Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 11 March 2021

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

5 March 2021

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 11 February 2021..................................................................... 7

6.        Council Minutes - 25 February 2021.................................................................... 17

Community Board Monthly Reports

7.        Waimaero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council...... 21

8.        Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council.............. 27

9.        Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council............. 33

10.      Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council................................ 37

11.      Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council........................ 43

12.      Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council........ 47

13.      Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council............................... 51

Community Board Part A Reports

14.      Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade................................. 57

15.      Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway - Moncks Bay section.......................... 67

Multicultural Committee

16.      Multicultural Committee Minutes - 3 February 2021............................................. 79

Regulatory Performance Committee

17.      Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 5 February 2021............................. 85

Staff Reports

18.      Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Draft Tree Policy 2020........................ 89

19.      Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Request to Build Changing Rooms in North Hagley Park.................................................................................................. 119

20.      Canterbury Cricket Trust - Request to Demolish and Rebuild the Hagley Sports Centre 131

21.      Representation Review - Initial Proposal........................................................... 187

22.      Amendments to Delegations............................................................................ 269

23.      Draft Development Contributions Policy 2021................................................... 319

24.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 448  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

Karakia Timatanga

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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

3.   Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

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

3.2   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

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

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 11 February 2021

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/260184

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Council held a meeting on 11 February 2021 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Council meeting held 11 February 2021.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 11 February 2021

8

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Thursday 11 February 2021

Time:                                   9.35am

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway - by audio visual link

Councillor James Gough - by audio visual link

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

 

11 February 2021

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


  

Karakia Timatanga: Given by Councillor Daniels.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00012

That the apologies received from Councillors Chu and Galloway for lateness be accepted.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                           Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Public Participation / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

 

3.1.1 David Lynch

             David Lynch from Momentus Public Relations Ltd made a public forum presentation and provided supporting documents to the Council on statutory processes of consultation.

Attachments

a       Council 11 February 2021 - Public Forum David Lynch Momentus Public Relations - Supporting documents   

 

Councillor Galloway joined the meeting at 9.44am prior to item 3.1.2.

 

3.1.2 Scott Franicevic

Scott Franicevic made a public forum presentation to the Council on engagement, transparency and how process creates frustration.

 

3.1.3 School Strike 4 Climate Christchurch

Ciara Foley and Alfie Smeele, on behalf of School Strike 4 Climate Christchurch made a public forum presentation to the Council on consultation processes.

 

3.1.4 Geoffrey King

Geoffrey King made a public forum presentation to the Council on the Organics Processing Plant.

 

3.2   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5.   Council Minutes - 28 January 2021

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00013

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 28 January 2021.

 

AND

 

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 4 February 2021.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Chen                                                                                                           Carried

 

6.   Council Minutes - 4 February 2021

 

Council Decision

Refer to Item 5.

 

Councillor Chu joined the meeting at 10am during consideration of item 7.

 

Kelly Barber, Chairperson of the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board joined the meeting for

item 7.

7.   Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00014

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board report for December 2020 and January 2021.

Councillor Daniels/Councillor Mauger                                                                                                              Carried

 

Councillor Daniels left the meeting at 10.07am and returned at 10.11am during consideration of item 8.

 

David Cartwright, Chairperson and Bridget Williams, Deputy Chairperson of the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board joined the meeting for item 8.

8.   Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00015

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waimāero /Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board report for December 2020.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown                                                                                                       Carried

 


 

 

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.26am during consideration of item 9.

 

Mike Mora, Chairperson and Helen Broughton, Deputy Chairperson of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board joined the meeting for item 9.

9.   Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00016

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for December 2020.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Chu                                                                                                                         Carried

 

Councillor Cotter returned to the meeting at 10.35am during consideration of item 10.

 

Alexandra Davids, Chairperson and Michelle Lomax, Deputy Chairperson of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board joined the meeting for item 10.

10. Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00017

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for December 2020 to January 2021.

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

 

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.30am and returned at 10.35am during consideration of item 11.

 

Emma Norrish, Chairperson and Simon Britten, Deputy Chairperson of the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board joined the meeting for item 11.

11. Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00018

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board report for December 2020 and January 2021.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 


 

Lee Sampson, Deputy Chairperson of the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board joined the meeting for item 12.

12. Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00019

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board report for November and December 2020.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Coker                                                                                                            Carried

 

Tyrone Fields, Deputy Chairperson of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautu/Banks Peninsula Community Board joined the meeting for item 13.

13. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

 

Council Consideration:

In response to matters raised by the Community Board, the Council requested that a Combined Community Board Briefing be held on fire risk management, with Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and Council staff.

 

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00020

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for November and December 2020.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

Report from Banks Peninsula Community Board - 7 December 2020

14. 62 Archdalls Road, Duvauchelle - Structures on Roads Proposal

 

The Council decided to leave the report to lie on the table to enable staff to provide information in response to questions raised on this matter.

 

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00021

1.         That the Council leave the report to lie on the table until the meeting of 11 March 2021 to enable staff to provide additional information.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                                               Carried

 

Secretarial note: Since the Council meeting it has been established this matter will require further consideration by the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board. The Board’s consideration and recommendation will be reported to a future Council meeting.

 


 

15. Chairperson's Report: Representation on Coastal Hazards Working Group

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00022

Chairperson’s Recommendation accepted without change.

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the approach for membership and representation on the Coastal Hazards Working Group, as set out in this report, specifically, that membership of the Working Group is not increased at this time.

Note:  The Working Group intends to invite the chair or delegate of a Community Board to participate in the Coastal Hazards Working Group for the duration of consultation in their community.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

17. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00023

That at 11.10am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 82 and 83 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.23am.

The meeting adjorned at 11.24am and reconvened at 1.01pm.

 

Deputy Mayor Turner and Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 1.02pm.

 

16. Notice of Motion - Wheels to Wings Cycleway

 

 

The Council commenced discussion and questions on the notice of motion.

 

 

That the Council:

1.         Request that the portion of the consultation on the Wheels to Wings cycleway from Greers Road west be immediately suspended and that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board along with the CCC staff begin a fresh process with the Harewood community to get a design that the community participate in and take ownership of.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.59pm and reconvened at 2.35pm.


 

Procedural Motion

 

The meeting was advised by the mover of the notice of motion, Councillor Keown and the seconder, Councillor MacDonald of an alteration to the notice of motion.

 

Under Standing Order 22.4, only the mover, with the agreement of a majority of those present at the meeting, may alter a proposed notice of motion.

 

The agreement of a majority of those present at the meeting was sought.

 

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00024

That the Council, under Standing Order 22.4 agree that the Notice of Motion be altered by the mover of the motion.

The voting on this matter was undertaken by division.

The division was declared carried by 13 votes to 4 votes the voting being as follows:

For:                          Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Chen, Councillor Chu, Councillor Coker, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Gough, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Mauger, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett.

Against:                 Councillor Cotter, Councillor Daniels, Councillor Davidson and Councillor Templeton.

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald                                                                                                       Carried

 

 

16. Notice of Motion - Wheels to Wings Cycleway - continued

 

The Council debated the amended Notice of Motion.

 

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00025

That the Council:

 

1.         Direct staff to conclude consultation on the project as per the 8 March date with an additional information session to be held in Bishopdale.

2.         Direct staff to meet with key stakeholders along Harewood Road to mitigate any potential design issues based off the initial feedback.

3.         Direct staff  to produce a range of design options for the Community Boards to consider in public workshops prior to the commencement of  the hearings process.

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald                                                                                                       Carried

 

  


 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by Councillor Daniels.

 

Meeting concluded at 3.23pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 11th DAY OF MARCH 2021

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

6.     Council Minutes - 25 February 2021

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/228994

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 25 February 2021.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 25 February 2021.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 25 February 2021

18

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Extraordinary Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Thursday 25 February 2021

Time:                                   2.01pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

 

25 February 2021

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


  

Karakia Timatanga: Given by James Daniels.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00026

That the apologies received from Councillor Cotter for absence and Councillor Gough for lateness be accepted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker                                                                                                         Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2021/00027

That at 2.03pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 5 to 6 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                                                 Carried

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.29pm.

 

   

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by James Daniels.

 

Meeting concluded at 2.30pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

7.     Waimaero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/124611

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

David Cartwright, Chairperson, david.cartwright@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board report for March 2021.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings on 1 February 2021 and 15 February 2021.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2020-21 Discretionary Response Fund Applications: The Board approved grants totalling $18,000 to the Cotswold Preschool and nursery towards the installation of an Outdoor Mud Pit and Kitchen area, and to the Council’s Parks Unit Capital Programme budget towards the installation of Big Belly bins at four parks within the Fendalton, Waimairi and Harewood areas.

·   Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2020-21 Youth Development Fund Applications:  The Board approved grants totalling $200 to two recipients towards participating in the Touch New Zealand national Tournament and towards attending the Hands-On at Otago programme at the University of Otago.

·   Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Submissions Committee:  The Board resolved that its submissions be convened on Monday 15 February 2021 to consider a number of consultation opportunities.

·   The Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Submissions Committee:  the Board delegated to its Chairperson and the Community Governance Manager for the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area the ability to schedule meeting dates for the Board’s Submissions Committee.

            

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A reports being presented to the Council at this meeting.

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Wheels to Wings Major Cycle Route

Feedback is currently being sought on the plans for the Wheels to Wings – Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycleway.

In addition to the information on the Have Your Say section of the Council’s website, two Information Sessions have been held to talk through the project with residents and local businesses and to answer any questions they had. The third Information Session that was postponed due to restrictions under the COVID-19 Alert Level 2, will be rescheduled for a later date.

The consultation closing date has also been extended a further two weeks and now closes on 8 March 2021.

5.2       Draft Roto Kohatu Management Plan

The Council is looking to prioritise and manage a range of recreational activity and public use through a Roto Kohatu Management Plan, while making sure this fits with cultural and ecological values.

It is seeking feedback on what people thing should be considered when developing the draft plan.

The closing date for feedback is Monday 15 March 2021.   

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       Culture Galore

At the time of writing, the Culture Galore event was scheduled for 20 February 2020 at Ray Blank Park. 

6.2       Community Pride Garden Awards

Judging for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Pride Garden Awards was undertaken late January and early February 2021.

An Award ceremony will be held at a later date for the presentation of certificates and trophies.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The progress report against the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board – Community Board Plan, was presented to the Board at its 15 February 2021 meeting (refer Attachment A).

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

2020-22 Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Board Plan Monitoring - February 2021

24

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Bronwyn Frost - Support Officer

Margaret Henderson - Community Board Advisor

Amanda Black - Support Officer

Lisa Gregory - Community Recreation Advisor

Natalie Dally - Community Development Advisor

Maryanne Lomax - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Approved By

Maryanne Lomax - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

8.     Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/105344

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Mike Mora, Community Board Chairperson, mike.mora@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for March 2021.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held meetings on 2 and 16 February 2021.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Approving the following new road names for 275 Sparks Road:

a.     Road 1 - Sequel Road

b.     Road 2 - Navarra Road

c.      Road 3 - Larissa Road

d.     Road 4 - Gisele Crescent

e.      Road 5 - Dalness Crescent

·   Approving a grant of $5,000 from its 2020-21 Discretionary Response Fund to Hornby Presbyterian Community Trust towards the Community Survey of the Wider Hornby Area project.

·   Delegating the ability to schedule meeting dates for the Board’s Submissions Committee to meet to the Board Chairperson, the Submissions Committee Chairperson and the Community Governance Manager.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board included in this agenda for Council consideration.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

       5.1          Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) programme

Staff met with the Board to discuss the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) programme a few months ago and explained how the available funding is to be used to address condition, safety and accessibility issues. Staff have been considering how to gather local knowledge on condition, safety and accessibility concerns and have developed five interactive maps that allow residents to place a pin on a map and leave a comment to show locations of concern.

The maps will are live for four weeks commencing Mid-February. There is also communications around the maps to reach as many people in the community as possible.

A number of drop in sessions held in association with the maps including one for the Riccarton area on Tuesday 23 February –drop in 4.30pm to 6.30pm at the Riccarton Service Centre.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1          Clyde Road- white parking ticks.

At its meeting on 29 September 2020 the Board received a presentation from representatives of the University of Canterbury Students Association requesting the installation of parking ticks on the university side of Clyde Road to address ongoing parking issues. The Board agreed to request staff advice on the installation of parking ticks.

Following evaluation traffic staff commented that it is not normal practice for intermediate parking ticks to be provided, unless parking spaces are subject to a parking fee, such as in the Central Business District and noted also there is a view that defined bays can lead to inefficiencies within the overall unmarked space, as some vehicles are either longer or shorter than standard and ticks could lead to unused space. Due to the highly intensive parking demands adjacent to the University and the need for efficient use of parking spaces on-street staff advised the Board that new parking tick markings to delineate specific bays will be installed on the portion of Clyde Road as shown below:

6.2       Community Pride Garden Awards 2021

The Christchurch Beautifying Association completed judging for the Community Pride Garden Awards between 16 January and 7 February 2021. An awards function to acknowledge Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Pride Garden Award recipients is to be scheduled for late March or April 2021.

6.3       Riccarton Sports Hub Holiday Festival

The Riccarton Sports Hub Holiday Festival took place on Tuesday 26th and Wednesday 27th January at the Upper Riccarton Domain. A two day festival partnership between FC Twenty 11, Upper Riccarton Domain Tennis, Riccarton Cricket and Ultimate Frisbee Canterbury.


6.4       Local networking event

The Community Board hosted a local networking event on 4 February 2021, at Rārākau: Riccarton Centre. The event was an opportunity for local groups and organisations to connect with each other, and for the Community Board to acknowledge the important role they have in the community.

Following the positive response from attendees, another event could be considered for later in the year.

 

6.5       Culture Galore

Culture Galore, the annual event jointly sponsored Halswell Hornby Riccarton and Fendalton Waimairi Harewood Community Boards that celebrates a variety of cultures was held this year on Saturday 20th February at Ray Blank Park.  The event was very well attended with attendees enjoying performances and food from more than 35 cultures.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       Hornby Centre

Work is due to commence on the new Hornby Centre.  A site blessing ceremony was held on 26 February in advance of the construction work getting underway. The ceremony was well attended.

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       Richmond Avenue, Knight Stream subdivision

The intersection of Richmond Avenue with Halswell Junction Road was included in the Outline Development Plan for the Longhurst/Knights Stream area during the original Plan Change in 2011 that changed the zoning of the area from Rural to Residential. The hearings for the Plan took place during 2016/17 before an Independent Hearings Panel. The area has been subsequently developed in line with the plan.

In 2019 a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit was introduced to the two subdivisions, in response to requests made by local residents and community representatives.  Further to consultation and Council approvals the new speed limit signs were installed on all the approaches to the subdivision and became fully operational in October 2019.

The construction of the intersection of the John Paterson Drive and Richmond Avenue in line with the Outline Development Plan in mid-2020 has led to expressions of concern by some residents relating to the potential for motor vehicles exiting the Southern motorway to continue along Richmond Avenue at excessive speed. The design of the new intersection included a speed table which is intended to slow vehicles down on approach.  This feature was constructed to a design specification that allows it to be traversed by buses.

In response to residents’ concerns a community meeting regarding driver behaviour was held at Knightstream School on 9 September 2020 where it was agreed that increased signage and road markings would be installed to reinforce existing speed limits ahead of the opening of the new Richmond John Patterson intersection, Police would be requested to increase visibility to support the additional signage, residents would investigate local action e.g. leaflet drop etc. and a follow-up meeting  would be held approximately two months after the opening of the new Richmond John Patterson intersection to review the situation.

Additional 40 kilometre per hour speed limit signs and road markings were added in 2020, to remind drivers, especially visitors, of the area wide speed limit including ‘Gateway’ signage and markings to the approach to the subdivision at the point where the 40 limit begins prior to the intersection opening. There have, however, been further expressions of concern about vehicles driver at speed along Richmond Avenue since the intersection opened.

Traffic surveys have been programmed to collect traffic volumes and speed data to monitor driver speeds on Richmond Avenue to ascertain the general adherence to the speed limit and the results will be shared with the local community.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Matthew Pratt - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

9.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/190812

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Alexandra Davids, Chairperson
alexandra.davids@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board report for February 2021.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 1 February 2021.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Michelle Lomax elected as the Community Board Deputy Chairperson.

·   Confirmation of the Board’s 2021 Meetings schedule.

·   Approval of kerb buildouts on Linwood Avenue to assist pedestrians crossing Linwood Avenue to Te Pou Toetoe: Linwood Pool.

·   Received an information report on Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Programme.

·   Approved Discretionary Response Fund contribution grants to:

·   Sumner Skate Ramp project.

·   Community Market storage space.

·   Ōpāwaho (Lower Heathcote) River Working Party Project Costs.

·   Approved Youth Development Fund contribution grants for youth to attend:

·   New Zealand Juggling and Circus Festival in Nelson.

·   Confirmed the Board’s comments on the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Resource Consent Application.

·   Requested an article in the Board newsletter outlining how to report potential fire hazards to the appropriate authorities.

·   The Board requested staff advice on:

·      Reducing hireage costs for the Outdoor Swimmers Club and extending the Waltham Pool opening hours.

·      The use of large landscaping boulders and structures being places on steep streets on property boundaries.

·      The decision-making processes on matters pertaining to the Residential Red Zone and Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Programme.

·      How the community views are included in the aspects of the detailed design of projects within the Residential Red Zone and Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Programme for bridges, road closures and cycle ways.

·      The Council’s skate park renewal programme.

·      The Ferry Road Masterplan focusing on the Charleston/Phillipstown actions.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway – Monck Bay section.

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Te Pou Toetoe: Linwood Pool

5.1       The Board will soon consider a report on the naming of the two community rooms within Te Pou Toetoe: Linwood Pool complex.

A site visit for Board members is being planned for late March/early April 2021.

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

Public Forum           

6.1       The Board had the following Public Forum presentation at its 1 February 2021 meeting:

6.1.1   Representatives of the Outdoor Swimmers’ Club outlining the project they are holding at the Waltham Summer Pool, asking the Board’s support in reducing their costs to run the club’s activities at the pool and for extending the pool’s opening hours. 

The Board has requested staff advice on the above matters.

Briefings

6.2       The Board received briefings on 10 February about the following projects/issues:

·   Linwood Library Service Review.

·   Governance Team Work plan.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board considered the Community Board Plan Monitoring Report (July 2020-January 2021) at the Board’s 1 February meeting.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       The Board wishes to raise the matter of temporary traffic management across the wider Woolston area given the impact created by the number of separate work sites in Woolston.   

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

10.   Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/104691

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Emma Norrish – Chairperson Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board
Emma.Norrish@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board report for January and February 2021.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board met on 29 January 2021 respectively.  Decisions made under delegation were:

29 January 2021

·   Approval for staff to engage with the community about the proposed renaming of Styx River Reserve No. 2 to Te Waoku Kahikatea and part of the Kaputone Esplanade Reserve to Te Waoku Kapuka and report back to the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board on the outcome of the consultation. 

The Board also requested that staff begin the process of returning the name of the Kaputone Stream to the original Māori name of Kā Pūtahi (to correct a historical misspelling).

·   Approval to convene the Board’s Submissions Committee on 17 February 2021 to consider four current public consultations.

·   Delegation to the Community Governance Manager to approve grants of up to $350 through the Board’s Youth Development Fund application process.

The Board also agreed to standardise the fund criteria so that it is aligned with other Community Boards and noted that staff have standardised the application form to enhance the customer experience.

·   Allocation of funding from the Board’s 2020-21 Discretionary Response Fund as follows:

·    $550 to St Albans Residents’ Association towards the production and publication costs of the St Albans Library History Booklet.


 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There were no Part A recommendations to the Council.

5.   Significant Community Events, Issues and Projects in the Board Area

5.1      Summer with your Neighbours

The Larne Place get together in mid-December was very successful and voted “a lovely afternoon and evening” by the residents. The organiser sent in the accompanying photo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2      Temporary Wayfinding Sign – 10 Shirley Road Community Reserve

At the Board meeting on 18 December 2020 the Board approved the installation of a temporary wayfinding sign at 10 Shirley Road.  The Richmond Community Garden have a temporary lease to install a wayfinding trail in the residential red zone, the idea being to connect people with places and projects that are happening in the Richmond suburb including the Otakaro Avon River trail, the Richmond Community Garden, Avebury House and Adventure Avenue. The wayfinding sign on 10 Shirley Road is the beginning of the trail.


The Green Lab (previously Greening the Rubble) has now installed the sign in the reserve on behalf of the community. The wayfinding trail is a community driven project, encouraging residents to connect with their neighbourhood and be physically active.

5.3      Papanui Youth Development Trust Christmas Function

It was a great evening on Friday 18 December 2020 as the Papanui Youth Development Trust celebrated a very busy and productive year!

We acknowledge awesome work by Hamish, Jeremy, Tom and the team especially the innovative ways they coped with the COVID-19 lock down. 


Thank you for the certificates and homemade pizzas.

 

5.4      Belfast Community Network Christmas Breakfast

This was a great start to Christmas Day for all those who attended.

5.5      Northcote Afternoon Tea Christmas Function

This was a lovely way for the community to spend a couple of hours catching up and supporting those without family to share the festivities.

5.6     
St Albans Skate Jam

St Alban’s Skate Jam was held on Saturday 16 January, between 12.00pm and 3.00pm.  Although the weather was cloudy with a cool wind blowing there was a good turnout of participants.    

This year the participants consisted of a larger number of younger participants who were new to skate boarding. The free equipment loan was once again popular, with plenty of children borrowing boards, helmets, and knee and elbow pads so they could participate throughout the event.  The four coaches from Skate Skool were kept extremely busy teaching the basics as well some more advanced skills.

To include all the participants in the skate competition, a novice section was held for the first time on the shared path and temporary ramps. 

Feedback from both the participants and caregivers was very positive.  Parents and caregivers were most appreciative of the opportunity for the young ones to learn, develop their skills and compete in their first skating competition.

5.7      Belfast Skate Jam

Staff attended a very successful Belfast Skate Jam held at Sheldon Park on Friday 12 February from 4-7pm.

Organised by Belfast Community Network and the Papanui-Innes Recreation Advisor, and featuring the Cheap Skates team, the event attracted over 100 skaters of varying abilities who thoroughly enjoyed the day.

The event attracted over 200 people including families who supported the skaters, enjoyed and took advantage of the free sausage sizzle, and made use of the Belfast pool and a Bouncy castle while relaxing in the park.

The Cheap Skates team provided instruction and coaching for beginner skaters and competitions were held for under 13’s and over 13’s. Families and friends stayed until the end of the event, supporting the skaters and encouraging them in their competition runs.


This successful event fosters a community recreation approach targeting grass roots participation and skill development. The event delivers quality recreation experiences for the children and youth of the Waipapa/Papanui Innes Ward.

 

5.8      High Density Housing Development Westminster and Malvern Streets, St Albans

At its meeting on 18 December 2020 the Board received a letter from St Albans residents regarding the high density housing developments taking place in Westminster and Malvern Streets. The Board was advised that community boards are precluded from involvement in the Resource Management Act processes by legislation and therefore have no influence on the outcomes of Hearing Panels. The Chairperson also advised the Board that the Resource Management Act processes are currently under review.

The Board decided to raise the matter in the Board’s report to Council in January 2021, write a letter to the Commissioners enclosing the correspondence and forward the correspondence to the Regulatory Performance Committee.

The local residents followed up by presenting a petition to the Board at its meeting on 29 January 2021, requesting that the Council implement a number of checks and balances for the resource management consent process and look at education for the community regarding their rights under the Resource Management Act.

The Board received the petition and referred it to the Regulatory Performance Committee in support of the correspondence previously forwarded in December.

5.9      St Albans Community Centre

Completion of the Centre is slightly delayed due to finishing materials not arriving in the country. Therefore the official opening has been postponed until April.

6.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

6.1       Updates against outcomes of the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan will be presented to the Council in an upcoming meeting.

7.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

7.1      RMA Processes

The Board has recently received a number of concerns from local residents regarding the high density changes to the District Plan. The residents are concerned that developers are building without consideration of the surrounding residential properties and the ambience of the suburb.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Aidan Kimberley - Community Board Advisor

Lyssa Aves - Governance Support Officer

Approved By

Elizabeth Hovell - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

11.   Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/157885

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Karolin Potter, Chairperson, karolin.potter@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board report for February 2021.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held a meeting on 2 February 2021.  Decisions made under delegation were, the Board:

·   Approved a grant of $5,000 from its 2020-21 Discretionary Response Fund towards a Needs Analysis/Feasibility for the Adult Playground project.

·   Decided to provide a submission on the Council’s proposed new mountain bike track in Montgomery Spur Reserve.

·   Adopted its schedule for ordinary meetings for the period 1 March to 31 December 2021.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade will be considered by the Council at its meeting on 11 March 2021.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Innovating Streets for People Projects 

5.1       The Board received a briefing from staff on the Innovating Streets for People projects in Beckenham and Selwyn.

5.2       Staff continue to work with Student Design Consultants to develop plans for the Selwyn Street project. Next students will tell staff which of the draft plans are the most important for them to get to school safely, as there is not budget to implement all the proposals.

IMG_4287

5.3       Contractors recently worked with the Better Beckenham Community Team and Council staff on ideas to trial a new intersection layout. The space was coned off and road widths tested to ensure everyone was happy with the offset of the intersection that would create more space on one side. Staff also met a few local residents who wished to know more about traffic engineering and the project. It was a great way to visually display and physically interact with the space so that the community could help co-design the project.

5.4       This approach is a first for New Zealand. It showcases the innovative and creative ways of working with communities on the Innovating Streets projects.

5.5       The Board will consider a report on the Selwyn and Beckenham projects at a future meeting.

Picture1

Coronation Hall   

5.1       In 2019, the Board approved the future use of Coronation Hall as the home base for the Suburbs Rugby Football Club, and the hall is currently being repaired. The Board recently had a site visit to hear about Suburbs plans for the space.

Basketball Courts

5.2       Following several requests from residents for more basketball courts in the Board area, the Board received a briefing from staff about potential locations for a new court. The Board requested that staff invite local young people and other interested parties to a future meeting to provide their views on the possibility of a new basketball court at Somerfield Park and/or Centennial Park.

OIP

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

Public Forum Presentations – The Board received public forum presentations on the following topics:       

6.1       Hoon Hay Community Association Trust – The Hoon Hay Community Association Trust provided an update on recent and upcoming activities, including development of its Strategic Plan.

6.2       Farmers Market at Old Stone House – The Cracroft Community Centre and Geoff Venning spoke about Mr Venning’s proposal to hold a farmers market at Holmcroft Reserve and the Old Stone House. The Board requested that staff support the presenters to explore options to hold a farmers market at this location.

6.3       Traffic Safety in Board Area – A resident spoke about traffic safety concerns in the Board area. The Board requested that staff provide details of the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys Roads Intersection Upgrade project to the presenter.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       At its 18 August meeting, the Board adopted its Community Board Plan 2020-22.

7.2       The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson presented the Board Plan to Councillors at Long Term Plan briefings on 15 September and 17 November 2020.

7.3       The presentations included an overview of why the outcomes sought in the Board Plan are important to the community and identification of where significant outcomes are not reflected in proposed levels of service.

7.4       A six-monthly monitoring report will be provided at the Board’s 17 March 2021 meeting.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       Draft Tree Policy

At its 2 February 2021 meeting, the Board agreed that the Chairperson raise the following in the Board’s monthly presentation to the Council:

In light of the report from the Commission for Climate Change, the Board requests that the Council addresses the issues raised by that report in the Draft Tree Policy,  particularly Paragraph 6.5 in the Introduction, in terms of the requirements for carbon retention and shade (the latter patently lacking in all but two or three of Christchurch’s parks and reserves); that there be a strong commitment to the planting of native trees in the urban suburban environments; and further that in the body of the policy, under Item 1.4 –  Tree Planting, the words ‘sites of  significance and non-urban and the Port Hills’ be removed so that the paragraph reads: “In all areas of Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City we will endeavour to strengthen and enhance existing indigenous biodiversity and ecological resilience by selecting native species provenanced to the local area or region for new tree planting except where other species are necessary for specified reasons.”

The Board is aware that the Draft Tree Policy has been through a submission and hearing process, which it submitted on, and that the report of the Hearings Panel will be considered by the Council at this meeting. Following the Board meeting on 2 February, staff have advised that the points raised will be addressed as part of the Urban Forest Plan which is under development.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Amy Hart - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

12.   Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/32651

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Tori Peden - Chairperson
tori.peden@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for February 2021.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula Community Board held a meeting on 1 February 2021.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Parking Restrictions – the Board approved parking restrictions on Waipapa Avenue, in the area of Stoddart Point and the Diamond Harbour Wharf.

·   Funding – the Board approved the following grants from its Discretionary Response Fund:

·    A grant of $2000 from its 2020-21 to Diamond Harbour Events Incorporated towards Live at the Point.

·    A grant of $2,815 from its 2020-21 Discretionary Response Fund to Comte de Paris Descendants Group Inc. towards a photographer, music, fuel, refreshments, anniversary cake, printing and post event cleaning products.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

No reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Nothing to report.   

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

Public Forum and Deputations       

6.1       The Board received Public Forum presentations and Deputations on the following issues:

·    Customer Services Akaroa

·    Akaroa Cemeteries Project

·    Fire Risk Management

Reserve Management Committees

6.2       The Board received minutes from the following Reserve Management Committee meetings:

·    Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee – 14 October 2020

·    Allandale Reserve Management Committee – 25 November 2020

·    Awa-iti Reserve Management Committee – 2 December 2020

·    Okains Bay Reserve Management Committee – 8 December 2020

Working Party Meetings

6.3       Board Working Party meetings were held, as follows:

·    Head to Head Walkway Working Party – 9 November 2020

Correspondence

6.4       The Board received the following correspondence:

·    Akaroa Service Centre – Victoria Andrews and the Akaroa Residents & Ratepayers Assn

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board adopted its Community Board Plan at the 20 July 2020 meeting.  Regular reporting will be provided to the Board and a review will be undertaken and reported to the Board on 1 March 2021.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       Street Recycling Binsthe Board requested information from staff on how much of the recycling from the public bins in Akaroa was actually recycled, and how much was processed as waste because of contamination.

8.2       Leaking Fire Hydrant – The Board requested that staff investigate a leaking fire hydrant adjacent to 4-6 Newton Place in Akaroa after it was reported that Akaroa residents had alerted Council to the leaking fire hydrant but it still has not been repaired even though the town has now moved to Level 3 water restrictions.

8.3       Birdlings Flat Water Issues – it was reported that Birdlings Flat residents had recently run out of water and there had been no prior warning or restrictions put in place.  Residents had questioned whether there was any system in place to alert Council staff to problems with the water supply, for instance an electronic warning system.  The Board requested information from staff on:

-      Whether there is a system in place to alert Council to issues with the water supply at Birdlings Flat.

-      Clarification for the community about what the daily water allocation is for Birdlings Flat properties.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Carter - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

13.   Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/156604

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Kelly Barber, Chairperson,
kelly.barber@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board report for February 2021.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board held a meeting on 1 February 2021. Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Allocation of funding from the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board’s 2020-2021 Discretionary Response Fund to:

·     Aranui Community Trust (ACTIS)

·     Dallington Residents’ Association

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board included in this agenda for the Council’s consideration.

5.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

5.1       New walking group programme at Taiora/QEII Sport and Recreation Centre    

The RSE Unit have started a new weekly walking group for 30 to 45 minutes from Graham Condon, Jellie Park, Pioneer and Tairoa QEII. A free programme offering a weekly walk and once a month a special session after the walk for people to try activities or information seminars at the centre. The Taiora QEII programme will commence on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 9.30am, meet outside the main building entrance. For more info go to:

https://ccc.govt.nz/rec-and-sport/rec-and-sport-centres/health-wellbeing/walking-groups/

5.2       I Brighton 2021

Thousands of people enjoyed the social, market, sports, sounds and sun at Brighton's biggest local festival of the year on Monday 8 February 2021 from 11am to 3pm. 

Events are always a huge team effort with over 50 volunteers supporting from Youth Alive Trust plus many more from all the different groups and clubs who offered have a go activities on the day.

 

This was the 11th I Love Brighton event, the inaugural event was held in May 2011.  The planning group who organise the event include Youth Alive Trust, New Brighton Project, Renew Brighton, Eastern Community Sport and Recreation, New Brighton Business Association and the Council. Highlights video: https://www.facebook.com/171447999659575/videos/2688004778156278

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


5.3       Parklands @ Play 2021

The Parklands community celebrated its 6th community event on Sunday 14 February 2021 in Parklands reserve, there was a huge variety of activities for the community to try including fencing, karate, dance, rugby, archery, tag, football, basketball, radio controlled cars, gymnastics, netball and table tennis.  There was a specific preschool zone with activities from the Parklands Library, Pegasus Toy Library and plenty of crafts and nature play.  Families were challenged to complete the amazing race while at the event ticking off activities and challenges to go in the draw for free passes to He Puna Taimoana.  The stage acts featured plenty of local talent kicking off with Sideline Swing, then featuring some gifted youth acts – Same Day Delivery and Pepper Hall.  The event is co-ordinated by the Pukeko Centre in partnership with local groups and clubs and is funded by the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

 

 


 

 


6.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

6.1       Updates against outcomes of the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Plan will be presented to the Board every six months with the first update being presented to the Board at its March 2021 meeting.

7.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

7.1       Orion 66kV Cable Project

The Board was provided with an update from Orion as it is upgrading its network to support growth in the Northwood, Belfast area.  As part of the upgrade, Orion is building a new substation in Belfast and installing a new 66KV cable from its Marshland Substation underground along Marshland, Belfast and Prestons roads to the new substation.

7.2       Shovel Ready Funding

The Board was provided with an update on two groups who have shovel ready funding for their projects, namely Guardians of Rawhiti for the Rawhiti Domain Natural Play Proposal and Eastern Community Sport and Recreation to develop the top sports fields at Rawhiti Domain into the Number 1 rugby field, upgrading the sports field lighting on Thomson Park, installing an all-weather softball diamond with fencing on the lower Rawhiti Domain sports fields, finalising the lease footprint for the cricket pavilion and upgrading the tennis courts and installing lighting at the South Brighton Tennis Club.

                      Indicative Landscape Plan of the Rawhiti Domain Natural Play Proposal:

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sarah Harrison - Support Officer

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Cindy Sheppard - Community Board Advisor

Katie MacDonald - Community Support Officer

Ann Tomlinson - Community Development Advisor

Jacqui Miller - Community Recreation Advisor

Anna Langley - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 2 February 2021

 

14.   Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/135875

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Pana Togiaso, Project Manager, pana.togiaso@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Carolyn Gallagher, General Manager City Services, Carolyn.Gallagher@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

 

Board Comment

 

It was noted that staff will review pedestrian safety at the Cashmere/ Worsley/ Hoon Hay Roads intersection six months after the intersection upgrade project is complete*.

 

*The above amendments were made at the Board’s 17 February 2021 meeting during Clause 3 – Confirmation of Previous Minutes.

 

That the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommend that Council:

1.         Approves the change in respect of the tree planting species and removal of marked pedestrian zebra crossings for the Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade project, in accordance with the final planting plan (Attachment A) and final road marking plan (Attachment B).

2.         Pursuant to Clause 19.6 of the Christchurch City Council Standing Order, revokes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Resolution CNCL/2017/00340 as below;

15.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies)

16.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies).

 

2. Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the change in respect of the tree planting species and removal of marked pedestrian zebra crossings for the Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade project, in accordance with the final planting plan (Attachment A of the report in the agenda of this meeting) and final road marking plan (Attachment B of the report in the agenda of this meeting).

2.         Pursuant to Clause 19.6 of the Christchurch City Council Standing Order, revokes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Resolution CNCL/2017/00340 as below;

15.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies)

16.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies).

3.         Requests that ducted road crossings be installed at the Cashmere / Hoon Hay / Worsleys Roads intersection in order to future proof the intersection to allow the potential introduction of signalling the left turn slip lanes.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade

59

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Final Planting Plan

64

b

Final Road Marking Plan

66

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1242366

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Pana Togiaso, Project Manager, pana.togiaso@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

David Adamson, General Manager City Services

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek support for the recommendation to Council to remove zebra crossing road markings from the design and to approve a change in tree species from Cherry Blossoms Yoshino Cherry (Prunus yedoensis) to native Black Beech trees (Fuscospora solandri).

1.2       This change is a result of the road safety audit and as per the community board meeting 7th November 2017 the “board discussed also the species of trees be planted as part of the proposals and expressed a preference for native specials to be used”.

2.   Precursor

2.1       The project was approved to proceed to detailed design and construction by the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board in November 2017 and by the Council in December 2017. The report to Council (with the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommendation) and the Council decision are available online via the link as follows: https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/52 .

2.2       Detailed design for the project has now been completed, including completion of a pre-construction road safety audit by an independent safety audit team. There are two required changes from the consultation plan (and that ultimately require approval by the Spreydon Cashmere Community Board and Council):

2.2.1   The species of the replacement trees is proposed to change from cherry blossoms to black beech. This change was prompted by the community, who requested native planting as reflected in paragraph 55 of the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board resolution SCCB/2017/00164. The final planting plan is attached in Appendix A.

2.2.2   In response to safety issues raised in road safety audit, the marked pedestrian zebra crossings over the slip lanes is recommended to be removed. This changes to address issues with advance visibility, and because associated regulatory line markings (limit lines and advance warning diamonds) could not be accommodated due to the geometry of the intersection. The final road marking plan is attached in Appendix B.

2.3       The first of the two resolutions that require attention in this report is the  tree planting at the intersection as per  paragraph 55 of the Spreydon Cashmere Community Board resolution SCCB/2017/00164 from its meeting of 7 November 2017 as below;

SCCB/2017/00164

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

55.       Requests that any trees planted as part of the intersection improvements, including replacements for those removed, be suitable native species.

2.4       The second of the two resolutions that require attention in this report is the matter of the planting plan, and the pedestrian crossings, are paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of Council resolution CNCL/2017/00340 from its meeting of 7 December 2017 as below;

CNCL/2017/00340

That the Council:

15.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies)

16.       Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies).

18.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, at the Cashmere Road / Hoon Hay Road / Worsleys Road intersection, as detailed in Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies).Waka Kotahi / NZ Transport Agency subsidy for this project has been approved.

2.5       This project is now being progressed to tender and construction.

2.6       The successful contract is anticipated to be awarded by mid to late February 2021, and construction is expected to be completed in the first half of 2021.

 

3.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommend that Council:

1.         Approves the change in respect of the tree planting species and removal of marked pedestrian zebra crossings for the Cashmere / Worsley / Hoon Hay Road - Intersection Upgrade project, in accordance with the final planting plan (Attachment A) and final road marking plan (Attachment B).

2.         Pursuant to Clause 19.6 of the Christchurch City Council Standing Order, revokes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Resolution CNCL/2017/00340 as below;

15.      Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies)

16.      Approves that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Cashmere Road west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road, as detailed on Attachment A. (Note 2 Applies).

 

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

4.1       The staff recommendations in this report are to respond to community requests for native tree species to be accommodated in the new intersection layout, and also to address safety issues raised in the detailed design road safety audit related to the previously approved marked pedestrian zebra crossings.

4.2       The identified safety issue with having marked pedestrian zebra crossings on the raised platforms in the left turn slip lanes (on the east and west Cashmere Road approaches), is that the geometry of the intersection results in restricted advance visibility of the crossing locations. Required regulatory markings (limit line and advance warning diamonds) also cannot be accommodated clear of the adjacent traffic lanes. This means that pedestrians may step out onto the crossing without checking appropriately for oncoming traffic, while approaching drivers may not see the pedestrian and/or be aware of the presence of the pedestrian crossing in the first instance.

 

5.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

5.1       Do nothing – retain and implement the previously approved design, with non-native tree species and marked zebra crossings on the left turn slip lane raised platforms.

5.1.1   Advantages – some members of the community may prefer the Cherry Blossoms Yoshino Cherry (Prunus yedoensis) tree species

5.1.2   Disadvantages – does not respond to community requests for the inclusion of native tree species in the design, and would result in unsafe pedestrian crossings that would also be non-compliant with regulations and design standards without the required road markings (limit lines and advance warning diamonds).

6.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

6.1       In order to respond to community requests for the inclusion of native tree species in the design, and also to address safety issues identified in the independent road safety audit regarding the marked pedestrian zebra crossings on the left turn slip lane platforms, staff are seeking the support of the Cashmere-Spreydon Community Board to recommend that Council approve a change in scope for the project.

6.2       The staff recommendation to include native tree species in the design responds to community requests on this matter, therefore no further engagement / consultation is undertaken.

6.3       The staff recommendation to remove the marked pedestrian zebra crossings from the left turn slip lane raised platforms is to address a safety issue identified in the independent road safety audit. The remainder of the previously approved intersection design will stay the same including, of most importance, the retention of the raised platforms in the left turn slip lanes on the east and west Cashmere Road approaches. For this reason, staff considered that no further engagement / consultation was required on this matter.

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

6.4.1   Cashmere-Spreydon Community Board

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

7.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of crashes on the road network. - <=119 (reduce by 5 or more per year)

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.4       It will contribute to the cumulative citywide cycle improvements and compliment the Major Cycle Routes (MCR) program.  Aiming to provide improved options to motorised vehicle travel. 

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.5       Although the recommendations in this report include the removal of marked pedestrian zebra crossings, which would have given pedestrians priority over on-road traffic turning left from Cashmere Road to Hoon Hay Road and Worsleys Road, restricted visibility and inability to accommodate associated road markings means that operation of the pedestrian crossing would be unsafe.

7.6       Retention of the raised platforms will still provide convenient and accessible crossing locations over the left turn slip lanes, albeit with the requirement that pedestrians do not have priority and therefore have to check more carefully for approaching traffic. It is considered that the physical attributes of the platforms themselves will moderate traffic speeds more so than the presence of a priority pedestrian crossing anyway.

8.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1       Cost to Implement – The requested changes does not have any additional cost to the project

8.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There will be a minor reduction in operational costs due to not having to maintain the pedestrian crossing markings

8.3       Funding Source – Capital Programme; CPMS ID#1346, Intersection Improvement: Cashmere / Hoon Hay/ Worsleys, Financial Year 2021

 

9.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

19.6 Revocation or alteration by recommendation in report

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

10. Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1    The risk of associated with non-approval of this report is that the pedestrian crossing will have to be marked and due to the lack of visibility of the crossing to approaching vehicles it may result in a pedestrian/vehicle crash.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Final Planting Plan

 

b  

Final Road Marking Plan

 

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Pana Togiaso - Project Manager

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

11 March 2021

 


 


Council

11 March 2021

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 1 February 2021

 

15.   Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway - Moncks Bay section

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/196605

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Dave King,  Project Manager – Project Management Transport, Dave.King@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Carolyn Gallagher, General Manager City Services, Carolyn.Gallagher@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Consideration / Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

1.         The Board, in its deliberations, took into account the deputation from Roger Townsend (Item 5.2 of the Board meeting minutes refer).

2.         The Board acknowledged the work of the Coastal Pathway Group’s Treasurer, Tim Lindley, in formulating a funding application to the national government’s “shovel-ready” projects.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information within and attached to the report, and considers the submissions made as part of the public consultation process;

2.         Approves that staff proceed with detailed design and construction, of the works as shown (excluding speed limit change) in the scheme plan (Attachment A & B);

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

a.         To approve the adoption of the speed limit changes as shown in Attachment A & B; and

b.         That the detailed traffic resolutions required for implementation of the project are referred to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

 

3. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation / Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information within and attached to the report, and considers the submissions made as part of the public consultation process;

2.         Approves that staff proceed with detailed design and construction, of the works as shown (excluding speed limit change) in the scheme plan Attachment A & B attached to the meeting agenda report;

3.         Requests staff to investigate visibility for residents leaving 252 Main Road and neighbouring properties, and address the issues through detailed design and advise the Community Board.

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council approve:

1.         The adoption of the speed limit changes as shown in Attachments A & B to the report; and

2.         That the detailed traffic resolutions required for implementation of the project are referred to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway - Moncks Bay section

69

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal Pathway Moncks Bay - scheme plan for board report - A

76

b

Coastal Pathway Moncks Bay - scheme plan for board report - B

77

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway - Moncks Bay section

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1556010

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Dave King – Transport Project Manager
dave.king@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

David Adamson – GM City Services
david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is advise elected members on the feedback from consultation on the Coastal Pathway project, and inform the Board of proposed changes to the recommended design as a result of that feedback.  The report seeks approval to proceed to detailed design and construction, and asks the Community Board to make recommendations to Council regarding matters outside the Board’s delegations.

1.2       The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the level of community interest city-wide apparent in this project, and social benefits.  The level of impact on the people directly affected is expected to be medium-high during construction.  However, the Moncks Bay area affected by the works is small in relation to the size of the Christchurch District.

1.3       The decisions in this report allow the project to meet our funding partner’s ‘shovel ready’ milestones.

1.4       The decisions in this report will allow progress towards completing the last significant section of the Coastal Pathway, an iconic and scenic pathway from Ferrymead to Sumner, as well as supporting Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information within and attached to the report, and considers the submissions made as part of the public consultation process;

2.         Approves that staff proceed with detailed design and construction, of the works as shown (excluding speed limit change) in the scheme plan (Attachment A & B);

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

a.         To approve the adoption of the speed limit changes as shown in Attachment A & B; and

b.         That the detailed traffic resolutions required for implementation of the project are referred to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

 

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

3.1       Consultation for the Moncks Bay section of the Coastal Pathway took place 11 November – 7 December, and has now incorporated the needs of the community.  This consultation addressed aspects of the pathway that were not dealt with in the 2014 consultation (consultation on the whole pathway).

3.2       Delegation to approve this project and changes following feedback (excluding speed limit decisions) sit with the Community Board.

3.3       A decision to implement the speed limit changes sits with Council.

3.4       Conditions of the ‘shovel ready’ funding mean that this project requires fast tracking to ensure construction starting within 12 months.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       A funding agreement has been put in place which commits us to the ‘shovel ready’ timeline, as well as delivering benefits to the local economy. Without the shovel ready funding, Council has no budget or mandate to deliver the pathway earlier than FY27. 

4.2       The alternative to receiving this funding and fast tracking the delivery, is to delay the works until FY27.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       A joint application between the Coastal Pathway Group and City Council was successful in its application for funding from the Government’s ‘shovel ready’ programme.  This allowed the delivery of this section of pathway to be brought forward from FY27, where it was programmed in Council’s Long Term Plan.  Conditions of the ‘shovel ready’ funding include physical works getting underway within 12 months. 

5.2       The off-road pathway itself has been consulted on and approved for delivery by the Council on the 27 March 2014 CNCL 27032014 item 8(1).  Design development and an impact on the adjacent road corridor has generated a need for further consultation and community engagement.  

5.3       A single scheme design was put forward for community consultation, with the main roading impacts including parking changes, speed limits and intersection changes.

5.4       Consultation was open between Friday 13 November and Monday 7 December 2020 and we received 121 submissions.  We hand delivered 306 consultation documents to surrounding properties, and sent them to 59 absentee owners and 104 key stakeholders.  A story regarding the project and the beginning of consultation was on Newsline on 16 November 2020.

5.5       The majority of submissions were received from local residents and we also received submissions from the following organisations:

·    New Zealand Automobile Association

·    Redcliffs Association

·    SPOKES

·    Christchurch Yacht Club

·    Blind Low Vision New Zealand

5.6       There was a strong level of support for the project in both written submissions, and through conversations at the drop-in session held at the Christchurch Yacht Club. 

5.7    The following themes and comments were received:

Speed limit change

Comment

Number of submissions

Support the speed limit change

62

Extend the 40kph through to the Sumner 30kph speed limit

15

The change will increase safety for everyone

9

Extend the 40kph to Redcliffs Village

9

Extend the 40kph to Redcliffs School

9

 

 

Do not support the speed limit change

33

Will cause driver frustration

8

The new pathway will make it safer therefore no need for a speed reduction

8

The reduction will impact on residents travelling to and from home

6

Weekend traffic already travels below 40kph

5

 

Parking changes

Comment

Number of submissions

Support the changes proposed

51

Do not support angle parking on Cliff Street – boats and trailers park here and the angle parking will not work

22

Do not support angle parking on Bay View Road

12

Do not support the removal of parking on Main Road

6

Pump Station carpark – overall design/consideration of access to garages/boat trailer parking/include bike parking here/no toilets here/lock at night

9

 

Bus stop relocations

Comment

Number of submissions

Support the changes

57

Do not support the changes

3

Move bus stop by Wakatu Ave closer to Barnett Park

2

Too many bus stops

2

 

New pedestrian islands

Comment

Number of submissions

Support the new islands, will make it a lot safer

56

Need another one by Bay View Rd and Cliff St

9

Need zebra crossings

6

Need to make sure they are safe/visible by either raised or painted zebra crossing lines and on straight parts of the road

6

Need to make sure they are big enough to accommodate a number of people and equipment (paddle boards etc)

3

 

Intersection upgrades

Comment

Number of submissions

Support proposed upgrades

36

Too narrowed at the intersections

10

No patterned surface at Cliff Street as this will cause noise and vibration for residents

9

Planting at intersections should be low (no trees)

4

Drainage/flooding issues at intersections needs to be addressed

4

Oppose bike stand at Cliff Street – should be on the other side of the road

4

 

Other comments

Comment

Number of submissions

Very excited about the project

17

Toilets needed in Moncks Bay

13

Protect Moncks Bay beach

9

Further detail about planting, seating etc needs to be shared with the community (keep existing seats)

9

Signage needed at the Tram stop directing people heading west back onto the footpath (and not along the waterfront) and people heading east as there is a sharp bend

5

Remove power poles as there are visibility issues/safety

4

Preserve existing sea wall

4

Ensure pathway surface and design is safe and caters to pedestrians and cyclists

3

More trees needed (with historic significance)

3

 

5.8    All feedback was considered and the following changes have been made:

·    Minor changes to no stopping lines at the request of home owners.

·    Minor changes to the location of crossing islands,

·    Minor change to the bus stop relocation beside Wakatu Avenue (affected residents have given their approval to the new location).

·    Removal of the proposed angle parking for Cliff Street and Bayview Road.

·    Modification to the layout in the pump station carpark, to allow car and trailer parking for users of the boatsheds.

·    During consultation there has been a range of feedback from public, police, staff and the AA on extending the speed limits changes beyond Moncks Bay. Further investigation will take place, but for this stage of the project, the proposed reduction to 40kph is restricted to the Moncks Bay area.  To provide a consistent and intuitive speed environment in the area, the speed limit will also be applied to the side streets coming off Main Road (Wakatu, Bayview and Cliff st).  Residents of these streets have been subsequently informed, as it was not expressly stated in the consultation material.

·    There was feedback both for and against locating toilets at the pump station carpark – further investigation to take place, but they are not proposed at this stage of the project.

5.9    A safety audit has been carried out based on the scheme design – no serious or significant issues have been identified with the proposed works.  Staff are working with the auditor to close out the remaining issues.

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

·      Heathcote Ward.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities and use by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking among the main stream of traffic.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Active Travel

·     Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city. - >=55%

6.2.2   Level of Service: 10.5.3 More people are choosing to travel by bike. - 5,100 average daily cyclists (>=3% increase)

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua 6.4        The estuary is identified as a site of Ngai Tahu Cultural Significance (Schedule of Nga Wai: 9.5.6.4 – ID 78) in the Christchurch District Plan (CDP).

6.5       Initial engagement with rūnanga via Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) commenced July 2020 with early consideration of the Coastal Pathway discussed at the Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga Kaitiaki Portfolio hui held on the 6 August 2020 based on an overview of the likely works.

6.6       At the hui it was recommended that this also be discussed with the Ihutai Trust. This occurred - though no initial feedback is available; a follow up discussion has been requested.

6.7       The rūnanga would also be interested in providing narratives with regard to design work on this project.

6.8       Due to works occurring along the edge of, and in places into the estuary, 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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.  This impact will be managed by engagement throughout the process (updates on changes and key milestones), and seeking feedback on how to incorporate cultural narrative in the design.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9       The promotion of active transport will assist in reducing dependency on the private motor vehicle by providing a viable alternative, safe transport option. This option reduces vehicle emissions by encouraging more residents to cycle or walk for local trips and longer trips.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10    Accessibility for all users has been prioritised in the design for the route through the inclusion of tactile pavers, new crossings with islands, and a wide and smooth primary pathway.

6.11    A transition over time towards a multi-modal transport system that gives people greater choice, supported by land use patterns will make transport more accessible and affordable.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to implement – nil to Council – cost of project is $15.8m (externally funded).

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - estimated at approximately $11,000 p.a.  This has been planned for as part of the Draft 2021/31 Long Term Plan process.

7.3       Funding Source – project expenditure budget has been set up for CPMS ID 61843 Coastal Pathway & Moncks Bay, with the expenditure being recovered from the Crown on a quarterly basis.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The statutory powers to implement the proposals contained in this report is under the Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002, the Land Transport Act 1998 and Council’s Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017.  The Resource Management Act 1991 is also relevant to likely consents required from Environment Canterbury.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The funding agreement is relevant context for this decision but does not raise any particular issues or implications, other than the timeframes that need to be met.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The most significant risk to the project is its delivery within a condensed timeframe, however all efforts are being made to fast track the delivery, and meet the funding requirements.

9.2       Most of the works take place within the transport zone and do not require consent. However: Consents from Environment Canterbury will be required for the intrusion into the coastal marine area.  This risk is being mitigated through pre-application meetings, and planning input into the design to minimise potential effects.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Coastal Pathway Moncks Bay - scheme plan for board report - A

 

b  

Coastal Pathway Moncks Bay - scheme plan for board report - B

 

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Dave King - Project Manager

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

11 March 2021

 


Council

11 March 2021

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

16.   Multicultural Committee Minutes - 3 February 2021

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/135633

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Liz Ryley, Committee & Hearings Advisor, liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Multicultural Committee held a meeting on 3 February 2021 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Committee meeting held 3 February 2021.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Multicultural Committee - 3 February 2021

80

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

 

Multicultural Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 3 February 2021

Time:                                   9.38am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor James Daniels

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

 

 

 

29 January 2021

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Gary Watson

Manager Community Partnerships and Planning

Tel: 941 8285

 

Liz Ryley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

 

 

Councillor Galloway opened the meeting with a karakia.

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved MCSC/2021/00001

That the apology received from Councillor Chu be accepted.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                     Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved MCSC/2021/00002

That the minutes of the Multicultural Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 be confirmed.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Daniels                                                                                                         Carried

 

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Tūmatanui

Part B

Surinder Tandon and Farahnaz Khosravi of the Multicultural Council attended to give a public forum. Points raised related to:

·    Acknowledgement of the Certificate of Appreciation received from the Christchurch City Council for the Multicultural Council’s support of Citizenship Ceremonies.

·    Culture Galore event happening on Saturday 20 February noon to 4pm at Ray Blank Park, Ilam.

·    The Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Report into the terrorist attack on 15 March 2019. Surinder advised the Multicultural Council would be keen to work with the relevant Government departments, and the City Council, regarding implementation of the report recommendations.

 

From discussion, staff were requested to consider displaying the Multicultural Strategy Implementation Plan and other related documents at the Culture Galore event.

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Updates from Mandated Groups / Ngā Kōrero nā Ngā Rōpū-tuku-mana

Part B

6.1

Indian Social & Cultural Club Update

Monty Parti, President of the Indian Social & Cultural Club, Christchurch, was unavailable to attend the meeting to provide an update on Diwali 2020.

 

6.2

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Relationship Manager - Update

Tony McNeill, Relationship Manager of MBIE was unavailable to attend the meeting at this time to provide an update on the refugee quota system and COVID-19 issues.

 

6.3

Multicultural Advisory Group Update

Henry Jaiswal, Deputy Chair of the Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG), addressed the meeting behalf of the Group Chair, Katrina Azer.  He reported that the MAG had met in December 2020 to view the Christchurch Netball Centre at Hagley Park proposed for a multicultural centre.

Suggested priorities noted by the Committee for the MAG to focus on in 2021 were:

·    An understanding required of community spaces and what is required. (Noted that this work is progressing currently).

·    Addressing the Royal Commission regarding inclusion and recreational opportunities.

·    Engagement with young multi-ethnic people and good structures in place for them to be heard.

The meeting was advised that the Office of Ethnic Communities (OEC) have advisors who work closely with youth. Contact will be made by staff  to the OEC,  as well as with Sport Canterbury, about these issues.

 

Committee Resolved MCSC/2021/00003

Part C

That the Multicultural Committee:

1.         Thank Henry Jaiswal for the MAG presentation.

2.         Request staff to investigate contacts and ways for engagement with multi ethnic young people and sharing of sports and recreational opportunities for them.

3.         Request staff to invite a representative from ChristchurchNZ to attend a MAG meeting to discuss training opportunities for ethnic groups and young people. Extend an invitation to the Multicultural Committee members to attend that MAG meeting to participate in discussion.

4.         Arrange to share the link to the Christchurch City Council’s webpage Create an Event -

                         https://ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/create-an-event

 

Councillor Chen/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                             Carried

 

An adjournment was taken from 10.38am – 10.45am.

7.   Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain on 15 March 2019

 

Committee Comment

1.         The meeting noted the letter received from Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the Royal Commission’s report.

2.         Gary Watson outlined the process that will occur for the Councillors and MAG members to meet with Ministers of the Royal Commission/Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, on Monday 8 March 2021.  Gary will provide the Councillors and MAG members with detail prior to that meeting.

3.         Discussion was held about detail required in the report around the role of local councils delivering to the community, a requirement for data collection, e.g. ethnicity data from local elections, and about resources of support groups who provide education to primary school children.

 

Committee Resolved MCSC/2021/00004

Part C

That the Multicultural Committee:

1.         Receive the correspondence from the Office of the Mayor, Christchurch City Council about the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain on 15 March 2019.

2.         Request staff try to arrange for a briefing by the Royal Commission/Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for Councillors and members of the Multicultural Advisory Group.

3.         Formally consider the report and engage with the Multicultural Advisory Group and other relevant organisations to consider next steps.

4.         Report back to the Council on the outcome of the engagement.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Daniels                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

Councillor Johanson closed the meeting with a karakia.

   

Meeting concluded at 11am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

 

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Chairperson


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

17.   Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 5 February 2021

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/154238

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Liz Ryley, Committee & Hearings Advisor, liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leonie Rae, GM Consenting & Compliance, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 5 February 2021 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 5 February 2021.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 5 February 2021

86

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

 

Regulatory Performance Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Friday 5 February 2021

Time:                                   9am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Anne Galloway

 

 

 

4 February 2021

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Aaron Haymes

Head of Strategic Partnerships

Tel: 941 8075

 

Liz Ryley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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 agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved RPCM/2021/00001

That the apology received from Councillor Chu be accepted.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Keown                                                                                                           Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved RPCM/2021/00002

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 be confirmed.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Keown                                                                                                          Carried

 

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

 

6.   Petitions / Correspondence

 

Committee Comment

1.    The Committee requested staff to provide information on a specific matter of disability parking referred to in the correspondence received from the Papanui-Innes Community Board.

 

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2021/00003

Part B

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the correspondence and petition from the Papanui-Innes Community Report on the RMA Process Review seeking clarification from the Committee and a response to the Community Board.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Coker                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

7.   Consenting and Compliance Highlights Report - November and December 2020

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2021/00004

Part B

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Consenting and Compliance Highlights Report – November and December 2020.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Coker                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

 

Meeting concluded at 9.42am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

 

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Chairperson


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

18.   Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Draft Tree Policy 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1604198

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Yani Johanson, Hearings Panel Chairperson, yani.johanson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Draft Tree Policy 2020.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Draft Tree Policy 2020 Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearing, any additional information received and the Draft Tree Policy 2020 Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.  The Council Officer report to the Draft Tree Policy 2020 Hearings Panel is attached (Attachment A) and a link to the agenda including all submissions is also available as follows:

 https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/BLHP_20201207_AGN_4977_AT.PDF

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the Tree Policy with the amendments outlined in Attachment A.

2.         Request staff to update the Council public facing website with the Tree Policy and include links to Construction Standard Specifications, Infrastructure Design Standards and the District Plan.

3.         Request staff to report back annually on current tree asset status, including removal and replanting.

4.         Request city arborists to investigate opportunities to work with the Smart Cities team to enhance tree asset systems and reporting.

5.         Request staff to provide a memorandum on the decision to allow shallow trenching for fibre services and what assessment, if any, was undertaken in regards to the impact on the city’s current and future tree assets.

6.         Request staff to investigate and present valuation methods for consideration that better reflect the environmental benefits provided by trees.

7.         Request staff to provide a memorandum on any existing guidelines or protocols for commemorative trees and community planting projects with advice on any suggested improvements if required.

8.         Request staff investigate prioritising changes to the District Plan to provide greater protection of existing trees as part of the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and brief Councillors before July 2021.

9.         Apply to the Tree Cities of the World programme in conjunction with the adoption of the Tree Policy.

10.       Delegates authority to staff to make any grammatical and spelling amendments to the draft Tree Policy;

11.       Revokes the following policies which have been superseded by the consolidated Tree Policy:

a.         Christchurch City Council Tree Planting in Streets Policy;

b.         Christchurch City Council Trees and Health Policy;

c.         Christchurch City Council Sponsorship of Trees and Other Plantings on Reserves Policy;

d.         Banks Peninsula District Council Tree and Vegetation Policy Resolutions 98/178 and 97/404;

e.         Banks Peninsula District Council Tree Trimmings (Private Plantings) Policy Resolution 94/636;

f.          Banks Peninsula District Council Tree Planting on Reserves – Indigenous Trees and Shrubs Policy Resolution 99/236;

g.         Banks Peninsula District Council Wildling Trees – Removal from Road Reserve Resolution 98/178.

3.   Background / Context / Te Horopaki

3.1       The draft Tree Policy consolidates a number of outdated policies from the Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula District Councils to make a policy that is fit for purpose and aligns with current best practice. The policy has been developed to provide a framework for the management of trees located on Council owned and/or administered land including in streets and parks. The purpose of the policy is to:

·    Provide a framework on how individual trees will be managed on a day to day basis;

·    Create a consistent approach to tree management;

·    Provide a clear process for decision making for tree related issues;

·    Aid the Council in meeting its duty of care when it comes to managing trees and the risk they pose to people and property;

·    Facilitate the Council’s ability to meet other plans, strategies and objectives; and

·    Improve the policy to make it simpler, clearer, and easier to understand.

3.2       Activities covered by the draft Tree Policy include:

·    Tree Planting, including commemorative and sponsored trees;

·    Tree Maintenance, including pruning and risk management;

·    Tree Protection during construction; and

·    Tree removal, for example where the tree is no longer structurally sound.

4.   Consultation Process and Submissions / Te Tukanga Kōrerorero / Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.1       On 27 August 2020 (item 16) the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee authorised staff to consult the public on the draft Tree Policy. The draft Tree Policy was open for feedback on the Council website from 14 September until 12 October 2020.

4.2       A Newsline article was published on 14 September 2020 to provide information on the draft policy and encourage submissions.

4.3       The Council received 70 submissions on the draft Tree Policy.

4.4       Staff analysed the submissions in a report to the Hearings Panel (refer to Attachment A in the agenda ).  As a result of the submissions analysis, staff recommended a number of amendments to the wording of the draft policy.

4.5       The submissions were generally in support of the policy. The submissions reflect the public’s understanding of the importance of trees for the Garden City and the aesthetic, environmental, economic and social benefits they provide. A number of submissions also noted the leadership role of the Council in managing trees to ensure the benefits of these assets are maintained for future generations; and to contribute to achieving the Council’s goals regarding the climate.

4.6       Fifty-four submissions relate to matters outside the scope of the policy, such as the inclusion of trees on private land, planting of indigenous species and canopy cover targets.  These are all matters which will be addressed as part of the Urban Forest Plan. The submissions related to the Urban Forest Plan will also be considered as part of the development of the Plan.

4.7       Some of the main themes and concerns raised by submissions, overall, were as follows:

Native or Exotic trees:

4.8       Twenty-eight of the submissions related to a preference for a particular type of tree e.g. indigenous species, exotic species, fruit and nut trees.  The reasons for this were varied, including providing habitats for native birds, biodiversity, fire resistance, foraging, health-related issues, and the vision of the early European settlers. Including a preference for a particular type of tree in the Tree Policy would fundamentally alter the Council’s urban forest.  Therefore submissions relating to tree type preferences will be addressed as part of the Urban Forest Plan.

Valuation of trees:

4.9       The Draft Tree Policy makes reference to the Council implementing a tree valuation system.  The policy has also made reference to costs associated with tree replacement and damage.  While the majority of submissions were supportive of the Council acknowledging the value of trees through the policy, six submitters recommended that the policy specify the valuation method so there is more certainty. The definition of “value of a tree” in the draft policy is “a monetary value determined by a council recognised system such at the Standard Tree Evaluation Method 1996 (STEM)”. 

4.10    STEM is the system currently used by the Council. However there are other tree valuation methods for valuing trees which include are more comprehensive and better reflect the environmental and social benefits they provide.  As these other systems become available, staff will consider if a new system better meets the needs of the Council.  If a decision is made to switch, this will be made publicly available so that there is a clear understanding of how a tree is valued and what the value is likely to be. If STEM is explicitly included in the policy as the Council’s valuation method, any change in valuing methods will require a policy amendment.

Private property, subdivisions and intensification:

4.11    Six submitters requested that the policy include private property and subdivisions in the scope. Staff do not recommend extending the scope of the Tree Policy as its purpose is to provide guidance for the management of Council assets (i.e. Council trees). Subdivision land is subject to the Infrastructure Design Standards and District Plan and consenting processes.  The Urban Forest Plan will cover the urban forest across the whole district, including on private land.

4.12    Five submitters raised concerns about the increase in medium and high density development resulting in a reduction in green space and the urban forest. Those submissions noted the lack of space on developed land to have gardens, and narrower streets which do not have space for street trees. The Urban Forest Plan will consider how to integrate trees into our high density areas.

Damage and nuisance

4.13    Nine submitters raised concerns about damage and nuisance issues, including damage to footpaths and drains, leaf drop, blocking views, and vandalism.

4.14    Where trees cause damage to other Council assets, such as footpaths or underground infrastructure, it is an additional cost to the Council in terms of maintenance and renewals.   Additional draft policy statements have been added to the policy (policy statement 3.4, 4.6 and 4.9) to help facilitate repairs of surrounding infrastructure.  Other damage and nuisance issues are addressed on a case by case basis and the Council has a range of approaches to deal with these matters. However, the better approach to prevent these matters arising in the future is to make robust decisions about site suitability and species selection as per policy statement 1.3 and 1.5.

4.15    The Council takes any vandalism, damage or unauthorised removal of its trees very seriously. The Council will investigate instances where it finds trees have been vandalised, damaged or removed and has a range of enforcement powers, and may refer matters to the Police, if it finds that Council trees have been vandalised, damaged or removed without the necessary authority.

5.   The Hearing / Te Hui

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Yani Johanson and Councillor Melanie Coker (it was noted that Councillor James Gough made an apology and was unable to participate due to ill health). 

5.2       The Hearings Panel convened on Monday 7 December 2020 when Council Officers presented to the Hearings Panel, and the Hearings Panel heard oral submissions from submitters.  The Hearings Panel reconvened on Monday 14 December 2020 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.3       Prior to hearing oral submissions Council Officers presented a brief overview of the proposed amendments and provided a presentation to the Hearings Panel (refer to Attachment A in the minutes attachment).

5.4       The Hearings Panel heard from 14 submitters (refer to Minutes for list of presenters) and received further information from submitters during the hearing (refer to Attachment B in the minutes attachment).  Some of the key issues that were raised during the oral submissions were:

5.4.1   Replacement of trees removed, especially in residential suburbs.  Residents of Talltree Avenue have been waiting for a number of years for the trees removed from their street to be replaced.  Now shallow trenching of utilities is an issue to replace trees (see Attachment B for oral submission points).

5.4.2   The quality of trees being planted needs to be improved (see Attachment C for oral submission points).

5.4.3   The damage done to trees by staff and contractors.

5.4.4   A list of pest trees required for staff and contractors.

5.4.5   Climate change, matters regarding this and trees need to be dealt with now.

5.4.6   A consistent approach regarding trees.

5.4.7   Better information required on the Council website regarding trees and who to contact.

5.4.8   The criteria and approach to removal of trees.

5.4.9   The planting of trees and what trees are planted where.  More native trees should be considered when planting.

5.4.10 Trees should have better protection by the Council.

5.4.11 Some submitters felt there should have been better engagement on the Draft Tree Policy and were unaware of the consultation.

5.4.12 Appropriate planting of trees.  Better consideration needs to be given as to how big the tree will grow and if the tree is suitable to be planted in that area and will thrive.

5.4.13 Trees are a habitat for birds and other wildlife.  More thought should be given to this.

5.4.14 Better maintenance of trees.

5.4.15 Eco planting should be part of the Tree Policy.

5.4.16 Utility services and trees.  Further consideration needs to be given on how to work better together.

5.4.17 The planting of trees in new subdivisions requires more thought and better control.

5.4.18 Financial implications and valuation methods of trees.

5.5       During the process Hearings Panel Members raised a series of questions in relation to the Council Officers’ report and presentation and oral submissions.  The questions were given to the Council Officers for response.  The questions and responses were made available to the Hearings Panel on 11 October 2020 for its consideration and deliberation (refer to the Minutes Attachment Hearings Panel Questions and Council Officer Responses).

6.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions / Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

6.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received (written and oral) on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing.  Some of the issues that were addressed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

6.1.1   The Hearings Panel asked Council Officers for further information about the engagement and consultation processes for the draft Tree Policy. Council Officers provided detail on how the consultation was promoted, including the online channels used. Individuals and groups with a particular interest in the Policy’s subject matter were also targeted via stakeholder email. While there is a focus on ‘digital first’, in line with Council’s waste management and minimisation plan and prudent use of resources, staff would normally provide a reference copy for all Council libraries and service centres. Unfortunately this process was not followed for the draft Tree Policy and staff acknowledged and apologised for this. Noting the significance of this policy and of trees to the people of Christchurch, and also the Hearing Panel’s concern with the lack of hard copies, staff discussed other possible ways of engaging with residents in the future, including posters at libraries and service centres and limited print runs of flyers. The Hearings Panel received and accepted a late submission from someone who normally relied on hard copy notification of consultations, and was not aware of the consultation until after the submission period had closed.

6.1.2   The Hearings Panel queried how tree planting and the impact on utilities is addressed, and whether this needs further consideration.  Council Officers advised maintenance of trees in public spaces is included in clause 2 in the Draft Tree Policy.  Clauses 2.4 and 2.8 in the Draft Tree Policy have been amended to reflect this.

6.1.3   The Hearings Panel wanted a clear definition for pest species.  Council Officers advised the Council has an informal list of pest plants which includes a collation of species listed in Environment Canterbury’s( ECan) statutory document, the Regional Pest Management Plan and the list is constantly reviewed.  A definition of a ‘pest tree’ has also been included in the Draft Tree Policy and clauses 4.10 and 4.11 of the Draft Tree Policy refer to the removal of pest species.  Council and ECan staff are currently taking part in an inter-agency liaison group that are providing input into the Regional Pest Management Plan.

6.1.4   The Hearings Panel discussed the challenges of planting in berms due to underground services.  Council Officers discussed that when services are installed in grass berms, trees are not able to be planted within the same location which has restricted the Council’s ability to plant trees in many areas.  Clause 1.2 of the Draft Tree Policy now deals with shallow trenching of utilities so that underground services may be installed outside of grass berms to allow tree root growth.

6.1.5   The Hearings Panel discussed the planting of native versus exotic trees.  Council Officers advised that having a targeted approach to this is better than having a blanket approach for the whole city.  Tree species will be addressed as part of the Urban Forest Plan.  The Hearings Panel noted that as part of the development of the Urban Forest Plan engaging and planning will occur at a community level. It is here where discussion over what is most appropriately planted is best to happen as the panel received advice that both exotic and native trees have ecological and environmental benefits that can support the objectives of climate change and bio diversity.

6.1.6   With regard to the retention of unhealthy, dead and/or structurally unsound trees, the Hearings Panel requested Council Officers amend clause 4.2 so that it is not restrictive if the tree does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public or property.  Council Officers also recommend changing clause 4.9 in the Draft Tree Policy to provide clarity that the Council will be the one approving tree removals.

6.1.7   The Hearings Panel requested clarity regarding the framework of legislation and policies, and how the draft Tree Policy aligns with other documents.  Council Officers advised that there is a hierarchical framework of legislation and policy that governs or guides Council planning and operation.  Acts of Parliament sit at the top of this hierarchy, followed by Regional of District Plan, Council Policy, and internal standards at the lower tier of this.  A table (not part of the policy) has been added to the Draft Tree Policy which lists the documents that are interlinked to the Draft Tree Policy, including the District Plan, Industrial Design Specifications and Christchurch Construction Standards Specifications.

6.1.8   The definition of aesthetics was discussed by the Hearings Panel and Council Officers along with inconsistency with the use of ‘amenity’ and ‘aesthetics’. The word ‘aesthetic’ is to be removed from clause 1.3 in the Draft Tree Policy and addressed throughout the policy to ensure there is consistency.

6.1.9   Regarding tree replacement Council Officers advised the Hearings Panel that for every tree removed a minimum of two new trees will be planted with the projected canopy cover replacing that which is lost within 20 years (additional planning may be required) as per clause 1.9 of the Draft Tree Policy.  Units across the Council are already endeavouring to meet this replacement criteria.

6.1.10 The Hearings Panel discussed the submission made by Orion and their concern that it needs to meet obligations under the relevant regulations for maintaining trees and utility infrastructure around trees.  The Draft Tree Policy refers to other regulations, code of compliance and guidelines with the document.  Council Officers have ensured that the Draft Tree Policy does not conflict with other regulatory requirements.

6.1.11 The Hearings Panel discussed tree quality and standards.  Council Officers advised there is now staff resource that deals with tree quality standards and follow the Construction Standard Specifications (CSS), and they are now seeing an improvement in the quality of trees.   The Panel felt it was important that Council is aware of what those CSS are, and how they are determined and monitored with a view to getting continuous improvement on what is planted.

6.1.12 Vandalism of trees was discussed by the Hearings Panel.  Council Officers advised both small and large trees are targeted, however smaller trees are more resilient and easier to replace.  A new policy statement (4.25) has been added to the Draft Tree Policy to emphasise the importance of protecting trees from vandalism.

6.1.13 The loss of trees through development and subdivisions was raised by many of the submitters and by the Hearings Panel.  This relates to trees located on land not owned or administered by the Council and therefore is not part of the Tree Policy.  This issue is best addressed through the District Plan and will also be covered in the Urban Forest Plan.  The Hearings Panel in response to these concerns about the current District Plan and the new National Policy Statement on Urban Development felt that there was an urgent need to strengthen existing tree protection. It noted with concern that the cumulative impact of post earthquake development was not measured in regards to the loss of trees and therefore is recommending getting tree canopy data as a priority. Staff have said this would be completed as part of the implementation of the Urban Forest Plan which is currently in development.  The Hearings Panel is also seeking an urgent briefing by Council staff to Councillors as part of the NPS on how tree protection can be enhanced as soon as possible through District Planning processes.

6.1.14 The Hearings Panel noted with concern the difficulty local residents have had regarding trees being removed and the request for replacement trees.  The Draft Tree Policy clearly states that for every tree removed a minimum of two will be replaced and prioritises the replacement being in the same location.  There are circumstances that limit the Council’s ability to replace trees in the same location, e.g. underground services, but these are considered on a case-by-case basis.  Staff have also noted the request to undertake a site visit to Talltree Avenue and will schedule a site visit in early 2021.  The Hearings Panel was concerned at how the decision to enable shallow trenching of fibre services was made and what assessment was done regarding the impact of existing and future tree plantings.

6.1.15 The Hearings Panel discussed how to improve the standard of tree care in line with best practice standards (such as the United Kingdom and Australian standards). Clause 2.4 in the Draft Tree Policy includes a reference to minimum industry practices for tree maintenance including the Minimum Industry Standard.  The New Zealand Arboricultural Association has endorsed the Minimum Industry Standard which will be used for setting the standards of works within future tree contracts.

6.1.16 The Hearings Panel noted planting on, and adjacent to, Sites of Ecological Significance (“SES”) and the importance of the correct type of planting in these areas.  Council Officers advised this has been addressed in clause 1.4 of the Draft Tree Policy which also includes the requirement for plants to be eco-sourced. 

6.1.17 The Hearings Panel enquired how the policy could be strengthened to include more emphasis on climate change and ecological sustainability.  Council Officers advised that the Urban Forest Plan will more appropriately cover this however the Draft Tree Policy includes references to the importance to trees in combating the climate and ecological emergency.  The Draft Tree Policy also has a range of policy statements such as the two for one tree replacement and requirements for eco sourcing, which will contribute to mitigating climate change and ecological sustainability.  The Hearings Panel have asked Council staff to consider new systems to value trees to better reflect their environmental value.

6.1.18 The Hearings Panel requested advice on the District Plan review process.  Council Offices directed the Hearings Panel to the District Plan Review website, where the methodology for tree protection can be found in the Section 32 report on trees  http://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/hearing/chapter-9-natural-cultural-heritage-topic-9-4-additional-consideration-significant-trees/Evidence presented at the District Plan Review’s hearing on Trees can be found at: http://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/hearing/chapter-9-natural-cultural-heritage-topic-9-4-additional-consideration-significant-trees/.  The Independent Hearings Panel’s decision on Trees can be found at http://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Decision-44-Chapter-9-Natural-and-Cultural-Heritage-Part-Topic-9.4-Significant-Trees-30-09-2016.pdf.

6.1.19 The Hearings Panel enquired as to the cost of updating the canopy cover report and Council Officers advised a new report would be approximately $70,000.00.  Council Officers advised this is a topic for the Urban Forest Plan and can be investigated in more detail during its development.  Council Officers also discussed a software product called iTree which has the ability to calculate the benefits provided by trees including the amount of carbon sequestered, the interception of stormwater and the filtration of pollutants from the air.  Work is already underway in NZ to have the system developed for our conditions however additional funding (approximately $120k) is required to make the software changes.  Once the software changes have been made it would be free for anybody to use and would allow Councils (and the public) to quickly calculate the environmental value provided by its urban forest (both collectively and individually).  iTree would also be an important and cost effective tool when it came to monitor canopy cover between the more detailed lidar canopy cover report.

6.1.20 Submissions that were outside of the Draft Tree Policy but related to the Urban Forest Plan have been collated and will be dealt with during the development of this Plan.

6.2       The Hearings Panel notes that one of the key themes raised from submitters was that Council must do more to protect and value its trees as the current system is inadequate and failing to address the significant impact of development and rebuilding post earthquake.  While many of the points raised are considered to be outside of the Tree Policy, it was clear that the principles of celebrating, promoting, protecting and enhancing trees in Christchurch on both public and private land was seen as critical to a more sustainable and environmentally sound future and were keen for the Council to recognise this and act with urgency.  Following consideration and deliberation of submissions, the Hearings Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to the Council that it adopt the Draft Tree Policy with amendments agreed to by the Hearings Panel, together with the further recommendations in this report.

6.3       At the close of the hearing the Chairperson, Councillor Johanson, on behalf of the Hearings Panel, thanked all Council Officers and submitters.

7.   Reference Documents

Document

Location

Hearings Panel Agenda (including all submissions)

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/BLHP_20201207_AGN_4977_AT.PDF

 

Hearings Panel Minutes

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/BLHP_20201207_MIN_4977_AT.PDF 

Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments (including Hearings Panel Questions and Answers)

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/BLHP_20201207_MAT_4977.PDF 

Have Your Say Webpage

https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/320 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Jacqui Wilkinson - Hearings Advisor

Approved By           Councillor Johanson - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Tree Policy

99

b

Verbal Submission from Louise Callaghan

114

c

Verbal Submission from Dieter Steinegg

115

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

19.   Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Request to Build Changing Rooms in North Hagley Park

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/193038

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Sam MacDonald, Hearings Panel Chairperson -
sam.macdonald@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendation following the consultation and hearings process on the request to build changing rooms in North Hagley Park.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.

1.4            In addition, the Council should consider the information that was made available in the Council officer’s report that included the attachments as listed below at 1.4.1 to 1.4.6. The report and its attachments are available at the link: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/02/BLHP_20210218_AGN_5850_AT.PDF

1.4.1   Table of submissions received, including Council officer comments

1.4.2   Clause 6.1 of the ground lease to the North Hagley Community, Sports & Recreation Trust Board (the Trust)

1.4.3   The proposed building plans and building location plan

1.4.4   Emails the Council sent to all park neighbours, the Hagley Park Reference Group, and relevant sports stakeholders

1.4.5   The Council’s Newsline story

1.4.6   Facebook posts to the Council’s Facebook page from members of the community.


 

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1.         Consents to a variation to the existing deed of lease held by the North Hagley Community, Sports & Recreation Trust Board to, in accordance with clause 6.1 of the lease, accommodate the proposed changing rooms building located in North Hagley Park, as indicated in the Hearings Panel report in which this consent was recommended.

3.   Background / Context / Te Horopaki

3.1       The background has been well documented in the Council officer report and provides the following information.

3.2       The Trust, which includes membership by representatives of three clubs (Christchurch High School Old Boy’s Rugby Football Club (“HSOB”), Christchurch Pétanque Club and United Croquet Club) using the Park for sport and recreation purposes, holds a ground lease for the area of North Hagley Park containing the proposed site for the proposed building.

3.3       It has for some time been identified, including by HSOB, that there is a need for a changing room, shower and toilet facility for sports teams using the nearby playing fields.  Also, the Council’s events team has not been able to plan use of this part of North Hagley Park for events due to the lack of such facilities.

3.4       To meet this need, the Trust has proposed to fund and erect a changing rooms building on the part of North Hagley Park that it has a ground lease over.  It will own and maintain the building and use it for its own purposes.  It will also make it available for use by community sports and recreation users of the sports field area, and for events, at the time such activities are happening on North Hagley Park.  The proposed facility, containing changing rooms, showers and toilets, will meet gender and disabled persons’ needs.

3.5       The proposed building and location will comply with recreation reserve, management plan and district plan requirements.

3.6       Even though the lease provides for a variation to allow the proposed building to be erected on the proposed site, the requirement is that both the variation and the building need to be consented to by both the Council and the Minister of Conservation.  The power of the Minister to give consent is delegated to the Council’s Chief Executive.

3.7       The proposed building and proposed location is illustrated at the link: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/02/BLHP_20210218_AGN_5850_AT.PDF

3.8       The Trust has liaised with its member sport and recreation clubs and associations using the playing fields in North Hagley Park, and Trust representatives attended meetings of the Hagley Park Reference Group last year to present and discuss its proposed building plans, most recently as 15 October 2020.  The outcome from this last meeting was that the Trust’s proposed plans were well received.  A query by the Reference Group as to disability access provision was responded to with advice from the Trust members attending the meeting that such accessibility has been integrated into the building design.


 

 

3.9       On 30 November 2020 the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board considered a staff report and recommended to the Council that it agree to staff undertaking public consultation on the proposal.  This agreement was given by the Council at its meeting on 10 December 2020, Item 17 at: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/CNCL_20201210_MIN_4052_AT.PDF   

4.   Consultation Process and Submissions / Te Tukanga Kōrerorero / Ngā Tāpaetanga

Public Consultation

4.1       Public consultation on the Request to Build Changing Rooms in North Hagley Park commenced on 16 December 2020 and closed on 27 January 2021. The Have Your Say consultation document provided information about the proposed new changing rooms and proposed ground floor area of the single storey building. A copy of the Have Your Say page was made available to the Hearings Panel in advance of the hearings, at the link: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/371

4.2       This consultation was run concurrently with a request for written comment from the public on the proposed redevelopment/replacement of an existing building in South Hagley Park, due to both projects having similar timeframes and identical stakeholders. The report on that project is also before the Council on 11 March 2021, “Canterbury Cricket Trust – Request to Demolish and Rebuild the Hagley Sports Centre”.

Submissions

4.3       At the close of consultation there were 10 submissions received on the proposal which were included in the Council Officer Submissions analysis. This was made available to the Hearings Panel in advance of the hearings, at the link: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/02/BLHP_20210218_AGN_5850_AT.PDF

4.4       Submissions were received from three groups and seven individuals. Eight submitters were in support of the lease and two, including Te Kura Hagley Park Tennis Club Inc, were neither in support nor opposed.

4.5       Of those submissions in support, three provided general positive statements, two were in support due to there being proposed public access (during games and events) to toilets in the building, two felt the building was in keeping with North Hagley Park or was an appropriate use of North Hagley Park space, and a submission from Canterbury Rugby Football Union discussed the wider benefits of the changing rooms to the sport of Rugby.

4.6       Of those not in support or opposed, one requested more information and one enquired whether the toilets would be for public use.

5.   The Hearing / Te Hui

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Sam MacDonald, Councillor Phil Mauger and Sunita Gautam, Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Member.  The Hearings Panel convened on Thursday, 18 February 2021 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2       Councillor Sam MacDonald was appointed to chair the hearing. Prior to the hearing, staff provided responses to some additional questions raised by Councillor MacDonald. The questions and responses were made available to the Hearings Panel (Attachment A). The questions were:

5.2.1   The consultation period – essentially over Christmas break. Are we worried we missed anyone out?

5.2.2   Can you give commentary regarding the concerns over public access?

5.2.3   Can you respond to the Tennis Club concerns per their submission? I am keen to get a verbal explanation (after their public presentation) regarding how we have gained comfort over the consultation with them. Ideally, if you can send me a bit of an outline of the consultation it would be useful prior to the meeting.

5.3       Before hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposal, explaining that the size of the building was below the maximum allowable under the District Plan of 300m2 and within the constraints of the total percentage of impervious surface area. The Panel were also informed that because there were no immediate residents to the proposal the level of key consultation was low.

5.4       Prior to the hearing two submitters withdrew their requests to be heard. They were Hands Off Hagley and Te Kura Hagley Park Tennis Club. The Tennis Club had received information from Council officers about their concerns and in an email to Council on 17 February 2021 had advised that they had obtained sufficient information in relation to the proposal to satisfy their concerns. They noted they were generally supportive of the proposal.

5.5       The Hearings Panel received a verbal submission from Tony Smail of the Canterbury Rugby Football Union who highlighted the key points in their written submission, and were in support of the proposal.

5.6       The Hearings Panel chair invited representatives of the Trust to provide comments on the proposal. The chair of the Trust spoke about the support that was provided to Boys High and Girls High Schools. The Trust has confirmed it will be responsible for building and maintaining the facility, with HSOB managing the changing rooms.

6.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions / Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

6.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing.

6.2       The Hearings Panel expressed their support of the proposal noting the benefit this would provide to the sports and events users of North Hagley Park and that it would encourage more people to the city.

6.3       In response to a query regarding long-term maintenance planning, the Council officer advised that in the case of areas subject to a ground lease, all facilities owned and operated by the lessee were maintained and funded through their resources.

6.4       The Council officer confirmed the process moving forward that the Hearings Panel report would be presented to the Council, with the recommendation for consent from the Council for a variation to the lease to allow the proposed building to be erected on the proposed site. Upon Council resolution, staff will then request the Council’s Chief Executive to exercise the power of the Minister of Conservation delegated to her to give the same consent, as noted in paragraph 3.6 of this report above. The Trust would be responsible for meeting all other regulatory requirements.

6.5       The Hearings Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to the Council to consent to a variation to the existing deed of lease held by the North Hagley Community, Sports & Recreation Trust Board to, in accordance with clause 6.1 of the lease, accommodate the proposed changing rooms building located in North Hagley Park.

7.   Reference Documents

Document

Location

Hearings Panel Agenda

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/02/BLHP_20210218_AGN_5850_AT.PDF

Hearings Panel Minutes

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/02/BLHP_20210218_MIN_5850_AT.PDF

Have Your Say Webpage

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/371

Council decision to publicly consult (Item 17)

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2020/12/CNCL_20201210_MIN_4052_AT.PDF

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Liz Ryley – Committee & Hearings Advisor

Approved By           Councillor Sam MacDonald - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

North Hagley Park Changing Rooms - 18 February 2021 - Response to questions from the Hearings Panel

124

 

 


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

20.   Canterbury Cricket Trust - Request to Demolish and Rebuild the Hagley Sports Centre

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/142020

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Felix Dawson, Leasing Consultant, felix.r.dawson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval as lessor for demolition of the current Hagley Sports Centre with replacement as shown in the plans provided.

1.2       The Hagley Sports Centre is owned by the Canterbury Cricket Trust on Council administered land and leased from the Council by way of ground lease.

1.3       The proposed use is for cricket training and coaching together with community based sports.

1.4       The decision is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined taking in to account the high profile of the site together with consideration of the fact that the proposal is largely a replacement of a like for like building within the lease boundary to be used for uses that have been undertaken on the site in the past.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council as land administrator and lessor:

1.         Approve the proposal to demolish the existing building located on the plan shown in attachment A.

2.         Approve the replacement of the building with one as outlined in the attached plans in attachment B.

3.         Approve the naming of the new facility as ‘Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre’ in accordance with Council’s Naming of Reserves and Facilities Policy.

4.         Authorise the Property Manager to complete all lease matters in relation to the proposal.

5.         Note that the above approvals are subject to the lessee complying with all regulatory and statutory requirements including obtaining Building consent and Resource consent

 

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

3.1       To enable the Canterbury Cricket Trust to develop a modern sports facility that in addition to providing ongoing access for community sport will also provide a fit for purpose changing facility for hosting matches as part of the International Cricket Council (ICC) Women’s Cricket World Cup Tournament in New Zealand 2022.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The following options have been considered and discounted:

·    Do not provide lessor consent: this would potentially result in loss of Sport New Zealand (Sport NZ) funding and the current building remaining on site and leaving a dated building unfit for purpose and unusable for the 2022 ICC Women’s World Cup.

·    Grant lessor consent with conditions: The option of providing further controls on the lessee activities through the lease terms would require a variation of the lease.  Reserves Act 1977 requirements for formal variation would result in an extended decision-making process that would prevent the project from meeting its necessary timeframe.  The proposed use falls with the lease permitted use.

·    Other design options ranging from retention of the building, or large portions of it, to full replacement were considered by the Canterbury Cricket Trust architect.  These were discounted as not being capable of providing an adequate sports hall while also providing the required changing room facilities that are a feature of the current proposal.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Background/History

5.1       The Hagley Sports Centre (HSC) is located in South Hagley Park as shown below.  It was built in the 1960s by the Canterbury Cricket Association and included when built: three squash courts, an indoor cricket training area and golf driving range.  The land was leased from the Council by way of ground lease.

5.2       By the 1980s the running costs of the aged building had increased and it was sold to the Canterbury Horticultural Society for the purpose of “…the promotion of botanical and horticultural activities and such recreational activities as from time to time be approved…”. 

The building became known as the ‘Horticultural Hall’.

5.3       The 2011 earthquakes damaged AMI Stadium beyond repair and as part of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan the ‘Cricket Oval Anchor Project’ directed the proposal and approval of the development of Hagley Oval to “provide a venue capable of hosting domestic cricket matches and international tests”.  The development next to the Horticultural Hall included:

·    grass embankments

·    sports lighting

·    pavilion with lounge and media facilities

·    training and coaching facilities with indoor and outdoor nets

5.4       The land for the pavilion and lighting towers was leased to the Canterbury Cricket Association by the Council in 2013.  The pavilion lights and embankment are now operational.

5.5       In 2017 the Horticultural Hall was purchased by the Canterbury Cricket Trust (CCT) with the intention of returning it back to its original purpose as a cricket coaching and training facility together with use as a general community sports facility.

5.6       The purchase was conditional on assignment of the lease from the Canterbury Horticultural Society for that purpose.  The Council approved the assignment including variation of the lease purpose and the sale was completed.

5.7       The name of the hall returned informally to its original name of ‘The Hagley Sports Centre’ (HSC).

5.8       At the time of transfer to the CCT the building was run down, outdated, unrelated and not complementary to the new pavilion.  It was no longer fit for its original or proposed future sports purpose.

5.9       In 2018 the CCT applied for and received a resource consent for the partial demolition and alteration of the remainder of the hall as a multi-use sports centre.  The consent was processed as non-notified.

5.10    The work was not undertaken.

Current Proposal-The Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre

5.11    The CCT now wish to proceed with development of the building.

5.12    Three new factors have come in to play leading to the current proposal:

(a)  The holding of the Women’s Cricket World Cup in New Zealand beginning March 2022 with final and semi-final matches planned for Hagley Oval.

(b)  Sport NZ allocation of $600,000 funding for the provision of gender neutral, fit for purpose changing room facilities for venues hosting the Women’s Cricket World Cup.

(c)  The offer of funding from The Hadlee Sports Trust to assist in development of the facility.

5.13    As a result of the above, a new proposal has been prepared that involves demolition of the existing building and construction of a new one on the existing foundation with an additional foundation area of around 95sqm.  The additional foundation area is necessary to accommodate the changing room facility. 

5.14    In addition to meeting the requirements for Sport NZ funding the changing room facility also supports the drive from NZ Cricket to have parity between men’s and women’s cricket.  It will provide equal changing facilities, gender neutral toilets and enable cricket double headers to be played, i.e. four teams to be hosted at one time.

5.15    It should be noted that although the building footprint is increased, the total gross floor area (two levels) is marginally reduced.  This is because the current building has a large upstairs office area whereas the proposed design has a focus on the actual sports facility with reduced upstairs space.  The proposed building remains within the existing lease area.

5.16    It should be further noted that the proposal has a nine-month time frame for construction. Demolition and consenting are also still required so there is a degree of time pressure to complete the project in time for the World Cup. 

 

5.17    Key elements of the new proposal

·    Sports Hall- 852sqm, accommodates five retractable cricket nets on astro turf.  Designed to also accommodate basketball, netball, hockey and futsal as alternative uses when not being used for cricket.

·    First Floor-304sqm, comprising: viewing balcony-(44sqm), deck plus social space-(69sqm), meeting space (56sqm), and workspace (160sqm).

·    ICC grade toilet and changing facility-152sqm, with provision for public access and use.

·    Storage-35sqm.

·    Design: the new design will have a ground hugging form that will complement the cricket pavilion.

·    Building to be used as a sports facility generally with a maximum of around 80 persons for sporting activities.  Occasional use for accessory gatherings of up to 300 people is also anticipated. Hours of operation 6am-12.00pm.

5.18    Facility Use- Discussion

Sports Hall

·    The sports hall’s predominant use will be as a training and coaching facility for local domestic cricketers, adults and children, particularly in the winter season and in the evenings.  It is also likely to be used as an alternative training site for central city schools during school time. Typically regional and international player use would occur prior to fixtures, but only in wet weather and for drills and exercise conditioning.  Note that the Sports Hall training surface is artificial and the preferred training surface for international, high performance and representative players is natural grass.  These players will therefore prefer to use the outdoor practice facilities for training, especially during summer.

·    The nets would be retractable for training by other community sports users as listed in paragraph 5.17 above.  The frequency of additional use is not clear although there is a large demand for a facility of this type in central Christchurch.  It should be noted that it will not be a facility to run and operate competitive games but for training, coaching and practice.  All sports described above have other locations as ‘home base’ or “home grounds’, but don’t have indoor training facilities.

·    The facility operates on a financially sustainable model by the Trust which is a registered charity.  The objective is to meet expenses and enough income to cover depreciation of the building, operational and maintenance costs and replace fixtures and fittings as the needs arise.  As a charity all funds are required to be re-invested in the charitable objective of the Trust.  Charges will be made based on a use and user basis.  It will be the only community facility of its kind in Christchurch with the other comparable facilities being located in Lincoln and Rangiora.

·    Occasional use for ‘accessory’ gatherings of up to 300 people would also occur but only in accordance with the lease and the permitted purpose of sport and recreation.  For example a presentation by cricket coaches to a large school or club group of cricket players.  The frequency and scale of this use will be subject to conditions in the resource consent. Consideration of resource consent applications forms part of the terms of reference of the Hagley Park Reference Group.

 

 

First Floor

·   Open plan work space with hot desking opportunity is intended for ancillary use by coaches and trainers for example video and other analysis, and by administrators associated with the facility.  It is not configured for nor intended as permanent commercial office space.

Changing Rooms

·   In addition to providing fit for purpose changing rooms that meet the goals for Sport NZ, the changing rooms will be available to teams using the South Hagley and Hospital Corner sports fields.  The design provides access from outside and inside the building.  This will be particularly useful for use from outside when school tournaments and other competitions are being played in the sports fields.  They provide a facility that is not currently available in that part of Hagley Park.

·   When the Sports Hall is in use the changing rooms will be available by sports field users on booking system basis.  It will not be open directly from the outside when the sports fields are not in use.  The timing of the predominant use of the sports centre (evening, nights and in winter) will not often clash with the timing of the activities being held on the adjacent sports fields.  There are public toilets located immediately adjacent to the Sports Centre on the ground floor of the Hadlee Pavilion.

5.19    It is proposed to name the facility ‘Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre’ in recognition of a financial contribution to the project from the Hadlee Sports Trust provided as a legacy for the development of young cricketers from both schools and clubs.

Consideration of Community Views and Preferences

5.20    When making decisions the Council is required to consider the views and preferences of those affected by the decision.

5.21    In this case the proposal is to a large extent a replacement of a like for like structure.  It is for a proposed use that has generally existed in the past and to some extent is likely to be at a similar scale of use as in the past, although some increase in daily operation is possible.  In this regard staff consider the impact of the decision to be relatively low.

5.22    Despite the above, because of the profile of the site staff decided to undertake an engagement process to run concurrently with consultation on a new sports facility nearby in North Hagley Park.  This involved the following:

·    Direct communication to key stakeholders circulating the CCT design plans and an invitation for comment by email from 16 December 2020 - 27 January 2021.

·    Newsline story (Council website) on 17 December, notifying the proposal and inviting comment by email from 17 December 2020 - 27 January 2021.

·    Facebook post on 17 December and 22 January, notifying proposal and inviting comment by email from 17 December 2020 - 27 January 2021.

5.23    Three responses were received from the ‘key stakeholders’.  They were from Hands off Hagley, The Christchurch Civic Trust and Heritage New Zealand.  A formal response was not received from the Hagley Park Reference Group (HPRG) which only received formal notification on 16 January.  It should be noted that most members of the reference group received individual notice on 16 December 2020 through the communication to key stakeholders process.

5.24    Hands off Hagley raised concern about: the increase in size of the proposed building, the provision for use by alternative sports, potential for commercial use of the facility including concern that the upstairs workspace will be used as office space potentially as a base for Canterbury Cricket.  The level of public access to the toilets was questioned.

5.25    The Christchurch Civic Trust whilst expressing support for the completion of the Anchor Project raised a number of procedural concerns particularly in relation to the involvement of the HPRG.  A design modification to the colour scheme was proposed.

5.26    The Heritage New Zealand comment is referred to in paragraph 8.7 of this report.

5.27    A list of the key stakeholders, the engagement responses and Parks staff comment are included in Attachment C.  The Christchurch Civic Trust raised some procedural concerns about the way in which the engagement with them and the Hagley Park Reference Group was conducted. These concerns have been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit and the Legal Services Unit is of the view that the Council’s engagement process was consistent and appropriate with the significance (low) of the decision to be taken by the Council. The Legal Services Unit considers that the Council has met its obligations under section 82 (principles of consultation) of the Local Government Act 2002.

5.28    Key issues raised in the engagement process can be summarised as:

1.    Concern about the multi-use sports centre element and prospect for an increase in use of the site.

2.    Question about the actual availability of the toilets to the public.

3.    Concern that facility will be used for commercial and office purposes.

5.29    The above matters have been addressed in the discussion contained in paragraph 5.18 of this report and in Parks staff responses to the submissions contained in Attachment C.

5.30    The decision affects the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  Due to the short time frame the decision is to be made by Council with input from the Community Board by way of briefing.

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: Parks & Foreshore

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with the following Council Plans and Policies:

·    The Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 policies 17.1 to 17.15 with particular reference to policy 17.13: “All opportunities for multiple use of Hagley Park’s recreational facilities shall be investigated and where possible implemented to ensure that maximum use is made of existing facilities by a wide range of sports”

·    The Parks Handbook-2018 Codes of practice for building and structures on parks.

·    The Naming of Reserves and Facilities Policy 1993.

·    District Plan issues to be addressed in the resource consent process

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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       The proposed development has been assessed by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd who have advised support.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       The decision does not impact on the Council’s ability to adapt to climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       Accessibility matters will be considered in the building consent process

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – staff time to prepare report covered in operational budgets.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none arising from recommendations.

7.3       Funding Source – operational budgets.

Other / He mea anō

7.4       No other funding matters arise - building proposal is funded by the lessee.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Reserves Act 1977:-Authority to administer lease as administrator of the land is generally delegated to Community Board but due to the short timeframe a decision is to be made by Council following a briefing to the Community Board (Part A staff report).

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       Reserves Act 1977

·    s54(1)(b): The original ground lease dated 31 January 1991 was issued under this section of the Reserves Act.  The proposed building use is consistent with it needing to be used for recreational activities by a voluntary organisation. 

·    Proposal to build within the lease area is not a variation of the lease and so does not require public notification pursuant to the Reserves Act.

8.3       The Lease:

·    The building is owned by the lessee and sits on land subject to a ground lease granted by the Council.  Proposal to demolish and rebuild is a right pursuant to clause 5(b) of the lease subject to lessor consent.

·    The proposal fits within the permitted use of the lease as set out in clause 6 Assignment and Variation dated 31 March 2017.

8.4       Local Government Act 2002: Decision making ss76-82, in particular Consideration of views and preferences-(s78), refer paragraphs 5.19 to 5.29 of this report. Level determined on the basis of significance assessment.

8.5       Resource Management Act 1991: Resource consent required-application pending.

8.6       Building Act 1991: Application pending.  Building will be subject to current Building Act requirements including disability access and requirement to take in to account HNZPT, (see below).

8.7       Heritage New Zealand PouhereTaonga Act 2014 (HNZPT)- archaeological assessment required where excavation occurs- this will be undertaken at time of building consent application processing

8.8       The report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.  Various aspects of the report have received legal input.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The risk that the facility will not be completed in time for the Women’s Cricket World Cup and the Council will suffer reputational damage.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A- Hagley Sports Centre-Location Plan

139

b

Attachment B- Hagley Sports Centre-Replacement Building Plans

140

c

Attachment C - Hagley Sports Centre Written Submissions and Staff Comments

164

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

<enter document name>

<enter location/hyperlink>

 

 

 

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

Felix Dawson - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

11 March 2021

 

 

21.   Representation Review - Initial Proposal

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

20/1527336

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

John Filsell, Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships
john.filsell@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 recommend the Council resolve its initial proposal for representation arrangements for the 2022 and 2025 local authority elections and that the proposal be notified for public consultation.

1.2       The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) requires local authorities to undertake a review of their representation arrangements at least once every six years to ensure the arrangements provide fair and effective representation for communities. The LEA prescribes a statutory timeframe to undertake representation reviews.

1.3       The Council last carried out a review in 2015 for the 2016 and 2019 triennial elections. It is therefore required to undertake another review in 2021 prior to the 2022 triennial election. 

1.4       Representation reviews determine the number of councillors to be elected, the basis of election for councillors and, if this includes wards, the boundaries and names of those wards.  Reviews also include whether there are to be community boards and, if so, arrangements for those boards. Representation arrangements are to be determined so as to provide fair and effective representation for individuals and communities. All elements of the Council’s review are subject to rights of appeal and/or objection.

1.5       The initial proposal is:

·    To retain 16 councillors elected under the ward system, plus the Mayor elected at large, to provide effective representation to Christchurch residents and ratepayers.

·    Christchurch City Council divided into 16 wards, with some adjustment to boundaries to reflect current communities of interest and meet fair representation requirements (the +/- 10% rule).

·    Six community boards – five urban boards of three wards and the Banks Peninsula Community Board.  This is a change from the existing six urban boards and Banks Peninsula Community Board.

·    Retain current ward names.

·    Formally use te reo Māori community board names in conjunction with the current ward names describing the community board area it represents.

1.6       Banks Peninsula is a geographically isolated community and does not meet the fair representation requirements. If the initial proposal is confirmed by the Council as its final proposal, the Council must refer the proposal to the Local Government Commission (the Commission) for a determination following the appeal and objection period.

1.7       The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Although the representation review impacts all residents of Christchurch, the initial proposal retains much of the current representation arrangements. Changes to ward boundaries must occur to meet the fair representation requirements, the significance of which differs between wards. The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the requirements of the LEA and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Has reviewed its representation arrangements in accordance with sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001, and resolves that the following proposal applies for the Council and its community boards for the elections to be held on 8 October 2022:

a.         the Christchurch City Council shall comprise a Mayor and 16 Councillors.

b.         the members of the Christchurch City Council, other than the Mayor, continue to be elected by the electors of each ward.

c.         the City continues to be divided into 16 wards with the population of each ward electing one member.

d.         that the proposed names of the wards are set out in the table below together with the population each member will represent:

Ward

Members

Pop. Per Member

+/- 10%

Banks Peninsula

1

                           9,400

-62

Burwood

1

                         25,380

3

Cashmere

1

                       26,700

8

Central

1

                         23,260

-6

Coastal

1

                         26,490

7

Fendalton

1

                         26,410

7

Halswell

1

                        22,970

-7

Harewood

1

                         26,570

8

Heathcote

1

                         25,470

3

Hornby

1

                         25,710

4

Innes

1

                         25,990

5

Linwood

1

                         25,170

2

Papanui

1

                         26,270

7

Riccarton

1

                         27,030

10

Spreydon

1

                         25,080

2

Waimairi

1

                         26,510

8

 

e.         that the proposed boundaries of each Ward are those set out in the attached maps (see initial proposal document as attached):

f.          that the 16 wards reflect the following identified communities of interest:

Ward

Communities

Statistical Area2 Name

Statistical Area2 ID

Banks Peninsula

Akaroa, Barrys Bay, Birdlings Flat, Diamond Harbour, Duvauchelle, French Farm, Gebbies Valley, Governors Bay, Little River, Lyttelton, Port Levy, Purau, Rapaki, Takamatua, Wainui

Akaroa, Akaroa Harbour, Banks Peninsula South, Diamond Harbour, Eastern Bays-Banks Peninsula, Governors Bay, Inland water Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora South, Inlet Akaroa Harbour, Inlet Port Lyttelton, Inlets other Christchurch City, Lyttelton, Port Hills, Teddington

333500, 333300, 333100, 332900, 333200, 332200, 333000, 333400, 332600, 332300, 332500, 331600, 332800

Burwood

Aranui, Avondale, Avonside, Bexley, Bottle Lake, Burwood, Dallington, Marshland, Parklands, Richmond, Shirley, Wainoni

Aranui, Avondale (Christchurch City), Avonside, Bexley, Burwood, Dallington, Linwood North, Linwood West, Marshland, North Beach, Otakaro-Avon River Corridor, Parklands, Prestons, Queenspark, Richmond North (Christchurch City), Richmond South (Christchurch City), Shirley East, Shirley West, Styx, Travis Wetlands, Wainoni, Waitikiri

328600, 327500, 327800, 329800, 325600, 326500, 328500, 327900, 318400, 327200, 326200, 325100, 321300, 323700, 325900, 326800, 324600, 323400, 317200, 324000, 328400, 321600

Cashmere

Beckenham, Cashmere, Cracroft, Hillsborough, Huntsbury, Kennedys Bush, Lansdowne, St Martins, Somerfield, Sydenham, Westmorland

Beckenham, Cashmere East, Cashmere West, Hillsborough (Christchurch City), Hoon Hay East, Hoon Hay South, Huntsbury, Kennedys Bush, Opawa, Port Hills, Somerfield East, Somerfield West, Spreydon North, Spreydon South, St Martins, Sydenham North, Sydenham South, Sydenham West, Teddington, Waltham, Westmorland

330600, 331300, 330300, 331400, 327700, 329500, 331200, 329000, 330900, 331600, 329100, 329200, 327600, 328200, 330800, 329400, 329700, 328700, 332800, 329900, 330000

Central

Christchurch Central, Edgeware, Linwood, Merivale, Phillipstown, Richmond, St Albans

Addington North, Avonside, Charleston (Christchurch City), Christchurch Central, Christchurch Central-East, Christchurch Central-North, Christchurch Central-South, Christchurch Central-West, Edgeware, Ensors, Hagley Park, Holmwood, Lancaster Park, Linwood North, Linwood West, Merivale, Mona Vale, Phillipstown, Riccarton East, Richmond South (Christchurch City), St Albans East, St Albans West, Sydenham Central, Woolston North

326400, 327800, 329600, 326600, 327000, 325800, 327100, 325700, 325300, 330500, 324900, 322600, 328800, 328500, 327900, 323000, 323200, 328900, 325200, 326800, 324800, 323900, 328100, 330100

Coastal

Bexley, Bottle Lake, Bromley, Brooklands, Kaianga, Marshland, New Brighton, North New Brighton, Parklands, Pegasus Bay, South New Brighton, Southshore, Spencerville, Waimairi Beach

Aranui, Avondale (Christchurch City), Bromley North, Brookhaven-Ferrymead, Brooklands-Spencerville, Inlets other Christchurch City, Marshland, New Brighton, North Beach, Otakaro-Avon River Corridor, Parklands, Prestons, Queenspark, Rawhiti, South New Brighton, Styx, Travis Wetlands, Waimairi Beach, Waitikiri

328600, 327500, 330700, 331800, 317100, 332300, 318400, 330200, 327200, 326200, 325100, 321300, 323700, 328300, 331700, 317200, 324000, 326000, 321600

Fendalton

Bryndwr, Burnside, Fendalton, Ilam, Merivale, St Albans, Strowan

Bishopdale South, Bryndwr North, Bryndwr South, Burnside, Christchurch Central-West, Deans Bush, Fendalton, Hagley Park, Holmwood, Ilam North, Ilam South, Ilam University, Jellie Park, Malvern, Merivale, Mona Vale, Northlands (Christchurch City), Papanui East, Papanui West, Rutland, St Albans East, St Albans North, St Albans West, Strowan

319000, 319900, 320800, 319200, 325700, 322400, 321500, 324900, 322600, 320200, 320700, 321200, 320600, 322100, 323000, 323200, 320000, 320900, 320100, 322200, 324800, 323800, 323900, 321400

Halswell

Aidanfield, Halswell, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay, Hornby, Kennedys Bush

Aidanfield, Awatea North, Awatea South, Broken Run, Halswell North, Halswell South, Halswell West, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay East, Hoon Hay South, Hoon Hay West, Islington-Hornby Industrial, Kennedys Bush, Oaklands East, Oaklands West, Port Hills, Sockburn South, Westmorland

325400, 321900, 322900, 324700, 327300, 328000, 324500, 325000, 327700, 329500, 326700, 319100, 329000, 326300, 324300, 331600, 322300, 330000

Harewood

Avonhead, Belfast, Bishopdale, Broomfield, Bryndwr, Casebrook, Harewood, Kainga, McLeans Island, Northwood, Redwood, Russley, Yaldhurst

Belfast East, Belfast West, Bishopdale North, Bishopdale South, Bishopdale West, Broomfield, Bryndwr North, Burnside, Burnside Park, Casebrook, Christchurch Airport, Clearwater, Harewood, Hawthornden, Hei Hei, Marshland, McLeans Island, Northwood, Papanui North, Papanui West, Paparua, Redwood North, Redwood West, Regents Park, Riccarton Racecourse, Russley, Styx, Yaldhurst

317300, 316900, 317800, 319000, 318000, 318700, 319900, 319200, 318300, 317900, 316700, 316800, 317000, 317700, 319300, 318400, 316400, 317400, 319400, 320100, 316500, 318600, 318800, 317600, 319800, 317500, 317200, 316600

Heathcote

Bromley, Clifton, Ferrymead, Heathcote Valley, Hillsborough, McCormacks Bay, Moncks Bay, Mt Pleasant, Opawa, Redcliffs, Richmond Hill, St Martins, Scarborough, Sumner, Sydenham, Taylors Mistake, Waltham, Woolston

Beckenham, Bromley North, Bromley South, Brookhaven-Ferrymead, Christchurch Central-South, Clifton Hill, Ensors, Heathcote Valley, Hillsborough (Christchurch City), Inlet Port Lyttelton, Inlets other Christchurch City, Lancaster Park, Mount Pleasant, Opawa, Port Hills, Redcliffs, Somerfield East, St Martins, Sumner, Sydenham Central, Sydenham North, Sydenham South, Sydenham West, Waltham, Woolston East, Woolston South, Woolston West

330600, 330700, 330400, 331800, 327100, 332400, 330500, 331900, 331400, 332600, 332300, 328800, 332000, 330900, 331600, 332100, 329100, 330800, 332700, 328100, 329400, 329700, 328700, 329900, 331100, 331500, 331000

Hornby

Aidanfield, Hei Hei, Hillmorton, Hornby, Hornby South, Islington, Middleton, Sockburn, Templeton, Wigram, Yaldhurst

Aidanfield, Awatea North, Awatea South, Broken Run, Broomfield, Halswell West, Hei Hei, Hillmorton, Hornby Central, Hornby South, Hornby West, Islington, Islington-Hornby Industrial, Middleton, Oaklands West, Paparua, Riccarton Racecourse, Sockburn South, Templeton, Wigram East, Wigram North, Wigram South, Wigram West, Yaldhurst

325400, 321900, 322900, 324700, 318700, 324500, 319300, 325000, 320400, 321100, 320300, 318200, 319100, 323500, 324300, 316500, 319800, 322300, 318100, 324100, 322500, 323600, 322800, 316600,

Innes

Belfast, Christchurch Central, Edgeware, Kainga, MairehauMarshland, Redwood, Richmond, Shirley, St Albans 

Avonside, Belfast East, Belfast West, Christchurch Central-East, Christchurch Central-North, Clearwater, Dallington, Edgeware, Linwood West, Mairehau North, Mairehau South, Malvern, Marshland, Northwood, Prestons, Redwood North, Regents Park, Richmond North (Christchurch City), Richmond South (Christchurch City), Rutland, Shirley East, Shirley West, St Albans East, St Albans North, St Albans West, Styx

327800, 317300, 316900, 327000, 325800, 316800, 326500, 325300, 327900, 321700, 323100, 322100, 318400, 317400, 321300, 318600, 317600, 325900, 326800, 322200, 324600, 323400, 324800, 323800, 323900, 317200

Linwood

Aranui, Avonside, Bexley, Bromley, Ferrymead, Linwood, Wainoni, Woolston

Aranui, Avonside, Bexley, Bromley North, Bromley South, Brookhaven-Ferrymead, Charleston (Christchurch City), Ensors, Hillsborough (Christchurch City), Inlets other Christchurch City, Lancaster Park, Linwood East, Linwood North, Linwood West, Opawa, Otakaro-Avon River Corridor, Phillipstown, Wainoni, Woolston East, Woolston North, Woolston South, Woolston West,

328600, 327800, 329800, 330700, 330400, 331800, 329600, 330500, 331400, 332300, 328800, 329300, 328500, 327900, 330900, 326200, 328900, 328400, 331100, 330100, 331500, 331000

Papanui

Bishopdale, Bryndwr, Casebrook, Mairehau, Northcote, Papanui, Redwood, St Albans, Strowan

Bishopdale North, Bishopdale South, Bryndwr North, Bryndwr South, Casebrook, Mairehau North, Mairehau South, Malvern, Marshland, Northcote (Christchurch City), Northlands (Christchurch City), Papanui East, Papanui North, Papanui West, Redwood East, Redwood North, Redwood West, Regents Park, Rutland, Strowan

317800, 319000, 319900, 320800, 317900, 321700, 323100, 322100, 318400, 320500, 320000, 320900, 319400, 320100, 319600, 318600, 318800, 317600, 322200, 321400

Riccarton

Avonhead, Ilam, Middleton, Riccarton, Russley, Sockburn, Upper Riccarton

Addington North, Addington West, Avonhead South, Broomfield, Bush Inn, Deans Bush, Hagley Park, Hawthornden, Hornby Central, Ilam North, Ilam South, Ilam University, Middleton, Mona Vale, Riccarton Central, Riccarton East, Riccarton Racecourse, Riccarton South, Riccarton West, Sockburn North, Sockburn South, Tower Junction, Upper Riccarton, Wharenui

326400, 326100, 319700, 318700, 321800, 322400, 324900, 317700, 320400, 320200, 320700, 321200, 323500, 323200, 324200, 325200, 319800, 324400, 323300, 321000, 322300, 325500, 322000, 322700

Spreydon

Addington, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay, Somerfield, Spreydon, Sydenham, Wigram

Addington East, Addington North, Addington West, Christchurch Central-South, Hagley Park, Halswell North, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay East, Hoon Hay South, Hoon Hay West, Middleton, Sockburn South, Somerfield East, Somerfield West, Spreydon North, Spreydon South, Spreydon West, Sydenham Central, Sydenham North, Sydenham West, Tower Junction

327400, 326400, 326100, 327100, 324900, 327300, 325000, 327700, 329500, 326700, 323500, 322300, 329100, 329200, 327600, 328200, 326900, 328100, 329400, 328700, 325500

Waimariri

Avonhead, Burnside, Ilam, Russley, Upper Riccarton

Avonhead East, Avonhead North, Avonhead South, Avonhead West, Bishopdale South, Bishopdale West, Broomfield, Burnside, Burnside Park, Bush Inn, Christchurch Airport, Harewood, Hawthornden, Ilam North, Ilam South, Ilam University, Riccarton Racecourse, Russley, Sockburn North, Wharenui, Yaldhurst

319500, 318500, 319700, 318900, 319000, 318000, 318700, 319200, 318300, 321800, 316700, 317000, 317700, 320200, 320700, 321200, 319800, 317500, 321000, 322700, 316600

g.         in accordance with section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the population that each member represents is within the range of 24,651 +/- 10%; and that only the representation of the Banks Peninsula Ward falls outside the stipulated range for fair representation.

h.         that the Banks Peninsula Ward warrants a single member because Banks Peninsula is an isolated community in terms of section 19V(3) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

i.          that in light of the principle set out in section 4(1)(a) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, there be six communities represented by six Community Boards in Christchurch.

j.          that the proposed names of the Community Boards are set out in the table below:

Community Board

Communities

Statistical Area2 Name

Statistical Area2 ID

Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board

Akaroa, Barrys Bay, Birdlings Flat, Diamond Harbour, Duvauchelle, French Farm, Gebbies Valley, Governors Bay, Little River, Lyttelton, Port Levy, Purau, Rapaki, Takamatua, Wainui

Akaroa, Akaroa Harbour, Banks Peninsula South, Diamond Harbour, Eastern Bays-Banks Peninsula, Governors Bay, Inland water Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora South, Inlet Akaroa Harbour, Inlet Port Lyttelton, Inlets other Christchurch City, Lyttelton, Port Hills, Teddington

333500, 333300, 333100, 332900, 333200, 332200, 333000, 333400, 332600, 332300, 332500, 331600, 332800

Waitai/Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Aranui, Avondale, Avonside, Bexley, Bottle Lake, Bromley,  Burwood, Brooklands,  Dallington, Ferrymead, Kaianga, Linwood, Marshland, New Brighton, North New Brighton, Parklands, Pegasus Bay,  Richmond,  Shirley, South New Brighton, Southshore, Spencerville, Waimairi Beach, Wainoni, Woolston

Aranui, Avondale (Christchurch City), Avonside, Bexley, Bromley North, Bromley South, Brookhaven-Ferrymead, Brooklands-Spencerville, Burwood, Charleston (Christchurch City), Dallington, Ensors, Hillsborough (Christchurch City), Inlets other Christchurch City, Lancaster Park, Linwood East, Linwood North, Linwood West, Marshland, New Brighton, North Beach, Opawa, Ōtakaro-Avon River Corridor, Parklands, Phillipstown, Prestons, Queenspark, Rawhiti, Richmond North (Christchurch City), Richmond South (Christchurch City), Shirley East, Shirley West, South New Brighton, Styx, Travis Wetlands, Waimairi Beach, Wainoni, Waitikiri, Woolston East, Woolston North, Woolston South, Woolston West

317100, 317200, 318400, 321300, 321600, 323400, 323700, 324000, 324600, 325100, 325600, 325900, 326000, 326200, 326500, 326800, 327200, 327500, 327800, 327900, 328300, 328400, 328500, 328600, 328800, 328900, 329300, 329600, 329800, 330100, 330200, 330400, 330500, 330700, 330900, 331000, 331100, 331400, 331500, 331700, 331800, 332300

Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Avonhead, Belfast, Bishopdale, Broomfield, Bryndwr, Burnside, Casebrook, Fendalton, Harewood, Ilam, Kainga, McLeans Island, Merivale, Northwood, Redwood, Russley, St Albans, Strowan, Upper Riccarton, Yaldhurst

Avonhead East, Avonhead North, Avonhead South, Avonhead West, Belfast East, Belfast West, Bishopdale North, Bishopdale South, Bishopdale West, Broomfield, Bryndwr North, Bryndwr South, Burnside Park, Burnside, Bush Inn, Casebrook, Christchurch Airport, Christchurch Central-West, Clearwater, Deans Bush, Fendalton, Hagley Park, Harewood, Hawthornden, Hei Hei, Holmwood, Ilam North, Ilam South, Ilam University, Jellie Park, Malvern, Marshland, McLeans Island, Merivale, Mona Vale, Northlands (Christchurch City), Northwood, Papanui East, Papanui North, Papanui West, Paparua, Redwood North, Redwood West, Regents Park, Riccarton Racecourse, Russley, Rutland, Sockburn North, St Albans East, St Albans North, St Albans West, Strowan, Styx, Wharenui, Yaldhurst

316400, 316500, 316600, 316700, 316800, 316900, 317000, 317200, 317300, 317400, 317500, 317600, 317700, 317800, 317900, 318000, 318300, 318400, 318500, 318600, 318700, 318800, 318900, 319000, 319200, 319300, 319400, 319500, 319700, 319800, 319900, 320000, 320100, 320200, 320600, 320700, 320800, 320900, 321000, 321200, 321400, 321500, 321800, 322100, 322200, 322400, 322600, 322700, 323000, 323200, 323800, 323900, 324800, 324900, 325700

Waipuna/Hornby-Halswell-Riccarton Community Board

Aidanfield, Avonhead, Halswell, Hei Hei, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay, Hornby, Hornby South, Ilam, Islington, Kennedys Bush, Middleton, Riccarton, Russley, Sockburn, Templeton, Upper Riccarton, Wigram, Yaldhurst

Addington North, Addington West, Aidanfield, Avonhead South, Awatea North, Awatea South, Broken Run, Broomfield, Bush Inn, Deans Bush, Hagley Park, Halswell North, Halswell South, Halswell West, Hawthornden, Hei Hei, Hillmorton, Hoon Hay East, Hoon Hay South, Hoon Hay West, Hornby Central, Hornby South, Hornby West, Ilam North, Ilam South, Ilam University, Islington, Islington-Hornby Industrial, Kennedys Bush, Middleton, Mona Vale, Oaklands East, Oaklands West, Paparua, Port Hills, Riccarton Central, Riccarton East, Riccarton Racecourse, Riccarton South, Riccarton West, Sockburn North, Sockburn South, Templeton, Tower Junction, Upper Riccarton, Westmorland, Wharenui, Wigram East, Wigram North, Wigram South, Wigram West, Yaldhurst

316500, 316600, 317700, 318100, 318200, 318700, 319100, 319300, 319700, 319800, 320200, 320300, 320400, 320700, 321000, 321100, 321200, 321800, 321900, 322000, 322300, 322400, 322500, 322700, 322800, 322900, 323200, 323300, 323500, 323600, 324100, 324200, 324300, 324400, 324500, 324700, 324900, 325000, 325200, 325400, 325500, 326100, 326300, 326400, 326700, 327300, 327700, 328000, 329000, 329500, 330000, 331600

Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Belfast, Bishopdale, Bryndwr, Casebrook, Christchurch Central, Edgeware, Kainga, Linwood, Mairehau, Marshland, Merivale, Northcote, Papanui, Phillipstown, Redwood, Richmond, Shirley, St Albans, Strowan

Addington North, Avonside, Belfast East, Belfast West, Bishopdale North, Bishopdale South, Bryndwr North, Bryndwr South, Casebrook, Charleston (Christchurch City), Christchurch Central, Christchurch Central-East, Christchurch Central-North, Christchurch Central-South, Christchurch Central-West, Clearwater, Dallington, Edgeware, Ensors, Hagley Park, Holmwood, Lancaster Park, Linwood North, Linwood West, Mairehau North, Mairehau South, Malvern, Marshland, Merivale, Mona Vale, Northcote (Christchurch City), Northlands (Christchurch City), Northwood, Papanui East, Papanui North, Papanui West, Phillipstown, Prestons, Redwood East, Redwood North, Redwood West, Regents Park, Riccarton East, Richmond North (Christchurch City), Richmond South (Christchurch City), Rutland, Shirley East, Shirley West, St Albans East, St Albans North, St Albans West, Strowan, Styx, Sydenham Central, Woolston North

316800, 316900, 317200, 317300, 317400, 317600, 317800, 317900, 318400, 318600, 318800, 319000, 319400, 319600, 319900, 320000, 320100, 320500, 320800, 320900, 321300, 321400, 321700, 322100, 322200, 322600, 323000, 323100, 323200, 323400, 323800, 323900, 324600, 324800, 324900, 325200, 325300, 325700, 325800, 325900, 326400, 326500, 326600, 326800, 327000, 327100, 327800, 327900, 328100, 328500, 328800, 328900, 329600, 330100, 330500

Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Addington, Beckenham, Bromley, Cashmere, Clifton, Cracroft, Ferrymead, Heathcote Valley, Hillmorton, Hillsborough, Hoon Hay, Huntsbury, Kennedys Bush, Lansdowne, McCormacks Bay, Moncks Bay, Mt Pleasant, Opawa, Redcliff, Richmond Hill, St Martins, Scarborough, Somerfield, Spreydon, Sydenham, Sumner, Taylors Mistake, Waltham, Westmorland, Wigram, Woolston

Addington East, Addington North, Addington West, Beckenham, Bromley North, Bromley South, Brookhaven-Ferrymead, Cashmere East, Cashmere West, Christchurch Central-South, Clifton Hill, Ensors, Hagley Park, Halswell North, Heathcote Valley, Hillmorton, Hillsborough (Christchurch City), Hoon Hay East, Hoon Hay South, Hoon Hay West, Huntsbury, Inlet Port Lyttelton, Inlets other Christchurch City, Kennedys Bush, Lancaster Park, Middleton, Mount Pleasant, Opawa, Port Hills, Redcliffs, Sockburn South, Somerfield East, Somerfield West, Spreydon North, Spreydon South, Spreydon West, St Martins, Sumner, Sydenham Central, Sydenham North, Sydenham South, Sydenham West, Teddington, Tower Junction, Waltham, Westmorland, Woolston East, Woolston South, Woolston West

322300, 323500, 324900, 325000, 325500, 326100, 326400, 326700, 326900, 327100, 327300, 327400, 327600, 327700, 328100, 328200, 328700, 328800, 329000, 329100, 329200, 329400, 329500, 329700, 329900, 330000, 330300, 330400, 330500, 330600, 330700, 330800, 330900, 331000, 331100, 331200, 331300, 331400, 331500, 331600, 331800, 331900, 332000, 332100, 332300, 332400, 332600, 332700, 332800

k.         notes that the current Linwood Central Heathcote community is abolished, and the Linwood, Central, and Heathcote wards are united with other communities.

l.          that the boundaries of each community and of it subdivisions are altered and are those set out in the attached maps (see initial proposal document as attached).

m.       that the communities continue to be subdivided for electoral purposes as follows:

Community Board

Ward/Subdivision

Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board

Akaroa subdivision

Lyttelton subdivision

Mt Herbert subdivision

Wairewa subdivision

Waitai/Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Burwood ward

Coastal ward

Linwood ward

Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Fendalton ward

Harewood ward

Waimairi ward

Waipuna/Hornby-Halswell-Riccarton Community Board

Halswell ward

Hornby ward

Riccarton ward

Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Central ward

Innes ward

Papanui ward

Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Cashmere ward

Heathcote ward

Spreydon ward

n.         that with respect to the five Community Boards being Waitai/Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board, Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board, Waipuna/Hornby-Halswell-Riccarton Community Board, Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board and Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

(i)           comprise nine members each, being both elected and appointed members as set out in the table below:

(ii)          that the population each elected member will represent is as set out in the table below:

 

Community Board

Ward/
Subdivision

Ward/
Subdivision Population

Elected Members

Community Board Population

Pop Per Elected Member

Appointed members
(Councillors)

Waitai/Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Burwood

25,380

2

                     77,040

12,840

1

Coastal

           26,490

2

1

Linwood

             25,170

2

1

Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Fendalton

             26,410

2

                    79,490

13,248

1

Harewood

             26,570

2

1

Waimairi

             26,510

2

1

Waipuna/Hornby-Halswell-Riccarton Community Board

Halswell

             22,970

2

                     75,710

12,618

1

Hornby

              25,710

2

1

Riccarton

              27,030

2

1

Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Central

              23,260

2

                     75,520

12,587

1

Innes

              25,990

2

1

Papanui

              26,270

2

1

Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Cashmere

              26,700

2

                     77,250

12,875

1

Heathcote

            25,470

2

1

Spreydon

            25,080

2

1

 

 

o.         that the Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board

i.          comprises eight members being both elected and appointed members as set out in the table below; and

ii.         that the population each elected member will represent is as set out in the table below:

Community Board

Subdivision

Subdivision Population

Elected Members

Community Board Population

Pop Per Elected Member

Appointed members
(Councillors)

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board

Akaroa

1950

2

9400

1,343

1

Lyttelton

3080

2

Mt Herbert

3130

2

Wairewa

1240

1

2.         That in accordance with section 19K of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the reasons for the proposed changes are:

a.         Retention of the single ward representation for councillors allows for connection between councillors and the communities they represent.

b.         Adjustments to ward boundaries provide population equality per member, complying with the +/- 10% rule, with the exception of the Banks Peninsula Ward.

c.         Retention of the Banks Peninsula ward and the Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board reflects the isolated nature of the ward, the distinct communities of interest and groups together communities with common interest and issues.

d.         Reduction in the number of community boards to six best provides for fair and equitable representation city-wide based on geographical and community perspectives.

e.         Use of gifted te reo Māori names for community boards recognises the gifts, the relationship and formalises the use of the names.

3.         Notes that

a.         the Council must give public notice of these proposals within 14 days of making this resolution, and that there is an opportunity for interested persons to make submissions on this proposal; and

b.         the whole Council will hear any submissions on this proposal.

 

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

3.1       The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires local authorities to carry out a review of their representation arrangements at least once every six years. The Council carried out its last representation review in 2015 for the 2016 and 2019 triennial elections. The Council is now required to complete a review in 2021 for the 2022 local authority elections.

3.2       The recommendations will best ensure fair and equitable representation for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula going forward.

3.3       The initial proposal recognises and retains the single ward representation for Councillors for Christchurch, with single member wards allowing for a connection between Councillors and the communities they represent.  

3.4       The adjustments to ward boundaries provide population equality per member, complying with the +/- 10% rule across the 15 city wards, and continued representation for communities of interest.

3.5       The rationale behind the proposed disestablishment of Waikura/Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board and the uniting of the Linwood Ward to the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Board; the Central Ward to the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Board; and the Heathcote Ward to the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Board is summarised below:

3.5.1   It clearly aligns with how communities in each of the affected wards affiliate with neighbouring wards to form larger communities of interest.  See the results of the survey of a geographically representative sample of Christchurch residents summarised in section 6.31-6.32 of this report.

3.5.2   It results in the majority of community boards retained city wide.

3.5.3   It represents the optimum aggregation of wards into community board areas based on geographical and community perspectives and best provides for fair and equitable representation city wide.

3.6       The retention of the Banks Peninsula ward and the Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board continues to reflect the isolated nature of the ward, these distinct communities of interest and group together these communities with common interest and issues.

3.7       Incorporating the gifted te reo Māori names as part of the community board names recognises the gifts, the relationship and formalises the use of the names. The legal names of the community boards will be in both te reo Māori and English.

 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       No changes: retaining the status quo without making any boundary adjustments would not meet the fair representation requirements of the LEA primarily the requirement that the population that each member represents is within the range of 24,651 +/- 10%.

4.2       A more substantial review of community board boundaries: A comprehensive approach was undertaken during the 2015 representation review in response to:

·    The substantial change that occurred in Christchurch following the 2010/11 earthquakes; namely population movements, relocation of facilities - retail areas – schools and the connection that residents felt with their communities.

·    Antecedent wards not meeting the requirements of ‘fair representation’ under the LEA.

4.3       As part of the 2015 representation review, there was significant pre-engagement and consultation with the community. While the city continues to evolve post-earthquake, minor adjustments to boundaries to comply with the fair representation requirements are considered to be sufficient for this representation review and comply with requirements.

4.4       This current representation review effectively updates and builds on the previous review rather than duplicating previous work.  It also provides the community opportunity to fine tune post-earthquake changes rather than incur further significant change.

4.5       Alternative scenarios for electing councillors and community board members: during November and December 2020, staff briefed councillors and community board members on a range of options. Elected members provided feedback whether to elect members at large, by ward or a mix of the two. The majority of feedback expressed preference for the initial proposal recommended in this report. Further councillor briefings were held in January and February 2021. Some concern was raised about how to ensure a cohesive and effective Council if councillors were to be a mix of some elected by ward and some at large.  Elected members indicated that election by ward would best achieve fair and effective representation due to each members’ social and geographical affinity with the ward they would be elected to represent.  Further detail is discussed in paragraphs 6.25-6.29 on elected member feedback below.

4.6       The results of a geographically representative survey completed by 940 residents in January/February 2021 also confirmed a preference for elected members to be elected by ward. See paragraphs 6.31-6.32 below for more detail.

4.7       Alternative community board arrangements:  Seven scenarios depicting different ward make ups for community board arrangements were discussed with elected members in a series of nine briefings during November and December 2020.  Elected members considered alternative community board arrangements. A significant majority preferred the arrangement discussed and recommended in this report.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Requirements of a Representation Review

5.1       The requirements relating to local authorities’ representation reviews are contained in the Local Electoral Act 2001. These cover representation arrangements; representation reviews; and procedural steps and timelines. The Local Government Commission provides Guidelines for the purpose of assisting local authorities undertaking representation reviews.

5.2       A representation review determines arrangements for:

·    The number of wards (if any), and, if so their boundaries, names, and number of members

·    Basis of election (at large, wards, or a mix of both) – must consist of between five and 29 elected members (excluding the mayor)

·    Whether to have Community Boards, and if so how many, what their boundaries and membership should be.

5.3       In reviewing its representation arrangements, the Council must provide for “effective representation of communities of interest” (s19T) and “fair representation of electors” (s19V). Therefore, there are three key factors for local authorities to carefully consider:

·    Communities of interest

·    Effective representation of communities of interest

·    Fair representation of electors.

5.4       Effective representation is not defined in the LEA but relates to representation for identified communities of interest. This needs to take account of the nature and locality of those communities of interest and the size, nature and diversity of the district as a whole.

5.5       If the district (city) is divided into wards, arrangements must ensure that:

·    Membership of wards/constituencies is required to provide approximate population equality per member (referred to as the ‘+/-10% rule’) unless there are good (prescribed) reasons to depart from this requirement (s19V).

·    Ward boundaries coincide with current statistical mesh block areas (s19T(b)and s19W(c)).

·    Ward boundaries, as far as practicable, coincide with community boundaries.

5.6       In relation to community boards, the Council is also required to consider any applicable local government reorganisation criteria that the Council considers is appropriate (s19W(b)).

5.7       Further explanation of the legal requirements are detailed in the Legal Implications section of this report (section 10).

5.8       In addition to the representation arrangements, two other related processes were considered. In both cases the status quo is being maintained for the next triennial election:

·    Electoral system: First Past the Post is used as the electoral system.

·    Māori wards: the views of Papatipu Rūnanga were sought regarding the creation of a Māori Ward. A Māori Ward is not supported at this time. See the Impact of mana whenua section at paragraphs 8.8-8.11).

6.   Christchurch representation arrangements

Current representation arrangements

6.1       The current representation arrangements for Christchurch City Council were confirmed by the Local Government Commission’s Determination dated 7 April 2016. This Determination assessed the Council’s proposal following a comprehensive approach undertaken in addressing the profound effects of the earthquakes and the requirement of fair representation.

6.2       The Council comprises 16 councillors and the Mayor. Councillors are elected from each ward and the Mayor is elected at large.

6.3       The city is divided into 16 wards, with seven Community Boards. Two Community Board members are elected for each ward (and for Banks Peninsula, for each subdivision with the exception of Wairewa). The Community Boards are:

·    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

·    Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

·    Linwood-Central-Heathcote

·    Spreydon-Cashmere

·    Coastal-Burwood

·    Papanui-Innes

·    Banks Peninsula

Draft Initial Proposal for the 2022 election

6.4       The Council must resolve its initial proposal in accordance with the procedure and timelines outlined in the LEA. The full draft initial proposal is attached (Attachment A)

6.5       In summary, the draft initial proposal:

·    Retains the numbers of councillors (16) elected on a ward basis, plus the Mayor elected at large.

·    Maintains similar ward boundaries and communities of interest, slightly adjusted commensurate to the impact of population and demographic change over recent years and to consider proposed growth.

·    Reduces the number of community boards from seven to six community boards comprising:

Five urban community boards of three wards each.

A Banks Peninsula Community Board with four subdivisions.

·    Retains the number of Community Board members (37) elected on a ward basis:

Two Community Board members per ward for each of the fifteen wards that make up the five urban community boards (30).

Two Community Board members for each of Akaroa, Lyttelton and Mt Herbert subdivisions of Banks Peninsula (six).

One Community Board member for the Wairewa subdivision of Banks Peninsula (one).

·    Retains the Banks Peninsula ward, considered an isolated community.

·    Incorporates the gifted te reo Māori names into the legal names of community boards.

Wards and councillors

6.6       The city is divided into 16 wards and the Council considers that the current ward structure still reflects the city’s communities of interest. However, the review of representation arrangements provides the opportunity for the Council to adjust ward boundaries to ensure fair representation. No changes to ward names are being proposed.

6.7       It is considered that the current arrangement of 16 councillors elected by ward, plus the Mayor elected at large, will continue to provide effective representation to constituents. Staff have mapped and modelled minor changes to existing ward boundaries to ensure wards are of roughly equal population (within +/-10% of the average population being 24,651) while maintaining existing communities of interest intact.

6.8       The adjustments to the ward boundaries ensure fair representation and allow for projected future growth. All source material has been updated with the most recent demographic information (StatisticsNZ subnational population estimates (June 2020) and the 2020 meshblock pattern).  For additional detail about the wards and proposed changes:

·    A description of each ward is provided in Attachment B.

·    A summary of proposed ward boundary changes is provided in Attachment C.

6.9       The latest population estimates for each ward are listed in Recommendation 1(d).

Communities of interest

6.10    Communities of interest take into account distinct and recognisable geographical boundaries, similarities in activities and characteristics of the residents of a community and services in an area. Wards may contain more than one distinct community of interest, but these communities have sufficient commonalities to be grouped together. The initial proposal does not recommend any changes to the known existing communities of interest, however some new and developing communities of interest have been identified.  These are largely residential neighbourhoods that are new or have been significantly developed since the last representation review. Refer to Recommendation 1(f) for the communities of interest in Christchurch.

Banks Peninsula – isolated community

6.11    The Banks Peninsula ward does not comply with the +/-10% fair representation requirement of section 19V(2). The initial proposal does not recommend any significant change to Banks Peninsula's communities of interest, isolated situation, or shared commonalities. The status quo is supported by councillors and the current Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.12    The Banks Peninsula ward is sparsely populated and comprises an area of approximately 108,000 hectares. Comparatively, the rest of Christchurch is primarily densely populated and covers an area of approximately 45,000 hectares. Parts of Banks Peninsula are distinct culturally, historically, geographically, and economically and should be considered as unique and an isolated community.

6.13    Since Banks Peninsula District Council amalgamated with the City in 2006, the Council has included the Banks Peninsula ward in its final proposals for representation as an isolated community. The Commission has upheld the decisions for the Banks Peninsula ward. In its 2010 determination, the Commission stated that was not an enduring situation for Banks Peninsula representation and the Council should give careful consideration to the situation in its next review.

6.14    In its last representation review, the Council had proposed in its initial proposal to include Banks Peninsula in a ward that complied with the +/-10% requirement. This was met by a negative reaction on both sides of the Port Hills through both the submissions and appeals/objections processes. The Council’s final proposal took those views into account and retained the Banks Peninsula ward with a population to member ratio outside the +/-10% requirement, and provided for a separate Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.15    The Commission’s 2016 determination considered that non-compliance with the +/-10% rule for a Banks Peninsula ward was necessary in order to provide effective representation of the community. The issue of Banks Peninsula representation and the impact of the earthquakes were significant factors taken into account by the Council for that review.

6.16    As the initial proposal proposes that Banks Peninsula continues to be an isolated community, under s19V(3) of the LEA, the Council must recommend this to the Commission for a determination. This process is described in section 7 below.

Community Boards and Community Board Members

6.17    The initial proposal recommends changing the community board arrangement from seven community boards to six, being:

·    five urban community boards made up of three wards each (a change from the current six which are a mix of three three-ward boards  and three two-ward boards)

·    a Banks Peninsula community board with four subdivisions (no change from the status quo).

6.18    This is considered to be the most equitable option to ensure fair and effective representation as it has evenly sized communities and community boards across the district, with the exception of Banks Peninsula. Having city- based community boards of varying sizes has resulted in the uneven distribution of resources, workload and perceived ability to fairly and equitably represent the community. 

6.19    The uniformity and consistency of makeup (i.e. five community boards made up of three wards) will be easily understood by communities. The reduction in the number of community boards may, however, be perceived by some as reducing effective local representation. However as there will be no change to the number of elected members or the wards they represent such a perception will not actuate into reality.

6.20    The proposed new boundaries for community boards incorporate the adjusted ward boundaries. No changes are proposed for the Banks Peninsula board area. In order to make the current two-ward community boards into three-ward boards, the proposal makes some changes, this particularly affects the Linwood-Central-Heathcote board which is proposed to be disestablished and the wards that currently make it up included in other community boards, namely:

·    The Linwood ward would join the existing Burwood-Coastal Community Board area.

·    The Central Ward would join the existing Papanui-Innes Community Board area.

·    The Heathcote Ward would join the existing Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board area.

6.21    The initial proposal includes the gifted te reo Māori name as part of each boards’ formal name. The existing ward names remain to describe the area it represents and to help the public identify with their community board.

6.22    No changes have been proposed to any other community board member representation arrangement. Therefore, the number of members elected to community boards is not altered by the initial proposal. Community board members will continue to be elected by ward.

6.23    Overall, these changes will enable the community boards to better meet the changing needs of communities for governance and services into the future, as well as effectively perform or exercise its responsibilities, duties, and powers delegated to them. The changes also support the principles of the existing Governance Partnership Agreements between the Council and its Community Boards which seek to encourage communication, coordination and cooperation between the Council and the Community Boards to enable them to work together to facilitate local decision making and action by, and on behalf of, communities[1].

6.24    Recommendations 1(n) and 1(o) details the community board make-up, including the number of community board members and the population each member and board represent.

Elected member input into the development of the initial proposal

6.25    Fourteen briefings with Councillors and Community Board members have been held on the representation review between November 2020 and February 2021. This report’s recommendations reflect the general consensus; that the current arrangement is the preferred representation model, though with small changes to ward boundaries to bring them into line with the requirements for population equality under the legislation and a reduction in Community Boards to six in total.

6.26    On 3 November 2020, the Council was briefed on the approach for the representation review, including seeking the view of councillors on representation arrangements, including alternative community board scenarios and whether councillors and community board members should be elected at large or by ward. This was followed by a Combined Community Board Briefing which all elected members were invited to attend and the recording made available following the briefing. The purpose of the briefing was to provide an overview of the Representation Review process, especially for those that had not been through the process previously.

6.27    During November and December 2020 all seven Community Boards were briefed individually. The purpose of these briefings was to provide a deeper overview of the process and to seek their feedback on representation arrangements. The Boards were asked the same questions as the councillors to understand their preference on how elected members are elected and on how the wards are aggregated to form Community Boards. A meeting of Community Board Chairpersons was given an update on the project on 12 February 2021, followed by a combined Community Board briefing on 22 February 2021.

6.28    On 26 January 2021 councillors were briefed on the feedback from all elected members and given an opportunity to provide further comments. Further briefings to discuss ward boundaries in detail, feedback and themes from the survey of a geographically representative sample were held on 9, 16 and 23 February 2021.

6.29    Elected Members clearly indicated a preference for the status quo on how they are elected. There was also clear consensus on the preferred community board arrangements as discussed in this report. It is noted that members of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board indicated a different preference. In their experience they considered they share more community issues with the Innes Ward than with the Linwood Ward. A coastal ward including Heathcote was also explored. Members of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board had mixed views on options that could disestablish their Community Board.

Community views and preferences

6.30    The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas. As part of the representation review process, the Council must consult the public on its initial proposal within legislated timeframes. The Council must consider all submissions and may change its proposal as a result. The procedural steps and timeline is outlined in the next section of this report.

6.31    In developing the Initial Proposal, the Council carried out an online survey of a geographically representative sample over January-February 2021 (summarised in Attachment D). This survey was sent to 3147 residents and we received 940 responses (a 30 per cent completion rate). The results of the survey also indicate a preference for the status quo:

·    The majority (48 per cent) of respondents supported electing councillors by wards; 3 per cent of respondents indicated that they would support multi-member wards.

·    Comments from respondents indicated that they felt that councillors being elected from wards, to represent an area and communities that they know well would result in the best outcomes.

·    Those who supported a mix of both wards and at large felt that having some councillors elected at large may bring greater diversity and expertise in specific areas.

6.32    Residents identified their local communities based on areas they feel an affinity with; where they have things in common with their neighbours; and areas where they use shared facilities and services, e.g. schools, recreational and cultural facilities, parks, shops and shopping centres, and public transport. The results show residents in the:

South-West: identify strongly with their main centres, particularly Hornby, Wigram and Halswell, tending not to cross over Memorial Ave.

 

South and South-East: identify their community as being along the hills and to the east, as well as areas of Saint Martins, Beckenham, Huntsbury, Cashmere and Somerfield.

SouthAndSouthEast

North-West: identify areas around main shopping centres as being their local communities, such as Bishopdale, Avonhead and Papanui.

 

NorthWest

East and North-East: indicated connections with communities running along the coast, such as New Brighton and South New Brighton, as well as Burwood, Parklands and Shirley. Overall respondents identify their community as being east of Marshland Road and North of the estuary.

 

EastAndNorthEast

Central and surrounds: largely identify the central city as being their community, as well as centres such as Riccarton, Merivale, St Albans and Richmond.

CentralAndSurrounds

Banks Peninsula: tend to identify their local centres as the communities they identify with. There is an emerging relationship between Lyttelton and the city side of the hill

BanksPeninsula

 

7.   Procedural steps and timeline for the representation review

7.1       The Council is required to adopt an initial proposal on its representation arrangements for the 2022 election and follow the statutory timeframes. It is important to note that once the initial proposal has been resolved, there is no opportunity to stop or delay the statutory process. As discussed at briefings with elected members, it is desirable to embark on public consultation on an initial proposal early in the process.

7.2       Once the initial proposal is resolved, the Council must give public notice within 14 days and invite submissions. The public consultation period must be open for at least one month, we are proposing that the consultation period is for eight weeks. Information will be available on the Have Your Say page on the Council’s website, at libraries and service centres, and through online channels. The Council is required to consider any submissions it receives on its initial proposal, and then either confirm or amend its earlier decision and give public notice of its final decision within six weeks of the closing date of submissions. The review is subject to rights of appeal and/or objections which will be considered by the Local Government Commission.

7.3       A summary of the proposed timeline is:

 

Date

Statutory requirement

Report to Council – Initial Proposal

11 March 2021

No earlier than 1 March the year prior to an election

Public Notice

20 March 2021

Within 14 days of adoption of initial proposal and no later than 8 September 2021

Consultation Period

20 March - 16 May 2021 (8 weeks)

Submissions close no earlier than one month after public notice

Hearings

Late May

 

Final Proposal Adopted

Mid June 2021

 

Public Notice of Final Proposal

25 June 2021 at the latest

Within six weeks of closing of submissions

Appeals and Objections close

25 July 2021

1 month from public notice of final proposal

Forward appeals and objections and any other information to the Commission

As soon as practicable

No later than 15 January 2022

Commission makes Determination

By 11 April 2022

By 11 April 2022

 

Referral to the Local Government Commission

7.4       The Local Government Commission is not involved in developing initial or final local authority representation proposals, other than providing procedural or technical advice when requested. However, the local authority must refer its final proposal to the Commission if:

·    An appeal is made by a submitter on the initial proposal about matters related to their original submission (s19O).

·    An objection is lodged by any person or organisation if a local authority’s final proposal differs from its initial proposal (s19P). The objection must identify the matters to which the objection relates.

·    The proposal does not comply with the requirements for achieving fair representation in s19V(2), i.e. the ‘+/-10% rule’. 

7.5       In these situations the Commission must determine the representation arrangements for the local authority, including any constituent community boards, for the upcoming local authority election (s19R). It must issue its decision no later than 11 April of the election year (2022).

7.6       If the only reason for referral to the Commission is non-compliance with s19V(2), the Commission’s role is solely to determine the non-complying arrangements. As Banks Peninsula does not comply with the +/-10% rule in the initial proposal, the Council must refer its final proposal to the Commission regardless of any appeals or objections on the initial proposal.

7.7       Commission determinations may be:

·    Appealed only on a point of law.

·    Subject to judicial review regarding matters of process.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

8.1       The initial proposal for representation arrangements aligns with the Council’s Strategic Priority “Enabling active and connected communities to own their future”. Regular reviews of the representation arrangements give citizens an opportunity to input into the decision making to achieve fair and effective representation for our city.

8.2       It also aligns with the Community Outcomes for Resilient Communities, in particular:

·    Active participation in civic life

·    Strong sense of community

·    Valuing the voice of all cultures and ages

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

8.3.1   Activity: Governance & Decision Making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.2 Provide processes that ensure all local elections, polls and representation reviews are held with full statutory compliance - 100% compliance

·     Level of Service: 4.1.8 Participation in and contribution to Council decision-making.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.4       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. It is also consistent with the Local Electoral Act 2001 requirements and the Local Government Act 2002.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.5       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. However, a representation review should seek to engage Māori in the consultation process.

Te reo names for Community Boards

8.6       Te reo Māori names were gifted to the current community boards. Following discussions with Council’s Ngāi Tahu Partnership Team it is confirmed that the proposed change in the arrangement of community boards will not require new or changed te reo Māori names. It is intended that the te reo Māori names become part of the legal name of each community board.

8.7       The details of the names of the current community boards proposed to be retained are below:

·    Waipapa/Papanui – Innes Community Board

wai – waters, papa – land / space

This name signifies the vast expanse of flat land, which Papanui got its name.

 

·    Waitai/Coastal – Burwood Community Board

wai – waters, tai – shore

This name signifies the relationship the Ward has with the shore and coastal waters

 

·    Waihoro/Spreydon – Cashmere Community Board

wai – waters, horo – rush, landslip

Signifies the connection this Board has with the hills, and how the rain water rushes down towards the water channels and tributaries.

 

·    Waipuna/Hornby – Halswell – Riccarton Community Board

wai – waters, puna – spring

Signifies the connection this Board has with many of our punawai (spring waters)

 

·    Waimāero/Fendalton – Waimairi – Harewood Community Board

wai – waters, māero(ero) -  traditional Ngāi Tahu name for springs

Signifies the connection with Waimāero and its punawai (spring waters)

 

·    Te Pātaka o Rākaihāutu/Banks Peninsula Community Board

Will retain its existing Maori name which covers the majority of the Peninsula and was already used prior to this process of naming Boards.

1.1.1      

Māori ward consideration

8.8       In addition to the above representation arrangements, a local authority may resolve to establish Māori wards/constituencies.  At the time of writing this report, the Government has introduced legislation to provide that local authorities may pass such a resolution by 21 May 2021, and that such resolutions cannot be countermanded by a poll demanded by electors. [2]

8.9       If this Council were to pass such a resolution, the decision to establish a Māori ward(s) would become subject to the representation review. 

8.10    Staff sought the views of Papatipu Rūnanga regarding the creation of a Māori ward. A Māori ward is not supported at this time. At the 26 November 2020 councillor briefing on the representation review process, the Council decided not to seek a formal resolution on whether to establish Māori wards.

8.11    The Council provides other mechanisms for Māori involvement in decision–making, including formalising a relationship with Ngā Rūnanga, the establishment of Te Hononga Council and Ngāi Tahu Relationship Advisors, and reaching a Memorandum of Understanding) with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited.  

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.12    There are no climate change implications associated with the legislative process to review representation arrangements.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.13    There are no accessibility implications associated with the legislative process to review representation arrangements. Following the public notice, consultation material on the initial proposal will be made available on the Have Your Say website and on request at service centres.

9.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1       Cost to Implement - A provisional sum of $30,000 has been set aside to cover the implementation of any proposed changes.  This includes but is not limited to communication, signage, changes to data systems and processes.

9.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Once proposed changes are made any ongoing costs are the same (or less) than the existing costs to support elected members, so no additional funding has been budgeted.

9.3       Funding Source - The cost to implement proposed change along with the costs to support elected members is fully provided for in the 2018-28 LTP and draft 2021-31 LTP.

Other / He mea anō

9.4       Should the proposal to reduce the number of city community boards from six to five proceed there may be operational savings. The nature of savings, if any, cannot be determined at this time as discussions will need to take place with stakeholders, Council employees and others to inform any decision making going forward.

10. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

10.1    Part 1A of the LEA sets out the provisions for the Council’s representation arrangements (as detailed above at paragraph 5.1) and the requirement for a review of those arrangements. Under section 19J, a representation review must be carried out at least once in a six year period. This Council must carry out a representation review before the 2022 election as its last review was six years ago.

10.2    Section 19J of the LEA also requires that when the Council carries out a representation review it must also determine whether there should be communities and community boards, and if so, the nature of any community and the structure of any community board. 

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.3    The provisions in Part 1A of the LEA relating to representation reviews provide that the Council must ensure:

10.3.1 that the election of members of the territorial authority (other than the mayor) will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the district; and

10.3.2 that ward boundaries coincide with the boundaries of the current statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand and used for parliamentary electoral purposes; and

10.3.3 that, so far as is practicable, ward boundaries coincide with any local board area or community boundaries.

10.4    The LEA also provides that in determining the number of members to be elected by the electors of any ward or subdivision, the Council must ensure that the electors of the ward or subdivision receive fair representation, having regard to the population of every district and every ward or subdivision within the district.

10.5    Fair representation is determined by ensuring that the population of each ward or subdivision, divided by the number of members to be elected by that ward or subdivision, produces a figure no more than 10% greater or smaller than the population of the district or community divided by the total number of elected members (other than members elected by the electors of a territorial authority as a whole, if any, and the mayor, if any).

10.6    With respect to communities, the Council must ensure:  

·        that the election of members of the community board will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the community and fair representation of electors; and

·        that the boundaries of every community, and of every subdivision of a community, coincide with the boundaries of the current statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand and used for parliamentary electoral purposes.

10.7    The LEA also requires the Council in considering community board arrangements to have regard to such of the criteria as apply to local government reorganisation as the Council considered appropriate. This is very broadly worded.[3] The Local Government Commission Guidelines suggest that it can include administrative changes resulting from changing existing community board arrangements as well as any allocation of resources and funding, and any delegation of statutory authority to enable a community board to discharge responsibilities referred or delegated to by the Council.

10.8    The LEA sets out detailed requirements for the resolutions which the Council must make in relation to the representation review.

10.9    Following the Council making the necessary resolutions under sections 19J and 19H, the statutory process for public consultation must be followed.  This is discussed above in section 7 of this report.

10.10  This proposal complies with the requirements of the LEA.

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

11. Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1    The Council must complete its representation review within the prescribed timeframe in the LEA in the year prior to an election being held.  Council must decide on an initial proposal no earlier than 1 March 2021 and no later than 7 September 2021. 

11.2    If it does not agree on an initial proposal and meet the review process requirements, it would be a significant breach of the Council’s statutory obligations. Elected members were briefed and consulted on the draft initial proposal, and to ensure they were aware of Local Electoral Act 2001 requirements.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Initial Proposal for Representation Review 2021

214

b

Description of ward boundaries

257

c

Summary of changes to ward boundaries

260

d

Survey Results

262

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Local Government Commission, Guidelines for local authorities undertaking representation reviews

http://www.lgc.govt.nz/assets/Representation-Reviews/Representation-Review-Guidelines-2020.pdf

 

 

 

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