Urban Development and Transport Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Urban Development and Transport Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Thursday 3 February 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

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

                                               Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (traffic lights) people holding a current vaccine pass may attend the meeting in person. The meeting will be broadcast live: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

28 January 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Jane Davis

General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Tel: 941 8884

 

 

Nathaniel Heslop

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6444

nathaniel.heslop@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

Urban development and transport committee of the Whole - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga

 

 

Chair

Councillor Davidson

Deputy Chair

Councillor Scandrett

Membership

The Mayor and All Councillors

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Delegations

The Council delegates to the Urban Development and Transport Committee authority to:

·         Monitor and make decisions regarding the Council’s Roads, footpaths and streetscapes in accordance with the Council’s Long Term Plan.

·         Monitor and make decisions on the Council’s Transport functions including road operations, parking, public transport, cycle ways, harbours and marine structures in accordance with the Council’s Long Term Plan.

·         Make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes programme, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property, subject to:

a.       The Committee and affected Community Boards being briefed prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

·         Make all decision in connection with the Lincoln Road (Wrights to Curletts) Project.

·         Make decisions regarding the District Plan.

·         Monitor the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions

·         Monitor the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions under:

o   Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

o   Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

o   Dog Control Act 1996

o   Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

o   Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002

o   District Plan

o   Bylaws

o   Other regulatory matters

(For the avoidance of doubt, these powers relate specifically to the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions. The Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Resource Management Act reform.)

·         Approve the Council’s list of hearings commissioners under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Bylaws

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to:

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

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

o   Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014

o   Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017

o   Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017

o   Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

Submissions

·         The Council delegates to the Committee authority:

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

District Plan Appeals

The Committee is authorised to:

·         Consider and resolve any consent orders requested in respect of any proceedings before the Environment Court regarding any appeal on the Christchurch District Plan.

·         Authorise counsel and Council witnesses to call evidence in support of a compromise position or positions in the alternative for the purpose of endeavouring to agree with the parties in terms of a consent order in respect of any proceedings before the Environment Court arising out of the Council’s decisions on the Christchurch District Plan.

·         Authorise any one or more officers holding the positions listed below to participate in a mediation of any proceeding before the Environment Court arising out of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

o   This authority shall include the power to commit the Council to a binding agreement to resolve the proceeding, provided it does not require any Council expenditure not authorised by a Council delegation. Part D - Sub-Part 1 – Community Boards 159 Delegation Date Amended

o   Any authority given under this delegation shall be on such terms and conditions as the Committee considers appropriate.

Authorised positions:

§  Head of Legal

§  Associate General Counsel

§  Corporate Counsel

§  Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

§  Team Leader City Planning

§  Principal Advisors, Planning

§  The exercise of such delegated powers shall be reported to the Council on a six-monthly basis

·         Authorise any two or more officers who, for the time being, hold any of the following positions to jointly consider, and resolve by consent order, any appeal to the Environment Court against a decision of Council on submissions to the Christchurch District Plan, where the appeal relates to an alteration of minor effect or the correction of a minor error.       

Authorised positions:

o   Head of Legal

o   Associate General Counsel

o   Corporate Counsel

o   Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

o   Team Leader City Planning

o   Principal Advisors, Planning

·                Make decisions, on behalf of the Council, in relation to any High Court proceedings arising out of decisions by the Environment Court on the Christchurch District Plan provided such decisions are consistent with professional advice.

Limitations

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

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

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

·                The Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Resource Management Act reform.

The following matters are prohibited from being subdelegated in accordance with LGA 2002 Schedule 7 Clause 32(1) :

·                the power to make a rate; or

·                the power to make a bylaw; or

·                the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

·                the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

·                the power to appoint a chief executive; or

·                the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

·                the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

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

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

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

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

 

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 7 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee

C          7.        Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee Minutes - 2 December 2021.... 17

Staff Reports

C          8.        National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) - 2022 Work Programme............................................................................................................. 23

C          9.        Hearings Panel report on the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor’west Arc Cycleway - Section 3............................................................................................................. 27

B         10.      Regulatory Services - Building Consenting Unit Report - October, November and December 2021........................................................................................ 63

C          11.      Regulatory Compliance Unit update........................................................... 67

C          12.      Planning and Consents Report - October to December 2021........................... 73  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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

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

That the minutes of the Urban Development and Transport Committee meeting held on Thursday, 2 December 2021  be confirmed (refer page 8).

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

 

There were no public forum requests received at the time the agenda was prepared

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

Unconfirmed

 

 

Urban Development and Transport Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Thursday 2 December 2021

Time:                                   9.34am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, level 2, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, and by Audio/Video Link

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu      -    by audio/visual link

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough        -   by audio/visual link

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Jane Davis

General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Tel: 941 8884

 

Nathaniel Heslop

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6444

nathaniel.heslop@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

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga: Given by Councillor Templeton.  

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved UDATC/2021/00025

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

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            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 UDATC/2021/00026

That the minutes of the Urban Development and Transport Committee meeting held on Thursday, 4 November 2021 be confirmed.

Councillor Scandrett/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                  Carried

 

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

5.1

University of Canterbury Student Associations

Kim Fowler, on behalf of the University of Canterbury Student Association, spoke to the Committee in support of the Council joining the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity (Item 10 on the agenda).

 


 

 

 `Councillor Chu joined the meeting at 9.42am during Llybel Oakley’s deputation.

 

5.2

Llybel Oakley

Llybel Oakley spoke to the Committee in support of the Council joining the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity (Item 10 on the agenda).

 

5.3

Generation Zero

Adam Currie spoke on behalf of Generation Zero in support of Christchurch City Council joining the Aotearoa Collective of Public Transport Equity (Item 10 on the agenda).

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

Councillor MacDonald joined the meeting at 10.07am during consideration of Item 10.

 

10. Chairperson Report: Join Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity and support its 'Free Fares' Campaign

 

Chairperson’s Recommendations

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Notes the “Free Fares” campaign is advocating for central government to fund free public transport for the following groups:

a.         Tertiary students;

b.         Community Services Card holders; and

c.         Under 25 year olds.

2.         Notes no membership fee is required to become a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

3.         Approve the Council becoming a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

4.         Supports and adds the name of Christchurch City Council to the “Free Fares” campaign being co-ordinated by the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

5.         Notes that supporting this campaign does not require any ongoing commitment or action by Council.

 

Committee Recommendation

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Notes the “Free Fares” campaign is advocating for central government to fund free public transport for the following groups:

a.         Tertiary students;

b.         Community Services Card holders; and

c.         Under 25 year olds.

2.         Notes no membership fee is required to become a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

3.         Approve the Council becoming a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

4.         Supports and adds the name of Christchurch City Council to the “Free Fares” campaign being co-ordinated by the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

5.         Notes that supporting this campaign does not require any ongoing commitment or action by Council.

6.         Notes the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity is a coalition of community organisations, and is not a separate legal entity.

7.         Notes that the Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee will be the conduit into the collective on behalf of the Council.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                                    

 

Councillor Keown moved the following amendment to the substantive recommendation

8.         Recommend to the ‘Free Fares’ campaign that they advocate central Government introduce a trial for one year, commencing in time for the 2022 academic year.

Councillors Donovan and Templeton requested that their vote against recommendation 8 be recorded.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                          Carried

 

Committee Resolved UDATC/2021/00027

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Notes the “Free Fares” campaign is advocating for central government to fund free public transport for the following groups:

a.         Tertiary students;

b.         Community Services Card holders; and

c.         Under 25 year olds.

2.         Notes no membership fee is required to become a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

3.         Approve the Council becoming a member of the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

4.         Supports and adds the name of Christchurch City Council to the “Free Fares” campaign being co-ordinated by the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity.

5.         Notes that supporting this campaign does not require any ongoing commitment or action by Council.

6.         Notes the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity is a coalition of community organisations, and is not a separate legal entity.

7.         Notes that the Chair of the Urban Development and Transport Committee will be the conduit into the collective on behalf of the Council.

8.         Recommend to the ‘Free Fares’ campaign that they advocate central Government introduce a trial for one year, commencing in time for the 2022 academic year.

Councillors Donovan and Templeton requested that their vote against recommendation 8 be recorded.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                     Carried

 

The Chairperson referred elected members to a staff memorandum.

 

Attachments

a       Staff Memorandum on the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equity  

 

 

7.   Central City Temporary Off-Street Parking Review - Scope

 

Committee Recommendation

 

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Endorse the scope for the review of temporary off-street parking sites

2.         Note that staff will return to the Committee with a preferred way forward.

 

Committee Resolved UDATC/2021/00028

Part C

 

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Endorse the scope for the review of temporary off-street parking sites.

2.         Note that staff will return to the Committee with a preferred way forward.

3.         Note that Council has an existing Vacant Sites program to improve the amenity of off-street car parks.  

4.         Request that amenity form part of the evaluation criteria for temporary off-street parking.

Councillor Templeton/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

8.   Plan Change 8 - Papakainga/Kainga Nohoanga Zone Rule Amendments

 

Committee Resolved without amendment UDATC/2021/00029

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receives the report and recommendations of Commissioner Andrew Henderson on Plan Change 8 Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga Zone Rule Amendments; 

2.         Adopts, as the decision of the Council, the recommendations of Commissioner Andrew Henderson on Plan Change 8 Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga Zone Rule Amendments, for the reasons set out in the Commissioner’s report under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Councillor Davidson/Mayor                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.03am and reconvened at 11.23am.  When the meeting reconvened Mayor Lianne Dalziel was not present.

 

9.   National Policy Statement on Urban Development Well-functioning Urban Environment and Qualifying Matters

 

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Note that staff are planning to seek public feedback on a proposed plan change to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (the Bill) in April 2022. 

2.         Endorse staff further investigating and analysing the merits of including in the plan change limits on the intensification requirements of the NPS-UD and Bill based on the “qualifying matters” described in this report.

3.         Endorse staff  further investigating and analysing the potential changes to the outcomes in the Strategic Directions Chapter of the District Plan identified in this report  that will be considered for giving effect to the well-functioning urban environment

 

Committee Resolved UDATC/2021/00030

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Note that staff are planning to seek public feedback on a proposed plan change to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (the Bill) in April 2022. 

2.         Endorse staff further investigating and analysing the merits of including in the plan change limits on the intensification requirements of the NPS-UD and Bill based on the “qualifying matters” described in this report.

3.         Endorse staff  further investigating and analysing the potential changes to the outcomes in the Strategic Directions Chapter of the District Plan identified in this report  that will be considered for giving effect to the well-functioning urban environment.

4.         Note that staff will be briefing elected members on tree issues, including protecting trees, in early 2022.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 


 

 

11. Public Transport Network Improvements Programme (CRAF)

 

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Public Transport Network Improvements Programme (CRAF) Report.

2.         Endorse the CRAF projects described in paragraphs 1.9.1 to 1.9.8 to be drawn down from the public transport network improvements programme (CRAF). 

 

Committee Resolved UDATC/2021/00031

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Public Transport Network Improvements Programme (CRAF) Report.

2.         Endorse the CRAF projects described in paragraphs 1.9.1 to 1.9.8 to be drawn down from the public transport network improvements programme (CRAF). 

          3.        Request staff review all public transport projects within the Transport capital                                              programme, to enable planning and scheme development to be advanced in time for the                       Waka Kotahi 2024/27 National Land Transport Programme.

 

Councillors Chu, Gough, MacDonald, Johanson and Keown requested that their votes against be recorded.

Councillor Templeton/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

12. Transport Report to Urban Development and Transport Committee

 

Committee Resolved without amendment UDATC/2021/00032

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.            Receive the information in the Transport report for November 2021.

Councillor Mauger/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by Councillor Templeton  

 

Meeting concluded at 12.42pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3rd DAY OF February 2022.

 

 

Councillor Mike Davidson

Chairperson


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

7.     Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee Minutes - 2 December 2021

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1699254

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Nathaniel Heslop, Committee & Hearings Advisor, nathaniel.heslop@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager for Planning, Regulatory Services, and Infrastructure

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee held a meeting on 2 December 2021 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Urban Development and Transport Committee for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Urban Development and Transport Committee

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee meeting held 2 December 2021.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee - 2 December 2021

18

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Nathaniel Heslop - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

 

Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Thursday 2 December 2021

Time:                                   2pm

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

 

 

Present

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Lynette Ellis

Head of Transport

Tel: 941 6285

 

Nathaniel Heslop

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6444

nathaniel.heslop@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

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga: given by Councillor Scandrett.  

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Decision

There were no apologies.

2.   Election of a Chairperson

 

The Committee Advisor called for nominations of a Chairperson.  Councillor Scandrett nominated  Councillor Davidson be appointed Chairperson of this Subcommittee.

 

Committee Resolved CCPRS/2021/00006

That Councillor Davidson be appointed Chairperson of the Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor McLellan                                                                                                      Carried

 

3.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

4.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Committee Resolved CCPRS/2021/00007

That the minutes of the Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee meeting held on Wednesday, 1 September 2021 be confirmed.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor McLellan                                                                                                       Carried

 

5.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

 

6.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

7.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

8.   Mobility Parking- Times of Operation and Maximum Parking Limit

 

Subcommittee Comment

Before voting on the officer recommendations the subcommittee confirmed with Council Staff that if a member of Council’s Mobility Parking Scheme parks in a P30 or  P60 time restricted or metered car park they are entitled to double the time limit, up to a maximum period of 120 minutes.

 

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee:

1.         Approves that any maximum parking time limit (if a time limit exists) for any on-street Mobility parking within the Central City Plan A area, as defined in the current City Council Delegations Register, be revoked.

2.         Approves that for any existing on-street Mobility parking within the plan A area, as defined in the current Delegations Register, that any time of day restrictions on parking, be revoked.

3.         Approves that for all existing on-street Mobility Parks within the plan A area, as defined in the current City Council Delegations Register, that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes, and that these Mobility parks apply at any time.

 

Committee Resolved CCPRS/2021/00008

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Subcommittee:

1.         Approves that any maximum parking time limit (if a time limit exists) for any on-street Mobility parking within the Central City Plan A area, as defined in the current City Council Delegations Register, be revoked.

2.         Approves that for any existing on-street Mobility parking within the plan A area, as defined in the current Delegations Register, that any time of day restrictions on parking, be revoked.

3.         Approves that for all existing on-street Mobility Parks within the plan A area, as defined in the current City Council Delegations Register, that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes, and that these Mobility parks apply at any time.

4.        Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

Councillor Davidson/Councillor McLellan                                                                                                       Carried

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: given by Councillor Davidson.

 

Meeting concluded at 2.04pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

8.     National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) - 2022 Work Programme 

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1723080

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Emily Allan, Senior Policy Planner, City Planning (Emily.Allan@ccc.govt.nz)
David Falconer, Team Leader, City Planning (David.Falconer@ccc.govt.nz) 

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager, Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services 

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the committee’s endorsement of the Council’s work programme to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) for 2022. 

1.2       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  This report seeks the endorsement of the work programme and dates for the implementation of the NPS-UD. Public consultation is planned ahead of any changes to the Christchurch District Plan.   

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Endorses the work programme and proposed timeline to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by the 20 August 2022 deadline.   

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       We are seeking the Committee’s endorsement of the work programme and the timeline to ensure that elected members have oversight of the work programme and an awareness of the constrained timeline that staff are working to. 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Committee could choose not to endorse the work programme and timeframes set out in this report.

4.2       This is not the preferred option because the Council is required under the Resource Management Act 1991 (notably through the recent Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021) to implement the NPS-UD by 20 August 2022.   The work programme set out in this report has been designed to enable the Council to meet this statutory timeframe ahead of the deadline.  

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       In December 2021, the Urban Development & Transport (UD&T) Committee resolved the following:[1]

1.    Note that staff are planning to seek public feedback on a proposed plan change to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (the Bill) in April 2022.

 

5.2       This report follows on from this resolution and provides more detail on the work programme and timelines to give effect to the NPS-UD. 

5.3       A summary of the proposed upcoming milestones and dates for the work programme are as follows:

Date

Milestone

Comments

31 March 2022

Urban Development & Transport (UD&T) Committee Meeting  - Report seeking approval for pre-notification engagement

 

11 April – 12 May 2022

Planned pre-notification engagement period

Subject to approval at 31 March 2022 UD&T Meeting 

7 July 2022  (or 4 August 2022 if required)

Urban Development & Transport (UD&T) Committee Meeting  - Report seeking approval for notification

 

21 July 2022 (or 20 August 2022, if required)

Notification

Subject to approval at 7 July 2022 UD&T Meeting 

 

5.4       This timeframe is based on having a pre- notification public consultation period. Although it is not mandated, pre-notification consultation is often more useful for the development of a Plan Change as it enables public feedback and changes to be incorporated nearer to the beginning of the process. We also plan to engage with Community Boards through the pre-notification public consultation process. 

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 (2021 - 2031):

6.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework. - Triennial reconfirmation of the strategic framework or as required.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.4       Subsequent decisions to give effect to the NPS-UD may have implications for mana whenua. Council staff are working with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited to ensure mana whenua perspectives are appropriately incorporated. 

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       The decision sought by this report does not require consideration of climate change impacts. These will be considered as part of the subsequent decisions to give effect to the NPS-UD and other plan changes. 

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The decision sought by this report does not require consideration of accessibility. Accessibility – particularly the accessible location of services - will be considered as part of the subsequent decisions to give effect to the NPS-UD. 

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       The decision sought by this paper will not bring additional costs for the Council.  The work to implement the NPS-UD is largely budgeted for already.  

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.1       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision as this report is seeking endorsement of the work programme.  Thus this report has not been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit. Decisions to undertake pre-notification consultation and subsequently to notify any plan changes will be thoroughly reviewed by the Legal Services Unit. 

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There are no identifiable risk management implications from the decision sought in this report.  

9.2       The public endorsement of the proposed work programme and timeline, sought by this report, brings greater transparency to the Council’s work to implement the NPS-UD. 

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Emily Allan - Senior Policy Planner

Jasmine Mouat - Senior Policy Analyst

Ike Kleynbos - Senior Policy Planner

Approved By

David Falconer - Team Leader City Planning

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

9.     Hearings Panel report on the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor’west Arc Cycleway - Section 3

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1529961

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Melanie Coker, Chairperson of the Hearings Panel

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Urban Development and Transport Committee (Committee) the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor’west Arc Cycleway - Section 3.

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 Urban Development and Transport Committee.  The Committee 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 Committee, 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.  A link to the written submissions is also available should you want to review them. 

Agenda: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_AGN_7342_AT.PDF

Attachment: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_ATT_7342_EXCLUDED.PDF

Minutes: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_MIN_7342_AT.PDF

Attachments: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_MAT_7342.PDF

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Approves the revised scheme design of the Major Cycleway Route Nor’West Arc Section 3, as detailed in Attachment A, including changes to the Wairakei Road/ Aorangi Road intersection, and including the following amendments:

Section 1 – Ilam Road from University of Canterbury up to Jellie Park

a.         That this section be a one-way cycleway (Option A).

b.         Request for staff to endeavour to retain the tree outside of the Ilam Medical centre or relocate it to another site.

 

Section 2 – Shared path on Ilam Road from Jellie Park up to Aorangi Road

c.         Request for staff to investigate widening the shared path as much as possible without removing trees.

Section 3 – Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Brookside Terrace

d.         That this section be a two-way cycleway (Option A).

e.         Request for staff to investigate additional parking on the Aorangi Road corner by Clyde Road.

 

f.          Section 4 – Two-way cycleway on Aorangi Road, Condell Avenue and Matsons Avenue from Brookside Terrace to Harewood Road

 

Wairakei/Aorangi Intersection safety improvement

g.         Request for staff to work with the owner of 171 Wairakei Road in respect of the driveway to optimise safety for all users.

h.         Request for staff to design the appropriate connections from the Major Cycleway Route facility to the cycle lanes on Wairakei Road.

i.          Notes that staff will improve definition of parking spaces adjacent to the driveways of 188, 167a and 167b Wairakei Road.  

j.          Request for staff to monitor the Wairakei/Ilam Road and Wairakei/Blighs Road intersections for changes in traffic patterns and safety concerns and report back to the relevant Community Boards.

 

Other

k.         Request for staff to monitor and report back on the impact of the completed cycleway on on-street parking to the relevant Community Boards. The report is to be presented between six and twelve months after construction completion.

l.          Request for staff to consult on P120 time restricted parking spaces on Tuirau Place and associated cul-de-sacs.

m.       Notes that staff will arrange an open-day prior to construction start where they will take residents through the proposed planting, trees, changes and construction implications.

 

2.         Approves change of speed to 40km/h along the route and associated cul-de-sac streets.

a.         Notes that this speed limit change will complement area-wide considerations for lower speed limits which will be consulted on separately by the relevant Community Board with the aim to implement concurrently.

3.         Approves time restricted parking, as detailed in Attachment A.

4.         Approves tree removal, as detailed in Attachment A.

a.         Notes that two additional trees may need to be removed outside 171 Wairakei Road and 315 Clyde Road depending on the detailed design and consultation with affected parties.

b.         Notes that there will be an overall increase of trees along the route.

5.         Notes that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the project are brought back to the Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

Secretarial Note: In relation to recommendation 1j, subsequent to the Hearings Panel meeting the Hearings Panel requested for this matter to be reported back to the relevant Community Boards.

3.   Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1       The Nor’West Arc Major Cycleway Route (MCR) is one of the 13 major cycleway routes planned across the city and is designed to go from Princess Margaret Hospital up to Harewood Road and join the Northern Line and Wheels to Wings Major Cycleways.

3.2       Sections 1 and 2 (Princess Margaret Hospital up to the University of Canterbury) are complete. This section, which is designed to go from the University of Canterbury up to Harewood Road is scheduled for construction in financial year 2023/24.

3.3       The Nor’West Arc Section 3 is within the Long Term Plan and has received $10.5million in Government funding. However, if both Option A scenarios are chosen, the project will require an additional $1million of Council funding.

3.4       The Officers preferred recommendations to the Hearings Panel are listed below. The proposed designs also included minor changes in response to submissions received which are detailed in Section 4.16 of the Council Officer report to the Hearings Panel.

Section 1 – Ilam Road from University of Canterbury up to Jellie Park

·     A one-way cycleway (Option A - preferred).

·     A two-way cycleway (Option B) was the alternative option for this section.

Section 2 – Ilam Road from Jellie Park up to Aorangi Road

·     A shared path from Jellie Park up to Aorangi Road.

·     A shared path on Aorangi Road from Ilam road up to Truman Road.

Section 3 – Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Brookside Terrace

·     A two-way cycleway (Option A - preferred).

·     A continued shared path (Option B) was the alternative option for this section.

Section 4 - Aorangi Road, Condell Avenue and Matsons Avenue from Brookside Terrace up to Harewood Road.

·     A two-way cycleway.

Wairakei Road/Aorangi Road Intersection Safety Improvements

·     Stop through-traffic and right turn for cars on Aorangi Road, at the Wairakei Road intersection. This is to be done in conjunction with increasing the offset of the northern and southern legs of Aorangi Road and implementing a signalised cycle and pedestrian crossing centrally between the two Aorangi Road legs.

·     Alternative options were considered during scheme investigation stages and were discounted prior to consultation including: a signalised cycle and pedestrian crossing to the west of the Aorangi/Wairakei Road intersection; and, a fully signalised intersection including a signalised crossing on the west side for cyclist and crossing for pedestrians on all sides.

Other recommendations

·     40 km/h speed limit along the entire route and adjoining cul-de-sac-streets, tree removal and parking restrictions.

3.5       Sections 4.1 to 4.15 of the Council Officer report to the Hearings Panel contains further descriptions, analysis, advantages and disadvantages for each of the sections and options.

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

Consultation Process

4.1       Early engagement with the University of Canterbury, Burnside Primary, Cobham Intermediate, Allenvale Schools and the Ministry of Education started in 2020.

4.2       Further engagement with local businesses and community organisations along the route started in May 2021. Stakeholders provided feedback that influenced the design that went out for consultation. Following concept design in August 2021, follow up meetings with a number of organisations were booked to ‘walk through’ the design prior to public consultation.

4.3       Consultation commenced on 14 September 2021 until 12 October 2021. Emails were sent to all stakeholders and the project was posted on social media and on our Have Your Say webpage. Consultation documents were delivered to all properties and property owners along the route and were available in four local service centres.

4.4       Drop-in sessions were held on 20 and 23 October 2021 where approximately 60 people attended. Staff also met with residents on Wairakei Road and near Jellie Park.

4.5       Section 5 of the Council Officer report to the Hearings Panel contains further details of the consultation process including links to the original plans.

Submissions  

4.6       A total of 426 submissions (including late submissions) were received on the proposal. Of these, 371 selected a preferred option(s) and 306 provided comments on the proposal.

4.7       Eighteen submissions were received from relevant organisations including the three affected Community Boards, the Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association, Spokes Canterbury and those related to schools (3), churches (3), medical establishments (4) and businesses (3) along the route.

4.8       12% of submitters showed clear opposition to the cycleway.

4.9       The majority of submitters preferred Option A (one-way cycleway) for Ilam Road, section 1 (190, 55%).

4.10    The majority of submitters preferred Option A (two-way cycleway) for Aorangi Road, section 3 (210, 62%).

4.11    For the Wairakei Road Intersection improvements, 21 were in support due to the safety benefits and 25 were opposed or sought alternatives, such as a fully signalised intersection.


 

4.12    Below are the key points raised throughout submissions and Attachment D of the Council Officer report to the Hearings Panel contains a full submissions analysis.

4.12.1 Cycleway Implementation

·     The majority of submissions (155) expressed support for this cycleway or cycleways in general. Key reasons included safety, emissions reduction and improved route options. 12% of all submissions were opposed to the construction of the cycleway.

·     Key points raised about the implementation of the cycleway are shown in the table below:

·     Comments were also received regarding why cycleways in general are not needed. Key reasons were current lack of cyclists to justify the cycleway and on-road painted cycle lanes being sufficient. Five submissions also suggested an alternative route.

·     In response to a Community Board request to understand the barriers to students cycling, the University of Canterbury Student Association sent out a survey about travel habits and local cycling infrastructure. 222 responses from students who use a range of modes for travel were received. Responses show many students choose to cycle (29%) but are generally unaware of the cycleways in the area. Most students who choose not to cycle do so because they do not have access to a bicycle or do not feel safe.

4.12.2 Ilam Road (section 1) One-way cycleway (Option A) or a two-way cycleway (Option B).

·     343 submissions selected a preferred option.

·     190 (55%) preferred Option A. Reasons for support included:
Safer option (32), consistent with the rest of Ilam Road/better connections (16) and some submitters also asked for the one-way cycleway to be made wider to increase safety and passing (3).

·     153 (45%) preferred Option B. Reasons for support included:
maintaining on-road car parking (25), safer option (12), wider path (8), better use of road width (4) and landscaping (4).

·     General comments on this section included:
Existing and potential increase in traffic congestion (8), concern over sightlines (7) and some submitters also asked for an extension on the current time-limited parking on Ilam Road (3).

·     A survey via social media was undertaken where followers could vote for a preferred option. 277 votes were received with 52% preferring Option B.

 


 

4.12.3 Aorangi Road (Section 3) A two-way cycleway (Option A) or a shared path (Option B).

·     339 submissions selected a preference.

·     210 (62%) preferred Option A. Reasons for support included:
Safer option (40), poor user behaviour on shared paths (14), consistent with the rest of Aorangi Road (10), cyclist priority at intersections (3) and no tree loss (3).

·     129 (38%) preferred Option B. Reasons for support included:
Maintains on-road car parking (30), safer option (5) and, removes trees (3).

·     A mix of submitters who selected Option A or Option B were also concerned about the proximity of the shared path to driveways (9) and some submitters suggested alternative options.

·     General feedback on this section included: 
More work being required on the cycleway design in front of the Village Church (7), concerns over the intersection of Ilam and Aorangi Roads due to poor driver behaviour (3) and support/requests for the removal of the deep-dish gutters (3).

·     Feedback regarding trees included:
Requests for silver birch trees to be removed for both options (4), concerns about overall tree loss (4), requests for trees to be replaced with native species (4) and requests for trees to not be replaced (3).

·     A survey via social media was undertake where followers could vote for a preferred option. 294 votes were received with 51% preferring Option A.

4.12.4 Wairakei Road/Aorangi Road Intersection Safety Improvements

·     53 submissions were received regarding the intersection improvements.

·     21 supported the design highlighting the associated safety benefits.

·     25 opposed the design for the reasons highlighted in the table below:

·     Those who lived on Aorangi Road were split in support (8) and opposition (8).

4.12.5 Jellie Park area A Shared Path.

·     Feedback on this section of the route included:
Support for the controlled crossing (4), opposition to the controlled crossing (3), volumes of pedestrians in the area creating potential conflicts with cyclists (4), a reduction from P3 to P1 parking outside of the school (4).

·     There were also requests for increased parking and cycle access through the park to Burnside High School however these were deemed out of scope for this project.

4.12.6 Speed Change Reduction to 40km/h.

·     29 submissions were received on this topic. For those in support (23), five requested for speed to be reduced to 30 km/h and four requested speed humps along the route. Five submitters opposed the speed reduction.


 

4.12.7 Harewood Road

·     Three submitters were concerned about the intersection of Matsons Avenue and Harewood Road and the increased waiting times for vehicles trying to exit during peak traffic.

5.   The Hearing Te Hui

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Melanie Coker (Chairperson), Councillor Catherine Chu, Councillor Mike Davidson, Councillor Jake McClellan and Community Board Member Simon Britten.  The Hearings Panel convened on 22 and 29 November 2021 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2       Prior to hearing verbal submissions, Council Officers presented a brief overview of the proposed route and submissions analysis. A PowerPoint presentation was made available.

5.3       The Hearings Panel heard from 29 submitters including three organisations and the three affected Community Boards (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes for the list of presenters and Minutes Attachments for tabled documents).

5.4       The views expressed by the submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words in their original submissions and/or subsequent documents tabled during the meeting. Some of the key issues that were raised during the verbal submissions are described below.

5.5       Ilam Road (section 1) One-way cycleway (Option A) or a two-way cycleway (Option B)

5.5.1   Some submitters were in support of Option A due to the benefits of safety particularly with school children and students in the area. One submitter noted that visibility for drivers on a two-way cycleway is not adequate. 

5.5.2   One submitter noted their support for Option B due to safety aspects, however they noted there would need to be clear sightlines and no vehicle parking along the cycleway.

5.5.3   The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi- Community Board noted their support for Option B as it retains the most amount of car parks and removes the silver birch trees which a number of residents in the area have previously requested.

5.6       Aorangi Road (Section 3) A two-way cycleway (Option A) or a shared path (Option B)

5.6.1   Submitters noted the safety aspects associated with both Option A and Option B.

5.6.2   One submitter noted the success of shared paths on other Major Cycleway Routes.

5.7       Aorangi Road/Wairakei Road intersection

5.7.1   Many submitters highlighted how dangerous and difficult navigating the current intersection is for all users.

5.7.2   Some submitters noted the proposed improvements provide increased safety for all users and offers greater amenity for cyclists.

5.7.3   Many submitters were concerned with the potential increase in U-turns due to the proposed changes at the intersection.

5.7.4   A number of submitters were supportive of a fully signalised intersection rather than the current proposal, noting the high volume of traffic in the area. 

5.7.5   Submitters were concerned that stopping right turns from Aorangi Road on to Wairakei Road provides poor alternative routes and would force traffic on to less suitable roads (e.g. Jennifer Street, Murdoch Street and Condell Avenue).

5.7.6   One submitter raised concerns with the location and safety and accessibly issues with the driveway at 171 Wairakei Road. Some of the concerns raised were sunstrike, visibility and safety issues with exiting the property under the proposed design and with the proposed realignment of the driveway.

5.8       Cycleway facilities

5.8.1   One submitter was in support of increased cycleway facilities such as smoother transitions across changes in direction and surfaces for cyclists, the installation of bike stands and ensuring cycleway sensors at controlled intersections are working efficiently or on-call buttons are used.

5.8.2   The Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board noted they were supportive of the improved lighting along Aorangi Road as a result of the cycleway.

5.8.3   One submitter was supportive of a two-way cycleway for the entire route which would give cyclists and scooters more room to manoeuvre.

5.8.4   One submitter emphasised the growing infrastructure in Christchurch and impacts on Climate Change and requested the Council not to compromise on quality.

5.9       Safety

5.9.1   There was support for creating safe and accessible cycle routes for children to learn to ride.

5.9.2   There was some support for minimising vehicle parking adjacent to bike parks.

5.10    Speed limit reduction

5.10.1 There was some support for the proposed 40km/h speed reduction.

5.10.2 One submitter supported a 30km/h speed reduction.

5.10.3 The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi- Community Board questioned whether the speed limit reduction was necessary with a separated/segregated cycleway.

5.11    Parking and parking restrictions

5.11.1 Many submitters were concerned with the loss of parking along the route, particularly for residents and outside businesses.

5.11.2 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board noted that the majority of parking demand for Papanui along this route is at the Condell Avenue end. They noted that there should be enough parking at this location when Allenvale School is relocated.

5.11.3 The New Generation Church provided the Hearings Panel with alternative options and requested for these to be explored and consulted on. The Church were concerned with the limited accessible parking spaces for the elderly and parents with young children. The Church also provided comments regarding the power lines on both sides of Aorangi Road, request for native species and support for the New Generation Church as an organisation for accessibility.

5.11.4 One submitter was concerned with the downstream effects on cul-de-sac streets near to the University due to the loss of parking. The submitter requested for the Council to review and consider parking restrictions in the area.

5.11.5 One submitter raised issues with customers parking over the driveways near the Wairakei Road shops and requested for the plans to include increased sightlines, and more parking for the shops.

5.12    Other comments

5.12.1 Concerns with the cost and perceived increase in congestion and emissions.

5.12.2 Concerns with substandard footpaths in the area.

5.12.3 One submitter discussed how future transport plans could be divided by speed rather than transport mode. The submitter also noted that transport should be built with micro mobility in mind.

5.12.4 The Ilam Medical Centre requested to retain the magnolia tree outside the medical centre and noted that P60 parking restrictions work best for their clients.

6.   Site Visit

6.1       Subsequent to the hearing of verbal submissions, the Hearings Panel undertook a site visit along the proposed route from 8am to 10am on 29 November 2021 at the following locations:

6.2       Aorangi Road/Wairakei Road intersection

6.2.1   The Hearings Panel observed the challenges and safety risks associated with the current intersection. A number of vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist movements were observed.

6.2.2   The Hearings Panel discussed the location, safety and accessibility of the driveway at 171 Wairakei Road which was raised by the property owner in their submission.

6.2.3   The Hearings Panel also noted that for cyclists who are turning left from Aorangi Road on to Wairakei Road, it would be an easier transition if the cycleway was connected on the footpath rather than on the road.

6.2.4   The Hearings Panel observed the lack of clear parking lines outside the shops and adjacent driveways on Wairakei Road which cause drivers to park over the driveways.

6.3       Matsons Avenue/Harewood Road intersection

6.3.1   On route to this location the Hearings Panel observed the current on-road parking spaces available at New Generation Church.

6.3.2   The Hearings Panel discussed how the proposed route links with the Northern Line and proposed Wheels to Wings MCR, noting that this route is currently going through a hearings panel process and has not yet been approved.

6.3.3   The Hearings Panel noted that this section is busier during the afternoon peak particularly with the nearby preschool.

6.3.4   The Hearings Panel questioned why the cycleway is proposed to be on the east side rather than west side of the road. Officers confirmed that the east side is preferred due to the link with the Northern Line MCR and the locations and number of driveways located on the west side of the road.

6.4       Ilam Road/Aorangi Road intersection

6.4.1   The Hearings Panel discussed the proposed shared path outside The Village Church including the availability of a drop off/pick up parking area.

6.4.2   The Hearings Panel observed and discussed the impact what the tree removal will have on streetscape, noting that the shared path, Option B, would remove all trees on northern side up to Brookside Terrace. Officers confirmed that independent of this project Christchurch City Council/ Orion have and will remove some trees on southern side as part of trees around power line project.

6.4.3   The Hearings Panel questioned the option of having the two-way cycleway on the other side of Aorangi Road. Officers advised that to do this the shared path would need to be extended further down the road which would require further consultation. Staff also noted school students would have easier and safer access to the cycleway with the preferred option.

6.5       Jellie Park area

6.5.1   The Hearings Panel observed the current path facilities and conditions.

6.5.2   Officers confirmed that the school crossing aligns with the current park path which was worked through in consultation with the schools and Jellie Park.

6.6       University of Canterbury

6.6.1   The Hearings Panel questioned why the trees were able to be retained at the University but not able to be retained further down the route. Officers confirmed that the tree removal was required due to the width of the road and dimension changes along the path including bus stop bays.

6.6.2   The Hearings Panel discussed the two-way cycleway versus one-way cycleway along this section.

6.6.3   Staff noted that with the one-way cycleway the pedestrian crossing and bus stop on the western side will be retained however on the eastside it will be an in-line stop that might cause traffic build-up. On the two-way cycleway option, the eastside bus stop will be retained however; the pedestrian crossing at Montana Ave will be removed. Officers also noted the risks associated with the two-way cycleway crossing direction at the existing zebra crossing.

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

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

7.2       Throughout the process, and after the hearing of verbal submissions Hearings Panel Members put through sixty questions for further advice from Council Officers (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes Attachment). The questions and responses were made available to the Hearings Panel in advance of their considerations and deliberations and formed the basis of their considerations. Some of the key issues that were discussed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

7.2.1   Regarding the Wairakei Road/Aorangi Road intersection, the Hearings Panel queried whether there was modelling conducted on any potential traffic increases if the intersection was fully signalised. Officers advised that wider modelling was conducted which included a fully signalised intersection option. The modelling showed some increase in traffic on Aorangi Road in one direction during the afternoon period.

7.2.2   The Hearings Panel discussed the driveway location at 171 Wairakei Road and the existing pedestrian crossing access over Aorangi Road. Officers confirmed that both the driveway and crossing could be moved onto Aorangi Road which would provide optimal access for all users. Officers also noted an additional tree may need to be removed.

7.2.3   Regarding the Wairakei Road/Aorangi Road intersection, the Hearings Panel queried the impact of car parking along the north section for the local businesses, whether the crossing point is too close to the intersection, and whether it would be feasible to move this further down to provide more car parks and further safety benefits.
Officers advised that this option might be achievable, however, it would likely result in the removal of the P10 car parks. It was also noted that the car parks on the east side are used most. In regards to moving the crossing, Officers clarified that some sightlines and visibility could be improved, however, every time a cyclist crosses the road risk is increased.

7.2.4   The Hearings Panel queried if the tree outside the Ilam Medical Centre could be retained or relocated. Officers advised that they will best endeavour to retain or replant the tree subject to arborist recommendation.

7.2.5   The Hearings Panel queried whether the crossing at the University of Canterbury would need to be signalised if a two-way cycleway was chosen and whether the two-way cycleway could commence further along Ilam Road. Officers confirmed a signalised crossing would be preferable and that the start of the two-way cycleway was picked as it was the most logical. Officers also advised that a one-way cycleway was chosen as the preferred option as it creates the least amount of conflicts and aligns with previous sections constructed.

7.2.6   The Hearings Panel queried if the width of the cycleways could be made wider, without the removal of any trees. Officers advised that the design includes the maximum width however, during detailed design Officers could look into other options such as mountable kerbs for maximum width.

7.2.7   The Hearings Panel confirmed if there would be cycle stands and fit-for-purpose handlebars for cyclists stopping at the Wairakei Road/Aorangi Road intersection. Officers advised this will be included during detail design.

7.3       Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations based on each section of the route.

7.4       The Hearings Panel agreed to accept the Officer Recommendations and included additional recommendations based on submitter’s feedback as detailed below.

Section 1 Ilam Road from University of Canterbury up to Jellie Park

7.4.1   For this section the Hearings Panel recommended approving Option A, a one-way cycleway, as detailed in the revised scheme designs, Attachment A. The Hearings Panel also requested that staff endeavour to retain the tree outside the Ilam Medical Centre or relocate it to another site.

7.4.2   The Hearings Panel’s rationale for selecting Option A was that although both options were safe, it was felt that Option A was the safer as large sections along Ilam Road were 2 metres wide. Safety concerns relating to cyclists riding contra-flow on a two-way cycleway (Option B) were also considered.

7.4.3   In addition, there were concerns relating to having a two-way cycleway (Option B) starting at the University of Canterbury, as this option would potentially require the existing pedestrian crossing to be signalised. There were also safety concerns relating to the bus stop at this location. The Hearings Panel confirmed that it was not possible for the two-way cycleway to start at the Ilam Road/Creyke Road intersection.

7.4.4   The Hearings Panel also considered that the majority of submitters, including those living on or close to the cycleway, supported Option A.

Section 2 Shared path on Ilam Road from Jellie Park up to Aorangi Road

7.4.5   For this section the Hearings Panel recommended approving the revised scheme designs as detailed in Attachment A. The Hearings Panel also requested that staff investigate widening the shared path as much as possible, without removing any trees.

Section 3 Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Brookside Terrace

7.4.6   For this section the Hearings Panel recommended approving Option A, a two-way cycleway, including an extended shared path on Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Truman Road, as detailed in the revised scheme designs, Attachment A. The Hearings Panel also requested that staff investigate additional parking on the Aorangi Road corner by Clyde Road.

7.4.7   The Hearings Panel’s rationale for selecting Option A was that although both options were safe, it was felt that Option A was the safer of the two due to the benefits of having separation between pedestrians and cyclists.

7.4.8   The Hearings Panel also considered that the majority of submitters, including those living on or close to the cycleway, supported Option A.

Section 4 Two-way cycleway on Aorangi Road, Condell Avenue and Matsons Avenue from Brookside Terrace to Harewood Road

7.4.9   For this section the Hearings Panel recommended approving the revised scheme designs as detailed in Attachment A and made no further recommendations.

Wairakei/Aorangi Intersection safety improvement

7.4.10 For this section the Hearings Panel recommended approving the changes to the Wairakei Road/ Aorangi Road intersection as detailed in the revised scheme designs outlined in Attachment A. The Hearings Panel also:

·     Requested that staff work with the owner of 171 Wairakei Road in respect of the driveway to optimise safety for all users.

·     Requested that staff design the appropriate connections from the Major Cycleway Route facility to the cycle lanes on Wairakei Road.

·     Requested that staff monitor the Wairakei/Ilam Road and Wairakei/Blighs Road intersections for changes in traffic patterns and safety concerns.

·     Noted that staff will improve definition of parking spaces adjacent to the driveways of 188, 167a and 167b Wairakei Road.

·     The Hearings Panel noted that local submitters were evenly split between supporting and not supporting the intersection improvements. The Hearings Panel noted that the daily traffic counts on Aorangi Road are already above what a local road is designed and a fully signalised intersection would likely exacerbate this. Furthermore, the Hearings Panel noted the high crash rate history of the intersection. For these reasons the Hearings Panel felt that the proposed safety improvements addressed these concerns and provided a good level of service for the cycleway route.

 

 

 

 

Other

7.4.11 The Hearings Panel also included the following recommendations in relation to the project:

·     A request for staff to monitor and report back on the impact of the completed cycleway on on-street parking to the relevant Community Boards. The report is to be presented between six and twelve months after construction completion.

·     A request for staff to consult on P120 time restricted parking spaces on Tuirau Place and associated cul-de-sacs.

·     A note regarding staff advice that an open-day will be arranged prior to construction start where staff will take residents through the proposed planting, trees, changes and construction implications.

 

Remaining Recommendations

7.4.12 The Hearings Panel accepted the remaining Officer Recommendations regarding the change of speed limit to 40km/h along the route and associated cul-de-sac streets, approval of time restricted parking and tree removals. The Hearings Panel also  included the noting provisions:

·     That the speed limit change to 40km/h along the route and associated cul-de-sac streets will complement area-wide considerations for lower speed limits which will be consulted on separately by the relevant Community Board with the aim to implement concurrently.

·     That two additional trees may need to be removed outside 171 Wairakei Road and 315 Clyde Road depending on the detailed design and consultation with affected parties and that there will be an overall increase of trees along the route

 


 

8.   Reference Documents

Document

Location

Hearings Panel Agenda

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_AGN_7342_AT.PDF

Hearings Panel Attachments Under Separate Cover

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_ATT_7342_EXCLUDED.PDF

Hearings Panel Minutes

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_MIN_7342_AT.PDF

Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/BLHP_20211115_MAT_7342.PDF

Have Your Say Webpage

https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/448

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Samantha Kelly – Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support

Approved By           Councillor Melanie Coker - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Nor'West Arc Revised Scheme Designs

41

 

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 






















Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

10.   Regulatory Services - Building Consenting Unit Report - October, November and December 2021

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1714138

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Robert Wright Head of Building Consenting – robert.wright@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis – General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services – jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Urban Development and Transport Committee with respect to the delivery of regulatory functions performed within the Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services Group for the period October 2021 to December 2021. 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Services Building Consenting Update Report – October – December 2021.

3.   Building Consenting Unit

3.1       Key Statistics

 

Oct

Nov

Dec

YTD

Building consents processed within 19 working days (target is 95%)

28.4%

26.0%

26.9%

37.0%

Code compliance certificate decisions made within 19 working days (target is 95%). 

94.4%

79.0%

77.7%

86.9%

Inspections booked within three working days of requested date (target is 98%). 

98.1%

94.6%

98.0%

98.3%

Customer satisfaction survey results (target is 75%). 

82.7%

80.0%

74.68%

80.30%

Number of building warrant of fitness audits

18

16

16

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2       Significant Building Consents (October, November and December)

Address

Value of Building Work

Building Consent Details

617 Colombo Street

$1.5mn

ENTx Complex alterations

Christchurch Hospital PCU

Undisclosed

Emergency works to add additional ICU beds

3.3       Building Consent Work Load and Backlog

 

This surge in consent activity has seen our workload increase significantly within the previous six months averaging approximately 550 applications per month.  The average number of applications over the last three years has been approximately 400 per month.

In response to this increase in the backlog of work we continue to recruit, with an additional three building inspectors starting in the New Year.

We continue to use external contractors, however they still have a limitation in their own capacity, so we are seeking further expressions of interest for additional contractors.

 

Residential & Commercial Applications Accepted

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

2020

307

363

369

274

398

454

498

417

442

390

445

333

2021

266

398

604

497

573

518

542

569

410

408

390

473

 

Current processing timeframes are project type specific and can vary from 1 to approximately 60 days.

 

Building Consent Processing Days

 

 

 

 

 

Residential & Commercial Applications Granted

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

2021

248

353

494

443

428

478

482

455

445

387

415

364

 

The increased work load has seen compliance with the statutory timeframe reduce drastically.

 

Percentage with 20 working days – Residential & Commercial Consents

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

%

97.1%

94.6%

93.9%

80.6%

68.9%

54.4%

55%

48.9%

38.4%

29.4%

27.4%

28.2%

 

 

Building Consent Applications Not Started

In terms of the backlog of applications in the system over 20 working days not started. The below graph shows a significant reduction in work not started. This has been achieved by using increased overtime, successful recruitment of additional processing and support staff and increased capacity of external contractors.

 

 

               

 

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

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

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

11.   Regulatory Compliance Unit update

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1800709

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Tracey Weston, Head of Regulatory Compliance, tracey.weston@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Urban Development and Transport Committee with highlights of compliance activity or campaigns over the past 2 months and demonstrates achievement in relation to our levels of service delivery for July – December 2021.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Unit Update Report

3.   Freedom camping update

3.1       On 1 December, this season’s proactive Freedom Camping campaign commenced, with Officers providing an educational, monitoring and enforcement approach.  The commencement of this season coincided to changes in our Freedom Camping Bylaw. Changes to the areas regulated in the new bylaw include:

3.1.1   North Beach Car Park: The weekend prohibited area now applies between 7pm Fridays and 7pm Sundays, and between 1 October and 1 May each year

3.1.2   City Coastal Restricted Zone: The Zone runs from Waimairi Beach end, down to South New Brighton. Certified self-contained freedom campers can stay in the Zone for a maximum of four nights in a 30-day period, with no more than two consecutive nights in one place. Campers must move at least 500 metres after two nights. No more than four nights freedom camping in total in the Zone per month

3.1.3   Southshore: Freedom camping is now prohibited in Southshore (south of and including Caspian Street)

3.1.4   Windsport Park, Ferrymead: The prohibited area has been extended

3.1.5   Naval Point: An area has been set aside for freedom camping, able to take up to 18 vehicles, with the rest of Naval Point now prohibited to camping

3.1.6   Takamatua: Freedom camping is now prohibited in the hillside residential area, joining the existing prohibited area along Takamatua Bay Road.

3.2       To date, the season has run relatively smoothly, with the numbers of Freedom Campers being down from 2018/19 season, but consistent with numbers from the 2019/20 season. This is due to border restrictions and only domestic visitors camping over the past two seasons. Officers have noted a significant decrease in camping numbers in Naval Point due to ongoing construction work and the reduction in car parks for freedom campers.  

The key areas of activity this year has been along Marine Parade and Akaroa on Banks Peninsula.

There have been 15 Infringement notices issued for offences relating to failing to display self-containment certification and freedom camping in a prohibited area.

4.   Pro-active swimming pool campaign

4.1       A proactive educational campaign was undertaken this year in relation to pool safety and creating awareness of the legislative requirements associated with temporary pool ownership. 

4.2       This campaign has been very successful with the Pool fencing section of Councils website having 2,000 visits between 12 November and 20 December. This is close to a 70% increase for the same timeframe last year.

4.3       Compliance relating to swimming pool fencing requirements also saw an increase, with less complaints received and more compliance noted by our officers when conducting Inspections.

5.   Noise Control

5.1       For the period of October and November 2021, we saw a significant increase in noise complaints compared to the last two years (10% more than 2020, and 30% more than 2019).

5.2       The number of social events taking place at individual residences have impacted this service.  It is believed this is a result of traditional entertainment venues only being able to host limited numbers and other concert type events not taking place meaning more people have tended to have parties at home.

5.3       This level of service is currently 84.9%. Our contractors are monitoring this activity closely and recruiting more Officers as the volume trends continue to show an increase.  This action will help to ensure that going forward we achieve our Level of service targets on a monthly basis. 

6.   Unit Dashboard – Regulatory Compliance Levels of Service

6.1       The Unit’s Levels of Service performance for the past 6 month period - 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021, is outlined in Attachment A

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Regulatory Compliance Levels of Service Dashboard - June to December 2021

70

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Andrew Jackson - Personal Assistant

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 




Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 

 

12.   Planning and Consents Report - October to December 2021

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/20168

Report of Te Pou Matua:

John Higgins, Head of Planning and Consents, john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Urban Development & Transport Committee with respect to delivery of the Planning and Consents Unit functions.   The report covers the period from October to December 2021 and is the first report to this committee following the dissolution of the Regulatory Performance Committee.

1.2       The report is also the first from the newly formed Planning and Consents Unit, which combines Planning Policy, Transport Policy, Resource Consents, Urban Design and Heritage.  For this report, it is focused on the Resource Consent functions given the time of the year and many staff were still on leave at the time of writing.   However, the report will be expanded for the next meeting to include other functions in the unit. 

1.3       The committee will continue to receive other reports from the Unit relating to specific topics that necessitate standalone reports. 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Planning and Consents Report – October to December 2021.

 

3.   Resource Management Act Reform update

3.1       The Ministry for the Environment is carrying out further, targeted stakeholder consultation on the Resource Management reforms, with a list of 33 questions posed to councils and iwi late last year. The questions relate to matters that will be included in the Natural and Built Environments Act, and focus on the national planning framework and hierarchy of plans, respective roles, representation and responsibilities, and involvement of manawhenua.  

3.2       Staff are working on responses to the questions (most of which cover matters already submitted on the legislation’s exposure draft), which will come to the Council as a draft submission in February.

3.3       The Canterbury Mayoral Forum (CMF) is also preparing a draft submission on the targeted consultation questions. The Council is taking a leadership role in the preparation of the CMF’s submission. 

4.   Resource Consents

4.1       A total of 1117 applications were received for the three month period of October, November and December 2021.  This is considerably higher than the same period in 2020 which saw 925 - an 18% increase.   This is a continued trend of higher applications numbers for 2021.

4.2       In addition to high application numbers, workloads are also being driven by the complexity profile of applications.  The implication is that applications take more time to process.

4.3       As a result of high workloads, processing non-notified applications within the statutory timeframes has decreased from 98% in September to 87% December.    The target is 99%.

4.4       A number of strategies are being employed to address the high workloads, such as recruitment, use of consultants, and streamlining processes.  However, there have been limitations to the extent these strategies have been effective.  For example, consultants have very limited capacity due to their own high workloads and are only accepting relatively small numbers of applications (1.5% of applications).

4.5       While we do expect compliance with the statutory timeframes to deteriorate further in the short term, we are working hard to improve the situation.   Recruitment is ongoing and we are in discussion with consultancies to increase the amount of applications they can take.  We also continue to work on other options, particularly streamlining processes so that applications can be processed quicker.    

4.6       Included on the decision letter for every resource consent is a link to an electronic survey. This survey provides feedback on the service, which is reviewed regularly and feeds into the continuous improvement programme. 85% of respondents year to date were satisfied with the service.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Resource Consents - Graphical Information

76

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

03 February 2022

 












 

 



[1] This was one of the NPS-UD resolutions made in December , for more information refer to Committee Resolution: UDATC/2021/00030 at https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/12/UDATC_20211202_MIN_5470_AT.PDF