Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 22 October 2020

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

16 October 2020

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

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

 

 

Chair

Councillor Templeton

Deputy Chair

Councillor Coker

Membership

The Mayor and All Councillors

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Delegations

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

·                Enabling active citizenship, community engagement and participation

·                Implementing the Council’s climate change initiatives and strategies

·                Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·                Heritage

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

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

·                Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·                Museums

·                Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

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

·                Hagley Park, including the Hagley Park Reference Group

·                Community facilities and assets

·                Suburban Master Plans and other local community plans

·                Implementing public health initiatives

·                Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·                Civil defence including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·                Community events, programmes and activities

·                Community development and support, including grants and sponsorships

·                The Smart Cities Programme

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

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

Bylaws

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to:

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

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

o      Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018

o      Brothels Bylaw 2013

o      Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

o      Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2016

o      Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

o      General Bylaw 2008

o      Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2018

o      Public Places Bylaw 2018

Submissions

·                The Council delegates to the Committee authority:

·                To consider and approve draft submissions on behalf of the Council on topics within its terms of reference. Where the timing of a consultation does not allow for consideration of a draft submission by the Council or relevant Committee, that the draft submission can be considered and approved on behalf of the Council.

Community Funding

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

·                Heritage Incentive Grant Applications

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

·                Christchurch Heritage Festival Community Grants over $5,000

·                Applications to the Events and Festivals Fund

·                Applications to the Capital Endowment Fund

·                Applications to the Enliven Places Projects Fund

·                Applications to the Innovation and Sustainability Fund

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

Limitations

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

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

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


 

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

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

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

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

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

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Timatanga................................................................................................... 7 

C          1.        Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha........................................................................ 7

B         2.        Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga......................................... 7

C          3.        Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua........................ 7

B         4.        Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui................................................................ 7

B         5.        Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga............................... 7

B         6.        Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga.................................................. 7

Staff Reports

C          7.        Review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw...................................................... 13

C          8.        Art by the River Commission-Natalie Guy's The Pool..................................... 29

C          9.        'Raise the Anchor' Art Commission - Nathan Pohio....................................... 37

C          10.      Community Organisation Loan Scheme Applications.................................... 43

C          11.      2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund..................................... 63

C          12.      Correction to Error in Resolution - Community Loan Organisation Scheme...... 73

C          13.      Tsunami Warning Sirens (TWS) - Technical Standards Non-Compliance........... 75  

C          14.      Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................ 93  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

That the minutes of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting held on Thursday, 24 September 2020  be confirmed (refer page 8).

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

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

 

4.1

Grow Ō Tautahi

Sarah Barrer and Murray Strong will speak on behalf of Grow Ō Tautahi regarding the upcoming garden festival (March 2021).

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

Unconfirmed

 

 

Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Thursday 24 September 2020

Time:                                   9.31am

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

 

23 September 2020

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.31am to allow a problem with the sound system to be resolved. The meeting resumed at 9.39am.

 

Karakia Timatanga: Delivered by Councillor Templeton.  

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved SACRC/2020/00019

That the apologies received from Councillors Galloway and Keown for lateness and the apologies received from Mayor Dalziel and Councillors Mauger and Daniels for early departure be accepted.

Councillor Scandrett/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                  Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

5.1

Think Papanui

Simon Britten spoke on behalf of Think Papanui regarding item 8.

6.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Committee Resolved SACRC/2020/00020

That the minutes of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting held on Thursday, 27 August 2020 be confirmed.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Coker                                                                                                             Carried

 

Councillor Keown joined the meeting at 9.52am during the consideration of item 8.

Mayor Dalziel left the meeting at 10.06am during the consideration of item 8.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.22am and returned at 10.24am during the consideration of item 8.

Councillor Daniels left the meeting at 10.24am and returned at 10.33am during the consideration of item 8.

Councillor Galloway joined the meeting at 10.52am during the consideration of item 8.

Councillor Mauger left the meeting at 10.52am during the consideration of item 8.

8.   Chairperson's Report: Residents' Forum

 

Committee Comment

The Committee requested a workshop to discuss how to implement the Council’s resolution from 23 July 2020 to establish the Resident’s Forum.

 

Committee Recommendation

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Endorse the proposed approach for the Residents’ Forum, as set out in this report.

The division was declared lost by 5 votes to 10 votes the voting being as follows:

For:                          Councillor Templeton, Councillor Coker, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Daniels and Councillor Davidson

Against:                 Councillor Chen, Councillor Chu, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Gough, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                          Lost

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.29am and resumed at 11.42am.

Mayor Dalziel and Councillors Coker, Johanson and Mauger were not present when the meeting resumed.


 

 

11. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2020/00021

That the reports be received and considered at the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting on Thursday, 24 September 2020.

Public Excluded Items

12.       Variation to Loan Agreement

Councillor Davidson/Councillor MacDonald                                                                                                  Carried

 

Councillor Johanson returned to the meeting at 11.44am during the consideration of item 7.

Councillor Coker returned to the meeting at 11.45am during the consideration of item 7.

Councillor Daniels left the meeting at 11.45am during the consideration of item 7.

7.   Vacant Sites Property Owner Rates Incentive for Activations

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2020/00022

Original Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve the continuation of the Enliven Places Property Owner Rates Incentive for a further year, until 30 June 2021, with the following minor amendments:

a.         Limit the Incentive to a maximum of $15,000 per site (cumulative total) to be applied to all current and new recipients.

2.         Note that the value and ongoing focus of this Incentive will be further reviewed as part of the Vacant Sites Strategy, which is a part of the Central City Action Plan, and to align with the Councils Long Term Plan.

3.         Re-confirm delegations for operational matters to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage to ensure the Incentive runs effectively and delivers the outcomes sought.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

 

9     Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2020/00023

Part C

That at 11.46am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 34 to 35 of the agenda and pages 5 to 6 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Chen                                                                                                             Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.49am.

   

Karakia Whakamutunga: Delivered by Councillor Cotter

 

Meeting concluded at 11.49am.

 

 

CONFIRMED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

 

Councillor Sara Templeton

Chairperson

   


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

7.     Review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/307246

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst, Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz
Judith Cheyne, Associate General Counsel, Judith.Cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Brendan Anstiss, Strategy and Transformation

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtaki Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Committee to undertake the steps required to complete the first stage of the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 to meet statutory review requirements.

1.2       The origin of this report is the statutory requirement to review the bylaw. The Freedom Camping Bylaw (the bylaw) must be reviewed by 26 November 2020 to comply with section 13 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the FCA).

1.3       The bylaw was adopted in 2015, and has been amended twice (in 2016 and 2018).  Neither of these amendments can be considered a review under the FCA.  

1.4       In order to review the bylaw, the FCA requires a council to make a series of determinations, and then, after the review, undertake consultation. This report only concerns the review. A subsequent report will recommend any bylaw changes, and consultation on those changes.[1] 

1.5       Slightly delaying the preparation of the second report will enable observations from the upcoming summer to be taken into account, and support a better process for understanding freedom camping activities in our district, post-COVID-19.

1.6       The Bylaw Review Report is attached.  This provides information for the Committee to be able to make the determinations required by legislation (that the bylaw is necessary for certain purposes, is appropriate and proportionate, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). 

1.7       Any new and emerging areas will be assessed over the summer to see if the bylaw needs to be amended, and will be addressed in the next report and consultation process in 2021.

1.8       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the decisions in this report being required to meet statutory bylaw review requirements, and having no immediate effect on the regulation of freedom camping activities.  


 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         agree to make the determinations required by sections 11(2) and 13(3) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, to review the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015;

2.         determine that:

a.         the bylaw is necessary to protect areas in the district, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas in the district, and to protect access to those areas; and

b.         the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problems in relation to those areas; and

c.         the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3.         note that the determinations in resolution 2 complete the first stage of the statutory review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015;

4.         note that staff will prepare a further report that takes into account the review of the bylaw and freedom camping activities over the summer, and that recommends consultation (whether or not any changes to the bylaw are proposed), in order to meet the statutory requirements in section 13(4) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

 

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

3.1       Legislation requires that certain determinations are made in order to complete the required bylaw review. The information and recommendations in this report reflect these statutory requirements.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       A bylaw must be reviewed within five years of first being made. The FCA sets out that a council must review a bylaw by making certain determinations, and then “after the review” undertake consultation.  If a bylaw is not reviewed five years after first being made, it can be left to lapse, which means it continues in force for two years and is then automatically revoked.[2] 

4.2       There are three options for reviewing the bylaw:

·   Option 1: Review the bylaw as set out in this report (as a two-step process)

·   Option 2: Review the bylaw, recommend changes and propose consultation (as a single process)

·   Option 3: Do not review the bylaw and let it lapse.

4.3       Option 1 is the preferred option.  This will meet the statutory review deadline, and enable Council and communities to gain a better understanding of freedom camping activities post-COVID-19.  Slightly delaying the preparation of proposals for change will enable observations from the first post-COVID-19 summer to be taken into account.  The lack of international visitors due to border and travel restrictions is likely to change freedom camping pressures. 

4.4       Option 2 is the approach we normally take for reviewing bylaws. However, this year the COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown caused delays, as other issues were prioritised.  This meant the review and consultation processes could not be completed before November as a single process.  Additionally, the impacts of COVID-19 on freedom camping are uncertain, and proposing changes now would be based on pre-COVID-19 pressures, so this option is not preferred. 

4.5       Option 3 is to choose not to review the bylaw.  This would result in the bylaw remaining in force for two years and then automatically revoking on 26 November 2022 (two years after the review date).  This is effectively a “do nothing” approach, which would provide a holding pattern while COVID-19’s global impacts evolve.  However, given the interest in freedom camping activities and ongoing domestic freedom camping, this option is not likely to be acceptable to our communities. 

4.6       A variation of this option would be to let the bylaw lapse, and prepare a new bylaw that would come into force before the old one lapses.  However, on the face of it, this does not appear likely to be cost-effective when compared with reviewing the bylaw. 

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Background on the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

5.1       The FCA applies to freedom camping on land controlled or managed by local authorities.[3]  The Act enables freedom camping on council land, unless a bylaw (or other law) does not allow it.[4] 

5.2       The FCA gives councils the power to prohibit or restrict freedom camping using a bylaw, as long as the bylaw (and what it regulates) meets certain standards.  The standards (or tests) a bylaw made under the FCA must meet are:

That a council is satisfied that:

·   a bylaw is necessary to protect the area, and (or) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and (or) to protect access to the area; and

·   it is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area; and

·   that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[5] 

5.3       A council demonstrates that it is satisfied with these matters by making a series of determinations, as set out in the recommendations section of this report.  This is the case when making, amending or reviewing a bylaw.  This report concerns the review of a bylaw. 

5.4       A bylaw cannot absolutely prohibit freedom camping (or regulate so broadly that it, in effect, prohibits freedom camping).[6] 

5.5       The Council’s bylaw currently sets out:

·   that freedom camping can only occur in a certified self-contained vehicle[7] (not in a tent, other temporary structure, or a vehicle that is not a certified self-contained vehicle);

·   areas where freedom camping is prohibited;

·   areas where freedom camping is restricted, and in those areas:

that camping can only occur in certified self-contained vehicles, with a maximum two night stay in any 30 day period, and not within 500 metres of a previous stay;

one vehicle per marked parking space, and that all camping activities must take place within that space (to prevent overcrowding and camping activities encroaching into other areas);

·   that applications to the Chief Executive[8] may be made to waive or modify the requirements of the bylaw (for example, for an event);

·   that the Chief Executive[9] may temporarily close an area to freedom camping to prevent damage, allow maintenance, protect the safety of people or property, or to provide for better public access.

5.6       The main penalty for breaching the bylaw is an infringement notice (also known as a ticket or instant fine) for $200, which is set out in the FCA. 

5.7       The bylaw contains maps and tables describing the prohibited and restricted areas in the district.  An interactive map showing the areas can be viewed here.  The attached Bylaw Review Report provides an assessment of each of these areas.

Decisions and amendments made in relation to the bylaw

5.8       Decisions and amendments made in relation to the bylaw have included:

·   In 2016, the Chief Executive used a power in the bylaw to temporarily prohibit freedom camping in five areas[10] due to environmental impacts and concerns about safety.

·   In late 2016, the bylaw was amended to permanently prohibit camping in those five areas, and so that camping on Council land was only allowed in certified self-contained vehicles. 

·   In late 2018, it was amended again to prohibit camping in Akaroa (except for 18 parks in the freedom camping area) and to prevent overcrowding (by only allowing one vehicle per marked parking space, and requiring that camping activities were confined to that space).

·   In 2019, the Chief Executive used a power in the bylaw to temporarily prohibit freedom camping at weekends in the North Beach Car Park to enable better public access.  This temporary prohibition is in place until the end of 2020.[11]

Affected areas and wards, and community views

5.9       Although the bylaw covers the whole district, and regulates areas in every ward, the areas most affected tend to be coastal areas that are attractive to freedom campers, in the Coastal Burwood and Banks Peninsula Community Board areas. 

5.10    Council staff presented to Community Boards between December 2019 and March 2020 to outline the bylaw review and seek early input and views. Community Boards were broadly supportive of the need for a bylaw to regulate freedom camping.

5.11    Over the five years since the bylaw has been in place, the Council has received, on average, around 260 complaints a year about freedom camping activities, with 236 complaints over the most recent season (2019/20).  The Council has issued, on average, around 96 infringement notices each year since the bylaw was established in 2015. 

5.12    In recent years funding has been available from the Responsible Camping Fund, administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). It requires significant resources to undertake compliance monitoring and enforcement activities across the whole district, and at the hours required (evening and early morning).  We have made an application for funding for 2020/21 and are (at the time of writing) awaiting a decision. This funding also enabled the “Know where to camp” campaign.

5.13    The Council has run a campaign called “Know where to camp” for the last two years. The  general approach to freedom camping promotion has been to focus on encouraging campers to stay at camping grounds, and to support responsible camping by providing helpful information (such as locations for rubbish and recycling facilities, public toilets, and dump stations).  The campaign has been very successful and has had good uptake from visitors and locals.  For example, the camping part of the Council’s website received over 30,000 views for the season, and over 6,000 brochures were distributed via campervan rental companies, retailers and at Council facilities, showing the high interest in seeking information about camping in the district. 

5.14    The views of Community Boards, complaints and compliance activities, and the seeking out of information about freedom camping, all point to a relatively high interest in freedom camping and the need for the bylaw to continue.  The recommendations in this report reflect that the bylaw remains necessary, is appropriate and proportionate, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5.15    Any new and emerging areas will be assessed over the summer to see if the bylaw needs to be amended, and will be addressed in the next report and consultation process in 2021.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The decisions in this report meet statutory requirements, and the regulation of freedom camping activities through a bylaw aligns with Community Outcomes (resilient communities, liveable city, healthy environment and prosperous economy). 

6.2       If we did not have a bylaw to regulate freedom camping, the district may see a rise in negative social impacts, environmental damage and health and safety concerns (which were the main reasons for regulating freedom camping when the bylaw was established in 2015).          

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

6.3.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.5       The Banks Peninsula Community Board Plan 2020-2022 lists “Advocate that freedom camping is effectively managed” under its priority “Tourism opportunities are balanced with environmental, social and cultural values”. 

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.  However, the FCA enables bylaws to protect areas or protect access to areas, and the Council’s bylaw does this by prohibiting freedom camping in areas covered by Silent File references. These Silent File areas are reflected in the current bylaw as prohibited areas, and are referred to in area assessments in the attached Bylaw Review Report. 

6.7       Silent File areas have been identified by Papatipu Rūnanga as requiring special protection due to the presence of significant wāhi tapu (sacred places) or wāhi taonga (treasured possessions) in the area.  Silent file areas are set out in the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013.[12]  It is appropriate to take these areas into account in relation to freedom camping activities and the bylaw-making power the Council has, enabling it “to protect an area” or to “protect access to an area”. 

6.8       We have been in touch with the Papatipu Rūnunga to check whether the coverage of the bylaw continues to reflect the appropriate levels of protection, and will incorporate any changes or new information in the next report.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9       There are no climate change considerations relating to the decisions in this report.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10    There are no accessibility considerations relating to the decisions in this report.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

7.1       Bylaw reviews are accounted for in existing budgets. There are no additional costs related to the decisions in this report. 

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Legal Services Unit approval

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

Terms of reference and delegations of the Committee

8.2       In the terms of reference for the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee, the Council delegates authority to the Committee to oversee the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, up to and including the adoption of a draft bylaw for consultation.  The Council retains the authority to adopt the bylaw.

8.3       This report concerns the review of the bylaw.  A subsequent report will relate to consultation.  These two reports will be to the Committee. A third report (from a Hearings Panel) will bring the results of the public consultation to the Council for final adoption of the bylaw.


 

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

 

Freedom Camping Act

 

8.4       The FCA requires bylaws made under it to be reviewed within five years of first being made (section 13).  The Council’s bylaw was made on 26 November 2015, and must be reviewed by 26 November 2020. 

8.5       The procedure for reviewing a bylaw requires a council to make certain determinations under section 11 of the Act (in summary: that a bylaw is necessary for certain purposes, is appropriate and proportionate, and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990).

8.6       If, after a review, a council considers that the bylaw should be replaced, amended or revoked, or should continue without amendment, it must undertake consultation (including hearings).

8.7       The way the FCA sets out the review requirements means the review can be done as a two-step process – the first report concerns the review and making the determinations, and the second report proposes changes and consultation on those changes.  If a council does not wish to make any changes to a bylaw as a result of a review, it must still undertake consultation.[13]

8.8       If a council does not review a bylaw by the statutory review date, a bylaw will continue in force and automatically revoke two years after the date on which it should have been reviewed (that is, 26 November 2022).  A bylaw left to lapse can be revoked sooner (including, for example, as part of the process of developing a new bylaw).

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment

8.9       The FCA requires that a council is satisfied that a bylaw is “not inconsistent” with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA). The NZBoRA protects the civil and political rights of all New Zealanders.

8.10    The FCA provides a specific statutory framework for local authorities to manage freedom camping by only restricting these rights in areas where it is justified and necessary. 

8.11    The bylaw is not inconsistent with NZBoRA, and does not unlawfully interfere with the rights of people, but seeks to impose only justifiable and reasonable limitations in the interests of reducing the impacts on the natural environment, protecting public health and safety, and protecting access to specified areas.

8.12    The areas regulated by the bylaw have been assessed in relation to the bylaw-making powers in the FCA, and this is set out in the attached Bylaw Review Report.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The Council must complete the bylaw review by 26 November 2020 in order to comply with statutory requirements. This report enables the Council to meet its statutory requirements.

9.2       Failing to meet the statutory review requirement would mean the bylaw continues in force for two years and is then automatically revoked on 26 November 2022, at which time the district would have no regulation of freedom camping activities. 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Bylaw Review Report - Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 (five year review)

21

 

 

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Emma Davis - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

8.     Art by the River Commission-Natalie Guy's The Pool

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/248223

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Brent Smith, Principal Advisor Citizens and Community, Brent.Smith@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the permanent artwork installation of Natalie Guy’s The Pool on the southern side of the Avon River Central City on the opposite bank to the Antigua Boatsheds.

1.2       The artwork is being gifted by SCAPE Public Art Trust (SCAPE) funded by Ōtākaro Ltd as part of Art by the River. The funding includes the purchase and installation of the artwork plus 12 months maintenance costs. This is the first of two artworks, the second artwork is being commissioned and has not been finalised.

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

1.4       The level of significance was determined by the number of people impacted by the proposed artwork and location. 

The Pool by Natalie Guy

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Accept the gift of Natalie Guy’s The Pool as a permanent artwork installation from SCAPE Public Art Trust.

2.         Approve the artwork location of Natalie Guy’s The Pool on the southern Avon Riverbank Central City Reserve at 13 Oxford Terrace, Central City, subject to the following:

a.         SCAPE Public Art Trust obtain and comply with all the necessary consents and approvals required to locate and install the artwork.

b.         SCAPE Public Art Trust confirms that all funding is in place to purchase and install the artwork, including funding for the first 12 months maintenance period.

c.         SCAPE Public Art Trust provide a condition report of the artwork and long-term maintenance and engineering plans.

3.         Note: The future maintenance costs for The Pool will be included for consideration in the draft Long Term Plan.

4.         As part of the gifting process, Council’s requirements shall be addressed in a 3-way contract agreement between SCAPE Public Art, the Artist and the Council.

 

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

3.1       Ōtākaro Ltd provided funding of $200,000 to SCAPE for the installation of two public art pieces in the Ōtākaro /Avon River Precinct.

3.2       The Pool has been selected from a list of available artworks that meet the criteria developed by the selection panel.

3.3       A number of sites were investigated for the placement of the two artworks funded by Ōtākaro Ltd. The nature of the work, current use of the space, and on-going maintenance were considered in determining a location for The Pool.

3.4       The open location on the southern side of the Avon River Bank is away from any trees and provides the opportunity for residents and visitors on the northern side of the riverbank to look across the Avon River to the front of the artwork.

3.5       This location was agreed between SCAPE Public Art, Council and Ōtākaro representatives as a place where a light and fun artwork would enhance an area used by families and children and those working or visiting the nearby District Health Board facilities. This location is also very popular in the summer months for employees from local businesses to sit outside and eat their lunch.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       A number of sites and artworks were considered as discussed in paragraph 5.3.3.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The Artist

5.1.1   The artist is Natalie Guy.

5.1.1   Natalie Guy makes objects as artworks and many of these objects mime or manipulate pre-existing imagery from art and history. These references may respond to historical style cues and sites including architectural interiors and exteriors and specific figures; artists, architects and designers - usually mid-century modernists. The intent is to transform and destabilise a straightforward reading of the source and the new work.

5.1.2   Natalie Guy frequently exhibits and has participated (or has been selected for) in all the major contemporary art awards in New Zealand over recent years. She was awarded a Merit Award in the National Contemporary Art Award 2014 and won the Woollahra Small Sculpture Award (Australia) 2014. Natalie was the inaugural recipient of an Asia NZ Foundation residency to Varanasi, India 2017. She is currently a Doctoral Candidate in Fine Arts at Elam School of Fine Arts, The University of Auckland.


 

5.2       The Artwork

5.2.1   The artwork is titled The Pool. It was exhibited on the Avon Riverbank Central City reserve, on the corner of Hereford Street and Cambridge Terrace as part of the SCAPE Public Art season 2019.

5.2.2   Poised ready for the plunge, Natalie’s diving board is pointedly not positioned above a swimming pool. Stripped of its core business as a launching pad, Natalie says, the diving board “becomes a surreal, redundant and inaccessible object”.

5.2.3   The Pool makes reference to both David Hockney’s iconic and luxurious Californian paintings, and to the British architect Jane Drew. Drew was a major contributor to the design of the Indian city of Chandigarh, planned in the 1950s as a modernist utopia. Faded and in many ways failed, Chandigarh stands as a symbol of experimentation and hope, yet also a signpost for cultural misunderstanding.

5.2.4   The diving board removed from its poolside position becomes a surreal object, inaccessible without stairs, its function is negated. The tubed hand-railing atop the board is a closed loop, also functionless. The modernist brutality of bare concrete is now met with the bright and breezy colouring of Hockney that also echoes the yellow used by Le Corbusier in Chandigarh.

5.2.5   This work is of actual scale with the board high enough at approximately 3m for people to walk comfortably underneath but too high to reach. The diving board has no stairs making it difficult to climb. The width of the board is 785mm.

5.2.6   The Pool by Natalie Guy

13 Oxford Terrace, Central City –red ‘X’ location of The Pool

5.3       Site selection

5.3.1   Four sites were shortlisted for the two Art by the River projects.

5.3.2   Criteria used to select possible sites were:

·    Areas of the Ōtākaro /Avon River Precinct that were complete or due soon for completion.

·    High profile

·    Areas artworks can add to the place making and amenity values of the setting

5.3.3   The sites considered were:

·    Park and Promenade between Worcester and Gloucester Street Bridges  (near the Antony Gormley STAY artwork)

·    Friendship Corner

·    Watermark (near the Boatsheds)

·    Terraces promenade

5.3.4   Due to the wider open space of the site, away from trees and structures, and clear visibility from all directions, the southern side of the Avon River on the opposite bank to the Antigua Boatsheds, was the recommended option from the selection committee.


 

5.4       Art selection

5.5       A long list of 18 Christchurch, Canterbury, and New Zealand artists who make art in public places was narrowed down to nine artists that met the criteria. The available artworks were reviewed by the Art by the River selection panel against the following criteria.

·    Quick turnaround (available)

·    Popular appeal – all ages (focus on families and children)

·    Intimate human scale

·    Interactive or tactical artworks

·    Low maintenance requirements

·    New Zealand or Christchurch/Canterbury artist

·    Preference for an artist that is currently not represented in Christchurch’s collection of civic owned art

·    Minimum of 15 years plus life expectancy

·    Strong relationship of artwork to project/City and people

·    Artwork story identifiable/accessible to local Cantabrians and visitors

·    Straightforward installation method

·    Suitable for available locations.

5.6       The selection Committee comments for this recommended artwork are:

·    The artist is a Female New Zealand artist

·    It is a fun and robust artwork

·    The Artist is not represented in Christchurch collection

·    Maintenance – the paintwork is easy to clean and recoat. Glass reinforced concrete is robust.

·    The Artwork is focussed on family and children

·    The Artwork will have popular appeal to a wide audience.

5.7       Assessments

5.7.1   The installation of this artwork was discussed and endorsed by the Council’s Public Arts Advisory Group (PAAG) at their meeting of 2 December 2019.

5.7.2   A staff assessment has been carried out. The staff assessment reviews design and construction issues, maintenance requirements and finance implications.

5.8       Issues

5.8.1   Full engineering detail and condition assessment are to be supplied at handover.

5.8.2   A water supply is required for wash down purposes.

5.8.3   The draft Maintenance plan needs to be finalised and agreed.

5.8.4   Where an artwork is already created and gifted to the Council (i.e. not subject to a commissioning agreement) then legally the creator of the artwork will own the copyright in the artwork unless agreed otherwise. 

5.8.5   For a gifted artwork that is not covered by a commissioning agreement and, where the artist is to retain the copyright then a 3 way contract between the Artist, SCAPE and Council is needed to ensure that the Council is granted the following rights in respect of the artwork:

·     The Council will own the artwork outright (i.e. with the exception of the copyright/intellectual property rights);

·     The Council will have the freedom to move, reposition, and maintain the artwork as required without the need to obtain consent from the artist, subject to any moral rights of the artist;

·     The Council is free to use images of the artwork in promotional materials or for related commercial purposes, or to provide such images to members of the public.

5.9       SCAPE Public Art Trust (SCAPE)

5.9.1   SCAPE is a charitable trust that installs public art in Christchurch. SCAPE organises and supports the installation of a number of permanent artworks throughout Christchurch, as well as a variety of temporary pieces during the SCAPE Season in October each year.

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

5.10.1 This is in the Central Ward of the Linwood – Central – Heathcote Community Board.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1   Activity: Heritage

Level of Service: 6.9.1.5 To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance. - Resident  satisfaction with presentation of Public Monuments, Sculptures & Artworks: >= 90% .

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy.

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. SCAPE have consulted with mana whenua throughout the process.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       The location of the artwork is above the flood levels of the Avon River.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       The artwork in the proposed location is fully accessible and can be viewed from the footpath.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to purchase and implement – The artwork is a gift to the Council and is funded by SCAPE Public Art through their grant from Ōtākaro Ltd. The cost of the artwork and installation is $45,000.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The first 12 months maintenance costs are funded by SCAPE Public Art. Future years are currently unbudgeted and to be included in the draft 2021/31 Long Term Plan for consideration. Maintenance has been estimated at $7,000 per year for cleaning the artwork (if required), biennial coating and graffiti removal.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council has delegated to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee authority to oversee and make decisions on arts and culture including the Art Gallery, and on parks (such as the central city which are not delegated to the Community Board). 

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The legal consideration is:

8.2.1   For a gifted artwork that is not covered by a commissioning agreement and, where the artist is to retain ownership of the copyright then a 3 way contract between the Artist, SCAPE and the Council is needed to ensure that the Council is granted the following rights in respect of the artwork:

·     The Council will own the artwork outright (i.e. with the exception of the copyright/intellectual property rights);

·     The Council will have the freedom to move, reposition, and maintain the artwork as required without the need to obtain consent from the artist, subject to any moral rights of the artist;

·     The Council is free to use images of the artwork in promotional materials or for related commercial purposes, or to provide such images to members of the public.

8.3       This area of the Avon River Bank is subject to Section 7(1) Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1971, which states the “Purpose: Lawns, Ornamental Gardens and Ornamental Buildings”. The location of the artwork The Pool complies with this Act.

8.4       The Christchurch District Plan identifies 13 Oxford Terrace as in the Avon River Precinct (ARP) (Te Papa Ōtākaro) and has scheduled this area as a Heritage Setting and under Appendix 9.1.6.1 Schedule A, the artwork is a Permitted Activity.

8.5       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 the artwork will be vandalised or receive graffiti.

9.2       The artwork has been located in an open space that is visible from buildings on Oxford Terrace and pedestrians and cyclists going past, to discourage vandalism and graffiti. The artwork is coated with graffiti removal material to enable it to be cleaned if required.

 

 

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

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

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

9.     'Raise the Anchor' Art Commission - Nathan Pohio

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1194745

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Russel Wedge, Team Leader Parks Policy and Advisory, russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval for Nathan Pohio’s Raise the Anchor artwork to remain as a permanent artwork in Little Hagley Park.

1.2       The artwork was part of the SCAPE Public Art Trust (SCAPE) 2018 Season and was granted approval to be located in Little Hagley Park on a temporary basis from 1 October to 30 November 2018, which was extended until 1 December 2019.

1.3       The Council is the owner of the Raise the Anchor artwork after making a financial contribution towards it in 2019. SCAPE, after discussions with the Hagley Park Reference Group, the Artist and Council staff have requested the Council to allow the artwork to remain in its current location in Little Hagley Park for the duration of its life, which is approximately 15 years.

1.4       Resource Consent for Raise the Anchor was granted for the duration of the artwork’s life (approximately 15 years) until 2034.

1.5       SCAPE have been maintaining the artwork and have offered to continue maintenance for a further 12 months if the Council agrees to it remaining in its current location.

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 the number of people impacted by the proposed artwork and location.

Raise the Anchor by Nathan Pohio, Little Hagley Park. Image courtesy of the artist and Jonathan Smart Gallery, Christchurch. Photo by Heather Milne

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve the permanent location of Nathan Pohio’s Raise the Anchor in Little Hagley Park at 1 Harper Avenue, subject to:

a.         SCAPE Public Art Trust maintaining the artwork for a further 12 months

b.         SCAPE Public Art Trust, the Artist and the Council entering into a 3-way contract agreement to address the use of images of the artwork by the Council, in the absence of a commissioning agreement.

2.         Note: The future maintenance costs for Raise the Anchor will be included for consideration in the draft Long Term Plan.

 

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

3.1       The artwork Raise the Anchor was located on a temporary basis in Little Hagley Park as part of the SCAPE season in 2018.

3.2       SCAPE, the artist, mana whenua, and the Hagley Park Reference Group believe the artwork contributes to the use and enjoyment of Hagley Park and provides a significant historic image as part of the fabric of the central city.

3.3       Many residents and visitors to the city travelling along Harper Avenue or through the park can clearly see the artwork during the day and in the evening as it is lit at night.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The artwork Raise the Anchor in Little Hagley Park as a permanent location, is declined (Not recommended).

4.1.1   The local community group, mana whenua, SCAPE and the artist support the location.

4.1.2   There is significant infrastructure associated with the artwork in its current location: electricity supply from the street lights across the park to the artwork, concrete foundations 4.8m long, 1m wide and 0.850m deep.

4.1.3   There are very limited, if any suitable alternative locations in the central city.

4.1.4   The Council became owner of the artwork in mid-2019.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

The Artist

5.1       Nathan Pohio is an artist working in video and other photo media. Exhibited widely his practice is concerned with contemporary Māori society, cinema and pre-cinema histories delivered by way of a minimal cinematic installation. Since first exhibiting in the late 1990s, Pohio has continuously worked to represent the indigenous voice within the field of Expanded Cinema; first defined by Gene Youngblood in 1970 (the year Pohio was born). (Text courtesy of scapepublicart.org.nz/scape-8-nathan-pohoi).

5.2       Pohio is known for rigorous research providing after thoughts and after images. Employed at Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetū and a long term board member of The Physics Room, a contemporary project space in Christchurch, Pohio is also a founding member of Paemanu, a charitable trust established for the advocacy of Ngai Tahu Contemporary Visual Arts. (Text courtesy of scapepublicart.org.nz/scape-8-nathan-pohoi).

5.3       Pohio was invited to participate alongside fellow Aotearoa artists Ralph Hotere and Mata Aho Collective in Documenta14, considered to be the most prestigious art exhibition in the world. Pohio exhibited at Athens Greece and Kassel Germany, the first Aotearoaian New Zealander to exhibit at a Documenta. (Text courtesy of scapepublicart.org.nz/scape-8-nathan-pohoi).

Description of the artwork

5.4       Raise the Anchor is a cropped image sourced from a 1905 edition of the Canterbury Times. The Artwork depicts Māori leaders on horseback in full ceremonial dress, korowai and kākahu (cloaks), flanking Lord and Lady Plunket in their motorcar on a visit to Kaiapoi.

5.5       The Artwork is ceramic ink on PVC, steel, LED and concrete. It stands on two steel pillars 2.4m high that are fixed into concrete foundations. The face of the Artwork is approximately 2.4 metres high, 8 metres wide and 400mm deep. The total height of the Artwork, including the pillars, is approximately 4.2 metres. The concrete foundations are 4.8 metres long, 1 metre wide and sit 850mm above ground. The Artwork is connected to the street lighting network and is lit from dawn to dusk in accordance with the hours of street lighting. The light output is approximately 66,150 lumens per face i.e. less than 3,750 lumens per square metre.

SCAPE Public Art Trust (SCAPE)

5.6       SCAPE is a charitable trust that installs public art in Christchurch. SCAPE organises and supports the installation of a number of permanent artworks throughout Christchurch, as well as a variety of temporary pieces during the SCAPE Season in October each year.

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

5.7.1   This is in the Central Ward of the Linwood – Central – Heathcote Community Board.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1   Activity: Recreation, Sport, Community Arts & Events

·     Level of Service: 2.8.6.2 Support community based organisations to develop, promote and deliver community events and arts in Christchurch - 80% satisfaction with the quality of Council event support.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decision does involve a decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       Little Hagley Park was chosen as the location for Raise the Anchor due to the historical significance of the area as a meeting and resting place for Maori. The Raise the Anchor artwork has been supported by Nathan’s Ngāi Tahu whanau throughout its journey. The image below is of the blessing of the artwork on site by mana whenua.

 

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       The location of the artwork is above the flood levels of the waterway and the PVC surface of the artwork is out of direct sunlight and protected from winds by the surrounding trees.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The artwork is fully accessible and can be viewed from the footpath and from vehicles travelling along Harper Avenue.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The artwork was installed and funded as part of SCAPE’s 2018 Season.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The first 12 months maintenance costs are funded by SCAPE Public Art. Future years are currently unbudgeted and to be included in the draft 2021/31 Long Term Plan for consideration. Maintenance has been estimated at approximately $5,000 per year for cleaning the artwork (if required), biennial coating and graffiti removal.

7.3       Funding Source – The Council contributed towards the purchase of the artwork and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu provided a grant towards the purchase of the artwork for Ōtautahi Christchurch. The Council is now the owner of the Raise the Anchor artwork.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council has delegated to the Community Resilience and Sustainability Committee authority to oversee and make decisions on arts and culture including the Art Gallery, and on parks (such as the central city which are not delegated to the Community Board).


 

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

The legal considerations are:

8.2       For an artwork that is not covered by a commissioning agreement and, where  artist is to retain ownership of the copyright then a 3 way contract between the Artist, SCAPE and the Council is needed to ensure that the Council is granted the following rights in respect of the artwork:

·     The Council will own the artwork outright (i.e. with the exception of the copyright/intellectual property rights);

·     The Council will have the freedom to move, reposition, and maintain the artwork as required without the need to obtain consent from the artist, subject to any moral rights of the artist;

·     The Council is free to use images of the artwork in promotional materials or for related commercial purposes, or to provide such images to members of the public.

8.3       Little Hagley Park is gazetted for recreation purposes (Gazette Notice 1980, p2706) and the artwork is not in conflict with the purpose of the reserve. It contributes towards the enjoyment and experience within the reserve.

The Hagley Park Management Plan

8.4       The Hagley Park Management Plan (Management Plan), describes Little Hagley Park as a home for passive recreation activities, in an environment defined by informality, open space and permeable edges i.e. Objective 15: Passive/informal Recreation, and Objective 17: Buildings and Structures, which address activities including artwork. Raise the Anchor will contribute to the enjoyment of walkers, joggers and visitors to the park and complies with the Management Plans Objectives 15 and 17.

8.5       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 minimal risk the artwork will be vandalised or receive graffiti. Although this is considered minimal considering the height of the panel with the imagery is 2.4m above ground.

9.2       The artwork has been located in an open space that is visible to vehicles and cyclists travelling along Harper Avenue, and joggers and people walking through the park. The artwork is lit up at night by the street light power circuit and is clearly visible from Harper Avenue. The artwork is coated with graffiti removal material to enable it to be cleaned if required.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to 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

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

11.   Community Organisation Loan Scheme Applications

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1077853

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Sam Callander, Community Funding Team Leader, sam.callander@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider two applications to the Community Organisation Loan Scheme.  This report is staff generated after receiving applications from eligible community organisations, Netsal Sports Centre Ltd (Netsal) and Food Resilience Network (FRN).

1.2       The decisions 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 the dollar value of the implications of these decisions, the number of people affected and/or with an interest and the fact that Community Loans are a level of service in the 2018/28 LTPStaff have discussed the applications with stakeholders and all recommendations have been moderated.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Grant a community loan of $500,000 for five years, to Netsal Sports Centre Ltd for the design, consent and construction of a multi-use sports centre on Ngā Puna Wai, including the following terms:

a.         Loan repayments include the principal as well as an interest rate of 2.0% per annum.

b.         The interest will be repaid at regular intervals during the term of the loan.

c.         The principal will be repaid at regular intervals during the term of the loan except the first year which will be interest only.

2.         Resolves that the Netsal loan is conditional upon:

a.         Netsal Sports Centre Ltd demonstrating that it has already secured a minimum of $10,000,000 towards the cost of a multi-use sports centre on Ngā Puna Wai.

b.         Netsal Sports Centre Ltd providing a charge by way of a General Security Agreement or a Specific Security Agreement over the multi-use sports centre for $500,000 in favour of the Council, (or equivalent instrument).

3.         Grant a community loan of $150,000 for seven years, to the Food Resilience Network for the completion of the construction of the cold shell phase of the Ōtākaro Orchard Project including the following terms:

a.         Loan repayments include the principal as well as an interest rate of 2.0% per annum.

b.         The interest and principal will be repaid at regular intervals during the term of the loan.

4.         Resolves that the Food Resilience Network loan is conditional upon:

a.         The Food Resilience Network demonstrating that conditional grants from the Rata Foundation and the Lotteries Community Facilities Fund will not be returned.

b.         The Food Resilience Network providing appropriate security over the Ōtākaro Orchard Project Facility for $150,000 in favour of the Council, (or equivalent instrument).

5.         Delegate authority to the Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships to make the necessary arrangements to implement this resolution noting that all loan documentation will be reviewed by Council’s Legal Services Unit.

 

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

Netsal

3.1       The recommended loan to Netsal Sport Centre Ltd seeks to make a significant contribution to the capital raising for the centre, while limiting the financial exposure placed on the Community Organisation Loan Scheme.

3.1.1   Advantages:

·   Allows Netsall to meet existing and latent community demand for indoor court space.

·   Interest only period will assist the commissioning of the facility.

·   Supports confirmed third party investment to date exceeding $15,000,000.

·   Supports a robust trading model within the sport and recreational sector – indoor netball and indoor football operates sustainably on a not-for-profit basis.

·   Loan security derived from built assets on site backed by the partner organisations Mainland Football and the Christchurch Netball Centre Incorporated.

3.1.2   Disadvantages:

·   Netsal applied for a loan of $1,000,000.

·   Repayment will rely on a transition for both main sports codes from outdoor-based to partially indoor based formats.

Food Resilience Network

3.2       The recommended loan to Food Resilience Network balances providing the degree of financial support needed to allow the project to proceed whilst minimising risk to Council.

3.2.1   Advantages:

·   Provides reassurance that FRN can complete the cold shell, getting it ready for tenants and setting up the social enterprise needed to generate income to achieve sustainability.

·   Ensures that FRN meet the terms of their agreement with other funders (re total funding raised) and, as such, means they do not have to return funding previously received.

·   Risks to Council are minimised with a recommendation of $150,000 loan only, and the option for RFN to sell produce if funds become too tight.

3.2.2   Disadvantages:

·   Financial analysis points to significant risks to the ability to repay the loan.  These include:

·     The initial reliance of the project on donations and philanthropic fundraising. 

·     The effects of COVID-19 on future income streams including the café and rental of office space, rendering both streams less certain.

·   Due to the community based nature of the project the security available to Council in the event of a failure to repay is moderate to low.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Grant a Council loan of up to $1,000,000 for up to seven years, to Netsal Sports Centre Ltd. The Loan is to be used for the design, consent costs and construction of a multi-use sports centre on Ngā Puna Wai, including the following terms:

·   Loan repayments include the principal of the loan as well as interest at 2% per annum.

·   The interest will be repaid at regular intervals during the term of the loan.

·   The first year of the loan will be interest only, the principal will be repaid at regular intervals during the remainder of the term, or earlier if possible.

·   Resolve that the loan is conditional upon:

·     The loan being secured or guaranteed against the multi-use sports centre and the assets of Mainland Football and the Christchurch Netball Centre Incorporated.

·     Netsal Sports Centre Ltd demonstrating that it has already secured a minimum of $15,000,000 towards the cost of a multi-use sports centre on Ngā Puna Wai.

4.1.2   Advantages:

·   Netsal Sports Centre Ltd would be closer to raising the funds to fully complete its project.

·   The loan would be repaid from the nett operating surplus of approximately $320,000 to $395,000 per annum.  This is based on an operating scenario where there is a gradual mind-set by the sporting codes to move indoors on a pay for play model.

·   The loan would not draw on the Community Loan Fund, preserving this for other uses.

·   Council’s external legal and loan transactional costs would be covered by the applicant.

4.1.3   Disadvantages:

·   This is a larger loan exposing Council to greater risk in the event of default.

4.2       Approve the community loan application of Netsal of $1,000,000 as requested

4.2.1   Advantages

·   Netsal would be closer to raising the funds to fully complete its project.

4.2.2   Disadvantages

·   Council's financial exposure would be that of one-third of its Community Loan Scheme, thus if the borrower defaulted it would have a significant negative impact on the ability for other community organisations to apply the scheme.

4.3       Approve the community loan application of FRN of $400,000 as requested

4.3.1   Advantages

·   FRN would have raised sufficient funds to fully complete the facility build, and café fit out

4.3.2   Disadvantages

·   There is a substantial risk that FRN would not be able to repay primarily because:

·     The initial reliance of the project on donations and philanthropic fundraising. 

·     The effects of COVID-19 on future income streams including the café and rental of office space, rendering both streams less certain.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Recommendations are in line with the purpose of the Community Loan Scheme, which is designed to help organisations that will be able to repay their loan to improve or develop new or existing facilities and other major projects

5.1.1   Applications are invited from eligible not-for-profit groups whose activities provide community, social, recreation, sports, arts, environment or heritage opportunities to the wider community, or to specifically defined communities of interest.

5.1.2   To be eligible, an organisation must be incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and have provision in their constitution to borrow money.

5.2       Descriptions of the applicants' projects and the corresponding staff assessments are attached in the matrices in Attachment A

5.2.1   Assessment is provided by the Council's Finance Unit along with other relevant units based on the nature of the particular project the loan will be used to fund

5.3       The total community loan pool balance is $3,195,835.

5.3.1   $993,809 is currently borrowed, as below (section 5.2)

5.3.2   Ōtautahi Urban Guild a conditionally approved loan for $270,000.  This is yet to be drawn down.

5.3.3   Therefore the balance available for new loans is $ 1,932,026

5.4       The table below lists the community loan balances

Borrower

Commencement Date

Total Amount Borrowed

Remaining Balance

Family Help Trust

2011 October

$150,000

$18,750

Cashmere Tennis Club (Loan 1)

2014 April

$50,000

$12,714

Shirley Tennis Club

2014 November

$70,000

$14,576

Community Law Canterbury

2014 November

$300,000

$-

Mt. Pleasant Community Centre

2016 July

$500,000

$311,656

Halswell Bowling Club

2016 September

$46,000

$15,010

Canterbury Indoor Bowls

2016 August

$105,000

$78,299

Kilmarnock Enterprises

2017 May

$300,000

$221,656

Cashmere Tennis Club (Loan 2)

2017 May

$65,000

$55,618

Riccarton Leagues Club

2019 July

$40,000

$15,066

Burnside Rugby Club

2019 July

$75,000

$70,464

Ōtautahi Urban Guild

2020 June

$180,000

$180,000

Total

$1,881,000

$993,809

 

5.5       If the staff recommendations are adopted there will be $1,282,026 available in the Community Organisation Loan Scheme that community organisations can apply to.

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

5.6.1   The proposed Netsal Sports Centre would be used by residents from across the city, however has the greatest impact on the Halswell Ward due to the proposed location of the facility

5.6.2   The Ōtākaro Orchard will be used by residents from across the city however has the greatest impact on the Central ward due to the location of the facility.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.3.2 Effectively administer the community loans scheme and all other grant funds under management. - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for community loans scheme and all other grant funds

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.2.1   The Physical recreation and Sport Strategy, The Places and Spaces Plan for Greater Christchurch (Netsal only) and Strengthening Communities Strategy, all applications.

6.2.2   The Community Organisation Loan Scheme guidelines, attached in Attachment B

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decisiondoes 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.  This is primarily because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether the benefited-projects proceed or not.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       There is no climate change impact because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether the benefited-projects proceed or not.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       Accessibility considerations apply to the projects themselves rather than a loan application as such there are no accessibility considerations.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – approximately $400 of staff time already budgeted and approximately $2,000 of legal fees already budgeted.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – cost of monitoring new loans and their repayments will be minimal as will be undertaken beside the monitoring of other current loans.

7.3       Funding Source - Community Loan Scheme Pool which is in turn funded from borrowing.

Netsal

7.4       When assessing the viability of the proposed Netsal loan staff referred to the operating projections supplied by Netsal and review undertaken by RSL Consultancy.  Three scenarios were explored a challenging, mid-range and per-plan.  These are detailed in the decision making matrix attached as Attachment A.

7.5       Under this methodology an annual surplus of between $320,000 and $395,000 per annum can be expected.  This is sufficient to repay any of the three loan options explored in this report.  Further security on repayment is derived from the fact that the development is financially supported by the sports of Football and Netball, both of whom are responsible for the overall delivery of the respective codes.

Food Resilience Network

7.6       The financial viability of FRN and ability to service a loan is made more difficult by the competition for café and office lease space currently being experienced and also the effects of COVID-19.  The ability of the FRN to draw down previously secured third party funding is pivotal in underpinning the recommendation to offer a loan not exceeding $150,000.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The statutory power to undertake the proposal derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.  Where needed Council’s Legal Services Unit review loan agreements.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The principal risk to Council is that Netsal and the FRN fail to repay their respective loans.

9.1.1   This could be caused by the organisations financial performance not meeting reasonable targets or in the extreme the failure of the organisations themselves.

9.1.2   This risk is appropriately mitigated in respect of Netsal because:

·   Ability to repay has been assessed on a conservative scenario.

·   The two regional sports organisations under pinning the development control the respective sports and are both in a reasonable financial position.

·   There is sufficient financial security in the building compared to the value of the loan.

·   Netsal have raised $15,000,000 to date.

9.1.3   This risk is partially mitigated in respect of the FRN because:

·   The amount of the loan is only marginally in excess of the minimum required to draw down existing third party funding.

·   The granting of a loan will allow the drawdown of third party funding valued at approximately $889,321 and allow the completion of the cold shell phase of the Project.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Assessment Matrices and Support Documentation

50

b

Community Organisation Loans Scheme - Guide

61

 

 

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

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



 


 


 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

11.   2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1150737

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Sam Callander, Team Leader, Community Funding Team sam.callander@ccc.govt.nz
John Filsell, Head of Community Support Governance and Partnerships
john.filsell@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to consider applications for funding from the 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

61881

Christchurch City Mission

Street Outreach Service

$75,000

$75,000

61676

The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board

Keep the Arts Centre Open

$150,000

$150,000

61634

BUG 4/2

Imagination Station

$60,000

$35,000

61755

Cultivate Christchurch

General Manager and Youth Internship Coordinator

$40,000

$20,000

61708

The New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective

Street Outreach Coordinator

$40,099

$14,099

61739

Tramway Historical Society

Trolley Bus System Restoration

$22,700

$0

 

1.2       There is currently a balance of $561,012 remaining in the fund

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approves a grant of $75,000 from its 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to Christchurch City Mission towards the Street Outreach Service for wages and costs

2.         Approves a grant of $150,000 from its 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board towards Keep the Arts Centre Open for operational costs.

3.         Approves a grant of $35,000 from its 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to BUG 4/2 towards Imagination Station for salaries and wages.

4.         Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to Cultivate Christchurch towards wages of the General Manager and Youth Internship Coordinator.

5.         Approves a grant of $14,099 from its 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective towards a Street Outreach Coordinator for wages and a mobile phone.

6.         Declines a grant from the 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to the Tramway Historical Society for Trolley Bus System Restoration.

 

3.   Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1       The recommendation is aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of enabling active and connected communities to own their future. It will provide resilient communities, liveable city and healthy environment.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

3.2       The Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee have delegated authority to allocate the metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund.

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

3.4       The Fund does not cover:

·   Legal challenges or Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled organisations or Community Board decisions

·   Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.6       The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest and the fact that the establishment and operation of the DRF is a level of service in the 2018/28 LTP.

3.7       Staff have discussed the applications with stakeholders and all recommendations have been moderated.

Discussion / Kōrerorero

3.8       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2020/21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2020/21

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$593,227

$32,215

$561,012

$266,913

 

3.9       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications summarised in section 1.1 of this report are above is eligible for funding.

3.10    The attached Decision Matrix (Attachment A) provides detailed information on the applications.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

2020-21 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix October 2020

66

 

 

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

Nicola Thompson - Community Funding Advisor

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

12.   Correction to Error in Resolution - Community Loan Organisation Scheme

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1189023

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Sam Callander, Community Funding Team Leader

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens & Community

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to correct an error in the resolution made by the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on 24 September 2020 relating to Kilmarnock Enterprises Trust's quarterly repayments.

1.2       The report has been written in response to an identified clerical error to make the resolution consistent with the intention of, and the details presented in, the report.

1.3       Resolution 1.h. read (emphasis added):

1.3.1   For the Kilmarnock Enterprises Trust loan – allow the Trust to make reduced principal payments of $1,500 per annum until March 2023. Then from April 2023, reduce the interest rate to 2% per annum and reset the term to seven (7) years.

1.4       However, the details, impact analysis and recommendation within the report were to allow the Trust to make reduced principal payments of $1,500 per quarter until March 2023.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve the changes to the terms and conditions for the following community loan:

a.         For the Kilmarnock Enterprises Trust loan – allow the Trust to make reduced principal payments of $1,500 per quarter until March 2023. Then from April 2023, reduce the interest rate to 2% per annum and reset the term to seven (7) years.

 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to 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

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

13.   Tsunami Warning Sirens (TWS) - Technical Standards Non-Compliance

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1189103

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Robert Orchard. Head of Civil Defence Emergency Management. Robert.orchard@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson. GM Citizens & Community. Mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the committee on the current status of Christchurch City Council’s Tsunami Warning Sirens (TWS) in regards to the National Emergency Management Agency’s (NEMA) Technical Standard (TS03/14). 

1.2       The report has been written in response to expiration of the deadline for compliance set by the Director of NEMA. The deadline expired on 30 June 2020.

1.3       The Christchurch City Council’s Tsunami Warning Sirens (TWS) are essentially non-compliant with NEMA’s Technical Standard (TS03/14) on two fronts:

1.3.1   The noise/sound created by the sirens and;

1.3.2   The current action advised upon hearing the sirens

1.4       Work to address the non-compliance issues identified is ongoing as follows:

1.4.1   Updating Tsunami Evacuation Zones for Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula (Christchurch City’s zones were updated in December 2019)

1.4.2   SCADA relocation - The SCADA system used to monitor and activate the TWS is part of a project to move this function into the Justice and Emergency Services Precinct (JESP)

1.4.3   Maintenance work to ensure the TWS system is operational. The TWS system is fully operational with an annual maintenance agreement in place

1.4.4   TWS system testing. The TWS system is tested twice per year. The last test was completed on the 27th September 2020. No issues were reported

1.4.5   Pre-determined Emergency Mobile Alert (EMA) messaging has been developed in conjunction with Canterbury CDEM Group Office staff to save time in the event of a tsunami

1.4.6   Public education on tsunami. This is intended to be delivered city-wide once Tsunami Evacuation Zones are finalised

1.4.7   A report to Council is being developed for a decision on whether the TWS system is upgraded to include siren tone change and voice-over capability


 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Tsunami Warning Sirens (TWS) – Technical Standards Non-compliance report

2.         Note that a report to Council is being developed to enable a decision on the preferred tsunami warning option

 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Ecan paper to Coordinating Executive Group - Tsunami Sirens - July 2020

77

b

Christchurch City Council - Civil Defence Emergency Management Response to Group TWS Survey

83

c

Christchurch City Council Tsunami Warning Siren (TWS) System overview

85

d

Letter from National Emergency Management Group Director to Coordinating Executive Group Chair - 19 Feb 2020

86

e

Letter from Coordinating Executive Group Chair to National Emergency Management Group Director - 04 Aug 2020

88

f

Letter from National Emergency Management Group Director to Coordinating Executive Group Chair - 21 Sep 2020

90

 

 

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

Robert Orchard - Head of Civil Defence & Emergency Management

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 2020

 

 

14.   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:


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

22 October 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

15.

Public Excluded Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee Minutes - 24 September 2020

 

 

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

 

 

 



[1] Consultation is required after a review, whether or not there are changes recommended as a result of the review (section 13 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011).

[2] This is set out in section 13 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, Review of Bylaws.

[3] The FCA enables bylaws to regulate activities on “local authority areas” and defines this as “land controlled or managed by or on behalf of the local authority under any enactment” (section 6). The FCA also applies to land controlled or managed by the Department of Conservation (under the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, or the Wildlife Act 1953). 

[4] For example, camping in all forms is prohibited by the Reserves Act 1977 in reserves, unless it is specifically allowed for, eg the land is set aside as a camping ground or for accommodation.

[5] As set out in section 11 of the FCA.

[6] As set out in section 12 of the FCA.

[7] Certified self-contained, as set out in the bylaw: “means a vehicle designed and built for the purpose of camping which has the capability of meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of occupants of that vehicle for a minimum of three days without requiring any external services or discharging any waste and complies with New Zealand Standard 5465:2001, as evidenced by the display of a current self-containment warrant issued under New Zealand Standard Self Containment of Motor Caravans and Caravans, NZS 5465:2001.”

[8] Staff are not aware that any applications have been made under this clause.

[9] This clause has been used on at least two occasions, set out below, under the “decisions and amendments” heading.

[10] Lower Styx River car park, Windsport Park car park, Addington Reserve car park, French Farm foreshore and Wainui foreshore.

[11] More information about the temporary prohibition at North Beach Car Park is included in the attached Bylaw Review Report.

[12] Iwi/hapū management plans set out the resource management issues of the region/district/rohe, and must be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans. They are used by iwi/hapū to express kaitiakitanga.

[13] Section 13(4) of the FCA, Review of bylaws