to promote development in the central city, providing economic momentum for Christchurch.

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

6.3.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa

6.4       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Encouraging development in the central city promotes achievement of goals in the following Council plans and strategies:

·   Christchurch District Plan

·   Central City Recovery Plan

·   Central City Action Plan

·   Christchurch Transport Strategy

·   Development Contributions Rebate Policy

 

 

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       Intensive residential development in the central city is likely to reduce Christchurch’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions as central city residents can live, work and play in the central city and have easy access to active travel and public transport infrastructure.

6.7       Intensive commercial development in the central city is likely to reduce Christchurch’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by supporting the provision and use of active and public transport options to access the central city.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to implement – no additional cost above that already allowed for at this time.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - The Council’s current cost of servicing debt is approximately $58,000 per year for every $1 million of debt.

7.2.1   The total revenue foregone is approximately $15 million

7.2.2   Cost of servicing current total debt is approximately $870,000 per year

7.2.3   Current impact on rates is approximately 0.175% rates.

7.3       Funding Source - rebates are revenue foregone. That revenue would have been used to repay loans used to fund growth assets. The rebates are therefore debt funded and repaid from rates over the funding period of relevant assets (normally 30 years). The rebates are funded by the ratepayers who pay rates for the affected activities, e.g. ratepayers paying for water supply fund the rebates for that activity.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       There are no statutory requirements or limits that affect the Council’s ability to operate development contribution rebate schemes.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is a risk that if both development contributions rebate schemes were to close at 30 June 2020 this could be seen as a withdrawal of commitment to the regeneration of the central city.

9.1.1   Caused by:

·     Possible impact on confidence of the development community

9.1.2   This will result in:

·     Some planned developments may not proceed

·     Possible reputational damage to the Council

9.2       Risk analysis and assessment

·   The risk is considered to be low as the closure date of the schemes has been publically available in the rebate scheme criteria and in letters to developers advising them of their rebate and the conditions of the schemes.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Development Contributions Rebate Criteria Christchurch Central City Residential 2020

69

b

Development Contribution Rebate Review - Developer Interview Summary

71

c

Development Contributions Central City Non-residential Rebate - Heatmap

74

d

Development Contributions Central City Residential Rebate - Heatmap

75

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Central City Residential Development Contributions Rebate Criteria 2015

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/development-contributions/CentralCityResidentialRebateCriteria.pdf

Central City Non-residential Development Contributions Rebate Criteria 2015

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/development-contributions/CentralcityBusinessZoneNonResidentialRebateCriteria.pdf

Development Contributions Rebate Policy 2019

https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/building-and-planning-policies/development-contributions-rebate-policy/

 

 

 

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

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Emma Davis - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

13.   Plan Change 2 - Port Hills Slope Instability Management Areas Overlay Update

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/249637

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Florian Risse, Assistant Policy Planner, florian.risse@ccc.govt.nz
Mark Stevenson, Team Leader City Planning (W), mark.stevenson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Brendan Anstiss, General Manager Strategy and Transformation
brendan.anstiss@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the Commissioner’s recommendations on proposed Plan Change 2 – Port Hills Slope Instability Management Area Update, and to recommend that the Council adopts the Commissioner’s recommendations as its decision. 

1.2       The Council has committed under District Plan Policy 5.2.2.4.2 to regularly notify changes to the District Plan to reflect updated information concerning risks from rockfall and/or cliff collapse and ensure the level of regulation applicable to a property is commensurate to the level of risk that applies.

1.3       Plan Change 2 seeks to update the Port Hills Slope Instability Management Area Overlays, which aligns rules for areas subject to the Slope Instability Management Area overlays with the level of existing risk for individual properties. Affected are those properties where the risks of slope instability hazards have either been recalculated or deemed to be less or been removed through physical works.

1.4       There are 84 residential properties (or 100 property titles) where the existing risk has changed. The properties form clusters, namely Stronsay Lane (Hillsborough/Avoca Valley), Rockcrest Lane (Bowenvale), Jacksons Road, Ross Parade & Ross Terrace (Lyttelton), and Taylor’s Mistake and Boulder Bay. Detailed Descriptions and background assessments can be found in part 3 of the section 32 assessment.   A small number of these form part of the Residential Red Zone under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. Maps defining the properties affected in each cluster have been attached as Appendices to the Section 32 report.

1.5       Plan Change 2 to the Christchurch District Plan was notified on 30th September 2019. A total of six submissions were received, five of which were in support of the proposals sought by the plan change. One submission neither supported nor opposed the proposal. A further submission received, supporting the plan change in principle, was deemed invalid for technical reasons. 

1.6       The Council’s planning recommendation report (also called an s42A report) was provided to all parties on 16 January 2020, which sets out recommendations to approve proposed Plan Change 2. 

1.7       After considering the submissions and planning recommendations report, Commissioner Dawson recommends that the Council adopts Plan Change 2 as set out in the overall conclusion and recommendations of her report, being:

1.7.1   Adopt the amendments to the District Plan as publically notified in proposed PC2; and

1.8       Accept, accept in part, or reject the submissions and further submissions as set out in Appendix 1.

1.9       The decisions in this report are of low significance under the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance is low on the basis that the plan change gives effect to the District Plan’s objectives, is localised with a small number of affected property owners, and which generally has a positive effect on people and communities’ social, economic and cultural wellbeing and people’s health and safety.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives the report and recommendations of Commissioner Dawson on Plan Change 2 Port Hills Slope Instability Management Areas Update

2.         Adopt as the decision of the Council the recommendations of Commissioner Dawson that Plan Change 2 Port Hills Slope Instability Management Areas Update be approved, for the reasons set out in the Commissioner’s report under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The option of reviewing the Slope Instability Management Areas for the properties identified is effective in achieving certainty for property owners, enabling them to proceed with development. It is efficient in addressing the issue for the 84 properties (100 property titles) identified and avoids further delay. However, it may be less efficient to carry out multiple reviews over several years relative to a comprehensive review.

3.2       This option contributes to achieving Objective 3.3.6(c) in raising awareness of natural hazards and ensuring the District Plan provisions reflect the level of risk for the properties identified.

3.3       In updating the Plan, the policy approach of avoiding risks where it is unacceptable and mitigating risk in other areas can be better achieved. The option is consistent with policies 5.2.2.1.6 and 5.2.2.4.2 in the District Plan in demonstrating the Council’s commitment to updating the Plan. The District Plan as a tool to convey information on hazards must be kept up-to-date without unnecessary delays for property owners. The preferred option is consistent with this approach.

3.4       Those properties not reviewed to date remain with restrictions in place for the foreseeable future.

3.5       In summary, amending the Slope Instability Management Area Overlays is the most appropriate option to achieve the Objectives and Policies of the District Plan. It aligns the planning rules with the levels of risk from hazards on time without unnecessary delays for property owners who have been waiting for the Council to make changes. 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

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

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

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

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

4.2.3   Withdraw the plan change, as it was initiated by itself.

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

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Context/Background / Te Horopaki

5.1       After the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, GNS slope instability modelling was undertaken in the Port Hills to identify properties affected by or deemed to be at risk from rockfall, cliff collapse or mass movement. The GNS risk models were developed over approximately three years and while the Port Hills Geotechnical Group ‘ground-truthed’ the results to a certain degree, GNS’ life risk models effectively remained at a ‘suburb’ level.

5.2       The District Plan then translated this modelling into mapped hazard areas called Slope Instability Management Areas, represented by overlays in the District Plan. Notwithstanding this, there are cases where the existing District Plan overlays do not match the GNS risk models, which reflects the outcomes of the District Plan Review process. Within areas subject to the overlays, most activities including land use and development require resource consent under provisions in Chapter 5 of the District Plan.

Proposed change

5.3       The proposed plan change amends the District Plan maps by changing the Slope Instability Management Area overlays for 100 property titles (84 properties). A summary of the changes follows:

·        Removal of the Rockfall Management Areas 1/ 2:                                            7 properties

·        Adjustment to the boundary of the Rockfall Management Area 1/ 2:      32 properties

·        Replacement of Rockfall Management Areas 1/ 2 with Remainder of
Port Hills and Banks Peninsula Slope Instability Management Area:      51 properties

·        Removal of Mass Movement Area 2:                                                                      4 properties

·        Replacement of Cliff Collapse Management Area 2 with Rockall
Management Area 2:                                                                                                    5 properties

·        Replacement of Rockfall Management Area 2 with Cliff Collapse             1 property
Management Area 2

5.4       The properties have been identified through enquiries from property owners, approved certification and resource consent applications and where physical works have occurred to remove hazards. They form the following locations:

·        Stronsay Lane;

·        Rockcrest Lane and Bowenvale Avenue;

·        Port Hills Road and Avoca Valley Road;

·        Stoddart Lane and Hollis Avenue;

·        Ross Parade, Ross Terrace and Jacksons Road; and

·        Endeavour Place.

Also affected are five baches in Boulder Bay and one in Taylors Mistake.

5.5       The decision affects clusters located in the Spreydon-Cashmere, Linwood-Central-Heathcote, and the Banks Peninsula Community Boards boundaries.

5.6       The effect of those proposed changes is generally positive with a more permissive set of rules proposed for 83 of the properties subject to changes in the overlays. The exception is one property at 10 Boulder Bay, which is subject to a more restrictive set of rules with the change from Rockfall Management Area 2 to Cliff Collapse Management Area 2.

5.7       Without an amendment to the Slope Instability Management Areas for the properties in question, affected property owners continue to have unnecessary restrictions, costs and uncertainty imposed upon them. This may result in property owners being unable to carry out activities on their properties, which may hinder property sales and may be affecting property values.

5.8       The reason for those proposed changes is that hazard removal works, and new technical information has shown that for specific properties, there is a different or lesser risk than initially mapped in the District Plan. Despite this, these properties remain subject to the rules for the Slope Instability Management Areas, including rockfall, cliff collapse and mass movement, as defined in the District Plan.

5.9       There is an opportunity in the future to undertake an assessment of risk for other areas and update the Slope Instability Management Areas across the Port Hills. Staff anticipate this to be in the form of rolling reviews, via updating the District Plan using a plan change process every two years (if required), and a comprehensive assessment of around 1,300 properties leading up to 2027 (the 10 year Plan review).

Community Views

5.10    The community views, expressed through submissions, were in support of the plan change although one submitter did not express explicit support or opposition for the plan change.   The submitter sought the reinstatement of the pre-earthquake land zoning as it was assumed the site’s ‘red zone’ status had replaced this. The zoning that the submitter referred is ‘Living Hills’ and is a zoning term used under the former City Plan that has been replaced with Residential Hills zoning under the District Plan. Through meeting with the submitter, Council staff clarified the nature of the changes proposed.

5.11    One further submission was received, which was deemed invalid, supporting the plan change proposal rather than expressing support or opposition to submission. The submission is concerning a parcel of land that has been red zoned following the earthquakes.

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

·     Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

         Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework. - Reconfirm as necessary the Strategic Fr

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. The decision supports the implementation of the Christchurch District Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       Consultation on the proposal was undertaken with Iwi authorities. An initial meeting with a representative from Mahaanui Kurataiao was held on the 10th April 2019. Further engagement occurred with Mahaanui Kurataiao in respect of properties in Lyttelton. A letter dated 6th June 2019 was sent to Mahaanui Kurataiao identifying all the affected properties in Lyttelton, and a subsequent meeting was held on 10th July 2019 to discuss.

6.4       Feedback from Ngāti Wheke is that they do not have any concerns other than with the overlay in Rāpaki not having been assessed[3].  Subsequent correspondence[4] from MKT suggests that Rūnanga would not have any further concerns.

 

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       This decision is unrelated to Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       This decision is unrelated to accessibility considerations.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement –

7.1.1   The cost of updating the District Planning Maps for the properties under this plan change is a one-off cost.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs –

7.2.1   There are some recurring costs associated with this plan change, which are incurred from the ongoing review and verification of external geotechnical reports. However, these costs are recoverable through the consenting process.

7.2.2   This plan change is part of a series of plan changes in a rolling-review programme to update other areas in the Port Hills on a two-yearly basis. This process is concentrated and planned but still requires resources.

7.3       Funding Source –

7.3.1   The costs of this plan change and future plan changes have been budgeted for in the current budget of Planning and Strategic Transport. 

 

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       Sections 74 and 75 of the RMA set out the Council's obligations when preparing a change to its District Plan. The Council has a responsibility under Section 31 of the RMA to establish, implement and review objectives and provisions for, among other things, achieving integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated resources. One of the Council's functions is to control the actual and potential effects of land use or development on the environment, following the provisions of Part 2.

8.2       Additionally, the Council has a responsibility to recognise and provide for matters under Section 6 of the Resource Management Act, and to have particular regard to other matters under Section 7 of the Resource Management Act. For this plan change, the relevant matters are:

8.2.1   Section 6(h): “the management of significant risks from natural hazards”;

8.2.2   Section 7(b) “the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources”.

8.3       See also Part 2 of the s32 Report for further details. This part outlines the proposal’s relationship with higher-order documents/provisions.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Maintaining the Status Quo

9.1.1   The number of properties where the Slope Instability Management Areas need to be updated may increase further and create a backlog that may be more expensive to resolve, having regard to the investigations required by Council.

9.1.2   Not to act risks delaying amendments to the rules that currently restrict the use and development of properties, which are not commensurate with the life risk that exists at the location. 

9.2       Comprehensive Review of the Port Hill Slope Instability Management Area Overlay

9.2.1   Does not demonstrate Council commitment to the public/property owners due to the time it would take to complete a comprehensive review.

9.2.2   There is potentially less benefit than anticipated if the investigations conclude that the Slope Instability Management Areas should remain unchanged for properties that have been reviewed as part of a comprehensive plan change but the risk remains unchanged.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

PC2 - Commissioner's Recommendation Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

PC2 s42A Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

PC2 Section 32 report (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

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

Florian Risse - Assistant Policy Planner

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Associate General Counsel

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

14.   Revocation of Council Decision - Marshland Road Proposed Signalised Intersection
Correction of administrative error

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/372973

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz
Wayne Gallot, Acting Team Leader, Traffic Operations, wayne.gallot@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

David Adamson, General Manager City Services, david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council revoke part of Resolution CNCL/2019/00217 passed by Council in September 2019 in respect of a proposed new signalised intersection on Marshland Road. This decision is required to correct an administrative error from the previous decision.

1.2       The new signalised intersection is to service the access of a new commercial development to be constructed on a site north of the existing Homebase shopping centre. Resource consent for the development was granted in 2016 (RMA/2016/3708), and the new signalised intersection at the site access is required as a condition of that consent. The approved scheme plan for the intersection under the resource consent includes a left turn slip lane on the site egress that is controlled by Give Way signs and markings.

1.3       In addition to approvals required under the resource consent process, the intersection and associated traffic controls required approvals from the local community board and/or Council as set out in the Delegations Register. The matter was first considered at a joint meeting of the Coastal-Burwood and Papanui-Innes Community Boards on 9 August 2019. The joint Community Boards adopted the staff recommendations without change and resolved (JCPB/2019/00010) to approve the new intersection and traffic controls under their delegated authority as well as recommend Council approve other matters not delegated to community boards. A copy of the joint Community Boards’ delegation (at that time) is included as Attachment A.

1.4       Council then considered the matter at its meeting on 12 September 2019. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, part of the approvals made under delegation by the joint Community Boards were included in the Council meeting agenda and reconsidered by Council.

1.5       This report has been prepared following communications received from the lawyers for the developers, Reefville Properties Limited (Reefville) and subsequent inquiries by Council staff.

1.6       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by applying the assessment criteria in the Policy.

 


 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That, pursuant to Clause 19.6 of the Christchurch City Council Standing Orders, the Council:

1.         Revoke paragraphs 4 to 8 (inclusive) of Resolution CNCL/2019/00217 as below;

4.   Approve that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as shown on Attachment A to the agenda.

5.   Approve the scheme design as shown on Attachment A to the agenda including all road marking, signage, kerb alignment, central islands and road surface treatments.

6.   Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report. 

7.   Install a stop control in the left hand slip lane of the development instead of the give way control.

8.   Request staff to review the left hand slip lane of Homebase with the view of creating consistency with the new development and report back to the relevant community boards.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The reasons for the recommendation in section 2 of this report are that the delegations to approve parts of Council Resolution CNCL/2019/00217, passed on 12 September 2019, sat with the Coastal-Burwood Community Board and Papanui-Innes Community Board, not the Council. Further, the delegation to change the Give Way control on the left turn slip lane of the scheme design to a Stop control also sat with the joint Community Boards.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Standing Orders state (at Clause 19.1) that a member may, with notice, give the chief executive a notice of motion for the revocation or alteration of all or part of a previous resolution of a meeting, so long as it is in the prescribed form.  This would take more time to implement and, given the executive was given notice from an affected member of the public, a recommendation from the Chief Executive to the Council is the most appropriate option.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Reefville owns the Homebase shopping centre on Marshland Road, and is extending this development. Reefville has resource consent (RMA/2016/3708) for the extended development, which includes a supermarket on the site. Vehicle access to supermarket is via a single access point on Marshland Road. The approved scheme plan for the intersection (under resource consent) includes a signalised intersection with a left turn slip lane on the site egress that is controlled by Give Way signs and markings.

5.2       In addition to approvals required under the resource consent process, the intersection and associated traffic controls required approvals from the local community board and/or Council in accordance with the Delegations Register. At the time the resolutions were made, Community Boards held the authority under the Delegations Register to approve road layouts, stopping / parking restrictions, and certain traffic controls (including Stop / Give Way controls). That delegation expressly excluded approvals for the installation of traffic signals, and that authority remained with the Council. A copy of Part D – Sub Part 2 – Council Committees at page 151 of the Delegations Register (at the time the resolutions were made) is provided as Attachment A.

5.3       A staff report was prepared for a joint meeting of the Coastal-Burwood and Papanui-Innes Community Boards on 9 August 2019. At that meeting, the joint Boards accepted the recommendations in the staff report (without change) and passed the following resolution (JCPB/2019/00010):

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board and Papanui-Innes Community Board:

1.       Recommend that Council approve the installation of new traffic signals outside 215 Marshland Road in accordance with Attachment A to the agenda.

2.       Recommend that Council revoke the current special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196 metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres.

3.       Recommend that Council approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196 metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as shown on Attachment A to the agenda.

4.       Approve that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196 metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217metres as shown on Attachment A to the agenda.

5.       Approve the scheme design as shown on Attachment A to the agenda including all road marking, signage, kerb alignment, central islands and road surface treatments.

6.       Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report.

 

5.4       The matter then went to Council for approval of paragraphs 1-3 of the joint Community Boards resolution as the authority to approve those items sat with the Council. However, due to an administrative error, all of the original staff recommendations were presented to Council for approval including paragraphs 4-6 that had already been approved by the joint Boards under delegated authority. At its meeting on 12 September 2019, Council considered all of the recommendations presented in paragraphs 1-6. Further to this, Council sought to change the left turn slip lane control from a Give Way to a Stop control and also requested staff undertake a review of the existing Homebase intersection slip lane control. The resolution passed by Council (CNCL/2019/00217) is as follows:

That the Council:

1.       Approve the installation of new traffic signals outside 215Marshland Road in accordance with Attachment A to the agenda.

2.       Revoke the current special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196 metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217metres.

3.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196 metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as shown on Attachment A to the agenda.

4.       Approve that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at a point 196metres north of the Briggs Road intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as shown on Attachment A to the agenda.

5.       Approve the scheme design as shown on Attachment A to the agenda including all road marking, signage, kerb alignment, central islands and road surface treatments.

6.       Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report. 

7.       Install a stop control in the left hand slip lane of the development instead of the give way control.

8.       Request staff to review the left hand slip lane of Homebase with the view of creating consistency with the new development and report back to the relevant community boards.

5.5       Reefville, through its solicitors, subsequently contacted Council to express their concern about the Council Resolution, specifically parts of the Resolution where the authority sat with the Community Board, including the change of control on the left turn slip lane to a Stop control.

5.6       The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.6.1   Burwood ward / Coastal-Burwood Community Board

5.6.2   Innes ward / Papanui-Innes Community Board

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       The decision has no significant climate change impact considerations.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       The decision has no significant accessibility considerations.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – No cost to Council, as construction of the new intersection and installation of associated infrastructure is the developers’ responsibility.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – covered under existing maintenance contracts.

7.3       Funding Source – Developer funded.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       Clause 30(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Clause 19.6 of the Christchurch City Council Standing Orders.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.1       Section 48 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that delegations must be carried out in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. Where a local authority has delegated decision-making powers to another subordinate decision-making body such as a community board, Clause 30(6) of Schedule 7 states “Nothing in this clause entitles a local authority … to rescind or amend a decision made under a delegation authorising the making of decision by a …subordinate decision-making body”.

8.2       Items that had already been approved by the joint Community Boards were accidentally carried over to the report to Council. This resulted in matters that had already been decided and did not require the Council’s approval being presented to Council.

8.3       Council did not hold the authority to pass paragraphs 4 to 8 of Resolution CNCL/2019/00217.

8.4       The delegation to approve paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Resolution CNCL/2019/00217 sat with the joint Community Boards and it was not necessary for Council to also approve these.

8.5       With regards to paragraph 7 of the Resolution, the authority to change a Give Way control to a Stop Control was also delegated to the Community Board(s). This delegation had not been revoked by Council prior to this and, therefore, Council should not have resolved to change the intersection layout or control. The change made in paragraph 7 is also inconsistent with the Joint Community Boards Resolution to approve the scheme design without any changes. 

8.6       Paragraph 8 of the Resolution is a request by Council for Council Officers to undertake a review of a matter where that delegation sat with the Community Boards. Council should be cautious making any request that could be interpreted as the Council influencing the powers delegated to a subordinate decision-making body.

8.7       There is a legal risk leaving paragraphs 4 to 8 of the Resolution as they are. Firstly, the decisions made are ultra vires (that is, they are not within the Councils power or authority). Secondly, the addition of paragraph 7 creates a direct conflict with the approved scheme design and Condition 1 of the resource consent. This leaves Reefville in a position where, theoretically, it cannot implement this condition of the resource consent. This could cause delays for Reefville being able to commence works until the matter is resolved. There is a risk of legal action by Reefville (such as judicial review) being taken against Council.

8.8       The Standing Orders contain rules for the conduct and proceedings of local authorities, committees, subcommittees and community boards, including the revocation or alteration of resolutions. All members of a local authority must abide by the Standing Orders.

8.9       Under Clause 9.2 of the Standing Orders any revocation must be made by the body responsible for the decision. Clause 19.6 of the Standing Orders provides:

19.6  Revocation or alteration by recommendation in report

The Council, on a recommendation in a report by the chairperson, chief executive, or any committee or community board, may revoke or alter all or part of a resolution passed by a previous meeting. The chief executive must give at least 2 clear working days’ notice of any meeting that will consider a revocation or alteration recommendation, with details of the proposal to be considered.

8.10    This report meets the requirements of Clause 19.6 of the Standing Orders.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Unless the matter is resolved appropriately, Council risks legal action being taken against it. It is also important that Council always acts within the powers delegated to it. This risk can be mitigated by adopting the recommendations in this report to revoke paragraphs 4 to 8 of Resolution CNCL/2019/00217.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Delegations Register Part D - Sub Part 2 - Council Committees (pg 151)

92

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Council Meeting Agenda (12 September 2019)

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz

Council Meeting Minutes (12 September 2019)

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz

 

 

 

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

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

Wayne Gallot - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

14 May 2020

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

15.   Establishment of a Coastal Hazards Working Group

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/278940

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Jane Morgan, Principal Programme Advisor, Planning & Strategic Transport, jane.morgan@ccc.govt.nz
Maiki Andersen, Senior Policy Planner, Planning & Strategic Transport, maiki.andersen@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Brendan Anstiss, GM Strategy & Transformation, Brendan.anstiss@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the establishment of a new working group to support the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee and Urban Development and Transport Committee and Sustainability with the delivery of two upcoming projects:

1.1.1   Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme.

1.1.2   Proposed Plan Change - New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Alignment (Hazards).

1.2       This report has been written in response to a request from Councillors in a workshop on the two programmes, held on 6 March 2020, to bring a recommendation to both Committees for a working group to be established.

1.3       In light of the current decision making processes, this report is now being brought to the Council for a decision on behalf of both committees.

1.4       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, but necessary for continual operation of the programme.  The level of significance was determined by the nature of this decision as an internal, operational decision that can be easily reversed if no longer needed.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Agree to establish a Coastal Hazards Working Group which will report to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee for matters relating to the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme, and Urban Development and Transport Committee for matters relating to the proposed Plan Change - New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Alignment (Hazards).

2.         Note that if either of these committees are unable to make decisions that the Coastal Hazards Working Group will report to the Council in respect of either programme noted above.

3.         Note that the working group will be governed by the Terms of Reference in Attachment A.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       To allow the Coastal Hazards Working Group to be established in accordance with the proposed Terms of Reference in Attachment A and be available for briefing in advance of upcoming decisions on the respective programmes of work.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The alternative option to this decision would be to rely on existing forums, including Council workshops (Tuesdays) and/or briefings to Committees, on both work programmes in relation to key programme updates and in advance of decisions.

4.2       Due to the complexity of the issues which will be addressed through both work programmes, the ongoing nature of the work and the number of upcoming decisions this year, it would be more efficient, reliable and effective to set up a formal process with a dedicated group of Councillors for this work.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Staff are currently in the process of initiating two programmes of work relating to coastal hazards:

5.1.1   The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme is an ongoing and longer term programme which seeks to address existing risks and exposure from coastal hazards over the next 100 years through a structured community engagement process.

5.1.2   The proposed Plan Change - New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Alignment (hazards) is a discrete piece of work with a limited scope, which is required to give effect to national direction for coastal hazards and provides the framework for new risks and exposure to be managed in advance of adaptation planning.

5.2       Both work programmes are in the early stages of development and no key decisions have been made.

5.3       Council has delegated authority to:

5.3.1   the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to oversee and make decisions on implementing the Council’s climate change initiatives and strategies which includes the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme.

5.3.2   the Urban Development and Transport Committee to make decisions regarding the District Plan which includes the Proposed Plan Change – New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Alignment (Hazards).

5.4       Due to the complexity of the issues which will be addressed through both work programmes, the ongoing nature of the work, and dependencies of both projects, Councillors have requested a working group is established to support delivery of this work.

5.5       The role of the proposed working group would be to provide advice and feedback to staff in advance of decisions, and to raise awareness and understanding, and champion the development and implementation of these programmes.

5.6       The decision is relevant to the Banks Peninsula, Heathcote, Linwood, Burwood, Coastal and Innes wards which are those areas with communities potentially at risk from coastal hazards in the next 100 years.

5.7       To reflect the priority of these matters for coastal and low lying inland communities, the membership of the working group is proposed to be made up of Councillors from the wards listed in paragraph 5.6 above, and one additional Councillor from outside this area to provide advice on wider City context and priorities.

5.8       The proposed working group would be jointly chaired by the chairs of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee and Urban Development and Transport Committee.

5.9       While it is still anticipated that the working group will report to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee and Urban Development and Transport Committee for decisions, due to the current alert level status and decision making avenues this initial decision to establish the Coastal Hazards Working Group is sought from Council.

5.10    Depending on the future alert level status and Council decision making arrangements during this time, the Coastal Hazards Working Group may need to report to Council for further decisions as the programmes progress.

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The proposed working group will be supporting key work programmes which align with the following Council strategic priorities:

6.1.1   Meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available; and

6.1.2   Enabling active and connected communities to own their future

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

6.2.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1.7 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. Specific impacts on Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions are therefore not anticipated.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       The proposed working group will be supporting key work programmes which seek to respond to the current and ongoing effects of climate change in relation to coastal hazards.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       This decision does not have a significant impact on accessibility.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – Limited

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are operational costs associated with the two programmes, which will comprise staff time and the use of consultants in an advisory and technical role. This includes staff time preparing for and presenting at meetings of the Working Group, and Councillors time to prepare for and attend working group meetings.

7.3       Funding Source – Existing operation budgets

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       Council has statutory power under Clause 30 of Schedule 7 in the Local Government Act 2002 to appoint committees, sub-committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies as it considers appropriate.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       No key decisions have been made on either work programme. Reports will come to the respective Committee for any decisions.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal Hazards Adaptation Working Group - Proposed Terms of Reference

97

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

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

Jane Morgan - Principal Programme Advisor

Mel Rountree - Principal Advisor Planning

Maiki Andersen - Senior Policy Planner

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

16.   Approval of Extension of Time for Central City Landmark Heritage Grants for 31 Cathedral Square and 92 Lichfield Street

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/230357

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Brendan Smyth, Heritage Team Leader, Brendan.Smyth@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Brendan Anstiss Brendan.Anstiss@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request that the Council approve an extension of time for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grants for the buildings known as: the former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch; and the former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch.

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines and Policy of the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme. This requires approval from the Council for extensions of time in the uptake of Central City Landmark Heritage Grants.

1.3       The request is for an extension of time of a further eighteen months for the building owners to claim the grant. The new completion date for both projects would be 22 October 2021.

1.4       The work to the building known as the former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch is underway and part of the grant has been released but the discovery of hidden asbestos and the amount of preparatory work has meant that the initial timeframes were not able to be met. 

1.5       The work to the building known as the former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, has been delayed due to uncertainty regarding the accessibility of the historic west façade.  The west façade of 92 Lichfield Street originally faced onto a private lane which was purchased by Otakaro Ltd when the land purchase for the Bus Exchange occurred.  Without securing ownership of this site, the visibility and accessibility of this part of the building was unclear. The owner of 92 Lichfield Street has now resolved this issue by gaining a sale and purchase agreement on this adjacent property.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve an extension of time of eighteen months for the uptake of the Central City Landmark Heritage grant previously approved for:

a.         The former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch; and

b.         The former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch.

2.         The new completion date for both projects will be 22 October 2021.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

         The former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch

3.1       The Council approved a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 in October 2018. The works covered by the grant have not been completed due primarily to the discovery of asbestos containing material within the structure of the first floor and the  complexity of the seismic upgrade of the building particularly the clock tower. The owner had started the task of stabilising, retaining and seismically upgrading the building but had to put a hold on the work while a decision was made on whether to remove or retain and encapsulate the asbestos. 

3.2       A main contractor has been appointed and has established a site office on the adjacent enclosed space. The security and watertightness of the building has been maintained while the works were on hold. A resource consent application for the works has been received and is being processed.

The former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

3.1       The Council approved a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 in October 2018. The works covered by the grant have not been completed due primarily to the desire to secure ownership of the adjacent site to the west. The building at 92 was originally built adjacent to a private laneway and had the ornate features of the main Lichfield Street façade extend around the corner (see the photos enclosed). Full development of the adjacent site could fully obscure the west façade of 92, including the potential blocking of all light and access to the original openings. This would have negated any benefits from the façade repair works by the owner of 92. Hence the owner would not proceed until the adjacent site was also under their ownership or some form of legal arrangement for access agreed with the vendor.  These negotiations have taken longer than expected.

3.2       Engineers have been appointed to the project and the concept works required to secure the west façade and the principal façade to Lichfield Street have been completed. The security and watertightness of the building has been maintained while the works were on hold.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The option of not supporting an extension of time for both buildings was not considered appropriate as the works at the former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square are underway and were only stopped as a result of the discovery of asbestos containing material. 

4.2       In the case of the building known as the former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, the works were only on hold until the adjacent site had been secured.  These issues have now been resolved and the works to restore the prominent buildings are set to continue.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

       The former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch

         

5.1       The detached commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as 'Highly Significant'. The building is registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Category I (register number 291).

5.2       The building was designed by the only architect ever to hold the title of Colonial Architect for New Zealand, W.H. Clayton and completed in 1879. It was originally designed as a Government Building and remained in use with the Post Office until the late 20th Century when the Post Office was split into three separate entities. The building was sold at this time and is now in private ownership.

5.3       The building was designed in the Italianate Style with elements of Venetian Gothic. The façade materials are predominantly red brick and stone masonry with arched windows, including pointed arch decoration on the first floor, window columns, ornate gables and projecting bands of carved stonework. The tower has multiple clock faces and the three dimensional full colour Government coat of arms. Within the tower is the original cast iron bell which chimed regularly up until the earthquakes. The roof is currently clad with asbestos fibre cement corrugated panels and the current works include removal of this material and its replacement with corrugated iron.

5.4       The building was altered substantially at the time of the splitting up of the Post Office and the bulk of the original interior was largely removed at this time. However, the remaining overall form, the principal facades and the ground floor were retained. The building was structurally upgraded at this time with steel bracing being attached to the internal faces of the masonry walls and within the roof and clock tower.

5.5       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade installed in the early 1990’s performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired.

       The former Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

     Photographs of the North Façade pre-earthquakes, left, and the West Façade in 2012, right.

 

5.1       The commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan, as 'Highly Significant'. The building is not currently registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT).

5.2       The building was designed by the Melbourne based architects, Tayler & Fitts and completed in 1893. The building was designed for the firm of Sargood, Son and Ewen, a Melbourne based company of warehousemen and importers. Frederick Sargood and J A Ewen were the partners of the firm with Frederick Sargood’s son Percy overseeing the New Zealand operations, and hence the unusual name for the Christchurch building.

5.3       The building was designed to be a warehouse but the main façade was designed in a grand late Victorian classical style. Unusually the building had a front façade with ornate brick and stone detailing wrapping around the west corner and part way down the lane. This gives the mid-block building a rare three dimensional depth in a street that was, other than at the road junctions, composed of single face facades.

5.4       Along with earlier modifications and extensions, substantial seismic upgrade works were completed in 2004-2005 including a concrete sheer wall installed behind the main Lichfield Street façade. The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade work performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired. The main area of damage was to the upper part of the west façade which had not been fully strengthened. Part of this brickwork façade collapsed in one of the many aftershocks in June 2011. A large wall of shipping containers has been placed along the main Lichfield Street facade but this façade has sustained only minor damage due to the concrete sheer wall. The building has been vacant since the earthquakes but the building has been secured with exterior fencing to the lower floor windows and doors.

5.5       The owner’s initial aim is to complete the seismic strengthening of the main façade by connecting the existing sheer wall to new side sheer walls and to new structural diaphragms in the floors and roof space. The latter works are not covered by insurance but are needed if the building is to not be classed as earthquake prone and is to become a viable leasing option and also made safe for long-term occupation. The completion of the sheer walls will also enable the removal of the shipping containers, and reconstruction in matching brickwork and detailing of the upper parts of the west façade which were lost in June 2011.


 

5.6       The decision on both grant extensions affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.6.1      Christchurch Central.

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The Central City landmark Heritage Grant Scheme aligns to the Community Outcome “Resilient Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation’ and ‘strong sense of community’. It also supports “Liveable City” – ‘21st century garden city we are proud to live in’ and “Prosperous Economy” – ‘great place for people, business and investment’.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.1       The recommendation is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

6.1.1   Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

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

6.1.3   Heritage Conservation Policy

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.2       It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga are the Tangata Whenua in this location.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       The grant will support the retention of a heritage building and the embodied energy within it.  Retention and reuse of heritage buildings can contribute to emissions reduction and mitigate the effects of climate change. Retaining and reusing existing built stock reduces our carbon footprint and extends the economic life of buildings. 

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       The buildings will be repaired and access will be included as required by the New Zealand Building Code. The north façade of the building known as the former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch already included an internal accessible ramp.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

7.1       There are no new cost implications in association with the resolution sought in this report.

 

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The delegated authority for Central City Landmark Heritage Grant decisions sits with this Committee.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

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

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no appendices to this report.

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Sharon Marnewick - Personal Assistant

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

17.   Community Waterways Partnership Charter

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/116482

Report of:

Clive Appleton Team Leader Natural Environment, clive.appleton@ccc.govt.nz
Kevin McDonnell Team Leader Asset Planning WWW kevin.mcdonnell@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager:

David Adamson, City Services, david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       This options report provides detail on the Community Waterways Partnership Charter (Charter – Attachment A), for the Council to be able to make a decision on whether to become a partner, or not, to the Charter.

1.2       The Charter provides many opportunities to work with a wide range of partners to co-create and deliver a more holistic and co-ordinated community awareness, education and behaviour change programme. The programme will assist the Council with delivering Schedule 4 non-regulatory actions in the Christchurch City Council Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (Stormwater Consent – Attachment B).

1.3       If the Council becomes a key partner, then it is recommended staff are assigned to support the administration of the Charter, to run workshops and co-ordinate development and delivery of projects across the Council and external partners. Any commitment by the Council is likely to attract joint partners and collegial support.  

1.4       The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined as medium, based on the level of expectation that Charter partners have for the Council becoming a Charter member and helping to resource the delivery of actions under the Charter. Most of the medium significance ratings are seen to have potential, positive outcomes, especially for strengthening community and environmental initiatives across the city and for the Council’s operations where community input is required.

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives and considers this staff report.

2.         Signs up to the Community Waterways Partnership Charter and appoints a Councillor to be a signatory.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations

3.1       At the 18 December 2019 Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting staff were requested to provide advice on the implications of signing the Community Waterways Partnership Charter. In response, staff have recommended that the Council becomes a signatory based on the Charter’s vision and the level of support indicated by key community representatives for this partnership. The partnership itself will help facilitate the Council’s delivery of the Stormwater Consent requirements. 

 

Community Waterways Partnership Charter

3.2       The vision of the Charter is to establish a collaborative partnership that supports the development of community-based initiatives to improve the ecological health, indigenous biodiversity and the amenity value of our urban waterways. This approach will support the Council in its delivery of the Stormwater Consent actions for community awareness, education and behaviour change programmes; these provide essential impetus, coordination and cohesion for implementing Council’s strategic framework and achieving the community outcomes on waterway health.

3.3       There are a number of advantages to the Council if it becomes a signatory to the Charter, including:

·   Having partners to co-create and deliver a “Working Together” awareness, education and behaviour change programme so residents know how to stop contaminants from entering the stormwater network.

·   Working with partners to encourage communities to be involved in waterway programmes where they take on guardianship and protection of their local waterways.

·   Providing opportunity to align community programmes with projects delivered by different units across the Council (Attachment C). This should result in better project alignment and delivery of communication and messaging to maximise community awareness of what resources they can access or actions that they can undertake to improve waterways.

·   Enabling the Council to work with partners and the wider community to establish agreed long term visions for each of the city waterways, based on the six values approach (drainage, ecology, cultural, heritage, landscape, and recreation). Then establish agreed action plans in order to achieve those visions.

·   Establishing joint research and monitoring programmes with other partners (such as universities, government agencies), to track and report on the effectiveness of the partnership programme against the four wellbeings.

·   Opportunity to leverage funding or in-kind contribution from other sources for the wider programme of work.

3.4       Establishing, implementing and co-ordinating the partnership will take time and staff resources to coordinate and administer the Charter, plus run workshops and co-ordinate development and delivery of projects across the Council and external partners. Council’s priorities will need to be balanced with post Covid-19 programmes.

3.5       The establishment of the Charter, and of the resources to implement and administer it and to coordinate the non-regulatory initiatives from the Council and other partners, provides necessary support for the Council achieving the source control of waterway contamination which is needed to support the Consent and achieve the community outcomes sought on waterbody health.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered

4.1       The Council does not sign up to the Charter. Under this option, the Council would continue with existing funding to deliver the community focused programmes (Attachment C). However there is a risk that Community groups, especially those strongly advocating for the Charter, would view the Council as not being prepared to work more closely with them to improve waterways. Level of community trust and desire to volunteer personal time to co-create and deliver education and behaviour change programmes would be much lower without the Community Partnership approach.  Without the Charter various waterway improvement programmes and initiatives, internal and external to the Council, would not be adequately coordinated nor make best use of collaborative effort to achieve waterway improvements. Any additional funding would obviously be an enhancement. Not signing the Charter could jeopardise the Council’s success to deliver against the Stormwater Consent, Schedule 4 requirements and meet the community outcomes sought. Additionally there would be less opportunity to leverage funding from other sources.

5.   Detail

Background

5.1       In October 2018, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee (Zone Committee) facilitated a workshop with representatives from central and local government agencies including the Council, Ngāi Tahu, universities, and community groups to discuss the merits of establishing a Community Waterways Partnership Charter (Attachment A). All parties support the partnership and have agreed to its content.

5.2       At the 22 August 2019 meeting of the Christchurch West-Melton Zone Committee meeting the Committee confirmed that it would be the first signatory to the Charter, and recommended that Environment Canterbury and the Council endorse it (Resolution CWZC/2019/00022). This was reiterated in the Zone Committee’s quarterly update to the 18 December 2019 Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting [agenda item 6].

Existing Council Community Projects

5.3       The Council has a number of community projects delivered by the Strategic Policy, Parks, and Three Waters and Waste units. These projects aim to improve water quality, create partnerships with and educate the community, for example, the school education stormwater kit in collaboration with the Student Volunteer Army. A list of these projects and a breakdown of costs per project can be found in Attachment C.

5.4       The total approximate funding across all units is:

Financial year

2018/19

2019/20

Total cost

$115,000

$672,000

 

6.   Policy Framework Implications

Strategic Alignment

6.1       This Charter will help bring people and communities together to work on projects to restore enhance, and protect waterways, bringing about a sense of pride and connection with waterways. By doing so, it will help deliver the Christchurch City Council Integrated Water Strategy Objective 1 – Awareness and Engagement – to increase awareness and engage with the community and mana whenua regarding the multiple uses and values of water.

6.2       This Charter will also support the Strategic Priority, Enabling active and connected communities to own their own future. The education and behaviour change programme to be delivered through the Charter partners is directly intended to improve the health of waterbodies, which comes under the Community Outcome Healthy Environment.

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

6.3.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1.7 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework. - Policy advice to Council on emerging an

6.3.2   Activity: Flood Protection & Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.7.1 Reduce pollution from discharge of urban contaminants to waterways – Average annual reduction in zinc. Supports the community outcome of Healthy Waterways

·     Level of Service: 14.1.7.2 Reduce pollution from discharge of urban contaminants to waterways – Average annual reduction in sediment. Supports the community outcome of Healthy Waterways

·     Level of Service: 14.1.7.3 Reduce pollution from discharge of urban contaminants to waterways – Average annual reduction in copper. Supports the community outcome of Healthy Waterways

Policy Consistency

6.4       The decision is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. Any decisions on projects that the partnership make/endorse will give consideration to Mana Whenua matters as appropriate.

Climate Change Impact Considerations

6.6       The decision to become a signatory to the Charter will not have any impact on climate change matters. Any decisions on projects that the partnership make/endorse will give consideration to climate change matters as appropriate.  An example is gully planting to reduce soil erosion and sediment runoff into waterways. The planted trees will provide biodiversity gains and   carbon sequestration opportunities to offset local greenhouse gas emissions.

Accessibility Considerations

6.7       Any decisions on projects that the partnership make/endorse will give consideration to accessibility matters as appropriate.

7.   Resource Implications

Operational expenditure

7.1       Current funding of $100,000 has been available for the 2019/20 financial year for the Stormwater Consent, Schedule 4 - community awareness, education and behaviour change programme. This funding is in addition to the current projects being delivered by the Council detailed in Attachment C.

7.2      

Other

7.3       It is expected that the Council will not be the only partner contributing resources or in-kind support towards the Charter. While other local/central government agencies and businesses may provide resources, their level of contribution is unknown at this stage.

8.   Legal Implications

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report

8.1       Any decision to sign the Community Waterways Partnership Charter sits with the Council.

Other Legal Implications

8.2       Legal advice was sought when the Charter was first proposed and the view is that there are no legal implications for the Council joining the Charter. As stated in the Charter: This Charter is a statement of intent to work in partnership.  It imposes no binding authority, decision or obligation on partners. Each signatory partner remains autonomous, and none is bound by the Charter in undertaking its everyday activities. The partnership is not a new formal structure or organisation (Attachment A).

8.3       Given the legal advice above, this report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

9.   Risk Management Implications

9.1       If the Council does not sign up to the Charter, then community groups that are advocating and wanting the Charter to proceed may refuse or be reluctant to volunteer their own time to education and behaviour change programmes because they have lost faith in the Council. If this happens then the Council may struggle to meet the requirements set out in the Consent, Schedule 4 requirements. Environment Canterbury will see this as a failure to meet the non-regulatory consent conditions. If the Council wishes to avoid this happening, then it should sign up to the Charter to gain the community support that this programme requires.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Community Waterways Partnership Charter

110

b

Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Background

113

c

Existing Council Community Projects

115

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 18 March 2020

 

18.   Outcome of Property Review Process - 1 Carlyle Street

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/302365

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Stuart McLeod,  Property Consultant, Stuart.McLean@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leonie Rae, GM Corporate Services, Leonie.Rae@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original officer’s recommendations accepted without change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Declares 1 Carlyle Street surplus.

2.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

a.         Commence the sale process of the property in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies.

b.         Concludes the sale of the property on the best terms considered available taking account of the current open market conditions.

c.         Do all things necessary and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.  

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Outcome of Property Review Process - 1 Carlyle Street Street

118

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Extract Council 5 July 2018 Minutes - Minutes of Council - 5 July 2018

123

b

304/5973 Property Status Report

126

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

Outcome of Property Review Process - 1 Carlyle Street Street

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/182058

Report of:

Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant

General Manager:

Leonie Rae General Manager Corporate Services

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with the outcome of fulfilment of the resolutions contained in CNCL/2018/00146 (see Attachment A) with regard to the property at 1 Carlyle Street.

1.2       This report has been written to fulfil the resolutions of CNCL/2018/00146.

1.1       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by utilising the significance and engagement assessment worksheet, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the level of community interest already apparent for the issue, possible environmental, social and cultural impacts, possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision, and whether the impact of the decision can be reversed.   

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, noting that there is no alternative public use, recommend to the Council that it:

1.         Declares 1 Carlyle Street surplus.

2.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

a.         Commence the sale process of the property in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies.

b.         Conclude the sale of the property on the best terms considered available taking account of the current open market conditions.

c.         Do all things necessary and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations

3.1       To fulfil the requirements of the previous resolution.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered

4.1       None. As there is no use for the property it is surplus and should therefore be sold.

5.   Detail

1 Carlyle Street – description

5.1       The property is bare land and is a neighbourhood park, although underutilised. The location of 1 Carlyle Street and view from the street is shown below.

 

Background to the Disposal Process

5.2       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally held it is prudent for Council to make a conscious decision to determine the future use of that property.  Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk for example:

5.2.1   Reputational for not proactively and prudently managing and utilising property assets.

5.2.2   Being reactively driven by unilateral unsolicited proposals to outcomes. 

5.2.3   Legislative non-compliance e.g. not dealing with offer back obligations (section 40 of the Public works Act) appropriately.

5.2.4   Not meeting the principles of the Local Government Act.

5.2.5   Inappropriate uses developing e.g. vandalism, unsanctioned occupations.

5.2.6   Poor maintenance and compliance.

5.3       Holding property without an agreed reason, purpose or use also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets / money.

5.4       In general terms the Council only holds land that is:

5.4.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.4.2   Held for strategic purposes e.g. project; and

5.4.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.5       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

5.6       This “Property Review Process” requires community boards to consider a list of properties in their ward that are no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased and in doing so make future use decisions by categorising them as follows:

·   Held - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be retained for a strategic purpose.

·   Sold - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be declared surplus for disposal.

·   Used - Deciding on which properties the Board and staff will work on over the coming months to identify as having alternative public uses for recommending to the Council for a decision.

5.7       With the above in mind, the Manager Property Consultancy held a workshop with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to review the properties located within their ward and a report was then considered at the meeting of the Board on 20th June 2018.

5.8       At the meeting it recommended to Council, and Council resolved at its meeting of 5th July 2018 that, amongst other matters:

4.            Supports retention of the following properties subject to the conditions below:

a.         Carlyle Reserve 1 Carlyle Street

5.      Notes retention of the properties set out in resolution 4. above is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

a.    Can be rationalised,

b.    Satisfies a clearly identified need,

c.    Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

d.    Supports Council strategies,

e.    Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

f.     Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the Long Term Plan.

 

5.9       Following further consultation with the Executive Leadership Team and the Community Governance Team, no alternative uses or users were identified and in accordance with the resolution referred to above, the property should be declared surplus and then tendered for sale on the open market.

5.10    The decision affects the following Community Board areas:

5.10.1 Linwood-Central-Heathcote.

6.   Policy Framework Implications

Strategic Alignment

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

6.1.1   Activity: Facilities, Property & Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10 Property advice and services that support the delivery of other Council Services. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum.

Policy Consistency

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations

6.4       None

Accessibility Considerations

6.5       N/A.

7.   Resource Implications

Capex/Opex

7.1       Cost to Implement – real estate agents fees for selling the property.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – reduced holding costs.

7.3       Funding Source – from the sale proceeds.

8.   Legal Implications

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report

8.1       Local Government Act 2002 and previous resolution.

Other Legal Implications

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications

9.1       The purpose of this decision is to create certainty and reduce risk.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Extract attachment Council 5 July 2018 Minutes - Minutes of Council - 5 July 2018

 

b  

304/5973 Property Status Report

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

PDF Creator


Council

14 May 2020

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 18 March 2020

 

19.   Outcome of Property Review Process - 113 Huxley Street

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/302532

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Justin Sims, Property Consultant, Justin.Sims@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leonie Rae, GM Corporate Services, Leonie.Rae@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original officer’s recommendations were accepted without change.

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Declares 113 Huxley Street surplus.

2.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

a.         Commences the sale process of the property in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies.

b.         Concludes the sale of the property on the best terms considered available taking account of the current open market conditions.

c.         Does all things necessary and make decisions at their sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Outcome of Property Review Process - 113 Huxley Street

128

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Extract Council Minutes  - 5th July 2018

133

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

Outcome of Property Review Process - 113 Huxley Street

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/130301

Report of:

Justin Sims, Property Consultant

General Manager:

Leonie Rae

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with the outcome of fulfilment of the resolutions contained in CNCL/2018/00146 (copy attached) with regard to the property at 113 Huxley Street.

1.2       This report has been written to fulfil the resolutions of CNCL/2018/00146.

1.1       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by utilising the significance and engagement assessment worksheet, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the level of community interest already apparent for the issue, possible environmental, social and cultural impacts, possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision, and whether the impact of the decision can be reversed.   

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, noting that there is no alternative public use, recommend to Council that it to:

1.         Declare 113 Huxley St surplus.

2.         Grant delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

a.         Commence the sale process of the property in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies.

b.         Conclude the sale of the property on the best terms considered available taking account of the current open market conditions.

c.         Do all things necessary and make decisions at their sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations

3.1       To fulfil the requirements of the previous resolution.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered

4.1       None. As there is no use for the property it is surplus and should therefore be sold.

5.   Detail

113 Huxley Street – description

5.1       The property comprises a single storey building constructed around 1965 together with parking area to the front and play area to the rear. The property was used as a community run Early Learning Centre until the September 2012 earthquake and has been shut ever since. The property is 8% of New Building Standard (NBS) meaning it reflects an earthquake risk and needs to be strengthened before it is capable of occupation. Demolition costs have been estimated historically at $96,000 as the building contains asbestos whilst strengthening and repair works have been estimated at $250,000.

5.2       The location of 113 Huxley Street is shown on the aerial photo below.

5.3       A photo of the property as viewed from the road is below. 20150529_105618

 

Background to the Disposal Process

5.4       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally held it is prudent for Council to make a conscious decision to determine the future use of that property.  Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk for example:

5.4.1   Reputational for not proactively and prudently managing and utilising property assets.

5.4.2   Being reactively driven by unilateral unsolicited proposals to outcomes. 

5.4.3   Legislative non-compliance e.g. not dealing with offer back obligations (section 40 of the Public works Act) appropriately.

5.4.4   Not meeting the principles of the Local Government Act.

5.4.5   Inappropriate uses developing e.g. vandalism, unsanctioned occupations.

5.4.6   Poor maintenance and compliance.

5.5       Holding property without an agreed reason, purpose or use also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets / money.

5.6       In general terms the Council only holds land that is:

5.6.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.6.2   Held for strategic purposes e.g. project; and

5.6.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.7       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

5.8       This “Property Review Process” requires community boards to consider a list of properties in their ward that are no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased and in doing so make future use decisions by categorising them as follows:

·   Held - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be retained for a strategic purpose.

·   Sold - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be declared surplus for disposal.

·   Used - Deciding on which properties the Board and staff will work on over the coming months to identify as having alternative public uses for recommending to the Council for a decision.

5.9       With the above in mind, the Manager Property Consultancy held a workshop with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to review the properties located within their ward and a report was then considered at the meeting of the Board on 20th June 2018.

5.10    At the meeting it recommended to Council, and Council resolved at its meeting of 5th July 2018 that, amongst other matters:

4.            Supports retention of the following properties subject to the conditions below:

k.         Crèche Land Sydenham Pre-School 113 Huxley Street

5.      Notes retention of the properties set out in resolution 4. above is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

a.         Can be rationalised,

b.         Satisfies a clearly identified need,

c.          Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

d.         Supports Council strategies,

e.          Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

f.           Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the Long Term Plan.

 

5.11    Following further consultation with the Parks team and the Community Governance Team, no alternative uses or users were identified and in accordance with the resolution referred to above, the property should be declared surplus and then tendered for sale on the open market.

5.12    The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.12.1 Linwood-Central-Heathcote

6.   Policy Framework Implications

Strategic Alignment

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

6.1.1   Activity: Facilities, Property & Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10 Property advice and services that support the delivery of other Council Services. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum.

Policy Consistency

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations

6.4       None

Accessibility Considerations

6.5       N/A

7.   Resource Implications

Capex/Opex

7.1       Cost to Implement – real estate agents fees for selling the property

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – reduced holding costs

7.3       Funding Source – from the sale proceeds

8.   Legal Implications

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report

8.1       Local Government Act 2002 and previous resolution.

Other Legal Implications

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications

9.1       The purpose of this decision is to create certainty and reduce risk.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Extract Council Minutes  - 5th July 2018

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 18 March 2020

 

20.   17 Hills Road - Land for Road Widening

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/302554

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Stuart McLeod,  Property Consultant, Stuart.McLean@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leonie Rae, Corporate Services, Leonie.Rae@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original officer’s recommendations accepted without change.

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Agrees in principal to the issuing of fee simple titles for Lots 1, 2 and 3 as shown on RPS1619 (subject to survey) and to Lot 4 RPS1619 vesting as road.

2.         Transfers its one third share in Lots 2 and 3 RPS1619 to the owners of Flats 2 and 3 DP 38813.

3.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps to negotiate, agree and enter into all necessary documentation on behalf of the Council, as they shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions and the issue of fee simple titles as described in this report and as shown on RPS1619 (subject to survey).

4.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps as he may consider appropriate to dispose of Lot 1 RPS 1619 on the best terms considered available as supported by valuation advice, and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including that if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

17 Hills Road - Land for Road Widening

138

 

No.

Title

Page

a  

304/5018 Valuers agreement Flat 2 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

b  

304/4191 Valuers Agreement Flat 3 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

17 Hills Road - Land for Road Widening

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/123171

Report of:

Stuart McLeod Property Consultant stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager:

David Adamson General Manager City Services david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to transfer ownership of its 1/3 share in the land situated at 17b & c Hills Road Christchurch to the owners of Flats 2 & 3 DP 38813, noting that some matters touched on in this report can and will be addressed with existing staff delegations.

1.2       This report is staff generated and is necessary because there is no staff delegation to dispose of land or an interest in land.

1.3       The decisions in this report are of low significance.  The level of significance was determined following completion of the assessment matrix. The decision itself has little impact on the community.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends to Council to:

1.         Agrees in principal to the issuing of fee simple titles for Lots 1, 2 and 3 as shown on RPS1619 (subject to survey) and to Lot 4 RPS1619 vesting as road.

2.         Transfer its 1/3 share in Lots 2 and 3 RPS1619 to the owners of Flats 2 and 3 DP 38813.

3.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps to negotiate, agree and enter into all necessary documentation on behalf of the Council, as they shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions and the issue of fee simple titles as described in this report and as shown on RPS1619 (subject to survey).

4.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps as he may consider appropriate to dispose of Lot 1 RPS 1619 on the best terms considered available as supported by valuation advice, and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including that if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations

3.1       When undertaking a subdivision to issue fee simple titles in the name of the individual flat owners it is necessary to transfer shares amongst themselves so each lot on the subdivision can be held in the desired ownership.

3.1.1   It is a practical solution when alterations required to a “Flat Plan” are so extensive to require a new Flat Plan.

3.1.2   It provides an incentive for the other owners because fee simple titles could be viewed as being superior to cross lease titles.

3.1.3   Impediments to road construction are removed once the land designated for road is wholly in Council ownership.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered

4.1       Prepare a new Flat Plan – This is the only other option worthy of consideration and would involve surrender of the Councils “Flat lease” but would still require Council ownership of Sections 1 and 4 and a fee simple title issued.

4.1.1   There are no advantages with this option. 

4.2       Disadvantages are

4.2.1   Council would still be required to acquire the other owners’ shares in Lot 4 before it can be formed as road.

4.2.2   The ownership of the land that was previously Flat 1 (and not required for road) would still need to be resolved i.e. it cannot be a cross lease title as the building has been removed.

4.2.3   Council would still be required to “sell” its share in the Lots 2 and 3 to correct the Flat Plan ownership.

4.2.4   The other owners have indicated this is not their preferred option.

5.   Detail

5.1       Portions of Hills Road are subject to road designations, this particular property is held in Cross Lease titles commonly known or referred to as Flats.  

 

 

5.2       Council want to declare Lot 4 RPS1619 as road but before it can do so it must acquire the shares of the other Cross Lease Title owners, there are existing staff delegations to acquire land.

 

5.3       Cross lease ownership gives each owner a share in all of the land, in this case a 1/3 share each in 981m², shared use of common areas (i.e. driveways), exclusive use of the Flat and areas of land associated with each flat, see below.

 

5.4       Prior to the earthquakes the owner of Flat 1 requested the Council to purchase his Flat due to his inability to sell the property on the open market,  the road designation went through the front portion of the dwelling (Flat 1).

5.5       Council completed the purchase prior to the earthquakes and although negotiations with the owners of Flats 2 and 3 to acquire their shares had been protracted the sequence of earthquakes only served to delay negotiations further until their insurance claims had been clarified and resolved.

5.6       The owners of Flats 2 and 3 are now in a position to advance matters and have agreed to sell their shares in the “Council land” on the proviso that they are left with standard “fee simple” titles. This is a practical solution because of the demolition of Flat 1.

5.7       This involves both the sale and purchase of shares in the land by all parties to each other, surrender of existing leases for the Flats and granting of new easements for access and services.

5.8       Council will be left with two parcels of land (Lots 1 & 4) totalling 454m² and the owners of Flats 2 & 3 (to be Lots 2 & 3) will have 223 m² & 304m² respectively.

 

5.9       Compensation is payable to the owners of Flats 2 & 3 because of the loss of land and injurious affection from the road being closer to the Flats. Compensation payable has been independently agreed between the respective valuers and is disclosed in the public excluded attachments to this report. 

5.10    Staff delegations can be used to acquire shares from the other owners and grant any easements required by the subdivision.

5.11    There is no staff delegation to sell land, (even a share in land), a resolution from the Council is necessary.

5.12    Whilst the works are not programmed for several years Council have the opportunity to consolidate the ownership structure to enable it to build the road when it wants.

5.13    The decisions in this report affect the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.13.1 Central Electoral Ward, Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

6.   Policy Framework Implications

Strategic Alignment

6.1       Maintain journey reliability on strategic routes.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.1 Maintain journey reliability on strategic routes. - Peak 25m. Day 15m. Night 10m.

Policy Consistency

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.3.1   Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012 – 2042

6.3.2   Streets Roads and Pavements Policies

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations

6.5       There are no climate change considerations relevant to the sale of the Councils share in the land, notwithstanding that there is a Cycle Lane and Bus Lane on the road and although not yet designed a widened road could provide for improved cycle lanes/paths and bus priority lanes which could reduce the number of individual vehicle movements.

Accessibility Considerations

6.6       There are no accessibility considerations relevant to the sale of the Councils share in the land. Road and footpath design criteria will consider accessibility including impact on physical disability, wheel chair users, those with visual impairment, intellectual/learning disabilities and the deaf community.

7.   Resource Implications

Capex/Opex

7.1       Cost to Implement – Staff time, legal costs, survey costs and compensation payable under the Public Works Act 1981 are expected to be no more than $60,000

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Not applicable to the sale

7.3       Funding Source – CPMS ID 165 Subdivisions (Transport Infrastructure)

8.   Legal Implications

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report

8.1       There is no staff delegation to sell land, (even a share in land), a resolution from the Council is necessary.

8.2       The Legal Servicies Unit (LSU) have prepared all legal documents signed by each of the owners can Council. LSU will undertake the necessary processes to register the changes in ownership at Land Information New Zealand

Other Legal Implications

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications

9.1       There are no significant risks identified in the conversion of the titles to fee simple titles. There is a small risk that resource consent is not obtained for the subdivision that would result in a return to the discarded option of amending the flat plan. This would still require Council to resolve ownership issues and obtain full ownership of the land required for road and its balance land.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

304/5018 Valuers agreement Flat 2 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

b  

304/4191 Valuers Agreement Flat 3 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 


Council

14 May 2020

 

 

21.   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

14 May 2020

 

 

 

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

20.

17 Hills Road - Land for Road Widening

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1 - 304/5018 Valuers agreement Flat 2

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

The amount of compensation payable is a personal to owner of Flat 2.

24 December 2024

Deposit of the plan of subdivision

 

Attachment 2 - 304/4191 Valuers Agreement Flat 3

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

The amount of compensation payable is a personal to owner of Flat 3.

24 December 2020

Deposit of the plan of subdivision

22.

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 23 April 2020

 

 

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

 

23.

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 30 April 2020

 

 

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

 

24.

Recycling Services Update

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

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The information may prejudice the parties' commercial position and considers commercial responses to changes in the international market

Release once resolutions have been implemented

25.

Appointment of independent members of the Council's Audit and Risk Management Committee

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

To protect the reputations of candidates who may not be approved by Council.

After the Audit and Risk Management Committee has confirmed the appointments, and with the approval of the Chief Executive of the Council.

26.

Update on Roydon Quarry Consent

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

Includes Legal advice

The report will be released when the consenting process has been completed

 

 



[1] After carry forwards

[2] “Christchurch City Council – Barriers to Christchurch Central City Residential Development” Development Christchurch Limited. 2019. Pg 4.

[3] Email from Brad Thomson of MKT to Mark Stevenson of CCC dated 14 August 2019.

[4] Email from Brad Thomson of MKT to Mark Stevenson of CCC dated 10th September 2019.