Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 7 April 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

 

 

1 April 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

07 April 2022

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 5 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 10 March 2022.......................................................................... 7

Community Board Monthly Reports

6.        Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2022.................................... 23

Community Board Part A Reports

7.        Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Road Depot 55R Depot Street.......... 87

8.        Troup Drive/Whiteleigh Avenue  - Safety Improvements....................................... 93

9.        Part Jecks Place - Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road................................. 99

10.      Hagley Park North - Tennis Court New Floodlights.............................................. 105

11.      164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Licence to occupy legal road................... 123

12.      Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road - Cameo Grove and Burwood Road........ 133

13.      Slow Speed Neighbourhoods Avondale............................................................. 139

Multicultural Committee

14.      Multicultural Committee Minutes - 4 March 2022................................................ 155

Staff Reports

15.      Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Community Strategy....................................................................................................... 161

16.      Review of the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy............................... 169

17.      Coastal Hazards Adaptation Framework and Coastal Panel................................. 179

18.      Glass recycling.............................................................................................. 243

19.      Final CEO Report on External Advisory Group Report.......................................... 279

20.      Heritage Incentive Grant Fund Application........................................................ 335

21.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 349

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Council

07 April 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.

4.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 10 March 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/342694

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 March 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 10 March 2022

8

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

07 April 2022

 
















Council

07 April 2022

 

 

6.     Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/335270

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 March 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Area Report March 2022

24

b

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report February 2022

29

c

Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report March 2022

38

d

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board March 2022

52

e

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

56

f

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

70

g

Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board Area Report March 2022

75

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 






Council

07 April 2022

 










Council

07 April 2022

 















Council

07 April 2022

 





Council

07 April 2022

 















Council

07 April 2022

 






Council

07 April 2022

 













Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 15 February 2022

 

7.     Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Road Depot 55R Depot Street

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/209125

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve described as Lot 46 DP 538147 as road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.         Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to conclude the dedication of the land as road.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Road Depot 55R Depot Street

88

 

No.

Title

Page

a

304/6519 Record of title 897692

92

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Road Depot 55R Depot Street

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1803713

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board to recommend to Council that a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve described as Lot 46 DP 538147 and held in Record of Title 897692 be dedicated as road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.  This report has been written because one of the conditions of consent for RMA/2020/1200 requires a legal road linkage to Quandrant Drive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2       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 assessing the impact of the decision on the subdivision, rages and cost to the Council.

 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends to Council that it:

1.         Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve described as Lot 46 DP 538147 as road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.         Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to conclude the dedication of the land as road.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       This in an enabling decision that allows the adjoining subdivision access to the existing road network.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Do nothing

4.1.1   Advantages

·   There are no advantages with this option

4.1.2   Disadvantages

·   Would not allow access from the adjoining development

·   Prevents development on the adjoining subdivision

·   Creates reputational risk, i.e. why issues subdivision consent only to refuse access to it and effectively prevent it from happening

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       RMA/2020/1200 was assessed as meeting the criteria for a non notified activity, there is no need for consultation

5.2       This development is being driven by Ngai Tahu Property.

5.3       The decision affects the following wards:

5.3.1   Hornby Ward

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Aligns with the infrastructure strategy by providing network connectivity and connection for the new development.

6.2       This report does not support 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.

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.

 

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       This is a private development that does not impact on Councils climate change considerations.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The road is being formed with a standard footpath and carriage way.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – nil, the road is being formed by the developer.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – As required but will be minimal on a newly formed road.

7.3       Funding Source – The developer is meeting all costs.

Other He mea anō

7.4       Nil

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977

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       This is a procedural matter that does not create any risk for Council, there is greater risk in doing nothing as described in section 4.1.2

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

304/6519 Record of title 897692

 

 

 

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 1 March 2022

 

8.     Troup Drive/Whiteleigh Avenue  - Safety Improvements

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/272605

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Gautham Praburam, Traffic Engineer,
gautham.praburam@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 75 millimetre raised platform on the exit lane (slip lane) of Whiteleigh Avenue into Troup Drive in accordance with Attachment A to the Officer’s report on the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves the installation of a 75 millimetre raised platform on the exit lane (slip lane) of Troup Drive into Whiteleigh Avenue in accordance with Attachment A to the Officer’s report on the meeting agenda.

3.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in 1. and 2.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Troup Drive/Whiteleigh Avenue  - Safety Improvements

94

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Whiteleigh Avenue Troup Drive Intersection - Safety Improvements

97

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Troup Drive/Whiteleigh Avenue  - Safety Improvements

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1797008

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Gautham Praburam, Traffic Engineer
gautham.praburam@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of two raised platforms at the Troup Drive / Whiteleigh Avenue intersection  as shown in Attachment A.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 75 millimetre raised platform on the exit lane (slip lane) of Whiteleigh Avenue into Troup Drive in accordance with Attachment A to the Officers report on the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves the installation of a 75 millimetre raised platform on the exit lane (slip lane) of Troup Drive into Whiteleigh Avenue in accordance with Attachment A to the Officers report on the meeting agenda.

3.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in 1. and 2.

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

3.1       The Troup Drive / Whiteleigh Avenue intersection was identified through CRAF (Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility) as having a Medium to High Personal Risk factor.

3.2       In the past ten years (2010 to 2019) a total of 19 crashes were recorded at the intersection, resulting in injuries to 12 people. Among the 19 crashes, seven involved cyclists, two involved motorcyclists and one involved a pedestrian.

3.3       In order to safely manage the existing pedestrian and cyclist conflict points with motor vehicles and maintain efficient road operations for all road users, the proposal is to:

·    Install 75mm raised platforms on the slip lanes of Troup Drive and Whiteleigh Avenue in accordance with Attachment A.

3.4       The raised platforms would reduce the speeds of vehicles entering and exiting Troup Drive. This would provide a safer crossing environment for pedestrians passing through that location, as well as reducing conflicts between motorised vehicles and cyclists.

3.5       In addition to the proposed two raised platforms, the existing cycle lanes are proposed to be painted green to increase the conspicuity of cyclists. Furthermore, the traffic signals phasing were reviewed in favour of vehicles turning right from Whiteleigh Avenue into Troup Drive.

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       There are no advantages to not installing the recommended option (preferred), and no other options were considered.

5.   Community Views and Preferences

5.1       Troup Drive leads to the Tower Junction shopping centre. There are no residential properties in the vicinity of this intersection.

5.2       The owners of the Tower Junction shopping centre – Ngai Tahu Property were informed regarding these improvements and they were happy with the work proceeding.

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:

·     Level of Service:  10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of deaths and serious injury crashes on the local road network - ≤ 105 crashes.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decisions in this report are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       None identified.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       None identified.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The installation cost of the two raised platforms is estimated to be $57,000.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Covered under the existing area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.3       Funding Source - The delivery of this project will be through the “CRAF safety improvements” budget which is fully funded by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       In accordance with the Christchurch City Council Delegations Register, this power is delegated to Community Boards for the implementation of this infrastructure.

8.2       The installation of signs and/or markings associated with traffic controls must comply with Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

8.4       This report has not been reviewed or approved by the Legal Services Unit.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       None identified.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Whiteleigh Avenue Troup Drive Intersection - Safety Improvements

 

 

 

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

Gautham Praburam - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 16 February 2022

 

9.     Part Jecks Place - Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/240215

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Raymond Qu, Property Consultant, Raymond.Qu@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

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

 

 

Staff outlined the history of the matter and explained that owing to a Kainga Ora (formerly Housing New Zealand) subdivision the lot is needing access.

 

The Chairperson thanked staff and called for a mover and seconder. Sunita Gautam moved the officer’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Sara Templeton.

Following invitation from the Chairperson there was no debate on the item, and the motion was put to the vote and was declared carried.

 

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

 

(Original Officer Recommendation accepted without change).

Part A

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

1.         Approve to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve legally described as Lot 54 DP 15124 as road, pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Part Jecks Place - Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road

100

 

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Part Jecks Place - Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/1648415

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Raymond Qu, Property Consultant

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 

 

1.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to recommend to Council that a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve legally described as Lot 54 DP 15124 (hereafter, the subject land) be dedicated as road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.  

1.2       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 assessing the impact of dedicating the land as road on the residential subdivision, rates and cost to Council

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Approve to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve legally described as Lot 54 DP 15124 as road, pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

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

3.1       This is an enabling decision, i.e. it allows the adjoining subdivision to access the road network.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Do nothing –

4.1.1   Advantages

·     There are no advantages.

4.1.2   Disadvantages 

·     Would not allow access to and from the adjoining development.

·     Prevents house construction.

·     Would create a reputational risk i.e. why issue subdivision consent and then prevent it from happening.

 

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The subject land was derived from the Crown under Housing Act 1919, and it was vested as a Road reserve via Gazette Notice 1958 p 299. It provides access to the social housing complex managed by Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (the OCHT).  However, the subject land is not part of the land owned by the OCHT.  The subject land has been used as a road without being legalised as part of the Council road network. Council has maintained it.

5.2       The adjacent land at 3 Jecks Place (owned by Kainga Ora) has been granted resource consent to subdivide into two residential lots.  It also triggers the need for access rights.  Staff advised Kainga Ora that the Council is not obliged to legalise the road as there is no budget for such activity.  Therefore, Kainga Ora agreed to contribute up to $7,500 for the costs of road legalisation.

5.3       There is no staff or Community Board delegation to dedicate local purpose (road) reserve as road.  A decision from Council is required.

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

5.4.1   Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Aligns with the Infrastructure Strategy by providing network connectivity and connection to a new housing area.

6.2       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028).

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The mission statement in The Living Streets Charter Policy is to create living streets and a living city where a variety of road environments support and encourage a greater range of community and street activity. 

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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       This is a private development that does not impact on Council’s climate change considerations

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The road has been formed with a standard footpath and road carriage way.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement - nil

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Unchanged, the Council has been maintaining the physical road.

7.3       Funding Source – This is a recovery project. Reimburse up to $7,500 from Kainga Ora.

Other / He mea anō

7.4       This is a non-notified subdivision consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides specific provision to dedicate as road a local purpose road reserve.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       This is a procedural matter that does not create any risks to Council, unless the recommendations in this report are not adopted.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Raymond Qu - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kirsty Mahoney - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 30 March 2022

 

10.   Hagley Park North - Tennis Court New Floodlights

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/414815

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Derek Roozen, Senior Network Planner Parks, derek.roozen@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, Citizens & Community, Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

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

 

The Board took into consideration the deputation from Mr Kissling and Anne Dingwall representing the Christchurch Civic Trust. (Attachment D of this report).

Council staff gave an overview of the report and responded to questions.  Staff confirmed advice has been obtained from the Council’s Legal Services team following the receipt of comments during the public notification and this is referred to in paragraph 8.3 of the report.  The reference to no legal advice being sought in paragraph 8.8 is obsolete.  This paragraph should have been removed.

The Board discussed the matter of the lights being turned off manually at 8pm and agreed that an additional clause be added its recommendation to the Council that an automatic timer be added to the lighting system to ensure that the lights were turned off by 8pm each night.  This is included in the Board’s recommendation as clause 4c.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

 

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

1.         Resolves that the proposed installation of new floodlights in the tennis court area in Hagley Park North is a metropolitan matter for Council to consider and make a decision on.

2.         Receives the views of the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the proposed installation of new floodlights.

3.         Approves the application by the Hagley Park Tennis Club to install six new 12.2m high floodlight towers in the club’s tennis court area in Hagley Park North at sites indicated in paragraph 5.5 of the report and shown in Attachment A of this report.  Subject to:

a.    The applicant obtaining any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at its cost, before commencing installation of the new lighting system in the park.

b.    The applicant being required to deposit scaled as-built plans, as per the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standards, within two months of the work being completed.

c.    The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, operation, maintenance, and any future removal, of the lighting system.

d.    The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is always maintained and operated in a safe condition.

4.         Requires that the approval and use of the lighting is subject to the following conditions:

a.    The tennis court floodlights are to be used on weekdays, Monday to Thursday only, between 5.30pm and 8.00pm.  Usage to begin no more than one month prior to the date daylight saving finishes.  Usage to end within one month after the date daylight saving begins.

b.    If the tennis courts are not in use, the lights will be turned off.

5.         Acknowledges that this approval will lapse if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council :

1.         Resolves that the proposed installation of new floodlights in the tennis court area in Hagley Park North is a metropolitan matter for Council to consider and make a decision on.

2.         Receives the views of the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the proposed installation of new floodlights.

3.         Approves the application by the Hagley Park Tennis Club to install six new 12.2m high floodlight towers in the club’s tennis court area in Hagley Park North at sites indicated in paragraph 5.5 of the report and shown in Attachment A of this report.  Subject to:

a.         The applicant obtaining any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at its cost, before commencing installation of the new lighting system in the park.

b.         The applicant being required to deposit scaled as-built plans, as per the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standards, within two months of the work being completed.

c.         The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, operation, maintenance, and any future removal, of the lighting system.

d.         The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is always maintained and operated in a safe condition.

4.         Requires that the approval and use of the lighting is subject to the following conditions:

a.         The tennis court floodlights are to be used on weekdays, Monday to Thursday only, between 5.30pm and 8.00pm.  Usage to begin no more than one month prior to the date daylight saving finishes.  Usage to end within one month after the date daylight saving begins.

b.         If the tennis courts are not in use, the lights will be turned off.

c.         An automatic timer to be added to the lighting system to ensure that the floodlights are turned off by 8pm each night.

5.         Acknowledges that this approval will lapse if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Hagley Park North - Tennis Court New Floodlights

108

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley Park North Tennis Court New Floodlights -  Proposed Floodlight Location Plan - March 2022

115

b

Hagley Park North Tennis Club New Floodlights - Christchurch Civic Trust Comments - March 2022

116

c

Hagley Park North Tennis Club New Floodlights - Staff Advice in reply to Christchurch Civic Trust Comments - March 2022

118

d

Hagley Park North Tennis Court New Floodlights Application Deputation by Christchurch City Trust to Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - 30 March 2022

119

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Hagley Park North - Tennis Court New Floodlights

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/335014

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Derek Roozen, Senior Network Planner Parks, derek.roozen@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to the Council to approve proposed new floodlights in the Hagley Park Tennis Club area in Hagley Park North (refer Attachment A).  This report has been written in response to an application by the Club to install these lights.

1.2       The decision in this report is of low to medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  This rating was determined due to the importance of Hagley Park to the city in terms of its heritage landscape value and accessibility by the public for recreation, and the low level of potential effect of the proposed new lights on the park.  The financial impact of the decision is low as all costs are borne by the club.  The decision does not affect the Council’s ability to deliver agreed levels of service.  There is no obvious impact on Māori culture and traditions resulting from this proposed installation.

1.3       The affected/interested parties’ engagement and public notification undertaken reflects this assessment.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Resolves that the proposed installation of new floodlights in the tennis court area in Hagley Park North is a metropolitan matter for Council to consider and make a decision on.

2.         Receives the views of the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the proposed installation of new floodlights.

3.         Approves the application by the Hagley Park Tennis Club to install six new 12.2m high floodlight towers in the club’s tennis court area in Hagley Park North at sites indicated in paragraph 5.5 of the report and shown in Attachment A of this report.  Subject to:

a.    The applicant obtaining any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at its cost, before commencing installation of the new lighting system in the park.

b.    The applicant being required to deposit scaled as-built plans, as per the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standards, within two months of the work being completed.

c.    The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, operation, maintenance, and any future removal, of the lighting system.

d.    The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is always maintained and operated in a safe condition.

4.         Requires that the approval and use of the lighting is subject to the following conditions:

a.    The tennis court floodlights are to be used on weekdays, Monday to Thursday only, between 5.30pm and 8.00pm.  Usage to begin no more than one month prior to the date daylight saving finishes.  Usage to end within one month after the date daylight saving begins.

b.    If the tennis courts are not in use, the lights will be turned off.

5.         Acknowledges that this approval will lapse if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Installation of proposed new floodlights in Hagley Park is of metropolitan significance and decision making remains with the Council rather than the Community Board because:

3.1.1   Hagley Park is considered to be a metropolitan facility,

3.1.2   The proposed development is substantial,

3.1.3   A precedence exists in consideration and approval of other recent development proposals for the park, such as for the new changing rooms building on the adjoining North Hagley Community, Sports and Recreation Trust Board leased area to the north, and

3.1.4   The impact of the decision on the proposed installation of the lights extends beyond the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area.

3.2       The Council’s Executive Leadership Team supports this matter to be dealt with by the Council with consideration of the Community Board’s views.

3.3       Approval of the lights will enable more activity for the tennis club with minimal impact on other park users.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Decline the application – Not Recommended.

This option would restrict the club’s ability to optimise its use of existing hard courts that are currently not lit.  Permission to install floodlights was anticipated when the courts were developed.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1       The Hagley Park Tennis Club, formerly the United Lawn Tennis Club, has occupied the site in Hagley Park North since 1904.  In 2017 it included the Te Kura Tennis Club that had been based at Christchurch Boys High School.  It now markets itself as the Te Kura Hagley Park Tennis Club although its name as ground lessee remains as the Hagley Park Tennis Club.

5.2       In 2018 the Council approved the new hard surface tennis courts that are the subject of this current floodlighting proposal.

5.3       Existing floodlights of a slightly lower height (11 metres) to what are now being proposed service four other adjacent courts to the south.  The Council consented to these lights in 1996.

The Proposed Development

5.4       The Hagley Park Tennis Club has requested permission to erect new floodlight towers to cover four existing tennis courts.  This will comprise six approximately 12 metre high poles, each topped with fixed floodlights.  The middle two poles will have four floodlights, with two facing in opposite directions.  The other four poles at the ends of the four court area will have two floodlights directed into the court area.  The floodlights will be 800W LED lights that are more compact than the existing adjacent floodlights.  Power supply will be via cables run from the club house through conduits that were installed under the courts at the time of their development.

5.5       The proposed location of the light poles is shown on the following aerial view.  The accompanying schematic side view indicates the potential position and scale of the proposed lights (measurements in millimetres).

5.6       The reason the club is making this application is to provide illumination over the presently unlit courts, allowing them to be used when it is dark.  It will improve the club’s overall lighted court capacity to cater for its existing membership numbers and allow twilight and after dark play and coaching.

5.7       The club wishes to use the new lighting in a similar manner as the existing lighting on the adjacent four courts.  They will be available four evenings per week (Monday to Thursday) over the autumn and winter months between the hours of 5.30 pm and 8 pm and will shut-off automatically at 8 pm if they have not already been turned off.

Public Notification

5.8       The Hagley Park Reference group (HPRG) at its meeting on 27 October 2021 received information on the proposed floodlights from Tim Preston, representing the Club.  The HPRG expressed consensus and support for the installation of the lights as there were no concerns around light spill given there were no residential neighbours to be impacted.

5.9       On Friday 28 January 2022 we emailed a consultation leaflet about the proposed new floodlights to affected or interested parties including the applicant and individual members of the Hagley Park Reference Group (HPRG)

5.10    The Council published a public notice about the proposed lights in The Press on Saturday 29 January and on the Christchurch City Council’s website on Tuesday 15 February 2022.

5.11    The consultation leaflet informed readers that if they wished to enquire about and/or comment on the proposal they could do so by phoning or emailing the report writer by Wednesday 2 March 2022. 

5.12    Two parties made contact before Monday 21 February 2022 and staff met with them to provide information and answer questions.

5.13    By the concluding date of 2 March 2022 one written document of comments had been received by email from the Christchurch Civic Trust.  This is included, in part redacted (refer paragraph 8.9), in Attachment B.  The Trust in its document did not specifically address the proposed floodlights or location but raised perceived issues of process in regard to the consideration of new floodlights on Hagley Park.  Council officer response to the key issues raised are provided in Attachment C.

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

5.14.1 This is considered a metropolitan site that affects all of Christchurch.

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: Parks and Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.5 Satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the city’s parks and foreshore  network.  - Resident satisfaction with the availability of recreation facilities across the parks and foreshore network: >= 70%.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, particularly goal one of the Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy – a safe physical environment that encourages participation in recreation and sport.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.4       The proposed development is entirely within the already wholly developed area of the tennis club and, other than an expected periodic light spill that will be contained largely within the club’s area, there will be no adverse effect on the nearby Avon River corridor and trees.

6.5       The notification brochure was sent to Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, and the Mana Whenua have been consulted through the internal engagement process and have not raised any issues.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       No natural features of the park are affected nor is there any addition to hard surface coverage of the park.  There will be additional power consumption, however, the lighting uses efficient LED technology.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7       The access road into Hagley Park and to the Botanic Gardens will remain open and unaffected. There is no impact on accessibility.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The Council is responsible for its own costs incurred in reporting the proposed development.  All floodlight/tower, power connection and resource/building consent costs are the responsibility of the Hagley Park Tennis Club.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – None for the Council.

7.3       Funding Source - Parks Unit operational budget for Parks planning response and reporting.

Other He mea anō

7.4       There are no other resource implications.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Hagley Park North is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.  It is on land held in fee simple title as a reserve for recreation purposes by the Christchurch Corporation (that is, the Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of the City of Christchurch).  It is administered and managed as a sports park by the Council’s Parks Unit.

8.2       The Hagley Park Tennis Club has a ground lease for the whole of the area used by the club for tennis activity purposes, including the tennis courts, clubhouse and car parking area.  The lease allows for the installation of new floodlights with landowner approval.

8.3       The Council’s Legal Services team have confirmed that the Reserves Act 1977 does not prescribe a process for approving additional lights on leased premises and it is appropriate for this to be considered under the Local Government Act 2002

8.4       Landowner approval for installation of floodlights on specific sites on sports parks comprises two separate elements and is delegated as follows:

8.4.1   To the community board that has the park in its area of jurisdiction for its decision on installing floodlights on that park.  In this case this delegation has been retained by the Council as the park is of metropolitan significance. Page 94 of the Delegations Register applies:

“To decide on the installation of floodlights on sports parks (whether the sports park is located on a park or reserve).  Subject to the Council obtaining the necessary resource consents.”

8.4.2   To the Head of Parks and the General Manager Citizens & Community for a joint decision on the siting of floodlights on a park. Manager approval of this report constitutes this delegated decision. Page 46 of the Council’s Delegations Register applies:

“To make decisions on the siting of floodlights on sports parks, noting the appropriate community board would have decided on the installation of those floodlights.”

8.5       The Executive Leadership Team (ELT) on 20 February 2022 approved a staff recommendation to the Council’s Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee that the proposed installation of the floodlights on the Hagley Park Tennis Club court area is a metropolitan matter to be considered and resolved by the Committee instead of the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  ELT further required that the Community Board’s views, after public notification had been completed, would be considered in the staff report to the Committee.

8.6       On 15 March 2022 the Committee Chairperson, exercising her power to refer urgent matters to the Council, agreed for the staff report to be referred to the Council and for the Council to be the decision-making authority with respect to the report’s recommendations in order to make a timely decision.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.7       Any required resource consents or building consents are to be obtained by the club prior to installation of the floodlights.

8.8       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.  Therefore, advice has not been sought from the Council’s Legal Service Delivery.

8.9       The one received document of comments by the notification closing date (refer Attachment B) has been in part redacted for protection of privacy of natural persons under Section 7(2)(A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is low risk associated with this proposal. The club tripled its membership in 2017 with the addition of the members of the Te Kura Tennis Club, and numbers have held at around the same increased level to the present time.  The new lights will help to maintain the membership level by providing improved lit court capacity.

9.2       There is minimal, if any, risk to the Council in approving the application. The club will be responsible for all aspects of the lighting tower installation and maintenance to a high standard. The club will also be responsible for any required Temporary Access Licence / Traffic Management Plan during the installation phase, and Health and Safety requirements at all times.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Hagley Park North Tennis Court New Floodlights -  Proposed Floodlight Location Plan - March 2022

 

b  

Hagley Park North Tennis Club New Floodlights - Christchurch Civic Trust Comments - March 2022

 

c  

Hagley Park North Tennis Club New Floodlights - Staff Advice in reply to Christchurch Civic Trust Comments - March 2022

 

 

 

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

Derek Roozen - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Manager Hagley Park

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 



Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 





Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Banks Peninsula Community Board  – 28 February 2022

 

11.   164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Licence to occupy legal road

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/333160

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Kirsty Mahoney, Team Leader, Asset Planning Transport, Kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1. Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

Board Comment

The Board commented on the number of instances in which it has addressed the issue of buildings on unformed legal roads (paper roads) around the Banks Peninsula Ward, and noted that it has been Council policy to address these issues on a case by case basis, generally when a property comes up for sale or transfer.  The Board questioned whether there was a register of these requests and their resolutions, or whether information such as a Frequently Asked Questions document was available to individuals (e.g., prospective buyers) looking for information about the process for requesting a deed of license to allow for occupation of part of an unformed road.

The Board further discussed the timeframe from a request to resolution, and whether there was information available that outlined how long a licence request or road stopping process might take.  Staff noted that the road stopping process could take at least six months, and additional time would be needed through the sale and purchase process, so one year would not be unreasonable.

The Board sought to amend the resolution to include the steps needed to formalise the formed section of Pawsons Valley road, as legal road reserve, where it currently crossed private land, and carry out the road stopping of the legal road crossing 164 Pawsons Valley Road. 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the application to encroach on the legal road at 164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle as shown in Attachment A, which consists of the front portion of this existing house.

2.         Grant delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions including, but not limited to:

a.         A term of 35 years less one day;

b.         A rental of $169 p.a. plus GST;

c.         The licensee must hold public indemnity insurance of at least $2m;

d.         The public’s right of access is not obstructed;

e.         Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed; and,

f.          Council will not be responsible for the repair and/or replacement of the structure in the event of a seismic event or other loss.

 

3. Banks Peninsula Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

Buildings on Legal Road - Staff undertook to provide information to the Board on what material the Council had publicly available for people seeking information about buildings on legal road.

 

4. Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the application to encroach on the legal road at 164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle as shown in Attachment A, which consists of the front portion of this existing house.

2.         Grant delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions including, but not limited to:

a.         A term of 35 years less one day;

b.         A rental of $169 p.a. plus GST;

c.         The licensee must hold public indemnity insurance of at least $2m;

d.         The public’s right of access is not obstructed;

e.         Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed; and,

f.          Council will not be responsible for the repair and/or replacement of the structure in the event of a seismic event or other loss.

3.         Request staff to carry out the necessary steps to formalise as legal road reserve, the section of Pawsons Valley Road where the carriageway is currently formed over private land at 169 Pawsons Valley Road, and also to carry out the road stopping of the unformed legal road that currently crosses 164 Pawsons Valley Road.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Licence to occupy legal road

125

 

No.

Title

Page

a

164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Occupation of Unformed Road Plan

131

b

Pawsons Valley Road – Road Diversion Plan

132

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Licence to occupy legal road

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1622617

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Kirsty Mahoney, Team Leader, Asset Planning Transport

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Service

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council to approve the application for a deed of licence to allow the occupation of part of an unformed road at Duvauchelle.  This report has been written following an application for a deed of licence in respect of the encroachment onto the unformed road at 164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle; see Attachment A for the plan.

1.2       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 low level of impact for the wider district and the negligible number of people affected by the recommended decision. There has been no wider community engagement and consultation undertaken as part of this assessment.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve the application to encroach on the legal road at 164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle as shown in Attachment A, which consists of the front portion of this existing house.

2.         Grant delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions including, but not limited to:

a.         A term of 35 years less one day;

b.         A rental of $169 p.a. plus GST;

c.         The licensee must hold public indemnity insurance of at least $2m;

d.         The public’s right of access is not obstructed;

e.         Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed; and,

f.          Council will not be responsible for the repair and/or replacement of the structure in the event of a seismic event or other loss.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Although this encroachment has been in place for many years, prospective buyers of 164 Pawsons Valley Road have approached the Council concerning its status since March 2021 and seeking what options were available to resolve this matter. The applicant has now acquired this property and is requesting the Council’s consent for the deed of licence.

3.2       The recommendations will regularise this issue and provide the owners with certainty particularly if they sell the property.  A deed of licence will also help if an insurance claim is made for damage or destruction.

3.3       The proposed deed of licence will also ensure that the public’s right of access to the legal road is upheld.

3.4       The options in this report have been considered within the Council’s legal powers and the legislative framework.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Four options have been considered:

4.1.1   Do Nothing – This would leave the current situation unchanged. There would be no certainty for the public’s or the owner’s rights. This option could risk the owner’s future investment and maintenance of the property, as well as hindering the property’s future sale and negatively affect any insurance claims.

4.1.2   Road Stopping – This would legally convert the road reserve to freehold fee simple, which could then be sold to the property owner. However, although a potentially viable option there are a number of issues which complicate this option and rule it out at this stage. They include:

§ This is an expensive and time consuming process and the Council cannot guarantee an outcome.

§ Due to the complications that a road stopping will pose, the Council will need to use the more involved Local Government Act 1974 process. This would mean a period of public consultation and if any objections were received and they could not be addressed by the Council then the matter would go to the Environment Court for a final decision.

§ The alignment of Pawsons Valley Road’s carriageway crosses privately owned land (169 Pawsons Valley Road, refer to Attachment B). The road corridor would need to be acquired by the Council and legalised as road reserve, but it cannot be a straightforward land swap because of dealing with two different landowners.

§ Simply road stopping the area in front of 164 Pawsons Valley Road would not be feasible as it could technically land lock all properties north of this site (refer Attachment B). The Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020 prohibits approving an application that land locks any property.

§ To facilitate a successful and meaningful road stopping to accommodate 164 Pawsons Valley Road the Council would need to negotiate a purchase agreement with the owners of 169 Pawsons Valley Road to acquire a legal road corridor that follows the road’s current alignment.

§ It is not feasible or desirable to realign the active road to match the current legal road corridor due to the terrain and the need to demolish or move the current house.

§ Nevertheless, if all parties were agreeable in the future, the realignment of the legal road corridor would be the best ultimate solution.

4.1.3   Remove the encroaching structure – Past cases (i.e. Angels Rest and the Taylors Mistake Baches) have been controversial and this is not a desirable outcome. It is not in the Council’s interest to pursue this option as it is unlikely we will seek to realign the road. This option is expensive and time consuming, and could negatively impact on the Council’s reputation.

4.1.4   Grant a licence (recommended option) – The Deed of Licence would legitimise the current situation which has existed for many years. This can be achieved by the Council’s decision as the road controlling authority and would be documented by a deed of licence with the standard terms and conditions, as outlined in this report.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Roughly half of the building at 164 Pawsons Valley Road encroaches into the legal road reserve (approximately 115 m²) consisting of the front portion of the house (refer Attachment A).  The main structure of the house dates back to the 1860s and it was moved to the current location in the early 1980s.

5.2       This encroachment has never been considered by the Council and it does not appear to have been approved in any form by Bank Peninsula District Council or its predecessors. This came to our attention when the property was placed on the market in early 2021 and the LIM notice about the occupation of the legal road raised questions with potential vendors.

5.3       In late 2021 the new owner applied for a licence to formalise the occupation of the legal road reserve for the encroaching structure.  They would like to resolve this matter to avoid future insurance or sale issues.

5.4       The Council needs to consider this application purely as the basis of the owner of the land, which is legal road. In doing so the following should be considered:

5.4.1   Current and future use of the land – The land is currently more or less in its natural state and reasonably isolated from public use. The location, topography, access issues and nature of the land does not lend itself to any other use.

5.4.2   Status of the land and how it is held - The land is unformed legal road. Due to the location, nature and topography it is unlikely to become formed road. Conversion to another status is feasible and is reviewed in section 4.1.2 of this report.

5.4.3   Public rights – These are not interfered with, although effectively they are rarely or never exercised.

5.4.4   Effects on any utilities or infrastructure – There are no utilities or infrastructure affected by this application.

5.4.5   Health and safety – There are no health and safety issues or concerns.

5.4.6   Community views and preferences arising from this application – This is set out below in sections 5.5 – 5.7 below.

5.4.7   The licence terms and conditions - These would be in accordance with the Council’s standard terms and conditions for a private / commercial licence of legal road as developed by the Council’s legal services team. It is proposed that this be similar to the licences proposed for the Taylors Mistake Baches e.g. a term of 35 years less one day with five year rent reviews. The market rental has been assessed as follows:

Rateable Land Value of adjoining land – 164 Pawsons Valley Road = $119,000

4.047m² = $29.40/m²

Area Occupied = 115m²

Value of area occupied = $3,382

Based on 5% return the proposed licence fee would equate to $169.10 per annum plus GST

 

5.4.8   Obviously this is not a market value assessment, however it does indicate that commissioning a valuation is likely to result in a low value, and therefore that the cost of obtaining an estimate is not warranted. It is proposed to charge a fixed fee of $169 plus gst to cover the costs of putting in place and managing this licence on an annual basis.

 

5.4.9   While the principle of basing, or in this instance benchmarking the licence fee against, a market rent is consistent with the application of other licence fees, the difference in the licence fees in comparison to the Taylor Mistake Baches is attributed primarily to the location, size and nature of the encroachment.

5.4.10 This is a single encroachment of part of a dwelling in rural Bank Peninsula over part of the legal road reserve’s width. In contrast the situation at Taylors Mistake provides for a full building platform and uses the entire width of the road corridor. The valuations for Taylors Mistake Baches:

·   Adopted a value for a notational section size and determined a base land value.

·   This value was then adjusted for variation in scale of each site.

·   A 4.5% return of the adjusted site value was determined to be the annual licence fee value.

·   While market principles and standard valuation approaches have been applied to both situations the circumstances are quite different and therefore the licence fee is not comparable between the two.

 

Community Views and Preferences

5.5       There has been no community consultation on this matter as the encroachment has been in place since the mid 1980s. Although the site is legal road it is unformed and although technically available for public passage it is practically difficult to access, and because of the topography and vegetation it is rarely, if ever, used.

5.6       Staff are not aware of any complaints from the public about this building encroaching onto the unformed legal road.

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

5.7.1   Banks Peninsula Ward

5.7.2   Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report does not support the Council’s strategic principles as it is a minor issue.

6.2       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The Council has no policy that relates to this application.

6.4       The application and decision cannot be considered under the Structures on Roads Policy 2020 as it only applies to private non-habitable structures (e.g. garages, retaining walls, etc.) encroaching onto the legal road. Habitable structures are specifically excluded in the Policy’s scope.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6       Staff have reviewed the Mahaanui Kurataiao Iwi Management Plan in respect of Akaroa Harbour, and we have found there are no defined aspects or objectives within the Plan’s framework in relation to this site. This site is approximately 1.7 km inland from the Harbour.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7       There are no climate change impacts arising from this decision.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       The decision does not restrict the public’s access to the legal road as the encroachment extends 10.5 metres from the property boundary and allows the remainder of the road reserve of 9.5 metres to be retained. However, it is notable that the remaining road reserve is difficult to access on foot due to a steep slope and is impeded by trees and shrubs.

6.9       It is doubtful that the public are aware of the true alignment of the legal road reserve (as opposed to the actual road) and there is unlikely to be demand for passage along it. Staff are not aware of any complaints about this matter.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – There is no cost to the Council. The applicant pays for both the application and the deed of licence processes.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There is no costs to Council. The applicant is responsible for maintenance and other ongoing costs.

7.3       Funding Source – The applicant pays the Council’s costs in relation to the processing of the application and the deed of licence.

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 2002 section 12(2) “Status and Powers” general powers for the Council applies. Additionally section 357(1) (a) Local Government Act 1974 empowers the Council to grant the licence.

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 is unlikely to be any significant risks arising from this decision, as the encroachment has been in place for many years and has not led to any complaints. However, the building does obstruct about half the road reserve’s width (20 metres) and the area is difficult to access and use safely (refer Attachment A).

9.2       Although this application confirms a long-standing partial obstruction of the legal road, it does not obstruct access for neighbouring properties. Additionally staff have checked there is no utility infrastructure affected by the encroachment, and it is not a safety hazard or nuisance to other potential road users, being impractical for use.

9.3       There is likely to be little if any legal risk for the Council in approving the deed of licence as the document clearly states the rights and responsibilities of each party.

9.4       The Council’s standard licence to occupy legal road always includes a clause requiring the licensee to hold a $2 million public indemnity insurance policy. This will be included in the licence for 164 Pawsons Valley Road. The typical house owner’s insurance generally has this coverage in place.

9.5       The Council will reassess the licence if the structure is reconstructed for any reason or if the site is subject to significant seismic activity as we will not be responsible for any repair of the structure or the prevention of land surface damage.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

164 Pawsons Valley Road, Duvauchelle - Occupation of Unformed Road Plan

 

b  

Pawsons Valley Road – Road Diversion Plan

 

 

 

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

Philip Basher - Transport Policy Engineer

Kirsty Mahoney - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Ekin Sakin - Manager Planning & Delivery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 14 March 2022

 

12.   Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road - Cameo Grove and Burwood Road

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/336031

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Raymond Qu, Property Consultant
raymond.qu@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

 

1. Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve more particularly described as Lot 42 DP 431366 and Lot 1 DP 420075 as road, pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road - Cameo Grove and Burwood Road

134

 

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Dedication of Road Reserve as Legal Road - Cameo Grove and Burwood Road

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/61352

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Raymond Qu, Property Consultant
Raymond.qu@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board to recommend to the Council that a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve legally described as Lot 42 DP 431366 and Lot 1 DP 420075 (hereafter, the subject land) be dedicated as road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.  

1.2       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 assessing the impact of dedicating the land as road on the residential subdivision, rates and cost to the Council.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends to the Council that it:

1.         Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve more particularly described as Lot 42 DP 431366 and Lot 1 DP 420075 as road, pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977

 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       This is an enabling decision, which will allow the road reserves to be formally legalised and merged in the road network.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Do nothing –

4.1.1   Advantages

·     There are no advantages.

4.1.2   Disadvantages 

·     Would not allow access to and from the adjoining development.

·     Prevents house construction.

 

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The subject land was vested to the Council due to the Resource Management Act requirements for private subdivisions. Road construction on these two portions of Road Reserve (21R Cameo Grove and 329Q Burwood Road) is completed, and hence Road Dedication is required.

5.2       The road connection is opened for through traffic. The image below shows the various land parcels (1 – 4) in relation to the accepted roading plan and panoramic photos of the physical road. Land parcels marked 1 and 2 are road reserves mentioned in 5.1. Land parcel 3 will be vested to the Council as road once CDL Land NZ Limited completes Preston Park Stage 4 subdivision. Land parcel 4 is still owned by CDL, which will also be vested as Council road should CDL decide to subdivide 12 Cameo Grove.

5.3       There is no staff or Community Board delegation to dedicate local purpose (road) reserve as legal road. A decision from the Council is required.

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

5.4.1   Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Aligns with the Infrastructure Strategy by providing network connectivity and connection to a new housing area.

6.2       This report does not support 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. The mission statement in The Living Streets Charter Policy is to create living streets and a living city where a variety of road environments support and encourage a greater range of community and street activity. 

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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       This is a private development that does not impact on the Council’s climate change considerations.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The road has been formed with a standard footpath and road carriage way.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – nil.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – the Council maintains the physical road.

7.3       Funding Source – Road maintenance budget.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides specific provision to dedicate as road a local purpose road reserve.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       This is a procedural matter that does not create any risks to the Council, unless the recommendations in this report are not adopted.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Raymond Qu - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kirsty Mahoney - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 14 March 2022

 

13.   Slow Speed Neighbourhoods Avondale

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/351793

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Gemma Dioni, Senior Transport Engineer, gemma.dioni@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1. Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Part 4 Clause 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that the speed limits on the following roads be revoked and set generally as identified in Attachment A to the staff report and listed below in clauses 1a-1nn (including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps).

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Baladin Street (entire length).

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Baladin Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

c.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Belmont Street (entire length).

d.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Belmont Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

e.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Besant Place (entire length).

f.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Besant Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

g.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Binstead Place (entire length).

h.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Binstead Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

i.          Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Briarmont Street (entire length).

j.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Briarmont Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

k.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Chardale Street (entire length).

l.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Chardale Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

m.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Colac Street (entire length).

n.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Colac Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

o.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Cowes Street (entire length).

p.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Cowes Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

q.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Cowper Place (entire length).

r.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Cowper Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

s.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on De Courcy Place (entire length).

t.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on De Courcy Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

u.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Doyle Place (entire length).

v.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Doyle Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

w.        Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Eglinton Street (entire length).

x.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Eglinton Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

y.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Glenrowan Avenue (entire length).

z.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Glenrowan Avenue (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

aa.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Hulverstone Drive commencing at its intersection with Chardale Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Briarmont Street.

bb.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Hulverstone commencing at its intersection with Chardale Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Briarmont Street.be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

cc.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Mervyn Drive commencing at its intersection with Avondale Road and extending in an easterly direction, to its intersection with Baladin Street.

dd.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Mervyn Drive commencing at its intersection with Avondale Road and extending in an easterly direction, to its intersection with Baladin Street be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

ee.      Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Niven Street (entire length).

ff.        Approve that the permanent speed limit on Niven Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

gg.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Orrick Crescent (entire length).

hh.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Orrick Crescent (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

ii.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Thorness Street (entire length).

jj.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Thorness Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

kk.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Waratah Street (entire length).

ll.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Waratah Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

mm.   Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Woolley Street (entire length).

nn.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Woolley Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

2.         Approve that these resolutions take effect when the signage that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3.         Authorise staff to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions in the above descriptions of the roads to which the speed limits apply (being changes that do not affect the materiality of the resolutions).

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Slow Speed Neighbourhoods Avondale

142

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Slow Speed Neighbourhood - Avondale - For Approval Plan TG140757

150

b

Consultation Summary - Slow Speed Neighbourhoods - Avondale

151

 

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

Slow Speed Neighbourhoods Avondale

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/114665

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Gemma Dioni Senior Transport Engineer gemma.dioni@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager  Pouwhakarae:

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

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board to consider the consultation feedback and views on the proposed speed limit changes for the Slow Speed Neighbourhood in Avondale, and to make a recommendation to the Council.

1.2       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

1.3       The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

1.4       The recommended option is to reduce the speed limits from 50 kilometre per hour to 40 kilometres per hour in accordance with Attachment A

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Part 4 Clause 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that the speed limits on the following roads be revoked and set generally as identified in Attachment A to the staff report and listed below in clauses 1a-1nn (including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps).

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Baladin Street (entire length).

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Baladin Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

c.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Belmont Street (entire length).

d.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Belmont Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

e.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Besant Place (entire length).

f.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Besant Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

g.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Binstead Place (entire length).

h.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Binstead Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

i.          Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Briarmont Street (entire length).

j.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Briarmont Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

k.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Chardale Street (entire length).

l.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Chardale Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

m.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Colac Street (entire length).

n.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Colac Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

o.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Cowes Street (entire length).

p.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Cowes Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

q.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Cowper Place (entire length).

r.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Cowper Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

s.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on De Courcy Place (entire length).

t.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on De Courcy Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

u.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Doyle Place (entire length).

v.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Doyle Place (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

w.        Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Eglinton Street (entire length).

x.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Eglinton Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

y.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Glenrowan Avenue (entire length).

z.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Glenrowan Avenue (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

aa.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Hulverstone Drive commencing at its intersection with Chardale Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Briarmont Street.

bb.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Hulverstone commencing at its intersection with Chardale Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Briarmont Street.be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

cc.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Mervyn Drive commencing at its intersection with Avondale Road and extending in an easterly direction, to its intersection with Baladin Street.

dd.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Mervyn Drive commencing at its intersection with Avondale Road and extending in an easterly direction, to its intersection with Baladin Street be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

ee.      Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Niven Street (entire length).

ff.        Approve that the permanent speed limit on Niven Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

gg.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Orrick Crescent (entire length).

hh.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Orrick Crescent (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

ii.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Thorness Street (entire length).

jj.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Thorness Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

kk.       Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Waratah Street (entire length).

ll.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Waratah Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

mm.   Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Woolley Street (entire length).

nn.      Approve that the permanent speed limit on Woolley Street (entire length) be set at 40 kilometres per hour.

2.         Approve that these resolutions take effect when the signage that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3.         Authorise staff to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions in the above descriptions of the roads to which the speed limits apply (being changes that do not affect the materiality of the resolutions).

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The preferred option is to change the speed limits as outlined in the staff recommendations in this report for the following reasons:

3.1.1   Traffic speed data indicates that most road users in this area already recognise that the currently posted speed limit is not safe and appropriate for this area, and are travelling below this limit.

3.1.2   Reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes and improves safety on local roads.

3.1.3   Aligns with the overall vision of the Ministry of Transport/Te Manatū Waka New Zealand Road Safety Strategy - Road to Zero 2020-2030.

3.2       Achieves safe and appropriate speeds that reflect the road function, design, safety, and use for safer use by all. Local neighbourhood roads are low volume and low speed roads and are where we would see more of our vulnerable road users such as school children, cyclists and pedestrians on the road and footpaths.

3.3       The Council determined through the Long Term Plan (LTP) to implement at least five slow speed neighbourhoods per year over the next three years.  The Avondale Slow Speed Neighbourhood is identified as one of the five neighbourhoods.

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Maintain the status quo

4.1       Maintain the status quo – Retain the existing speed limits.

4.2       The advantages of this option include:

4.2.1   There are no identified benefits to road safety or consistency of speed limits from retaining the existing speed limits.

4.2.2   No further costs are incurred for providing or modifying speed limit signs.

4.3       The disadvantages of the option include:

4.3.1   Does not align with the objectives of the Waka Kotahi Speed Management Guide 2016.

4.3.2   Does not align with the overall vision of Road Safety Strategy- Road to Zero 2020-2030.

4.3.3   Does not align the posted speed limits with the operating speeds, the safe and appropriate speeds, and does not help improve the credibility and consistency across the network.

4.3.4   Does not deliver one of the five slow speed neighbourhoods this financial year as identified in the Long Term Plan.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for Council and is also a national priority under the principles and guidance of the Road to Zero - New Zealand’s road safety strategy for 2020-2030. Road to Zero sets an initial target to reduce deaths and serious injuries on New Zealand’s roads, streets, cycleways, and footpaths by 40 percent over the next 10 years. There are several focus areas being looked at nationally to achieve this, but where significant difference can be made is through having safe and appropriate speeds on Christchurch’s roads.

5.2       It is proposed to reduce the speed limit from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour on selected streets in Avondale.

5.3       There have been 11 reported crashes (4 minor injury and 7 non-injury) in this area over the 5-year period 2016-2020 (including available 2021 data).

5.4       The Council count data indicates that the majority of road users already recognise that the currently posted speed limit is not safe and appropriate for this area, and are travelling well below this limit. Implementing a lower speed limit will help to reinforce this safer driving behaviour, and help those unfamiliar with the area understand the safe and appropriate speed. Research suggests that, in some environments, changing speed limit signage alone (without complimentary engineering treatments) may result in a 2 to 3 km/h reduction in operating speeds. Installation of new speed limit signage in this area may also therefore result in a slight reduction in operating speeds.

5.5       Neighbourhoods are areas where we can make the most difference with slower speeds to improve safety for vulnerable road users, because everyone should get where they’re going safely whether they’re walking, cycling, driving, motorcycling, or using public transport.

5.6       The proposed slower speeds will also assist in improving pedestrian connectivity through the neighbourhood by making it safer for people to cross to get where they are going.

5.7       The slow neighbourhood speed limit has been determined based on several speed management principles. The fundamental principle is that speed affects the severity of all crashes. Even when speed doesn’t cause the crash, it’s what will most likely determine whether anyone is killed, injured, or walks away unharmed from that crash.

5.8       The local road network bound by Avondale Road, Breezes Road, Wainoni Road and the Avon River, has a history of community complaints and requests for service related to speed and anti-social road user issues.

5.9       Approval is required by the Council.  If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within the next financial year (generally around 6-8 weeks after the Contractor receives the request).

Community Views and Preferences

5.10    Residents were encouraged to head online from 5 November to 5 December 2021 to have their say.  A consultation summary is provided in Attachment B.

5.11    The consultation was advertised through a letter box flyer, Newsline story, social media posts on community Facebook pages, on-site signage and the online Have Your Say portal.

5.12    The Council received 62 submissions.  The majority of submitters (56) were residents from Avondale with the remainder from outside the project area. One submitter did not provide an address. From those that submitted, 40% clearly supported the initiative and 23% clearly opposed.  Feedback from the remaining 37% of submitters showed no clear indication for or against.

5.13    Although the majority of submitters did support the slow speeds for Avondale, there were concerns on how the speed limit would be enforced and there was a strong desire for traffic calming measures to be delivered as part of this project. This is due to the already high number of complaints regarding vehicles travelling at excessive speeds throughout this area. Key themes identified include:

·   The need for traffic calming measures (37%)

·   Legal enforcement (32%)

·   Signage is not enough (8%)

5.14    Although the majority of submitters supported the initiative, there was a general consensus that high number of ‘boy racers’ who currently use these roads to exceed the speed limit and undertake bad driver behaviour with 30 submitters (48%) mentioning concerns about this type of behaviour (key words - boy racers, speedsters, motor heads, burnouts, donuts, skids, excessive speed). Submitters who did not support the initiative believe the ‘boy racers’ are currently exceeding the speed limit and new signage will not be enough to deter this behaviour.

5.15    While out of scope for this project submitters commented on the option to install traffic calming measures such as speed humps, judder bars, speed cameras, planter boxes and new line marking to support the speed reduction.

5.16    Once a new speed is introduced in an area, Police will be notified and encouraged to educate and enforce with road users.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The New Zealand Road Safety Strategy - Road to Zero: sets a target to reduce death and serious injuries on New Zealand roads by 40 percent over the next 10 years. There are five key focus areas: infrastructure improvements and speed management, vehicle safety, work related road safety, road user choices, and system management.

6.2       Waka Kotahi’s Speed Management Guide 2016: setting safe and appropriate speeds, consistency and credibility of speed limits.

6.3       Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017: requires that road controlling authorities must set speed limits that are safe and appropriate, and encourages a consistent approach to speed management throughout New Zealand.

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

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

6.5.1   Activity: Transport

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network  - ≤ 105 crashes Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network  - ≤ 105 crashes.

·     Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - ≤ 12 crashes per 100,000 residents.

·     Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - ≥85% resident satisfaction.

·     Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - ≥17% of trips undertaken by non-car modes.

·     Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city) - ≥65% resident satisfaction.

·     Level of Service: 10.5.3 More people are choosing to travel by cycling - ≥12,000 average daily cyclist detections.

·     Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - ≤1.10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents.

6.5.2   Capital Programme

·     $250,000 capital expenditure per year for three years to implement at least five slow speed neighbourhoods a year.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6       The decisions in this report are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7       The effects of this proposal upon Mana Whenua are expected to be insignificant.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8       This proposal includes measures to slow vehicle speeds and improve road safety.  This could encourage people to use alternative modes to the private vehicle which will result in positive changes to reduce carbon emissions and the effects of Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9       This proposal will result in vehicles travelling at reduced speeds, which will provide a safer and more accessible environment for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – approximately $18,000.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – approximately $2,000/year.

7.3       Funding Source – Slow speed Neighbourhoods project 65987.

Other

7.4       None identified.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Speed Limits must be set in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

8.2       Clause 27 (Part 4) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3       There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. 

8.4       This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in sections 8.1 to 8.3.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Slow Speed Neighbourhood - Avondale - For Approval Plan TG140757

 

b  

Consultation Summary - Slow Speed Neighbourhoods - Avondale

 

 

 

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

Gemma Dioni - Senior Transportation Engineer

Hannah Ballantyne - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Acting Manager Operations (Transport)

Steffan Thomas - Head of Technical Services & Design

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

 


Council

07 April 2022

 


Council

07 April 2022

 





Council

07 April 2022

 

 

14.   Multicultural Committee Minutes - 4 March 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/297830

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Multicultural Committee held a meeting on 4 March 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 Multicultural Committee meeting held 4 March 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Multicultural Committee - 4 March 2022

156

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

07 April 2022

 






Council

07 April 2022

 

 

15.   Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Community Strategy

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1719186

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Anne Galloway, Hearings Panel Chairperson

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Community Strategy.

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

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

Agenda: 6 December 2021 and 31 January 2022

Minutes: 6 December 2021 and 31 January 2022

Attachments: 6 December 2021 and 31 January 2022  

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1.         Approves the revised Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy as tabled at the Hearings Panel meeting on 31 January 2022, including the following amendments:

a.         Amend objective 3.3 to include: empower local communities to have greater input into the development and review of Community Board plans;

b.         Amend page 9 to include the words “evidence-based” under the “Our Work Will Be” heading;

c.         Amend page 11 to include a reference to the Youth Action Plan and Memorandum of Understanding with the Christchurch Youth Council;

d.         Amend the examples under Objective 3.1 to include:

i.          Ensure local engagement processes are appropriate

1.   Utilise diverse media and ways of participation to provide equitable access

2.   Empower diverse communities to participate in improvements to Community Board processes and through trialling and sharing of innovations.

ii.         Improve accessibility and transparency across all information channels, including Community Board briefings, engagement and decision making processes

iii.        Stimulate more interest in local democracy

1.   Provide more opportunities for communities to direct, engage and influence local decision making;

2.         Encourage Community Boards to consider the entire Strategy when developing their Community Board plans;

3.         Refer the feedback on engagement and decision-making to the Engagement Working Group; and,

4.         Recommend that the Strategy Impacts Information is provided to Councillors for consideration during each draft Annual or Long Term Plan for each of the Council Strategies.

 

3.   Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1       In 2007, the Council produced its Strengthening Communities Strategy, an innovative response to the requirements within the Local Government Act 2002 for councils to promote social and cultural wellbeing. The 2007 Strategy has provided “a framework to guide the Council’s work with community organisations which in turn work in a range of ways to help develop strong communities” over the last nearly 15 years.

3.2       In 2020, as part of a review of the 2007 Strategy, staff evaluated the results of the Strategy and undertook a process of community and stakeholder engagement to inform the development of a replacement strategy ‘refreshed’ for the 2020s.

3.3.     The draft Strategy reflects Council’s continued commitment to building, in partnership with others, inclusive, safe, resilient and connected communities. The overall vision of the strategy has been “sharpened”. 

Te Haumako; Te Whitingia – to enrich: to shine

Enabling active and connected communities to own their futures

 

3.4.     The goals have been simplified to the following:

3.4.1   Te Pou Tua Tahi: Tāngata – Pillar 1: People The city actively promotes a culture of equity by valuing diversity and fostering inclusion across communities and generations.

3.4.2   Te Pou Tua Rua: Te Whenua – Pillar  2: Place We help build connections between communities and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identify, shared experience and stewardship.

3.4.3   Te Pou Tua Toru: Te Mahi – Pillar 3: Participation Residents and groups in the wider community are socially and actively engaged and able to initiate and influence decisions that affect their lives.

3.4.4   Te Pou Tua Whā: Te Takatū - Pillar 4: Preparedness People feel safe in their communities and neighbourhoods and work together to understand, adapt and thrive in the context of change and disruption.

3.5.     Once the Council adopts the draft Strategy, the focus will move to working with partners and the community to deliver actions outlined in the implementation plan, recognising these will be resourced through existing levels of service across Council.

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

 

Early Engagement

4.1       From August to October 2020, the strategy refresh project team consulted with staff in the wider organisation, elected members and a range of representatives from both geographic communities and communities of identity or interest. Engagement ranged from informal discussions through to workshops and meetings. Kanohi ki kanohi (face-to-face) discussions were held with over 20 workshop groups involving approximately 350 people.

4.2       In addition to this, submissions from 42 organisations and 17 individuals were received through the online Have Your Say consultation platform.  A report summarising this early engagement was presented to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on 25 August 2021. The Committee passed a resolution approving the release of the draft Strategy together with a draft Implementation Plan for community consultation.

Public Consultation

4.3       Public consultation on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Community Strategy commenced on 10 September 2021 and was scheduled to close on 11 October 2021.  However, due to the Government-mandated Level 4 Covid-19 lockdown in August and September, consultation was extended to 25 October 2021. Section four of the Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel contains further details on the consultation process.

Submissions

4.4.     At the close of the consultation, there were 80 formal submissions and the engagement team had met with 35 organisations in one-on-one discussions and workshops.  The formal submissions and evidence from the workshops and discussions were included in the Council Officer submission analysis.  All submissions were made available to the Hearings Panel in advance of the hearing.

4.5.     The Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel contains a comprehensive analysis of the submissions including detailed responses to the key themes raised.  In addition to this, the report also contained a Tracked Changes version of the Strategy document, which had been amended by Council Officers based on the feedback received from submitters. Briefly summarised, the key themes that arose from the written submissions were:

4.5.1   That implementation was the most critical aspect of the strategy;

4.5.2   More transparency is needed in monitoring and reporting on the success of the strategy;

4.5.3   There is growing concern over high-density housing and its impact on communities;

4.5.4   Access and affordability issues of Council services;

4.5.5   There needed to be more reference to the Banks Peninsula throughout the document and an acknowledgement of the unique needs of rural communities in Christchurch;

4.5.6   Safety and preparedness across the whole city is essential, not just in the Central City; and,

4.5.7   Feedback from consultation is not listened to by Council.

5.   The Hearing Te Hui

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Anne Galloway (Chair), Councillor Jimmy Chen, Councillor Celeste Donovan, Councillor Yani Johanson and Councillor Sara Templeton.  The Hearings Panel convened on Monday 6 December, Monday 13 December 2021 and Monday 31 January 2022 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal, including information provided by Council Officers.

5.2       On Monday 6 December 2021, after opening, Council Officers presented the Hearings Panel with a brief background to the engagement process, information regarding the representation of submitters and key themes from the consultation for the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Community Strategy.  During this presentation, Council Officers also produced evidence from a fono with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples.  This meeting had been scheduled to be held earlier, but due to Covid-19 restrictions had been unable to take place until 2 December 2021.

5.3       Throughout the process, Hearings Panel Members raised a series of questions in relation to the Council Officers’ report and presentation and oral submissions.  The questions were given to Council Officers for response.  The questions and responses were made available to the Hearings Panel on 25 January 2022 for its considerations and deliberations.

6.   Oral Submissions

6.1.     The Hearings Panel heard 29 oral submissions (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes for list of presenters).  The views expressed by the submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words in their original submissions and/or subsequent documents that were tabled at the hearings (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments).  Most key issues raised in the oral submissions are similar in content to those presented in the original written submissions and the Council Officers’ responses to these issues are detailed in the Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel. Below are some of the key points that were raised during oral submissions:

6.1.1   More consistent and clearer use of language is needed in the document.

6.1.2   More consistent and better communication and feedback is needed between the Council and the community. This relates not only to the engagement process and techniques but also to ‘closing the loop’ and providing feedback on Council decisions and why they have been made.

6.1.3   There needs to be better resourcing and capacity to enable the Council to go to where the communities are during consultation and engagement.  Engagement practices need to be rethought to maximise participation.

6.1.4   Information about proposals needs to be accessible to all and come in a variety of forms.  While technology is making things easier, only using electronic formats can exclude some sections of society.

6.1.5   Actions versus words – implementation is the most important part of the strategy.

6.1.6   More support needed for volunteers and volunteer managers.

6.1.7   Greater capacity and resourcing for Community Boards for community initiatives and development and more encouragement about local ownership and identity.

6.1.8   Greater reference needs to be given to the Banks Peninsula community and their unique needs.

6.1.9   Access (to information, events, facilities, funding) is a key part to inclusion which the strategy needs to address.

6.1.10 Needs to have more reference to and a greater commitment to youth.

6.1.11 The potential negative impact of housing intensification on communities.

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

7.1.     On Monday 31 January 2022, the Hearings Panel reconvened for the purpose of considering and deliberating on all submissions received on the proposal, including information provided by Council Officers.  At this meeting, Council Officers presented a brief overview of the Implementation Plan and tabled a further updated Tracked Changes version of the Strategy, which had been amended by Council Officers based on the oral feedback received from submitters at the meetings on 6 December 2021 and 13 December 2021 and questions and comments raised by Panel Members.  This included a name change of the document to the Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy to greater incorporate residents in the Banks Peninsula.

Implementation Plan Discussion

7.2       A number of oral and written submissions addressed the fact that implementation of the Strategy is integral to its success.  This concern was also raised by members of the Hearings Panel.  As a result, the Chair of the Hearings Panel, Councillor Galloway, requested that staff provide an overview of the Implementation Plan at the meeting on 31 January 2022.

7.3       At this meeting, staff reported the following:

7.3.1   A clear, achievable, costed and measurable implementation plan is required;

7.3.2   The Strategy needs to be signed off first before the Implementation Plan can be completed – the draft Implementation Plan has been developing incrementally alongside the Strategy;

7.3.3   The Strategy will help to reframe funding information based on the goals and objectives set out in the Strategy;

7.3.4   There is nothing in the Implementation Plan or Strategy that cannot be delivered out of existing budget. Every level of service is costed and funded through the Long Term Plan;

7.3.5   The Implementation Plan will give an outline of the funding required and if adjustments need to be made, they can be made through the Long Term Plan;

7.3.6   The Implementation Plan will help to identify key performance indicators.  No Strategy actions will be committed to if it cannot be measured.

Deliberation and Consideration

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

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

7.5.1   The actions listed in the Strategy were not specific enough and there need to be tangibles that give confidence to the community;

7.5.2   Lack of specific mention of the Youth Action Plan;

7.5.3   More specific reference needed to be given to pandemic planning, especially in the current climate;

7.5.4   That the Hearings Panel needs to recommend to Council that greater resourcing be given to Community Boards to allow them to be more responsive to their local communities.  Community Boards are not efficient or effective at the moment and people are struggling to be actively engaged;

7.5.5   More work needs to be done to ensure the community feels that their voice influences decision-making and this will be investigated further by the Engagement Working Group.

7.5.6   The Panel were appreciative of the hard work that staff have done and the feedback received from the community.  They noted the overwhelming support for the direction of the Strategy.

7.5.7   The Panel noted the importance and significance of the Strategy and how it seeps into everything that the Council does. The Panel also noted that given events over the past five years it is a good time to update the current strategy and come together as a community.

7.6.     Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations. The Hearings Panel approved the draft Tracked Changes Strategy document from the meeting on 31 January 2022 for final decision by the Council and included additional recommendations based on submitters’ feedback as below:

7.6.1   The Hearings Panel recommended that the revised Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy as tabled at the Hearings Panel meeting be approved to go to Council for final approval;

7.6.2   The Hearings Panel recommended that objective 3.3 of the draft Strategy to include: empower local communities to have greater input into the development and review of Community Board plans;

7.6.3   The Hearings Panel recommended that page 9 of the draft Strategy be amended to include the words “evidence-based” under the “Our Work Will Be” heading;

7.6.4   The Hearings Panel recommended that page 11 of the draft Strategy be amended to include a reference to the Youth Action Plan and Memorandum of Understanding with the Christchurch Youth Council;

7.6.5   The Hearings Panel recommended that the examples under Objective 3.1 be amended to include:

7.6.5.1. Ensure local engagement processes are appropriate

7.6.5.1.1.  Utilise diverse media and ways of participation to provide equitable   access; and

7.6.5.1.2.    Empower communities to participate in improvements to Community Board processes and through trialling and sharing of innovations.

7.6.5.2. Improve accessibility and transparency across all information channels, including Community Board briefings, engagement and decision making processes

7.6.5.3. Stimulate more interest in local democracy

7.6.5.3.1.    Provide more opportunities for communities to direct, engage and influence local decision making

7.6.6.  At the Hearings Panel, Councillor Johanson requested that his support for the amendments listed above at clauses 7.6.1 to 7.6.5 inclusive be recorded and that his vote against approving the Strategy as a whole also be recorded.

7.6.7.  The Hearings Panel recommended Council encourage Community Boards to consider the entire Strategy when developing their Community Board plans;

7.6.8.  The Hearings Panel recommended that Council refer the feedback on engagement and decision-making to the Engagement Working Group; and,

7.6.9.  The Hearings Panel recommended that the Strategy Impacts Information is provided to Councillors for consideration during each draft Annual or Long Term Plan for each of the Council Strategies.

7.7.     It was noted that the full Implementation Plan, which includes a monitoring framework, is still currently in development and will provide more detail around budget, actions and anticipated outcomes.  This Implementation Plan will be presented to the Council at its meeting in May 2022.

7.8.     Given the considerable debate around Community Board’s roles and abilities, it was also noted that the Community Boards’ delegation review is underway and will inform future delegations to Boards, resourcing and levels of service.

8.   Reference Documents

Document

Location

Hearings Panel Agenda

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/12/BLHP_20211206_AGN_7436_AT.PDF

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/01/BLHP_20220131_AGN_7852_AT.PDF

Hearings Panel Minutes

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/12/BLHP_20211206_MIN_7436_AT.PDF

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/01/BLHP_20220131_MIN_7852_AT.PDF 

Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/12/BLHP_20211206_MAT_7436.PDF

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/01/BLHP_20220131_MAT_7852.PDF

Have Your Say Webpage

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/353

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Andrew Campbell – Committee & Hearings Advisor

Approved By           Councillor Anne Galloway - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

16.   Review of the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/287218

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Evangeline Dispo,  Policy Analyst, Evangeline.dispo@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy & Performance

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council retain the current Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy without amendment.

1.2       The review is in compliance with the statutory requirement under section 69(4) of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 which requires the Council to review its local approved products policy five years from its last review.

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 reflects the fact this is an existing policy approved by the Council in 2014 but not yet applied as there are no approved psychoactive substances eligible for retail.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Resolve that the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy remains fit-for-purpose.

2.         Agree that the current Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy (see Attachment A) be retained without amendments.

3.         Note that the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy must be reviewed within five years to meet the legislative requirements of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (i.e. by 2027).

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy enables the Council to control where psychoactive products are sold, should the Government approve any for sale (the Government has yet to do so).

3.2       While we are required by legislation to review this Policy every five years, it remains fit-for-purpose and does not need to be amended to take account of any Government decision or changes to the District Plan.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Amend the Policy: The current Policy is still relevant and consistent with the existing legislation and District Plan. There have been no developments since the last review that necessitate amendment of the Policy. 

4.2       Revoking the Policy: The Act provides that revocation or amendment of a council’s locations policy requires a Special Consultative Procedure.  While the legislation does not require local councils to have a locations policy, revoking the Policy would undermine the ability of the Council to control locations where approved products could be sold, hence limiting our ability to protect vulnerable groups from the harmful impacts of psychoactive products.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Government’s Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

5.1       The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, which came into effect in 2014, regulates the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use these substances.    The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority (PSRA) administers the Act.

5.2       The Act allows territorial authorities to develop a policy for their area which outlines where retail outlets of approved products can be located, and refer to these policies as Local Approved Products Policy (LAPP).

The Council’s Local Approved Product Policy

5.3       The Council adopted its Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy in 2014. It is designed to protect the health of and minimise harm to users of psychoactive products, and reduce the exposure and potential harm to vulnerable groups.

5.4       The Policy provides guidance to the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority (PSRA) for processing retail applications, setting out permitted areas where premises selling approved products can be located. The Policy allows retail premises to be located in the central city where there is good visibility and lighting for natural surveillance, CCTV cameras and Police presence for more effective protection and enforcement.

Review of the Policy

5.5       Under the Act, the policy must be reviewed five years after its adoption and then at intervals of not more than five years.

5.6       In 2017, a review was done to ensure better consistency with development changes in the central city and with the Christchurch District Plan.  The Policy underwent minor amendments during that review.

5.7       The Policy is now due for review again.  For this review, staff considered the views of a number of stakeholders as noted below:

5.7.1   When consulted, the PSRA affirmed that no changes have been made to the Act since 2018 and the Government has no plans to revisit and further amend the Act. To date, no psychoactive substances have been approved and no retail applications received.

5.7.2   Council Planning staff have confirmed there have been no changes to zones or definitions in the Christchurch District Plan that necessitate amendment of the Policy.

5.7.3   The Police and Canterbury District Health Board have been consulted on this review and both confirmed the Policy does not need amending.

5.8       Community Boards have been advised of the review and invited to give feedback. The decision affects the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board as the Policy allows psychoactive products to be sold in permitted areas within the central city.  

5.9       The Auckland, Dunedin, and Ruapehu District have recently rolled-over their existing policy with minor amendments or no changes made.  Wellington City Council plans a similar approach when they do their review, given no products have been approved under the Act.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The decision aligns with the Council’s community outcome of ‘safe and healthy communities’. The primary aim of the Policy is to protect the health and minimise harm to vulnerable groups in the community on the impacts the use of psychoactive products.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies – specifically, zones and definitions in the Christchurch District Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision does not involve a significant implication 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 where a decision is to retain a current Council’s psychoactive policy.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       There are no climate change considerations associated with this decision.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       No specific accessibility considerations are associated with this decision. The Policy enables the Council to protect the health and minimise harm to vulnerable groups in the community.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – No resources required in the implementation of the Policy because the Government hasn’t approved any psychoactive substances and no retail applications received, so no products can be sold.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Not applicable

7.3       Funding Source – Not applicable

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       This is a statutory requirement under section 69(4) of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 which requires the Council to review its local approved products policy five years from its last review.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Retaining the Policy avoids the reputational risk that Council is deregulating psychoactive substances and refrains from putting greater risks to the health and wellbeing of the vulnerable groups.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy 2014

173

 

 

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

Evangeline Dispo - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Council

07 April 2022

 






Council

07 April 2022

 

 

17.   Coastal Hazards Adaptation Framework and Coastal Panel

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/280041

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Jane Morgan, Principal Programme Advisor, jane.morgan@ccc.govt.nz
Katy McRae, Head of Communication and Engagement, katy.mcrae@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of:

1.1.1   The Coastal Adaptation Framework (the Framework) which sets out the Council’s approach to adaptation planning with low lying coastal and inland communities that will be impacted by sea level rise; and

1.1.2   The appointment of the Coastal Panel for Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō.  Note that the names of the candidates to be appointed are contained in a Public Excluded attachment and if discussion of these candidates is required, Council will move into a Public Excluded session to protect privacy of the candidates.

1.2       Council staff engaged on the draft Framework in late 2021.  Detailed analysis of public feedback and Council responses to submissions is set out in Appendix A: Coastal Adaptation Framework Consultation Analysis

1.3       The Framework has been amended in response to the submissions, with oversight and endorsement from the Coastal Hazards Working Group (see Appendix B: Coastal Adaptation Framework.)

1.4       The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy due to current and anticipated future impacts of coastal hazards on low-lying inland and coastal communities, mana whenua, and Council infrastructure.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approves the final Coastal Adaptation Framework which sets out the guiding principles and the engagement and decision-making process for the Council’s adaptation planning process.

2.         Resolves to appoint the Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Coastal Panel named in Appendix C: Coastal Panel for Whakaraupō.

3.         Agrees that the names of the Coastal Panel members are released after they have been advised of the Council decision.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Approval of the Framework and establishment of the Coastal Panel are necessary precursors to the Council’s initiation of adaptation planning in Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō in Spring 2022; to be followed by subsequent tranches of adaptation planning across other affected parts of the district.

3.2       While feedback has led to some amendments to the Framework, there was widespread support for the co-creation approach that it proposes.  The Coastal Hazards Working Group (CHWG) has endorsed the amended Framework and Council staff recommend that Council approve the report recommendations to enable staff to progress adaptation planning.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       With broad support indicated for the approach set out within the Framework, no alternative approach to adaptation planning has been developed. 

4.2       Some submitters in the Waimairi Beach to Southshore area sought to delay Council activity, and therefore some consideration has been made of this request.  However, the Council has previously agreed to start adaptation planning in the Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Adaptation Area and these communities have indicated a preference to progress this programme of work.

5.   Background

5.1       Communities around the world are facing the impacts of climate change and sea-level rise.  As a low-lying city, Christchurch is vulnerable to the impacts of sudden storms as well as gradual changes to the shoreline and tides.  Data derived from the Coastal Hazards Assessment for Christchurch District (2021) Tonkin + Taylor (Coastal Hazards Assessment, 2021) indicates that at 1.5m of sea level rise around 26,500 properties across the district are likely to experience coastal flooding, erosion and rising groundwater.

5.2       The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning (CHAP) programme was established to work with rūnanga and communities to develop adaptive pathways to plan for, and respond to, coastal hazards impacted by sea level rise.

5.3       In August 2020 the CHWG (Council, Papatipu Rūnanga and Environment Canterbury) was established to provide oversight and guidance over this programme.

5.4       On 7 October 2021 the Urban Development and Transport Committee approved the release of the Draft Framework for community feedback, and noted that staff were releasing the Coastal Hazards Assessment, 2021.

5.5       The Framework set out Council’s proposed approach to adaptation planning with rūnanga and communities including the respective roles and responsibilities of Council and private asset owners, guiding principles for adaptation planning, and a proposed engagement and decision-making process. 

5.6       Alongside the release of the Framework, Council also sought feedback on an Issues and Options Paper as a first step of the Coastal Hazards Plan Change which will manage new development, changes of use and subdivision proposed in the future. 

6.   Engagement activity

6.1       The Coastal Hazards engagement initially ran from 8 October – 15 November but was extended to 6 December 2021 to give people more time to consider their feedback.

6.2       During that eight week period Council staff attended more than 40 meetings, briefings, drop-ins, and pop-ups reaching more than 450 people.  Online engagement through social media posts reached over 59,000 people, and received 1,716 likes, shares and comments.  Significant effort was made to provide communities with information in a range of formats, including video, online maps, fact sheets, technical and plain language reports as well as initiatives like colouring competitions and a children’s engagement event attended by five schools.

6.3       101 submissions were received on the Framework, 42 of which were pro-forma responses or endorsements organised by the Waimairi Beach, North Beach and Southshore Residents’ Associations.  A high number of submissions were also received from children and young people – including students from the University of Canterbury and the five schools above.

6.4       A number of organisations and groups submitted (listed in Appendix A), as well as the Waitai Coastal-Burwood and Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards.

7.   Submissions and responses

7.1       As noted above, the Coastal Adaptation Framework Consultation Analysis (Appendix A) sets out the feedback received from submitters and Council’s responses to this feedback which has been discussed and endorsed by the CHWG.  Accordingly, a number of revisions have been made to the Framework (see Appendix B).

7.2       Looking across all submissions, there was broad support across the District for the Framework and acknowledgement of the value in setting out upfront a clear, co-creation process that involves mana whenua and communities. 

7.3       In the following section, this report addresses six themes where public feedback was significant, contentious, and/or polarised.

·        Engagement concerns

·        Climate science scepticism

·        The importance of education and awareness-raising

·        Principle Three: Focus on public assets that contribute to the health, safety and wellbeing of communities

·        Principle Seven: Keep managed retreat on the table

·        The Coastal Panel composition and appointment process

Engagement concerns – no change recommended

7.1       Feedback from coastal residents from Waimairi Beach to Southshore produced themes around a lack of sufficient time for the community to engage and provide feedback, and a lack of trust and confidence in Council.  Analysis shows some contradictory messages from submitters who voiced frustration at being over-consulted and fatigued by Council engagement, alongside appeals for more involvement in drafting the Framework, increased access to experts to better understand the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021, and the establishment of community expert groups outside of those proposed by Council.

7.2       These issues were not raised in submissions from elsewhere across the District. 

7.3       Council staff note that the engagement period was extended to a total of eight weeks which aligns well with best practice.[1]  It is intended that ongoing information sharing will continue with the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021; and a significant period of localised engagement will precede planning in each Adaptation Area.

Climate science scepticism - no change recommended

7.4       The Christchurch Coastal Residents United and some other submitters from the Waimairi Beach to Southshore area questioned the base assumptions in the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021.  Some comments alleged a conflict of interest with the peer reviewer, and others sought access to alternative experts to review this modelling work.  In addition, some submitters called for localised monitoring programmes to validate that seas are rising before the Council takes any further action.

7.5       Council was not seeking feedback on the highly technical modelling work in the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021.  However, Council remains confident that its methodology is aligned with current climate change policy and guidance from the Ministry for the Environment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that the methodology and findings have been robustly tested by credible experts, and that the information produced is suitable to inform adaptation planning.

The importance of education and awareness-raising

7.6       Feedback from children and young people, in particular, raised concerns about misinformation and climate science literacy in the wider community.

7.7       To respond to this feedback, Council staff have added a new section on engagement principles within the Framework. These engagement principles show the Council’s commitment to how we will engage with communities, and also acknowledge the importance of encouraging and supporting education initiatives to raise awareness and understanding of coastal hazards.

Principle Three: Focus on public assets that contribute to the health, safety and wellbeing of communities - no change recommended

7.8       Some submitters from across the District agreed that private property is the responsibility of the property owner, not the ratepayer.

7.9       However, others sought to broaden the principle to include private assets generally, with some arguing that Council has a ‘duty of care’ to protect private assets, and questioned Council’s legal advice.

7.10    Legal Services are clear that no legislation or case law has established that the Council owes such a legal duty of care.  The Council’s purpose and role under the Local Government Act 2002 does not demand that the Council becomes responsible for privately owned property.  Therefore, no change is recommended to Principle Three.

Principle Seven: Keep managed retreat on the table - change recommended

7.11    Some submitters from across the District supported this principle as inevitable, noting that in places it could be the most feasible and ecologically beneficial adaptation option available.

7.12    However, others raised concerns that it appears to be Council’s preferred approach as it was the only adaptation type singled out.  Others felt that it could alienate communities, and create stress and uncertainty for many people.

7.13    Council staff acknowledge concerns that by singling out the managed retreat adaptation type there was an implicit indication that this is the Council’s preferred approach.  Staff wish to emphasise that this was not the intention; and inclusion of this principle was intended to stimulate discussion and debate about managed retreat and emphasise the importance of longer-term sustainability as a consideration in adaptation planning processes.

7.14    To better fit this purpose, this principle has been redrafted to support the importance of ‘Consider Long-Term Sustainability’ which can be reviewed in Appendix B.

The Coastal Panel composition and appointment process - no change recommended

7.15    Submitters, predominantly from Waimairi Beach to Southshore, sought to include a greater proportion of ‘local representation’ on Coastal Panels, arguing that six community members were insufficient.  These submitters wanted either ‘the community’ or residents associations to appoint the Coastal Panel.

7.16    Council staff note that the proposed Coastal Panel composition is six community members, rūnanga representation, a representative of the local Community Board, a representative of the local Zone Committee and up to three ‘rest of city’ representatives.

7.17    Council note that the rūnanga, Community Board, and Zone Committee representatives also represent local interests and entities and therefore hold a localised focus.  At most, only three members could be considered to hold non-local interests.

7.18    Staff also note that appointment processes are often fraught with issues of mandate.  While Residents’ Associations hold valuable local information, they are not democratically elected representatives of their communities and do not have delegated decision-making powers.  Some communities do not have Residents’ Associations, and participation levels can differ between Residents’ Associations.

7.19    In contrast, Christchurch City Councillors are elected representatives of their communities and therefore hold a mandate to make decisions on behalf of communities.  It is for this reason that Council will oversee the process of appointments to the Coastal Panel.

8.   Appointment of the Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Coastal Panel

8.1       Note that the names of the candidates to be appointed are contained in a Public Excluded Appendix C: Coastal Panel for Whakaraupō.  If discussion of these candidates is required, Council will move into a Public Excluded session to protect privacy of the candidates.

8.2       The CHWG have considered and endorsed the appointment of the Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō Coastal Panel. 

8.3       The Coastal Panel is comprised of members appointed via three different processes:

8.3.1   members appointed by rūnanga, Community Board or Zone Committee;

8.3.2   community members who applied through an Expression of Interest process, are endorsed by the CHWG and appointed by Council; and

8.3.3   a rest of city representative appointed by a Community Board in another Adaptation Area to provide cross fertilisation of ideas and early socialisation of the processes before planning starts in their Adaptation Area.  Additionally, a rest of city youth representative was nominated to increase the proportion of young people on the Coastal Panel.

8.4       In total, ten Expressions of Interest were received with six of those applicants endorsed to become community members and a seventh appointed as a rest of city representative due to her residence outside the Adaptation Area, but in acknowledgement of her significant connections to the Adaptation Area.

8.5       The six community members were selected for their strong local connections and with consideration of the need for members with diverse age, gender, and place of residence.

8.6       It is proposed that the Coastal-Burwood Community Board select one ‘rest of city’ representative from their Board members who is able to take a wide perspective in order to support the adaptation planning process and is supportive of the need to plan now for current and future impacts of sea level rise.

9.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

9.1       The coastal adaptation programme is closely aligned with the Council’s strategic priorities of ‘Enabling active and connected communities to own their future’ and ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available’.

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

9.2.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 9.5.7.4 Develop a coastal hazard assessment and strategic adaptation framework to guide the development of adaptation pathways with communities who will be exposed to coastal hazards caused by climate change. - Develop and release updated Coastal Hazard Assessment and Strategic Adaptation Framework. Commence work with first tranche of priority communities.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa

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

9.4       Central Government has indicated that it will introduce a Climate Adaptation Act in 2023 to address legal, technical and funding issues relating to managed retreat.

9.5       Council staff have developed the Coastal Adaptation Framework to be responsive to future legislative change, and consider it necessary to progress adaptation planning due to the high levels of coastal hazard exposure in the Christchurch District.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

9.6       The management of coastal hazards is of significant interest to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Papatipu Rūnanga due to the intrinsic values that Māori hold with whenua, wai and the environment.  The inclusion of Te Rūnanga representative(s) on the CHWG acknowledges the importance of this relationship as does the partnership approach to the development of strategic documents, and the role of rūnanga on Coastal Panel.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

9.7       Engagement with communities on coastal hazards sits under Programme 3: Proactive Climate Planning with Communities under the Council’s Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

9.8       Access considerations are core to adaptation planning.

10. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

10.1    Funding for technical work and engagement was allocated to the CHAP programme in the Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-31.

11. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

11.1    The Council has various responsibilities, functions and powers under the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991, and other legislation in relation to managing significant risks from natural hazards.

11.2    It is noted that changes to resource management legislation (including a new Adaptation Act) will strengthen central government direction for managing coastal hazards in the next three years.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

11.3    Legal Services have provided legal advice set out in Appendix One: Coastal Adaptation Framework Consultation Analysis on various issues raised by the submissions.  This includes analysis of duty of care comments, and the broadness of principle three in relation to infrastructure.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal Adaptation Framework Consultation Analysis for Council 070422

186

b

Coastal Adaptation Framework Tracked Changes

225

c  

Coastal Panel for Whakaraupō (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Jane Morgan - Principal Programme Advisor

Katy McRae - Head of Communications & Engagement

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

07 April 2022

 








































Council

07 April 2022

 



















Council

07 April 2022

 

 

18.   Glass recycling

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/240634

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Rowan Latham, Contract and Project Lead - Resource Recovery
rowan.latham@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The report has been written in response to the Council’s Notice of Motion adopted on 11 November 2021, that the Council:

1.            Notes that staff are currently undertaking a service delivery review of kerbside collection of waste, including the options for separate glass collection and recycling. 

2.            Requests the review be completed in time to enable the separate collection and recycling of glass to be considered by the Council as part of the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

 

1.2       The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a preliminary assessment of the costs and benefits of the separate collection and recycling of glass both in terms of financial and environmental impacts. 

1.3       Detailed analysis of the complex technical, environmental and financial factors to be considered in glass recycling underpins this report and is included, along with peer review, as Attachment A, Christchurch City Council Glass Report (the Options Analysis).

1.4       It also outlines the details of Central Government’s work programme on waste, including the current consultation document ‘Te panoni to haungarua - Transforming Recycling’ which specifically addresses the standardisation of kerbside recycling, potential mandatory separation of glass and paper/cardboard, and the proposal for a Container Return Scheme for New Zealand.  These three key changes are very likely to have a direct impact on the council’s role in the collection of recyclable materials including glass.

1.5       The Government’s consultation document and associated Interim regulatory impact statement: Improving household and business recycling, covers many of the issues raised in the attached report, noting it is unlikely that councils will make changes to their glass collection until 2024 when the impact of a CRS is known, if one is introduced.

1.6       The associated Interim regulatory impact statement: A container return scheme for Aotearoa New Zealand, provides additional detail regarding the options and decision for introduction of the proposed CRS, acknowledges that this approach is most likely to shift costs away from councils, ratepayers and the environment, and, instead, towards responsible parts of the supply chain (ie, beverage manufacturers, retailers and the consumers of beverages).

1.7       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 reflects the recommendation that Council defer consideration of options for separate glass collection and recycling until outcomes of new central government policy in this space are finalised.

 


 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Agree not to proceed with a separate glass collection for Christchurch district until better information is available regarding implementation of the proposed Container Return Scheme (CRS) and for the standardisation of kerbside collections, noting that this is expected to be in 2024;

2.         Note that a Section 17A Review of Resource Recovery contracts is underway, which will identify the financial and associated environmental implications of any change to collection and processing of waste and recyclables by the Council;

3.         Note that staff are preparing a draft submission for the 5 May 2022 Council meeting on the Ministry for the Environment’s Transforming Recycling discussion document, which proposes improvements to household kerbside recycling, including an option for separate glass collection;

4.         Endorse the ongoing work by staff with the Ministry for the Environment to enhance local recycling infrastructure capacity.

5.         Note the public excluded attachments to this report can be released upon agreement from the third party.”

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The Government has significant work underway to investigate improved nationwide approaches to waste minimisation.  This includes the announcement on 13 March 2022 of the public consultation for Te panoni to haungarua -Transforming Recycling. The consultation includes three proposals to transform recycling.

3.1.1   A container return scheme that encourages people to return their empty beverage containers for recycling.

3.1.2   Improvements to household kerbside recycling.

3.1.3   Separation of food scraps from general waste for all businesses.

3.2       The Consultation Document provides an indicative timeline for implementation of the required changes, which aligns with Council’s existing contract for processing kerbside recycling. Key dates are as follows:

3.2.1   Mid to late 2022 – Cabinet approval of policy options and decisions on scheme legislative pathway

3.2.2   Early 2023 – New Waste Legislation Bill introduced to the House

3.2.3   Early 2024 – Bill passed into law

3.2.4   Mid 2025 – likely NZ CRS implementation period

3.1       It is highly likely that the proposal for a Container Return Scheme and improvements to kerbside recycling will have significant implications for the services provided by the Council. Within the consultation document there are additional proposals which relate to kerbside collections, including Proposal 5: Separate collection of glass and paper/cardboard. This proposal does not include a preferred option but identifies three options (besides the status quo), as follows:

3.1.1   Issuing best practice guidance and funding

3.1.2   Mandatory separation (either paper/cardboard or glass)

3.1.3   Glass collected separately.

These impacts will need to be fully considered in any decision on a separate glass collection scheme for Christchurch district.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Four options were considered in preparing the Options Analysis (Attachment A)

4.1.1   maintaining the status quo of collecting glass in the yellow bins and supplying crushed glass to Fulton Hogan for use in road construction.

4.1.2   introducing a fourth bin for glass bottles and jars that is able to be picked up by a sidearm truck on a fortnightly schedule, and sent to Visy without being colour sorted;

4.1.3   introducing a fourth bin for glass bottles and jars that is able to be picked up by a sidearm truck on a fortnightly schedule and is then colour-sorted at a receiving plant before being sent to Visy;

4.1.4   re-introducing a crate for glass bottles and jars which can be colour-sorted at kerb with low-entry collection vehicles and then sent to Visy;

4.2       Advantages of 4.1.1 are evident in the interim, given the government consultation document and likely implications for kerbside collections.  There is need to fully understand the implications of the proposed changes on the materials received through the councils’ kerbside service.

4.3       An analysis of a separate glass only collection was undertaken and included the additional cost of bins, material collection and additional sales revenue from higher quality fibre, plastics and glass as well as savings from reduced maintenance costs at the Christchurch Materials Recovery Facility (operated by EcoCentral).  The financial analysis concluded that there would be additional cost to Council under each alternative option. 

4.4       Key advantages of alternatives could include a higher price for fibre (paper and cardboard) collected through the kerbside bin, as a higher quality product can be maintained through the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). However it is important to note that commingled collections in Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand are still able to secure markets for the commingled product.

4.5       Disadvantages of the alternatives include that there is presently no certainty around acceptance criteria and markets for the glass, with only one processing facility that can set quality standards and thereby control supply of glass for recycling. The other major disadvantages are the costs and Greenhouse Gas emissions of an additional collection fleet and haulage requirements.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       An options analysis report was commissioned to respond to the Council’s Notice of Motion requesting a review of separate collection and recycling of glass. Given the complexity of the matters considered in the analysis report, an independent peer review was undertaken of the report.  This is in Appendix A.

5.2       The attached Options Analysis (Appendix A) concludes that any separate glass collection scheme is likely to have a significant negative financial impact for the Council.  At best, the negative annual financial impact is assessed as $610,671 per annum for separate glass collection (Option 3-glass out collection and crushed glass for domestic sale) over and above the current co-mingled “glass in” system.  This is in the ‘best case’ scenario where a CRS leads to diversion of only 20% of glass from the kerbside collection.  In a ‘worst case’ scenario where 80% of glass is diverted by the CRS the best glass out option (Option 4- Glass out collection and kerbside colour sorting)  is $1,474,577 per annum more expensive than the current (baseline) glass-in system.

5.3       Recycling of glass can provide an important tool in reducing waste and supporting a more circular economy, however recycling markets do not necessarily exist for all glass produced in New Zealand. The Options Analysis finds that an oversupply of glass exists in the NZ glass market, based on gross tonnage of glass into the market and the amount recycled back into glass containers, with surplus glass requiring alternative markets for beneficial use and/or disposal. This aligns with other work that has been carried out on the NZ glass market including the container return scheme co-design project.

5.4       While recycling is generally considered to have a positive environmental outcome, the report identifies that there may also be negative climate change impacts.  The transport emissions from the carriage of glass are significant and need careful evaluation in any decision-making.

5.5       Whole-of-life emissions in any recycling process need to be fully understood. The carbon cost of transporting recycled materials over long distances – particularly if they are heavy materials, like glass – can offset the gains of using those recovered materials.    There is only one glass recycling facility in New Zealand, Visy Glass located in Auckland and therefore the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the transportation of glass for processing are significant.  Table 8 of the Appendix sets out the additional transport GHG emissions from a collection of an unsorted glass bin.

5.6       Community support for recycling and the transition to a circular economy has been acknowledged in the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.  This plan provides high level objectives to increase recycling through a number of shorter term actions.

5.7       A Section 17A review of the Council’s waste management functions is currently underway.  It is expected to be completed in July 2022. The outcome of the review, which is looking at existing contractual arrangements and service delivery mechanisms, will provide an opportunity to review the way recyclable materials are processed. 

5.8       The Section 17a Review will assess the value and performance for the current services contracts and will inform future procurement approaches to contract renewals. The services being reviewed include:

·        Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

·        Transfer Stations

·        Organics Processing Plant

·        Kerbside Collections

·        Any other supply agreements.

5.9       The review will consider the Government’s announcements regarding standardisation of kerbside recycling, potential mandatory separation of glass and paper/cardboard, and the proposal for a Container Return Scheme.

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: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

·     Level of Service: 8.0.6 Engage with Central government, Industry and Sector interest groups  on policy and strategy to reduce waste to landfill - 12 interactions per annum

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The recommended decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       Mana whenua will almost certainly have views on waste management practices, and the impact such practices have had on land and water.  This specific decision on glass recycling is not expected to have an impact on mana whenua however as it relates to how we collect and process this material only.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       The Council is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2030.  Programme 9 of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy commits the Council to work towards zero waste and includes as a focus area work to maximise recycling of recyclable materials. 

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       Not applicable. Options to separately collect glass at kerbside via a collection crate have not been included due to health and safety concerns, should the Council progress this option then accessibility would need to be considered.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Detailed modelling of the expected financial impact of kerbside collection options, based on currently available information, is included in Attachment A.

7.2       Cost to implement – in the current market environment, with only one glass recycling facility in New Zealand, there are no cost-neutral options for separate glass kerbside collection across Christchurch district.  The lowest cost option is to maintain the status quo at this time, acknowledging that significant changes to returns for glass are likely to result from the proposed Container Return Scheme. Subject to scheme finalisation, further assessment of the likely costs of a separate collection of glass will need to be considered.

7.3       Ongoing operating costs of maintaining the status quo are included in existing contracts and programme budgets.

7.4       Funding Source – The activity is funded through a combination of revenue from the Waste Minimisation Levy and the Waste Minimisation Targeted Rate (Council rates).

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Not applicable

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       Options to establish a separate glass collection for Christchurch involve a significant degree of uncertainty and therefore risk. Given the likely changes signalled in the consultation document: Transforming Recycling

9.2       Further financial modelling based on the outcomes of the final CRS will provide good mitigation to the potential exposure of otherwise entering into contractual arrangements prior to the completion of the government work stream.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Council Glass Report (with redactions)

250

b  

Christchurch City Council Glass Report (Public Excluded) (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

c  

Glass Report Appendices 1-5 (Public Excluded) (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Te panoni to haungarua -Transforming Recycling

https://environment.govt.nz/publications/transforming-recycling-consultation-document/

Interim regulatory impact statement: Improving household and business recycling

https://environment.govt.nz/publications/interim-regulatory-impact-statement-improving-household-and-business-recycling/

Interim regulatory impact statement: A container return scheme for Aotearoa New Zealand

https://environment.govt.nz/publications/interim-regulatory-impact-statement-a-beverage-container-scheme-for-aotearoa-new-zealand/

 

 

 

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

Rowan Latham - Contract & Project Lead

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

07 April 2022

 





























Council

07 April 2022

 

 

19.   Final CEO Report on External Advisory Group Report

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/366365

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to address the recommendations of the External Advisory Group (EAG) originally established by Council in early 2020 to provide independent, objective and evidence-based advice to the Mayor and Councillors to assist in the development of the Long Term Plan 2021 (LTP). The process undertaken was collaborative, open and timely, enabling full and frank discussion between Mayor and Councillors and EAG members.  Thanks are due to EAG members for their insights and commitment to this exercise.

1.2       The EAG had a particular focus on reviewing costs drivers and identifying potential cost saving options.  In May 2021 an interim report was provided to Councillors.  It was agreed with the Mayor and Councillors at the time that I would bring this final report to Council prior to adoption of the 2022-23 Annual Plan, scheduled for May-June 2022.

1.3       In the interim, due to a strong focus on cost management and efficiency we have improved our financial management, including paying down of Covid-related debt, as well as implementing a wide range of other recommendations.  Tough decisions have been made to reduce our expenditure including reducing our lower-priority projects and services, constraining salaries and discretionary expenditure and reducing staff numbers. 

1.4       We also have a continuing focus on embedding streamlining and continuous improvement across all operations to maintain this lower cost base and drive further efficiencies.  More fundamentally, the culture of Council is shifting and is reflecting a more customer focused and business-like approach, which has been the cornerstone of our cultural changes in Council led by the Chief Executive and the Executive Leadership Team.  This work is ongoing.  I acknowledge and thank staff who are rising to these challenges and achieving good progress, despite a difficult operating environment. 

1.5       This final report lists the recommendations of the EAG and provides responses on actions taken and planned.  While the bulk of the recommendations have been implemented in full or in part, some warranted further consideration and have now been incorporated into business as usual decision making. 

1.6       This report and the May 2021 interim report, with the exception of a small section that is subject to negotiations, are being presented to Council in public. This reflects this Council’s commitment to ongoing transparency. 


 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the CEO’s Final Report on the External Advisory Group Report; and

2.         Note that the small number of remaining accepted actions will be incorporated into business as usual operations and that this will be the final formal report on the External Advisory Group’s recommendations; and

3.         Note that consideration will be given to releasing the withheld extract of the report (Attachment C) once the relevant negotiations have been completed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

CEO Final Report on the External Advisory Group Report - March 2022

281

b

CEO Interim Report to External Advisory Group Report - May 2021

309

c  

Extract CEO Final Report on the External Advisory Group Report - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Approved By

Dawn Baxendale - Chief Executive

  


Council

07 April 2022

 





























Council

07 April 2022

 


























Council

07 April 2022

 

 

20.   Heritage Incentive Grant Fund Application

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/411622

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner Victoria.Bliss@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to consider an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the organisation listed below, noting that the recommendation can be accommodated within the funds available.

Applicant

Project Name

Total eligible costs

Amount Recommended

Parish of Christchurch

St Michael’s and All Angels Church, West Rose Window conservation project

$52,576

$26,288 (50%)

Totals

$52,576

$26,288

 

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the application received for Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

1.3       This application was considered by the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting on 30 March 2022. The Committee resolved to refer recommendations for this application to this Council meeting.

1.4       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 is determined by the heritage significance of the item, the cultural wellbeing outcomes of the project, the amount of funding requested, and the fact that Council has approved Heritage Incentive Grant funds for allocation in the 2021/22 financial year. There are no engagement requirements in the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020 for this grant scheme.

1.5       Approval of this grant would support the Community Outcomes: “Resilient Communities”, “Liveable City” and “Prosperous Economy”.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu  

That the Council:

1.         Approve a grant of up to $26,288 (50% of eligible works) for conservation of the West Rose Window at St Michael and All Angels Church, 243 Durham Street South, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of the St Michael’s Church grant is subject to the applicant entering a 10 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

3.         Note that the Anglican Parish of Christchurch - St Michael and All Angels, are able to apply for a further Heritage Incentive grant to support conservation works to the other significant stained glass windows of the Church.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       In summary staff recommend the following grant (see Section 5 of this report for a full project description and rationale):

3.1.1   St Michael’s West Rose window conservation - $26,288 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation of the badly damaged and threatened historic stained glass window. The project will preserve the window as an important architectural feature of the church for future generations.

3.1.2   The West Rose window is only one of the unique and highly significant items of stained glass within the Church. The other windows are in a similar poor condition, and also require urgent repair and conservation. The applicants have indicated on their application that a further $82,000 will be required to complete the conservation of all the windows.

3.1.3   The Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020 state under multiple grants:        “The Council discourages multiple small individual grants. Once a Grant has been approved, in general a minimum of five cumulative years must elapse prior to a further grant application being made…Additional grants may be approved within the five year period in certain circumstances, such as:

•   An increase in the assessed level of risk, including possible loss;

•   Essential unforeseen maintenance or repairs identified as a consequence of other    works being carried out on the building, place, structure or object;

             •   Essential works necessitated by events such as fire, earthquakes or natural events.”

Staff are recommending that the applicants be invited to apply for a second grant within the        5 year timeframe given the level of risk of loss of these windows without urgent conservation.

3.2       Supporting this application will enable the diverse heritage of the city and its unique history to be protected, conserved and shared. The project contributes to the development of a collection of heritage places across Ōtautahi Christchurch which are identified by the community as having heritage significance and meaning to them.  This contributes to a distinctive identity, character and sense of place for the city and its communities.

3.3       Approving the recommended grant will enable the Council to support communities to protect our heritage, meet the vision of “Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019 -2029” and achieve the purpose of heritage incentive grants “… to incentivise owners and kaitiaki to undertake works to protect, maintain, repair and upgrade heritage buildings, places, structures and objects.” (17 December 2020, SACRC/2020/00046).

3.4       This project will have a wide and diverse reach for multiple communities and groups across the city, and the window is accessible for people of all ages and abilities.  Approving a grant will help to conserve these vital components of a highly significant heritage building and contribute to the Council’s aim to maintain and protect built, cultural, natural, and significant moveable heritage items, areas, and values.    

3.5       The recommended grant align with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020) and can be accommodated within the available budget. 

 


 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa   

4.1       St Michael’s Church west Rose Window conservation project

Option 1: Grant funding of $13,144 (25% eligible works): staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed, or be delayed beyond the anniversary memorial, with a reduced level of funding.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the Parish to progress with the conservation works, and it is likely that the project would not proceed in time to be completed for the 150th anniversary memorial.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a highly significant heritage item; would not align with the Heritage Strategy, and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020).

Option 3: Grant funding in excess of 50% of eligible costs.

Advantages:

·    Funding of between the preferred option of $26,200 (50%) and $52,576 (100%) would ensure that the works were undertaken and completed in a timely manner, and support the Church to retain the highly significant window.

·    It would provide security of funding for the applicants, and prevent the need for them to undertake other fundraising initiatives or applications.

Disadvantages:

·    A grant in excess of 50% of the eligible works is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020). This option would override the guidelines and trigger the need to consider Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 : that if a decision of a local authority is significantly inconsistent with, or is anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with, any policy adopted by the local authority or any plan required by this Act or any other enactment, the local authority must, when making the decision, clearly identify:

(a)      the inconsistency;

(b)      the reasons for the inconsistency;

(c)       any intention of the local authority to amend the policy or plan to accommodate the decision.

In this case there would be one inconsistency with the operational guidelines: the grant would exceed the 0-50% threshold for grant funding:

“…the amount of the Grant shall equate to a percentage between 0-50% of the value of the scope of works required as detailed in the Grant Application.  The percentage of the value will be determined at the sole discretion of the Committee, who shall consider how the application meets the overriding purpose of the Fund.”

Staff feel it would be difficult to provide robust justification to support the inconsistency, and also that it could set a precedent or raise expectations for other applicants.

·    Even with increased funding, there may not be sufficient time or capacity to complete the works in time for the anniversary, given the highly fragile condition of the glass, the scale of works required and capacity within the conservation studio;

·    The applicants have indicated a significant funding shortage across the entire project for all the Church’s windows, but not stated that the proposed level of funding at 50% is insufficient to complete the conservation of the West Rose window;

·    Less funding wold be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

St Michael’s and All Angels Church west Rose Window conservation project -

5.1       The applicant for the grant is the Anglican Parish of Christchurch - St Michael and All Angels, who is organising and fundraising for the project. The Church is owned by the Church Property Trustees.

The Project

5.2       The Rose Window of the west façade of St Michael’s Church was designed by Ward and Hughes and executed by Thomas Figgis Curtis. It was commissioned in memory of ‘Richard James Strachan Harman’, one of the early Canterbury settlers, and unveiled on 28 June 1903. The window features the ‘Nine orders of Angels’, and is specifically referenced in the ‘Statement of Significance’ as having craftsmanship and technological significance.

5.3       St Michael’s and All Angels Church was the first Anglican parish established in Christchurch in1851, and integral to the foundation of the Anglican settlement. The scheduled church was opened in 1872, and has high heritage significance. It is also listed with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category I heritage place. See Statement of Significance (Attachment A) for further details.

5.4       St Michael’s Church is a landmark within the central city, and visually prominent on the Durham Street/Oxford Terrace corner. The West Rose window is a principal element of the west façade, directly above the main entrance porch, and visible from the pedestrian focussed paved area of Oxford Terrace.

5.5       The Church is an integral part of the Anglican and school communities it serves. The building also attracts visitors and provides a space for gatherings, social interaction and ceremonies, as well as quiet contemplation and reflection. It is an important heritage building, telling the story of the early settlement of the Anglican colony of Christchurch, and is frequently included in central city heritage tours and heritage activities and events such as the Heritage Festival, architectural tours and the Open Christchurch Festival. 

5.6       The Parish are seeking to repair and restore the stained glass windows of the Church, to conserve these windows as a key heritage feature of the building. The windows were designed and made by some of the most notable and distinguished English artists and craftsmen of the time. In 2021, four of the north windows were restored; the West Rose Window is the next priority for repair.

5.7       There are four other windows in the north wall requiring restoration at a cost of about $28,000 + GST.  After the West Rose Window, the Church’s highest priority is the North Transept window, depicting the Six Corporal Acts of Mercy.  The cost for the restoration of this window has been estimated at $53,950 +GST.  The St Michael’s Parish Trust does not have funds to support all the required restoration works at present.  It is therefore proceeding only with the West Rose Window at this time.

5.8       The 150th anniversary of the West Rose window installation occurs in June 2023. The Parish are seeking to complete the conservation work and to have the window reinstated in time for this anniversary and to celebrate and share the occasion with the parish, school and wider community.

 

IMG_5107

The west Rose Window, directly above the entry porch (BF Smyth, 2022)

The Grant Application

5.9       The applicant is seeking funding to support the repair, conservation and restoration of the damaged stained glass. The eligible costs for the project total $52, 576 and include:

·    Removal of the nine window panels Deconstruction of the individual glass panels

·    Cleaning, repair and replacement of damaged, bowing and leaking areas

·    Complete re-leading of all panels

·    Reinstatement of conserved windows

·    Associated scaffold, site preparation, security and set up costs

Works relating to earthquake damage to the west elevation of the Church are not included in the scope of works seeking grant funding.

5.10    The Rose Window is in a critical condition, with three of its panels in danger of collapse. The poor condition is due to the age of the glass, failing and decaying lead, distortion, cracking and warping of the timber frames. Works undertaken in the 1980s to prevent leaking applied a coating to the glass that has caused further and ongoing damage. This coating has discoloured the glass, is degrading the kiln fired enamel details, and attacking the lead construction. The conservation works require the removal of every segment of glass, cleaning, stabilisation, repairs and replacement and re-leading to put the windows back together again. Specialist conservators are required to undertake the works.

The West Rose window from within the Church, showing the Nine Orders of Angels (image from 2009)

5.11    The Parish are actively seeking funding and undertaking fundraising initiatives. To date they have funded the conservation works to four windows in the north wall, and are applying to the Christchurch Community Trust for a grant to support the restoration of other windows in the Church.

5.12    Letters of support for the project have been provided by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Conservation Architect Mr D. Pearson.

5.13    A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020, see: https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Heritage/Heritage-Incentive-Grant-Fund-Guidelines-2020.pdf  The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.14.1 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

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

 

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2       The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme supports delivery of the overarching strategic principle of “Taking an intergenerational approach to sustainable development, prioritising the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future.” This is because heritage is an intergenerational equity. It contributes to our personal and community sense of identity and belonging, and enhances high levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

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

6.3.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 Effectively administer grants within this Activity (including Heritage Incentive Grants, Enliven Places, Innovation and Sustainability) - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for grants

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4       The recommendations are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

6.4.1   Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

6.4.2   Heritage Incentive Grants Policy –Guidelines 2020

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5       The staff recommendations involve significant decisions in relation to ancestral land and other elements of intrinsic value both for Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions, as well as being relevant to local European history.

6.6       The six papatipu rūnanga hold the mana whenua rights and interests over the district and are partners in the Our Heritage, Our Taonga - Heritage Strategy 2019-2029. Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Wairewa Rūnanga, Ōnuku Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga are primary kaitiaki for the taonga tuku iho of the district. They are guardians for elements of mātauranga Māori reaching back through many generations and are a significant partner in the strategy implementation.  

6.7       It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga are the Tangata Whenua in the location of this grant application.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9       The grant will support a building that is publically visible and accessible.  Works eligible for grant funding include accessibility upgrades, in line with the Heritage Strategy’s principle of ‘Accessibility’.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – the recommendations are for a grant of $26,288 to St Michael’s Church. This recommendation totals $26,288.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

7.3       Funding Source - The Heritage Incentive Grant fund was an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. Council approved funding to be diverted into this fund from the now closed Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund in 2020. The carry forward of the remaining funds was approved for inclusion in the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan, with the resolution to spread these funds over three financial years.


 

7.4       The impact of this grant is as follows:

Total funds  for Heritage Incentive Grants (HIG) for the next 3 years

$1,042,169

Total funds for Heritage Incentive Grants (HIG) for FY22

$347,390

Approved grant to Stone End Bach (50%)

         $1,858

Approved grant to Rosy Morn Bach (50%)

$4,575

Approved grant St Joseph the Worker Church Memorial (50%)

$7,490

Approved grant Rāpaki School (30%)

$71,000

Approved grant to Bays Boat House (20%)

$58,500

Approved grant to St Barnabas Church Hall (25%)

$87,500

Approved grant to 23 Mandeville Street (50%)

$5,136

Approved grant to Kinsey Cottage (50%)

$5,692

Proposed grant to St Michael’s Church (50%)

$26,288

Total Remaining HIG Funds for FY22

$79,351

Total Remaining HIG Funds FY22 –FY24

$774,130

 

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The delegated authority for Heritage Incentive Grants decisions is with this Committee.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There are no legal context, issue or implication relevant to these decisions.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

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

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

St Michael's and All Angels Church Statement of Significance

344

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

07 April 2022

 





 


Council

07 April 2022

 

 

21.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

07 April 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

17.

Coastal Hazards Adaptation Framework and Coastal Panel

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment c - Coastal Panel for Whakaraupō

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

We are seeking a Council decision to appoint a Coastal Panel for Lyttelton Harbour and any discussion about the individual candidates should occur in private to respect individual privacy

The attachment can be released when the recommendations are endorsed by Council

18.

Glass recycling

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment b - Christchurch City Council Glass Report (Public Excluded)

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

Contains commercially sensitive information that is provided from a third party.

Upon agreement from the third party.

 

Attachment c - Glass Report Appendices 1-5 (Public Excluded)

s7(2)(b)(i)

Trade Secret

Contains commercially sensitive information that is provided from a third party.

Upon agreement from the third party.


 

19.

Final CEO Report on External Advisory Group Report

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment c - Extract CEO Final Report on the External Advisory Group Report - March 2022

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Negotiations are currently underway with a third party. The release of this information would compromise negotiations.

Following conclusion of negotiations.

22.

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 10 March 2022

 

 

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

 

 

 



[1] DPMC’s Good Practice Guide for Community Engagement recommends a 6-10 week period of engagement for projects at a national level. Many Council consultations are for a period of 4-5 weeks.