Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 10 March 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Visual Link

Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (traffic lights) the meeting is open to the public through access to the live boardcasting of the meeting: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

4 March 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

10 March 2022

 

 


Council

10 March 2022

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 2 

1.        Apologies Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................. 2

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

3.        Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui............................................................ 2

3.1       Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.......................................................................................... 2

3.2       Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga...................................................... 2

4.        Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga............................................................ 2

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 10 February 2022..................................................................... 2

6.        Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 24 February 2022.................................................. 2

Community Board Monthly Reports

7.        Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2022................................. 2

Audit and Risk Management Committee

8.        Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 14 February 2022........................ 2

Health and Safety Committee

9.        Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 4 February 2022......................... 2

Staff Reports

10.      Mayor's Monthly Report - February 2022.............................................................. 2

11.      International Relations Policy Framework............................................................ 2

12.      Engagement Working Group Terms of Reference................................................... 2

13.      2021-22 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Application - Netball New Zealand Incorporated.................................................................................................... 2

14.      2022 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents....................................................................................................... 2

15.      Performing Arts Precinct - Car Park - Public Consultation....................................... 2

16.      Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................... 2

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Council

10 March 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.   Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

3.2   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Council

10 March 2022

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 10 February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/180542

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 10 February 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council Confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 February 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 10 February 2022

2

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

10 March 2022

 












Council

10 March 2022

 

 

6.     Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 24 February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/250202

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support, samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 24 February 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council - Annual Plan meeting held 24 February 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - Annual Plan - 24 February 2022

2

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support

  


Council

10 March 2022

 
















Council

10 March 2022

 

 

7.     Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/195416

Report of Te Pou Matua:

The Chairpersons of all Community Boards

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of initiatives and issues recently considered by the Community Boards.  This report attaches the most recent Community Board Area Report included in each Boards public meeting. Please see the individual agendas for the attachments to each report.

Each Board will present important matters from their respective areas during the consideration of this report and these presentations will be published with the Council minutes after the meeting.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Monthly Report from the Community Boards  <Enter Month> <Enter Year>.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board Area Report February 2022

2

b

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Area Report February 2022

2

c

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report December and January 2022

2

d

Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report February 2022

2

e

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board February 2022

2

f

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report February 2022

2

g

Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report February 2022

2

 

 


Council

10 March 2022

 







Council

10 March 2022

 









Council

10 March 2022

 







Council

10 March 2022

 






Council

10 March 2022

 






Council

10 March 2022

 






Council

10 March 2022

 







Council

10 March 2022

 

 

8.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 14 February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/186144

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Mark Saunders, Committee and Hearings Advisor, Mark.Saunders@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Leah Scales, Acting General Manager Resources, Leah.Scales@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 14 February 2022 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 14 February 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 14 February 2022

2

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Saunders - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

10 March 2022

 





Council

10 March 2022

 

 

9.     Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 4 February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/194406

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Simone Gordon, Committee and Hearings Advisor, simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy & Performance, lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee held a meeting on 4 February 2022 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 4 February 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee - 4 February 2022

2

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Simone Gordon - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

10 March 2022

 





Council

10 March 2022

 

 

10.   Mayor's Monthly Report - February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/198227

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

1.2       Mayor’s Appointment to the Port Hills Park Trust Board

The Port Hills Park Trust Board owns and administers Mt Vernon Park to conserve and enhance the natural environment and provide opportunity for public recreation.

The Trust’s Board is made up of three trustees appointed from the community and one each appointed by the local Member of Parliament, Lincoln University, the Mayor of Christchurch and the Christchurch Civic Trust.  The Mayor has the power to appoint one of the trustees.

Community Boards routinely appoint or recommend members to local organisations as members of the governance body or liaisons and points of contact for those groups.

The Port Hills Park Trust Board operates in the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board area.

The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board met on 16 February. The Board resolved (SCCB/2022/00006) that it:

Recommends that the Mayor appoint Lee Sampson to the Port Hills Park Trust Board for the remainder of the 2019-22 term. 

1.3       Local Government New Zealand 2022 Conference, Awards and Annual General Meeting

The purpose of this section of the report is to:

1.3.1   Appoint attendees to represent Council at the Local Government New Zealand 2022 Conference and Awards, to be held in Blenheim between 20 July and 22 July 2022.

1.3.2   Appoint Council’s voting delegate, and alternate, at the 2022 Annual General Meeting in July 2022.

1.3.3   Attendance

The Council normally sends between four and six councillor attendees and the Mayor to the LGNZ Conference and Awards. Operational budgets allow for attendance and travel costs. This year the Council will send the Mayor, Chief Executive and four-six councillors, which reflects the significant and existential agenda of LGNZ, including the advocacy priorities of the Future for Local Government, Three Waters, Resource Management, Housing, and Climate Change. Members will fulfil and enhance their leadership roles through their active participation, including with relevant Ministers on matters members will be called upon to make decisions in the coming year. 


 

1.3.4   Voting

The Council is entitled to six votes at the AGM, the Mayor will be the Council’s presiding voting delegate, with another Councillor appointed as the alternate voting delegate.  The Council is entitled to up to four delegates attending the AGM, this will include the Chief Executive or her proxy.

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

2.   Mayors Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this Report. 

2.         Notes that the Mayor has appointed Lee Sampson to the Port Hills Park Trust Board for the remainder of the 2019-22 term.

3.         Appoint the Mayor, Chief Executive and four to six Councillors as Christchurch City Council attendees to the Local Government New Zealand 2021 Conference and Awards.

4.         Appoint the Mayor as the presiding voting delegate, and Councillor Cotter as the alternate voting delegate, to attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting in July 2022.

5.         Continue to make arrangements for the names to be read and a minute’s silence observed on 22 February at 12.51pm each year at the Oi Manawa Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial; 
and 
Continue to plan and deliver civic memorials to mark significant 22 February earthquake commemorations in consultation with the Quake Families Trust, including:

·    Significant milestone anniversaries such as the 20th anniversary

·    To mark the next anniversary in the post-COVID-19 environment when international bereaved families can and wish to visit Christchurch, in consultation with those families

6.         Implement and report to Council on the outstanding recommendations of the Royal Commission Report on Canterbury Earthquake Impact on Buildings.

 

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Monthly Report February 2022

2

 

 


Council

10 March 2022

 






Council

10 March 2022

 

 

11.   International Relations Policy Framework

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1341645

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Matthew Nichols, Civic and International Relations Manager, Matthew.Nichols@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy and Performance, Lynn.McClelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The report seeks the Council’s adoption of the proposed priority international partnerships for Ōtautahi Christchurch, under the International Relations Policy Framework. 

1.2       The Framework is a strategy jointly owned by all internationally-active city institutions for how Ōtautahi Christchurch will engage with the world, for the benefit of city residents, as part of a post-Covid recovery pathway.

1.3       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by discussions with city stakeholders who collectively represent Christchurch’s international interests, and who support Council’s adoption of the proposed international partnerships.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Adopt as International City-Wide Focus Partnerships for Ōtautahi Christchurch:

a.         Guangdong Province (China)

b.         the West Coast of the United States, and

c.         the Republic of Korea;

2.         Adopt Australia as an International Foundation & Recovery Partner for Ōtautahi Christchurch;

3.         Request that staff prepare a set of key measures to monitor the outcomes of the Partnerships and report annually to the Council on progress.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Council approved the Christchurch International Relations Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) in 2019 [CNCL/2019/00183]. The Framework is a strategy jointly owned by all internationally-active city institutions (‘the Group’) for how Ōtautahi will engage with the world, for the benefit of city residents.

3.2       Though the Framework was developed prior to the Covid 19 pandemic, its objectives (para 2.5 below) remain robust and fit for purpose in light of the city’s need for post-pandemic economic recovery. 

3.3       The critical next phase has been to re-examine the world through the prism of the Framework’s priorities, including our city’s current international relationships, and identify a small number of targeted destinations on which to focus our collective effort.


 

3.4       City-wide collaboration under the Framework will:

3.4.1   Accelerate the city’s post-Covid economic recovery through strategic city-wide  cooperation on our international outreach

3.4.2   Grow the city’s connections with modern international centres of skills & talent, innovation, and prospective customers for Christchurch and Canterbury exporters, and

3.4.3   Demonstrate Council leadership in the city’s international ecosystem.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The alternative option is to retain the status quo, namely a large number of internationally active city institutions each pursing their own defined objectives in a range of different nations. These would lack the efficiencies and impact of city-level collaboration.  The status quo would also see these institutions not receiving the full added benefit of local and central government support, particularly the coordination and oversight role of the Council and access to MFAT’s and NZTE’s extensive networks offshore.

4.2       For the Council itself, retaining the status quo would mean that the organisation (particularly the Civic and International Relations Unit) would largely remain reactive in the absence of a clear prioritisation framework.

4.3       Retaining the status quo is not recommended.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Modern, dynamic and successful cities are highly internationally connected, are deliberate in their outreach, and make full use of their country’s own diplomatic network. They do this because the benefits that come from sustained international engagement are often significant – such as direct air links, the attraction of skilled migrants and international students, and business deals in foreign markets.  

5.2       With an international airport and a seaport, a significant exporting base, and a large number of globally connected institutions, Christchurch is an international city. But as we emerge from 1) the earthquake rebuild and 2) the Covid-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to maximise our economic recovery, and reassert our place as Aotearoa’s second city, through more deliberate international engagement. 

5.3       The Council approved the Christchurch International Relations Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) in August 2019 [CNCL/2019/00183]. The Framework is effectively a strategy jointly owned by all internationally active city institutions for how Ōtautahi Christchurch will engage with the world, for the benefit of city residents.

5.4       Though the Framework was developed prior to the Covid 19 pandemic, its key priorities (section 5.6 below) remain robust and fit for purpose in light of the city’s need for post-pandemic economic recovery.

5.5       City-wide collaboration under the Framework will:

5.5.1   Accelerate the city’s post-Covid economic recovery through strategic city-wide  cooperation on our international outreach

5.5.2   Grow the city’s connections with modern international centres of skills & talent, innovation, and prospective customers for Christchurch and Canterbury exporters, and

5.5.3   Demonstrate Council leadership in the city’s international ecosystem.

Why Do We Engage Internationally? Example 1: CIAL’s China Southern  Airlines Deal

·    A China Southern Airlines direct flight service between Christchurch and Guangzhou commenced in 2015. These direct flights have been a significant contributor to the economy of Christchurch and the wider South Island, worth an estimated $157 million per year in Visitor Spend and $509 million per year in Freight Economic Value. Benefits have been observed widely across the trade, tourism and education sectors.

·    In the highly competitive direct flight market, a strong backing from the Council was critical to CIAL landing the deal with China Southern. City Governments and Mayors in the Chinese and Asian context are highly influential, lending legitimacy and gravitas to major business proposals.  The Mayor of Christchurch was a key diplomatic asset in the process, meeting with representatives of China Southern and Guangzhou city officials multiple times both before and after the service was established to lead discussions with the airline.

·    The flight service was suspended in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but CIAL management remains optimistic that it will be reinstated post-pandemic. The Mayor of Christchurch will again be called upon to support these negotiations, and for any other direct flight service CIAL wishes to pursue in future. 

 

5.6       Led by CCC and ChristchurchNZ, the Framework’s founding members include the city’s Airport and Port Companies, Ngāi Tahu, the Chamber of Commerce, Higher Education, central government agencies and Sister City Committees. It has produced an influential group for the city to advance its interests internationally, and which can access an extensive international network via MFAT’s embassies and NZTE’s offices offshore. All other city institutions or sector groups with emerging international interests (such as the city’s growing aerospace sector) are welcome to join.

         International Relations Policy Framework Founding Members

Ara Institute

Education New Zealand

Asia New Zealand Foundation

Lincoln University

Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce

Lyttelton Port Company

Christchurch City Council (Chair)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Christchurch Educated

New Zealand Trade & Enterprise

Christchurch International Airport Limited

Ngāi Tahu

Christchurch Sister City Committees

The Christchurch Foundation

ChristchurchNZ

University of Canterbury

 

5.7       The Framework’s two key priorities are:

-      To strengthen international connections to attract and develop the best talent and ideas, and

-      To increase the wellbeing of Christchurch citizens through a prosperous economy (with ‘prosperous economy’ defined using the same definition as the Council’s Strategic Framework 2020: “a great place for people, business and investment; An inclusive, equitable economy with broad-based prosperity for all; A productive, adaptive and resilient economic base; Modern and robust city infrastructure and community facilities”)

5.8       The critical next phase has been to re-examine the world through the prism of these priorities, including our city’s current international relationships, and identify a small number of targeted destinations (referred to in the Framework as ‘City-Wide Focus Partnerships’) on which to focus our collective effort. Christchurch’s resources are too small to meaningfully invest in multiple international relationships: the principle of ‘going deeper with fewer’ is ingrained in the Framework.

 

Why Do We Engage Internationally? Example 2: Christchurch’s Knowledge-sharing and Profile in Response to Tragedies and in Building Resilience

·    Christchurch has become recognised as an active contributor to the global knowledge pool on disaster and tragedy responses. 

·    The city’s earthquake experience and focus on resilience planning earned Christchurch a place in the 100 Resilient Cities network pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation – now the Resilient Cities Network. This generated significant international profile for Christchurch as a thought leader and contributor to global resilience best practice. A large number of international delegations have also visited the city over the last decade to engage with city leaders on disaster preparedness, urban planning, engineering and community resilience, with a large number of spin-off connections created.  

·    Christchurch also received significant assistance from its international partners following the 2010/11 earthquake sequence. Our Sister City Kurashiki notably made a compassionate donation of more than $NZ 300,000 toward the relief and rebuild effort, in addition to the large quantity of personnel, medical and other supplies provided by the Government of Japan (which itself places high value on Sister City connections). 

·    This profile has been enhanced by the city’s and nation’s response to the 15 March 2019 terrorist attacks.  In addition to the significant international connections made in the immediate aftermath, the Mayor and city leaders are now invited to speak and participate in global city conferences and networks related to countering violent extremism, compassion, and social inclusion. We have recently been invited to join the Global Counter Terrorism Forum’s ‘Strong Cities Network’, composed of cities sharing best practice and lobbying their central governments for a greater role in counter-terrorism efforts.

 

Methodology

5.9       The Covid-19 pandemic has slowed and complicated the assessment. The group reviewed the Framework at a high level in light of the impacts of the pandemic and is confident that it remains robust, and that the resultant proposed partnerships are robust choices for all possible Covid re-opening scenarios.  The current level of global uncertainty (and the New Zealand Government’s own policy-making in response to that) have also been carefully factored into the forecasting and assessment methodology.

5.10    Notwithstanding this, the Framework has also been designed to allow the city’s international outreach to evolve over time, as global trends and the city’s own priorities change.

5.11    Stakeholders were organised into four sectors (International Business, International Education, Tourism, and Strategic Influence): each sector then ranked its priority destinations in order or importance. Factors considered in this ranking process included existing relationships such as Sister Cities, areas of comparative advantage, the impact of Mayors as key diplomatic assets, current and future airlinks, economic potential and Christchurch’s Antarctic Gateway status.

5.12    Each individual stakeholder then ranked its top five priority destinations, and this was cross-referenced against the sectoral data. 

5.13    Organisational imperatives were incorporated into the process – particularly that ChristchurchNZ’s and CIAL’s activity in the near term will need to be heavily focussed on Australia (see more below).

5.14    Finally, the group constrained itself to selecting a maximum of four international destinations for city-wide effort, given the city’s finite resources.

5.15    The Group’s proposed ‘City-Wide Focus Partnerships’ for Ōtautahi Christchurch are:

-      Guangdong Province, China (including Christchurch’s ‘friendly city’ Shenzhen)

-      The West Coast, United States of America (including California, Oregon, Washington state and Sister City Seattle), and

-      Republic of Korea (including Sister City Songpa-Gu)

5.16    City-Wide Focus Partnerships (formerly ‘City Partnerships’) are those with whom the Group expects to achieve the greatest impact for Christchurch – in wellbeing, prosperity, and talent/skills attraction terms – by working together.  They will receive priority attention and effort, including through a shared work plan and coordinated engagement.

5.17    They will receive a strong backing from the Mayor and city’s elected leadership, and will be a high-profile and public-facing (i.e. on the CCC website) statement of Christchurch’s top international priorities.

5.18    The Group also proposes that Australia (including Sister City Adelaide) be designated as a ‘Foundation & Recovery’ Partner to reflect the special importance of this relationship. As noted above, Australia and Australians will be particularly important for ChristchurchNZ and CIAL’s work to maximise our city’s Covid recovery in the short term, as we await the opening of the other markets which are geographically more distant and likely to take relatively longer.

5.19    By seeking to establish or deepen relationships with these destinations in a coordinated way, the Group expects Christchurch to see measurable and meaningful benefits over time – noting that the benefits of international relationships are never immediate; for example, New Zealand was the first developed nation to conclude a Free Trade Agreement with China, but only after a sustained period of relationship and trust-building.


 

5.20    Examples of expected city benefits include:

-      Collaboration projects and knowledge transfer in areas of common interest, under ChristchurchNZ’s four Supernodes or industry clusters (Aerospace & Future Transport; Food, Fibre & Agritech; Healthtech & Resilient Communities; and High Tech Services);

-      Collaboration in climate change adaptation and resilience;

-      Increases in skilled migrant and international student numbers;

-      New direct air links, and

-      Increased business connections and increased international exports from Christchurch and Canterbury companies.

5.21    The group considers that the resulting recommended mix of two destinations in Asia, one destination in North America, and Australia strikes the optimal balance of benefits, costs and risks for our city’s interests. It resulted from significant negotiation within the Group, and many Group members had to make concessions to reach this outcome.

5.22    This city-wide approach to international relations is a first for a New Zealand metro centre. It is supported by MFAT and NZTE, which are integral members of the Group. It marks a departure from the city’s historic approach to international relations, which – in the absence of a clear prioritisation framework – has tended to focus on people-to-people connections. These connections have not always been leveraged for wider tangible benefits, and have been vulnerable to change in key personnel.

5.23    This city-wide approach is possible due to the ‘goldilocks’ size of our city’s international ecosystem, and the strong collegial relationships between our public and private sector institutions.

Why Do We Engage Internationally? Example 3: Diplomatic Corps Visit Secures Contracts for Canterbury Businesses

·    In December 2020 Christchurch hosted the Diplomatic Corps (the foreign Ambassadors resident in Wellington) for a city familiarisation visit, in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. More than 20 Ambassadors and their spouses participated in a three-day programme.

·    CCC, ChristchurchNZ and Ngāi Tahu worked with city organisations and prominent businesses to coordinate a comprehensive city-wide visit programme that displayed the city’s credentials as rebuilt, dynamic, and open for business. 

·    Several local companies received contracts from foreign customers and other benefits due to their involvement in the Tour. The visit demonstrated to all city stakeholders the value of a city-wide approach and profiled the city to foreign governments and businesses.  

 

What Does this Mean for our Sister City Relationships?

5.24    Our Sister Cities will always be our Sister Cities. Sister City Committee representatives have been integral members of the strategy development process, and support the outcomes. All six Committees (Adelaide, China, Christchurch UK, Kurashiki, Seattle, Songpa-Gu) will continue to advance projects and activities with their Sister Cities.

5.25    The proposed approach means that a city-wide focus will be taken for Seattle, Shenzhen, Songpa-Gu, and Adelaide, because these cities are within the proposed priority destinations.  In practice this will mean closer collaboration between these Sister City Committees and city organisations. Organisations will be looking to leverage the deep base of relationships, trust and goodwill that Committees have established in pursuit of the Framework’s priorities.

5.26    The remaining Sister City Committees understand the rationale for this, and support the need to prioritise, while maintaining positive relationships. They acknowledge that the wider group may see benefit in their relationships receiving a city-wide focus at a future time.

Global Responsibility

5.27    Global responsibility is a core principle under the Framework, including “upholding our city’s values as a caring and responsible global actor,” and “contributing to global challenges including climate change action, resilience, supporting sustainable development, and countering violent extremism”.

5.28    This principle allows the Group to work together in the above areas where appropriate, or alternatively for the Council to undertake such activity on its own. Examples include:

o   Considering projects or targeted cooperation with cities in developing nations

o   Ensuring a Christchurch voice at multilateral conferences related to climate change, or countering violent extremism, and

o   Considering city contributions to humanitarian crises, such as the recent volcanic eruption in Tonga (noting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the lead coordinating authority for New Zealand’s humanitarian responses). 

Communications and Media

5.29    Should Council approve the recommendations, it is proposed that these destinations be publicised via CCC channels as the parts of the world where ‘team Christchurch’ will focus its collective effort and work together in pursuit of talent attraction, wellbeing and economic growth objectives. Given the city-wide approach and the new way of assessing the city’s international priorities, it may attract media interest. MFAT and NZTE have been closely engaged throughout the process, and support Christchurch publicly signalling these priorities.

5.30    The Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China, the Embassies of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, and the Australian High Commission will be briefed in advance. 

Consultation

5.31    As the decisions in this report are classified as of low significance under the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and the Framework has been co-designed from the outset by all institutions with significant international interests (including the Sister Cities community), the Group considers that consultation has been comprehensive and appropriate.

5.32    The decision will not have any unique implications for any particular ward/ Community Board area.

Implementation and Review

5.33    If approved by the Council, city-wide work plans will be developed for each priority partnership, setting out clear objectives and KPIs. Council’s Civic and International Relations Unit has led the strategy process from its inception and has been given a strong mandate by the broader group to maintain its leadership and coordination role.

5.34    Progress in these destinations will be reviewed following an initial two-year period of targeted engagement. Group members will come together more regularly (quarterly or more frequently as required) as part of a new proposed International Relations Advisory Group (IRAG), which will report to Council annually.

5.35    The Group recommends that Council adopt the IRAG as the City Council’s chief advisor on international relations issues so that it receives the benefit of holistic city-wide international relations advice. 

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The International Relations Policy Framework has been developed to be in close alignment with the Council’s own Strategic Framework. As previously noted, the Council’s “prosperous economy” Community Outcome is reflected in the strategy’s priority of pursuing “wellbeing through a prosperous economy”. It also embodies the principle of “actively collaborating and cooperating with other local, regional and national organisations”.

6.2       The Framework is also aligned with:

6.2.1   The Christchurch Prosperity Framework: this Framework underscores the city’s aspiration to be “an internationally relevant city; attractive to people, high value business and investment”

6.2.2   the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy - particularly two of its “Big 5 Game Changer Projects”: “Create an attractive city for residents, business, investment and visitors” and “Connect internationally for commercialisation and growth”

6.2.3   ChristchurchNZ’s Statement of Intent and workplan: ChristchurchNZ has provided significant input into the evaluation process and supports the Framework as a tool for advancing its own organisational objectives

6.2.4   the Christchurch Antarctic Gateway Strategy, strategic priority 1: “Welcome and deliver excellence – Christchurch is recognised for being a welcoming host and for service excellence as a gateway city”. Inbound hosting of international guests will be an important part of post-Covid work programmes under the Framework, and the Antarctic Office will have a key role. The Antarctic programmes of both the United States and the Republic of Korea (two of the proposed City-Wide Focus Partnerships) are based in Christchurch

6.2.5   the Christchurch Multicultural Strategy, Goal 4: “Ōtautahi-Christchurch is a city of cultural vibrancy, diversity, inclusion and connection”. The Framework’s key priority “to strengthen international connections to attract and develop the best talent and ideas”

6.3       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031). The following Level of Service has been assigned to the Civic and International Relations team:  LTP21: 5.0.9.1 Lead city-wide coordination and collaboration in support of the agreed vision and priorities set out in the 2020 International Relations Policy Framework (IRPF) action plans.

7.   Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.1       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.

7.2       Ngāi Tahu is an integral partner in the Framework through its commercial arm of Tourism.  Council will engage with its business partners including Ngāi Tahu Holdings (Tourism) to develop related future opportunities.

8.   Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.1       As noted above, the Framework’s core principle of Global Responsibility allows the Group to work collectively in response to global challenges like climate change, or for the Council to do so on its own. The Group sees significant potential for climate change-related collaboration, knowledge exchange and business connectivity with the four recommended priority partners.

8.2       The Council’s Strategic Policy and Resilience Team will retain the lead for the Council’s climate resilience work and outreach. The Civic and International Relations team will keep abreast of this work programme to ensure opportunities are supported or leveraged by the wider Group where appropriate. 

8.3       In the Council context, approval for air travel to support international relationship building will be sought to be reinstated when face to face interactions with international counterparts is assessed as important – for example, the observance of significant relationship milestones or to support commercial opportunities e.g. direct international flights. Virtual conferencing will be employed in lieu of air travel as appropriate.

8.4       Council will continue to explore innovative and sustainable solutions for international connectivity and relationships. 

9.   Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

9.1       The proposal has no accessibility considerations.

10. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

10.1    Cost to Implement – there is no expected financial impact on LTP/ Annual Plan/ 3 Year Plan/ Operational budgets. International Relations Policy Framework development costs have been met within Civic and International Relations baseline funding.

10.2    Maintenance/Ongoing costs – no budget increase is sought for maintenance/ongoing costs at this stage. Council’s key contribution to the Group is the staff time committed to leading and coordinating the process. There may be a case in future for additional Council investment: this will depend on the total level of investment deemed appropriate by the Group to resource the relationship work plans as they evolve, and the level of contribution deemed appropriate for each stakeholder.  This will be addressed through the LTP process.

11. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

11.1    The general powers of competence set out in Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

11.2    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. All Framework stakeholders are collaborating in a willing and voluntary capacity; there is no legally binding agreement or documentation to consider.

12. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

12.1    There are no significant risks associated with adopting the Recommendations. Resulting changes to Christchurch’s international outreach will be managed sensitively with our traditional partners, including Sister Cities that do not fall under one of the newly proposed Partnership categories, and the diplomatic missions responsible for these Sister Cities. The Group does not expect the city to receive any negative reaction from these partners.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

CIR - International Relations Policy Framework February 2022 FINAL

2

 

 

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

Jack Chaney - Civic and International Relations Advisor

Approved By

Matthew Nichols - Manager Civic & International Relations

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Council

10 March 2022

 









Council

10 March 2022

 

 

12.   Engagement Working Group Terms of Reference

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/182311

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Katy McRae, Manager Engagement, katy.mcrae@ccc.govt.nz
Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support, Samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy and Performance, lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the Terms of Reference for the Engagement Working Group. 

1.2       This report has been written to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2021/00176 where it established the Working Group, noting that the Terms of Reference would be developed and reported back to the Council for confirmation.

1.3       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the fact that the Terms of Reference propose the Working Group makes recommendations only, which they will bring to Council (as the final decision-maker).

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approves the Engagement Working Group Terms of Reference (Attachment A).

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       At its meeting on 11 November 2021 the Council established an Engagement Working Group regarding how the Council engages with its diverse communities, and approved the membership.

3.2       It was noted that the Terms of Reference would be developed and reported back to the Council for confirmation.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The alternative option would be not to establish Terms of Reference for the Engagement Working Group. This is not recommended as it is not consistent with the Council’s approach for working groups. Working groups should have a purpose and should be task-based, to provide direction and to ensure efficiencies and best outcomes are achieved.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       On 14 February 2022 an informal meeting was held with the Working Group to discuss the purpose of the Working Group and the draft Terms of Reference.

5.2       The attached draft Terms of Reference provides context for the Working Group’s establishment, and its proposed purpose and responsibilities.

5.3       Note that the Working Group will have oversight on development of two key outputs – an engagement action plan, and an engagement strategy for the 2024 Long Term Plan.

 

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: Public Information and Participation

·     Level of Service: 4.1.9 We provide advice and support in community engagement, and consultation planning and delivery, to teams across the organisation and to Elected Members - Percentage of residents who feel they can participate in and contribute to Council decision-making. 41%

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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       However, as part of its responsibilities the Working Group will seek to identify any gaps and opportunities where public engagement could increase participation of Mana Whenua in democratic processes.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       While this decision does not have any specific climate change impact considerations, as part of its responsibilities the Working Group will consider innovative engagement solutions that support actions in the Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       As part of its responsibilities the Working Group will seek to identify any gaps and opportunities where public engagement could increase participation of disabled communities in democratic processes.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – will be achieved within existing operational budget.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - will be achieved within existing operational budget.

7.3       Funding Source – existing Communications and Engagement budget.

 

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Local Government Act (LGA) 2022 sets out the expectations for councils with regards to governance, decision-making and consultation.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There are no risk management implications in this decision as it is of low significance. The rationale for low significance also applies for risk management implications - the Terms of Reference propose the Working Group makes recommendations only, which will be send to the Council, as the final decision-maker.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Engagement Working Group Terms of Reference

2

 

 

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

Katy McRae - Manager Engagement

Approved By

Dan Terris - Acting Head of Communications & Engagement

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Council

10 March 2022

 



Council

10 March 2022

 

 

13.   2021-22 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Application - Netball New Zealand Incorporated

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/104772

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an application to the 2021/22 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) from the below organisation:

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Netball New Zealand Incorporated

Connecting and inspiring communities through Netball

$20,000

$15,000

 

TOTAL

$20,000

$15,000

 

1.2       There is currently a balance of $238,628 remaining in the DRF.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Makes a grant of $15,000 from the 2021/22 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to Netball New Zealand Incorporated towards a participation lead to connect and inspire communities through Netball.

 

3.   Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1       The recommendations are aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of enabling active and connected communities to own their future. It will contribute to three community outcomes, resilient communities, liveable city and healthy environment.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.2       Determine the allocation of the DRF for each community

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

3.4       The Fund does not cover:

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

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

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.6       The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

3.7       Due to the assessment of low significance, engagement has been limited to the applicants and community development staff assessing applications, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.8       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2021/22 DRF is as below.

Total Budget 2021/22

Granted To Date

Amount Returned

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$460,871

$249,943

$27,700

$238,628

$223,628

 

3.9       Based on the current DRF criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

3.10    The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Decision Matrix - 00063676 - Netball New Zealand Incorporated

2

 

 

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

Katie MacDonald - Community Support Officer

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Gary Watson - Acting Manager Civil Defence & Emergency Management

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

10 March 2022

 


Council

10 March 2022

 

 

14.   2022 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/74592

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Jo Daly, Electoral Officer, jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy and Performance, lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report for the Council to resolve that candidate names are to be shown in random order on voting documents for the 2022 triennial elections and any subsequent by-elections. 

1.2       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The Council has used random order on voting documents since 2004, therefore the community is familiar with this way of displaying candidate names on voting documents.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve, under regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, that the names of candidates at the 2022 triennial elections and any subsequent by-elections be arranged in random order.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 (the regulations) enables the Council to determine, by resolution, which order candidate names are to be arranged on voting documents. The options for order are alphabetical, random or pseudo-random.

3.2       Candidate profile statement booklets are printed in alphabetical order. It is only the order of candidate names on voting documents that the Council can determine.

3.3       Alphabetical order is the default option under the regulations. If the Council does not make a decision, under regulation 31(3) candidate names will be listed in alphabetical order by surname.

3.4       The Council decision on the order of candidate names on voting documents will be in place for the 2022 local elections to be held on 8 October 2022 and any by-elections held during the 2022 to 2025 triennial term.

3.5       The recommended option for the order of candidate names on voting documents is random order. Random order is where all candidate surnames are randomly selected by computer so that the order of surnames is different on each voting document.

3.6       The Council has used random order for voting documents at all triennial elections since 2004. Voters in Christchurch City Council elections are likely to be familiar with this approach.

3.7       Random order removes the perception of name order bias, each voter will receive a voting paper with candidates in different orders. All candidates will have equal opportunity to be at the top of some voting papers, and the bottom of others.

3.8       Under random order, candidate names will be listed differently on the voting paper than the candidate booklet, where names are listed alphabetically. There is the perception of confusion as some voters may have difficulty finding the candidates they wish to vote for, particularly when many candidates are contesting the same issue.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The other options available to the Council for the order of candidates on voting documents are alphabetical and pseudo-random order.

Alphabetical

4.2       Alphabetical order is listing candidate surnames alphabetically. This is the default option under the regulations if the Council does not make a decision.

4.3       Alphabetical order aligns with the order that candidates are listed in the candidate profile booklets. Voters may be familiar with names being listed alphabetically from Parliamentary elections.

4.4       There is some suggestion that candidates with a surname starting at the ‘A’ end of the alphabet may have an advantage over candidates with a surname starting at the ‘Z’ end of the alphabet as they will be at the top of each voting paper. This may be considered to be unfair.

Pseudo-random order.

4.5       Pseudo-random order is where candidate surnames are randomly selected, and the order selected is the order appearing on all voting documents.

4.6       If pseudo-random order is decided, under regulation 31(4) the electoral officer must state by public notice the date, time and place in which the order of candidates’ names will be arranged and any person is entitled to appear.

4.7       Pseudo-random order provides for candidates to have equal opportunity to be at the top of the voting paper. However, some candidates will be listed at the bottom of every voting paper.

4.8       Both pseudo-random and random order remove the perception of name order bias, the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The regulations allow for the Council to make a decision on the order of candidate names.

5.2       Voting documents for the 2022 elections will include elections for the regional council, Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury will consider this matter and pass its own resolution if pseudo-random or random order is to be used for these elections. Environment Canterbury has used random order for the 2016 and 2019 elections.

5.3       The decision affects all Christchurch City Council wards and community board areas.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The decision in this report aligns with the Community Outcome of Resilient communities and active participation in civic life.

6.2       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1   Activity: Governance and decision-making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.2.3 Provide a triennial local government election (October 2022) - 100% of year 1 election milestones achieved.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.5       The decision of the order of candidate names on voting documents does not have any implications on Mana Whenua. It is noted that candidates are able to provide their profile statements in both English and Te Reo.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       There are no climate change impacts associated with this decision. Local authority elections are held by postal voting and voting documents are required to be printed.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7       There are no accessibility considerations associated with the decision for the ordering of candidates’ names on voting documents. Using random order removes any perceived name bias.

6.8       As in 2019, the Electoral Officer will make support to vote available electors who are not able to complete a voting document independently due to disability.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – there is no difference to the cost of printing voting documents using any of the order of candidate name options available.

7.2       Funding Source – the printing of voting documents is included in the 2022 elections budgeted for within the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 enable the Council to determine by resolution the order candidates’ names are to be arranged on voting documents.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       Under the regulations, it is not mandatory for the Council to pick an option, the order of candidate names will automatically revert to alphabetical order.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       If candidate names are randomised there is a perceived risk of confusion as some voters may have difficulty finding the candidates they wish to vote for. However, as random order has been used by this Council for triennial elections and by-elections since 2004, the risk is deemed low.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Council

10 March 2022

 

 

15.   Performing Arts Precinct - Car Park - Public Consultation

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1328074

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Luke Rees-Thomas, Property Consultant, luke.reesthomas@ccc.govt.nz
Tim Cheesebrough, Senior Transport Planner, tim.cheesebrough@ccc.govt.nz
Peter MacGibbon, Project Manager, peter.macgibbon@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Leah Scales, Acting General Manager Resources, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.       Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the results of public consultation about, and make a decision on, the proposed sale of land within the Performing Arts Precinct. 

1.2       The land is proposed to be sold for development of a new public parking facility.  There have been separate processes to identify the need for, and procure the builder and operator of, the facility. 

1.3       The sale will facilitate development of the parking facility, for which will in turn support both the activities within the precinct itself and have ancillary benefits for important civic and cultural uses north of Cathedral Square, including the convention centre (Te Pae), central library (Tūranga) and the Town Hall.

1.4       This report has been written as a result of the Council decision on 8 April 2021 (CNCL/2021/54, refer Attachment A). At that time, the Council resolved to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to negotiate and conclude an agreement with the successful Request for Proposal (RFP) respondent, Wilson Parking Ltd, subject to community consultation being completed. Negotiations are now complete and a conditional agreement has been signed subject to the Council’s final decision on the sale of the required land, per this report.

1.5       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the avenue and purpose for which the land was acquired by Council from the Crown, the designation of the site and the level of change that would affect the general public.

 

2.       Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Consider the received public submissions on the proposal to sell the land parcel at 133-141 Gloucester Street.

2.         Authorise the sale of land, totalling 2,081m2 in area, located at 133-141 Gloucester Street, to Wilson Parking Limited, on terms consistent with the Council report and decision of 8 April 2021, for the purposes of developing a public parking facility within the Performing Arts Precinct.

 

3.       Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The Council has undertaken consultation on a proposal to dispose of land acquired for cultural purposes.  The future use of the land proposed for sale is parking to support the Performing Arts Precinct.  There may also be consequential benefits for other cultural, commercial and community activities in the vicinity, as the building is likely to be used by patrons of these facilities. 

3.2       The decision for Council relates to the sale of land.  It has separately made decisions that parking is required on this site and that this parking be delivered at no cost to ratepayers by a private company.

3.3       Staff recommend that the sale proceed for the following reasons:

3.3.1   The sale is for a legitimate purpose to address a demonstrated need for parking that supports cultural purposes both within the Performing Arts Precinct and other nearby venues;

3.3.2   The Council has considered other options to meet the need and have chosen the sale of land as its preferred approach;

3.3.3   The Council does not need to retain the land to deliver community benefits;

3.3.4   The Council selected the proposed purchasing consortium after a fair and impartial procurement process, which was contested by multiple bidders and was open to consideration of alternative solutions;

3.3.5   The proposal is consistent with Council’s policies and community outcomes particularly as they try to balance climate change mitigation strategies such as changing transport modes, with current demands and behaviours;

3.3.6   Recognising the matter raised by submitters and taking into account all of the requirements that the Council has built into the sale and purchase contract, including but not limited to requiring provision for a variety of vehicle types and needs and design for future adaptive reuse, and its broader precinct plans, there has not been a compelling case made to retain this land.

4.       Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa (Include advantages and disadvantages of discounted options)

4.1       An alternative option is for Council not to proceed with the sale of the land. 

4.1.1   The reasons why the Council might consider this option include:

·    the Council believe that it should rethink its previous policy (i.e. to provide a parking facility within the Performing Arts Precinct), because the feedback from this consultation demonstrates a greater community interest in mode shift than was included in the Central City Parking Policy 2021 and the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy 2021; or

·    the provision of car parking facility can be met by other proposed or possible facilities and the time and uncertainty associated with these becoming operational is tolerable.

4.1.2   Other reasons such as the land being required for other purposes or the commercial arrangements being unfavourable have been examined but are not considered sufficient to justify not selling the land

4.1.3   This option would require the Council to terminate the conditional agreement with Wilson Parking Limited.

4.1.4   This option would have a substantial impact on stakeholders of the Performing Arts Precinct and surrounding area. The certainty of a parking building being established prior to completion of the Court Theatre (expected in mid – late 2023) would be significantly reduced. 

4.1.5   A further disadvantage is that Council would not receive the purchase value of the land (refer Attachment A) and would not be in a position to consider any re–allocation of that or the circa $8.1m Parking Building Replacement budget it has set aside in the Long Term Plan (2021-31) to other priority projects across its various programmes and activities.

4.1.6   This option presents some legal risk to Council.  Should the purchasers believe that the Council has not followed relevant process, for instance considering matters that are not relevant to the decision, then they could decide to seek a judicial review.

4.1.7   A similar risk exists if Council makes the decision to proceed with the sale – opponents could, for example, attempt to seek a review on grounds that the Council did not adequately consider objectives contained in other policies when it made its decision.

5.       Detail Te Whakamahuki (Include community views and preferences on the matter regardless of whether consultation has taken place or not)

Background

5.1       The need for a public parking facility has been included in the thinking for the Performing Arts Precinct since the original planning stages.

5.2       The shared vision for the precinct, which was prepared with input from a variety of arts and cultural stakeholders, articulates the need for accessible, bike and car parking infrastructure to complement the core precinct activities (see Figure 1).

Figure 1                  Extract from Performing Arts Precinct Vision Document

 

5.3       The vision picks up on themes from the Share an Idea campaign around activation, vibrancy, diversity, mixed uses, collaboration, and access for all.

5.4       The need for a new public parking facility located north of Cathedral Square features in the Christchurch Central Parking Plan (Council / CERA) of 2015.  Themes from this document reflected in the current car parking building proposal include, but are not limited to the need for the provision of cycle parking to support travel choices, design that integrates with the surroundings, and the incorporation of  smart technology (such as electric vehicle charging) where appropriate.

5.5       Over time Council’s policies have changed, with a particular recognition that its parking decisions need to support greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 

5.5.1   The 2021 Central City Parking Policy recognises that: “The cost and availability of parking influences our carbon footprint through choices made about whether to drive, travel by a more sustainable mode, or not to travel at all. We also need to ensure we support parking for sustainable modes like cycling and scooting to encourage uptake.” 

5.5.2   Policy seven of this document specifically states that the Council “will not generally provide additional off-street parking” in recognition of the need to drive mode shift and also avoid undermining private sector developments.    

5.5.3   The general principle in policy seven recognises an existing commitment to replace the capacity of the Manchester Street parking building destroyed in the earthquake, which the current proposal partially addresses.  The other named exceptions for consideration include the Performing Arts Precinct, and Te Pae (the new convention centre).

5.5.4   The Council’s clear intent is to meet existing commitments which, based on the policy and other actions, includes the Performing Arts Precinct facility, and then not provide additional off street car parking except in exceptional circumstances. 

5.6       Staff have conducted several lengthy processes in order to source and fund a car park facility. The Council has considered this issue a number of times and made multiple decisions along this journey.  These include:

5.6.1   10 August 2017 –CNCL/2017/00190 – Requests staff to work with Court Theatre and other entities to create the PAP with the report noting the inclusion of a public parking facility.

5.6.2   28 June 2018 – CNCL/2018/00135 – Prioritises the development of a home for the Court Theatre and off-street parking solutions.

5.6.3   28 March 2019 –CNCL/2019/00067 – Approves Court Theatre business case and endorses support for development subject to Council approval on off-street parking facilities.

5.6.4   8 April 2021 – CNCL/2021/00054 – Instructs staff to negotiate and conclude a conditional agreement with the preferred RFP respondent (for the public parking building), followed by a public consultation process over the sale of the associated land parcel. Terms of the agreement to be set by the Chief Executive in reflection of the details proposed in the Council report.

5.7       The Council’s 2019 consultation on the Global settlement expressed its intent to build a Performing Arts Precinct parking facility. 

5.8       Stakeholders of the Performing Arts Precinct, have consistently indicated a need for a conveniently located, attractive and safe parking building serving the precinct. The inclusion of parking has informed various business cases which led to the development of these assets.

5.9       On 8 April 2021, the Council resolved to enter into a conditional agreement with Wilson Parking Limited for them to develop and operate a parking facility.  As part of the approval the Council also agreed to sell Wilsons Parking Limited the land, subject to certain restrictions and statutory public consultation.  Attachment B show the land area to be sold.

5.10    The conditional contract with Wilson Parking Ltd was signed on 16 November 2021. The agreement contains detailed conditions to help achieve the Council’s wider aims including:

5.10.1 A sale of the land at market value (at the time negotiations commenced);

5.10.2 An encumbrance registered on the property title to ensure the land is utilised as a public parking facility for a minimum of 30 years;

5.10.3 Requirements such as a minimum number of spaces for vehicles, dedicated mobility spaces, electric vehicle charging stations, motorcycles, e-scooters and bicycles. The building structure must also be designed in a manner that allows for future reconfiguration (to other appropriate uses) should the parking use become unviable or obsolete. The Council also retains a right to approve the design.

5.10.4 The Council will retain an option to purchase the land and any improvements back from the purchaser, should the project stall at a critical point and the purchaser has been deemed to have abandoned the works.

5.10.5 The Council will retain a Right of First Refusal to purchase the land and buildings back from the purchaser, at any time throughout the 30 year period of the registered encumbrance.

Consultation

5.11    The land to be sold meets the criteria to be considered a ‘park’ under section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.  ‘Park’ is defined as land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes; but does not include land that is held as a reserve, or part of a reserve, under the Reserves Act 1977.  The land is held by Council and designated for the Performing Arts Precinct, which is a cultural purpose. Section 138 requires the Council to consult with the public when seeking to ‘dispose’ of such land.

5.12    Staff have conducted a process in order to comply with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002. The proposal for consultation focussed on the sale of the land and asked for feedback to sell an empty piece of land in the city’s Performing Arts Precinct that was earmarked for a new parking building.

5.13    Consultation on the Performing Arts Precinct Land sale was open from 17 November to 13 December 2021.  The Council invited responses via the Council’s webpage, social media and newspaper advertisements. 

5.14    The Council also ran a targeted consultation with the 339 stakeholders the Council had from the previous engagements on the Performing Arts Precinct.  On 17 November 2021, Newsline ran a story on the consultation and within this stated if the sale was to go ahead, the Council would sell the land to Wilsons Parking.

5.15    A total of 267 submissions were received. Thirty nine submissions supported the sale and 219 did not support the sale of the property. Copies of all the submissions were provided separately to elected members on 1 February 2022.  Copies of submissions (with redacted contact details) are available on the Council’s website at Have Your Say.  Refer Attachment C for a summary and analysis of common themes.

5.16    The main theme of submissions not in support (155) related to climate change, with references to the Council’s Climate Resilience Strategy and the fact that the Council has declared a climate emergency.

5.16.1 37 submissions commented on climate change in general and that we are in a climate emergency.

5.16.2 61 submissions commented that we need to encourage other modes of transport in to the city. These comments included; improving the bus service and connecting the cycle ways.

5.16.3 57 submissions didn’t want a car park in this location and the land should be used differently. Some suggestions were to keep it for performances, or retain as a grassed / open area.

5.17    A number of other submissions were opposed to Wilson Parking owning and operating the car parking building.

5.17.1 56 submissions said they did not want Wilson Parking owning or running the carpark.

5.17.2 22 submissions did not support Wilson Parking owning the carpark and suggested instead that it should be New Zealand or Council-owned.

5.17.3 Ten submissions of the 56 who didn’t want Wilson Parking running the carpark, also wanted fewer cars in the city and to encourage people to use other modes of transport.

5.17.4 46 submissions stated that we don’t need a carpark in this location as there were others to choose from in the vicinity.

Submission Analysis and Comment

5.18    Some submitters have raised concerns that parking on the site is inconsistent with some of the Council’s other policies, particularly as they relate to climate change and sustainability.   Others argue that the current proposal is inconsistent with objectives relating to a vibrant, people-friendly, central city. 

5.18.1 The Council’s decision making is guided by the Local Government Act 2002.  The purpose of the Act “is to provide for democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities; and, to that end, this Act … (d) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach.”  This guidance reinforces the need to take into account the diversity of the community, and the community’s interests.  This requires the Council not only to consider climate change matters, but other interests and needs as well.  It must attempt to balance different priorities and interests.

5.18.2 It is recognised that the provision of any new car parking facility is in tension with Council’s strategic priority of meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available.  The Council has, however, considered this matter and has responded both strategically, through the direction outlined in its Central City Parking Policy 2021, and tactically, through contractual restrictions that support mode shift, lower emission vehicles and adaptive reuse.

5.18.3 The scale of the facility sought is at the bottom end of the range of the estimated public parking supply needs north of Cathedral Square, and includes electric vehicle charging stations, mobility spaces, dedicated cycle and e-scooter parking.  Furthermore, the design of the building itself is capable of re-purposing to alternative uses should the nature of travel choices and resulting vehicle parking needs alter significantly during the building’s design lifespan. Therefore the proposed capacity and design of the facility is considered an acceptable ‘balanced’ response to the initial needs of the area whilst allowing for change in the future.

5.18.4 No emissions modelling has been undertaken as part of the proposal.  Some submitters appear to have assumed that the parking facility will lead to an increase in emissions.  The Council’s decision making has been focused on existing demand and growth resulting from the relocation of demand from other locations to this area.  It is unknown if the parking facility will have any impact on emissions.  Potential scenarios include reductions, (if the destination locations are more efficiently located compared to patron’s homes and there is reduced “cruising” for on street carparks), no material effect, or slight increases.  This matter is of importance when making the decision whether or not to have a car park.  The current decision is focused on whether or not the Council should sell the land, so emissions are of less relevance. 

5.18.5 The Council has also been aware of the aim of creating a “people-friendly, central city” throughout its decision making to date.  The current proposal places requirements on the future owner of the land to provide for street level activation, parking for sustainable transport modes and designing for future adaptive reuse.

5.18.6 A specific concern related to the impact of a parking facility on the “people-friendliness” and safety of Gloucester Street between Tūranga and the Performing Arts Precinct.  This matter is of importance to the Council and a separate design project is underway to achieve this objective.

5.18.7 In Council’s consideration of this matter in April 2021 it resolved to bring forward the Long Term Plan’s programmed streetscape upgrade of Gloucester Street (between Colombo and Manchester Street) to precede the completion of the Court Theatre in 2023. This will provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian amenity on Gloucester Street between the Performing Arts Precinct, Tūranga and Cathedral Square, as well as the city centre’s laneway and pedestrian networks to the south.

5.18.8 At a general level, the Council already encourages mode shifting and has undertaken significant investment to provide infrastructure to encourage more active transport.  It leads by example with its use and support of shared, zero emission vehicles.  It works with other partners to encourage the use of public transport.  More specifically, the Council has taken steps ensure that this parking facility is designed and operated to complement other mode shift initiatives.

5.18.9 The Performing Arts Precinct itself sits within the central city’s low speed traffic zone (of 30km/h) and is well placed for public transport users either arriving via the central interchange and especially the nearby Manchester Street bus “super stops”. The building itself will supply over 50 cycle parking spaces, along with dedicated space for the storage and charging of e-scooters. 20 EV charging points will support the expected transition of the NZ private vehicle fleet to electric only vehicles – and some 25 vehicle spaces throughout the building will be dedicated mobility parks.

5.18.10 Some submitters have argued that the land could be used differently (e.g. for other performing arts facilities or other complementary activities).  There is sufficient land available for alternative uses identified by submitters.  For instance, the council is running a separate but parallel process calling for expression of interest for performing arts and related uses, elsewhere in the precinct.  There is a significant amount of public open space in the central city, and opportunities exist on private land for commercial, retail, hospitality and residential uses.

5.18.11 Overall, the submissions focused on climate change do not present a compelling reason not to proceed with the sale of the land.  The Council has considered climate change, mode shift and similar matters both from a strategic view, through its Central City Parking Policy, and tactically, through its expectations for this facility.  It has chosen to balance addressing parking demand generated by the Performing Arts Precinct and other major facilities, with its desires to encourage mode shift, through choosing to facilitate this parking facility as well as signalling that it is unlikely to build more off street car parking.

5.19    Staff have considered these submissions in relation to the proposed purchaser being Wilson Parking Ltd.

5.19.1 Wilsons Parking Ltd was selected after multiple approaches to the open market.  It was identified as the preferred respondent based on their financial position, ability to manage the operation and working relationship with a proven development contractor (whom Council had previously utilised for a similar facility). Council made the decision to appoint Wilsons as the proposed purchaser at the April 2021 meeting.

5.19.2 Other companies, including New Zealand owned ones, had the opportunity to, and did, participate in the procurement process.

5.19.3 The Council has considered building and operating the carpark (8 April 2021).  It decided to proceed to market.  Some of the matters that it took into account when making its decisions included reduced exposure to financial risk (preferred option generates up-front financial gain, build and operation would require additional capital investment with ongoing returns varying as transportation preferences change over time), the strength of the private car-parking market already in operation, and the delivery timeframe (additional design/planning etc. would be necessary resulting in the project’s timeframe being deferred).  

5.19.4 Mode shift matters have been addressed elsewhere.

5.19.5 The Council’s planning for the provision of parking facilities included consideration of the other existing facilities in the central city.  Even with these facilities in place, the Council identified that there was a need to service the Performing Arts Precinct, with this supporting other activities in the area including Turanga and the Te Pae.  With respect to submissions regarding the established need for a further public parking building in this area; as discussed elsewhere in this report, the scale of the facility proposed in terms of public vehicle parking capacity is at the bottom end of prior studies examining the likely parking demands that exist north of Cathedral Square. The facility would complement other facilities that exist elsewhere in the central city, south of Cathedral Square.

5.19.6 Overall, the submissions do not present a compelling argument to not sell that land to Wilsons.  The Council selected the proposed purchasing consortium after a fair and impartial procurement process, which was contested by multiple bidders and was open to consideration of alternative solutions.  Before doing this the Council had considered and rejected other delivery models.

5.20    One submitter (Chapman Tripp acting for landowners in the vicinity including the Catholic Diocese of Christchurch) has made the following points:

5.20.1 the consultation material is inadequate to provide neighbouring landowners with sufficient information to give meaningful feedback; 

5.20.2 the Council has failed to properly respond to requests for information under Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) to fairly inform landowners of relevant matters during the consultation period. In particular drawings which show the size and scale of the proposed car park building, including elevations, entry and exit points, and an assessment of the relationship with nearby buildings including significant heritage buildings  have been withheld by Council;

5.20.3 the consultation is therefore not genuine and is likely to be subject of challenge if the sale proceeds.

5.21    The Chapman Tripp submission requested that the Council delay a decision on the sale of the land pending the outcome of a complaint to the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman has contacted the Council and staff will be responding expeditiously to the request.  Staff do not advise delaying the decision on the land sale in the meantime.

5.22    Staff believe that there is a broader matter for consideration that this submission raises. 

5.22.1 The developers of the Catholic Diocese site may develop a future parking facility – they have publically announced plans for a 600 space car park, with the latest publicly available information suggesting a completion date of 2026. 

5.22.2 The Council has undertaken some traffic network sensitivity testing as to whether we were in an "either or" situation with the proposed Catholic Diocese site car park and a smaller facility on the Performing Arts Precinct.  This testing shows the network could cope with a second car park (i.e. as well as the PAP one currently proposed) up to circa 800 spaces. 

5.22.3 Additionally there are other nearby sites where car parks could operate (e.g. the former Rydges Hotel).  There are no publically announced plans to operate this site as car park at the time of this report

5.22.4 Council is required to have some foresight about the future and so should consider if its plans are still valid given the known or potential intentions of others. 

5.22.5 The proposal under consideration would see the parking facility operating from late 2023, close to the completion date of the new Court Theatre.  Te Pae opened in late 2021, while Turanga, the Piano and the Isaac Theatre Royal have all been operating from some time. 

5.22.6 The key question for Council is “Does the existence of other planned and potential carparks, provide sufficient justification for it to not sell its land?”  The staff view is that there is not sufficient justification not to sell.  The Council’s land sale conditional contract sets a delivery time as part of a comprehensive plan intended to develop and activate this precinct.  Relying on later or uncertain parking provision may impact on the existing and planned facilities.  These facilities have factored the provision of a facility on the Performing Arts Precinct as part of their planning and investment decisions.

5.23    A further consideration from the submission raises is do the public need to have a copy of the proposed design drawings for the facility to be able to provide meaningful comment on the proposal to sell the land. 

5.23.1 The planning consent drawings did not exist at the time of the consultation so could not be provided to either the public or to meet the Chapman Tripp request. 

5.23.2 Council did, however, make available its own proof of concept and requirements.  This provided guidance about the design parameters for the proposed facility.  The District Plan also provides guidance on these matters.  

5.23.3 Sufficient information was provided to allow comments on the proposal to sell the land.  The information supplied made it clear what the purpose of the sale was and the minimum acceptable parameters of the use and works on the land.  

Discussion

5.24    Staff recommend that the proposal to sell land at the Performing Arts Precinct for the purpose of a parking facility proceed for the following reasons:

5.24.1 The proposal is consistent with Council’s policies and community outcomes in that it attempts to balance different objectives and community expectations.  The proposal allows for parking for a variety of needs (accessible, bikes, electric vehicles, motor cars) now, while future proofing the building for the future (flat floors, sufficient floor-to-floor height for alternative uses, allows to remove the vehicle ramps between floors to provide light wells, a lift/stair core to each side of the building).  It does this prudently, with no use of ratepayer funds to develop the parking facility.

5.24.2 The proposal contains requirements for completing the parking facility before or near to the planned completion of the Court Theatre and the surrounding public realm;

5.24.3 The proposal is consistent with the long standing vision of a precinct of core performing arts activities, supported by ancillary public realm, retail, infrastructure and other complementary uses;

5.24.4 The Council made the decision to have the private sector develop the parking facility based on financial information contained in a business plan that demonstrated that the proposal minimises impact on capital and operational budgets and is financially positive over its lifespan.   The Council also considered the potential for a long term lease of the land, before making the decision to proceed with a proposal based on sale; and

5.24.5 The Council is required to consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter before it.  Consultation is one, but not the only way of identifying these views and preferences.   Stakeholders have consistently indicated a need for a conveniently located, attractive, safe and timely delivered parking facility serving the precinct and these previously expressed views must also be considered. 

5.25    Submitters have argued that private proposals on alternative sites may be a better way of meeting the parking need, therefore the sale of the land is not necessary.  The proposal under consideration is part of a broader coordinated plan that would see the Court Theatre, parking facility, and public realm upgrades (both within the Performing Arts Precinct and on Gloucester Street) being completed at similar times.  Mechanisms for ensuring this coordination include Council’s project planning and contractual requirements in the conditional sale and purchase agreement.  There is no certainty that alterative arrangement on private land can achieve this same level of coordination, and no obvious no cost (or some benefit) mechanism for Council to contractually require this.  Based on publically available information the most likely additional facility will not be completed until 3 years after the Court Theatre is finished.  The current proposal provides the best mechanism to ensure that a parking facility is available at a similar time to the completed theatre.

5.26    The land was transferred to the Council from the Crown under the Global Settlement Agreement (GSA) for the proposed purpose in 2019. Design of the new Te Pae Convention Centre was conducted in parallel with the GSA negotiations and took into account the anticipated provision of a public parking facility being developed within the precinct locality.  The timely delivery of the parking facility is a known concern of Te Pae’s owners and operators.

5.27    The consultation results (out of 267 submissions received, 219 did not support the sale of the land) reflect the opinions of the submitters, including wider feedback received over such matters as the need for such a facility and the impact of the provision of a new parking building on Council’s climate change commitments.

5.28    While the majority of the submitters have argued against the proposal to sell this land, when the measures taken already to address future needs and all of the steps taken to date are considered, there is no compelling case to not sell the land, and staff recommend that the Council proceed with the sale.

5.29    The decision is a metropolitan one and the proposed facility will be located in the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 

5.30    As with any other consultation, the views presented to the Council should be received with an open mind and be given due consideration.

6.       Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The sale of this land is consistent with the Council’s wider objectives to develop a Performing Arts Precinct (PAP) and specifically the community outcome (of supporting) a vibrant and thriving city centre. The inclusion of a public parking facility has been present since the initial planning commenced for the PAP and is referenced in prior reports as noted above. The need for a new public parking facility north of Cathedral Square also features in the Christchurch Central Parking Plan (Council / CERA) of 2015.

6.2       In so much as an attractively designed, safe and convenient parking facility will support the PAP and nearby important civic and business activities north of Cathedral Square, the proposal supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Staff have completed public consultation as required under section 138 of the Local Government Act (disposal of a ‘park’).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. However, Ngāi Tahu have been consulted over the in principle design, in order to ensure the view shaft from Tūranga through to Mount Grey is maintained.

6.5       The land in question is not a site of significance to Mana Whenua or subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       Council is making a decision about the sale of land.  Climate change impact considerations relevant to this decision fall into the areas of climate change risk, climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation.

6.7       For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the conditional purchaser has undertaken their due diligence and appropriately priced climate risk in their offer.  In putting the offer to market, the Council indicated that it anticipates that there will be mode shift, new technologies and potential functional obsolescence through the conditions of sale.  As well as these climate risk, it is assumed that the conditional purchaser has undertaken due diligence about potential changes to ground water, likely weather events and other climate change adaption matters both in their offer formulation and building design.  Given this there is a tolerable climate change risk associated with the sale of the land.

6.8       Climate change impact adaptation matters associated with this proposal have been canvassed elsewhere in the report.  They primarily focus on the potential adaptive reuse of the structure should their climate change mitigation measures result in significant mode shift.  The purchaser will be responsible for any other adaption measures as part of their building design.

6.9       The main focus of submitters concerns relates to climate change mitigation.  Transport emissions form a large part of Christchurch’s greenhouse gas emissions, and is an area where the Council aims to drive changes that reduce emissions.

6.10    The land is being sold for the purpose of a carpark, so emissions associated with the carpark are a legitimate climate change consideration.  In line with its other policies, the sale of the land for car parking should include considerations of how to reduce emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation.  As outlined elsewhere in the report there has been consideration of mechanisms to contribute to emission reductions including through the provision of space for bikes, electric scooters, and electric vehicles.

6.11    Clearly some submitters want more.  The dilemma for Council is that the carpark itself is not a trip generator.  The activities and facilities that generate trips and emissions are the other arts and cultural venues in the area.  Any consideration of the climate change mitigation impacts needs to holistically consider both the trip generators and the supporting infrastructure.

6.12    Looking at the various venues, the Council could consider if there are alternative ways to deliver these services or to access these venues that reduce emissions.  Given that most of the venues have already been constructed, for the purposes of this report the focus will be on alternative means of accessing these venues.

6.13    To help reduce the emission generated by the venues Council could encourage the use of active and public transport, and ride share mechanism.  The Council is already working in this area, a potential consideration is an integrated transport plan prepared specifically for the venues in the precinct.  Such a plan could include disincentives for private trips through mechanisms such as reduced parking supply and higher parking fees.  It could also include incentives for those who use active or public transport such as the cost of fares being absorbed in the ticket price.   Such plans have been shown to work in other contexts, leading to mode shift.  Noting that only a limited search has been possible, it is important to note that examples seen have been in employment or locations where trips are considered mandatory.  It is unknown if such an approach will work when the trips are for a discretionary activity.

6.14    Another consideration is that the construction of the building will involve greenhouse emissions during the production and transportation of materials, and their assembly.  Not selling the land is unlikely to avoid these emissions.  They will be generated if the Council chooses to provide the carpark in another way.  If, through any future process, the Council chooses not to build the carpark, then any alternative built facility on the land will generate emissions through construction.  It is also possible that the private sector, recognising the demand, will provide the car parking on other sites, again resulting in emissions during construction.

6.15    The Council could consider using the return from the sale of the land to fund climate change mitigation measures.  This will go some way to offset the emissions generated by Turanga, The Court and other venues that will benefit from the sale of land for the carpark.  The details of these mitigation measures goes beyond the scope of this report but can be separately presented to Council in a future report.  Examples might include tree planting, transport mode shift initiatives, stationary energy changes, or investment in lower carbon intensity energy generation.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.16    The decision on whether or not to sell land does not include an accessibility consideration. The proposed building in itself will be developed utilising accessible standards above those required within district planning rules.

7.       Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – Staff time and legal contractor fees. The parking facility is being financed by the purchaser.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Nil

7.3       Funding Source – Existing budgets. The income received from the sale of the land will reduce pressure on Council’s allocated parking budget.

8.       Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council has powers of general competence in section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 for the purpose of performing its role. 

8.2       As mentioned above, section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that the Council consults before disposing of land that is defined as a ‘park’ in that section.  The Council has complied with the consultation requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3       There is a legal context, with respect to any potential challenge that may arise from the Council’s decision to sell the land for a public parking facility. See paragraphs 5.11 to 5.30 in relation to the various issues raised by submitters, and the staff response to those matters.

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

9.       Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is a risk that the purchaser of the land may stall in its ability to develop the site as required. This could be due to market forces in relation to materials, labour or other factors. The signed conditional contract contemplates this event and allows an ability for Council to reacquire the land and improvements back from the purchaser, as a last resort measure.

9.2       There is a reputational risk to Council, that a large number of consultation submitters may perceive a positive decision to sell the land as the incorrect option and paying inadequate attention to the number of submitters opposing a sale. Staff have responded to this risk in sections 5 and 6 above.

9.3       There is further reputational risk to Council, if it does not enable the development of a parking facility in the PAP as this is one of the purposes for which the land was transferred from the Crown. However, the Council always retains an option to develop the facility itself.

9.4       There is a risk that the PAP stakeholders, in particular the Court Theatre facility (which the Council is developing) may be negatively affected by a decision not to sell the land and progress the development of the parking building to service the precinct. The business case for the Court Theatre considered a parking option within the PAP and was approved by Council on this basis.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Council Report - April 2021 - Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

b

PAP Car Park Land 2,081m2

2

c

PAP Land Sale Consultation Analysis

2

d

Staff comment - Chapman Tripp submission

2

 

 

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

Authors

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Tim Cheesebrough - Senior Transport Planner

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Leah Scales - Acting General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

  


Council

10 March 2022

 


Council

10 March 2022

 



Council

10 March 2022

 


 


Council

10 March 2022

 

 

16.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

10 March 2022

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

15.

Performing Arts Precinct - Car Park - Public Consultation

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment a - Council Report - April 2021 - Public Excluded

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The details within this report are commercially sensitive to the proposed purchaser, including price

Upon transfer of property in question

17.

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 14 February 2022

 

 

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

 

18.

Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 4 February 2022

 

 

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

 

19.

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Establishment of Appointments' Committee

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

The reports identify the proposed members of the Appointments' Committee which includes an advisor from the private sector. The decision could have reputational impacts for that person if the Council does not support the make up of the Committee.

As soon as the the Council has made the decisions sought in this report.