Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 5 May 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor 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

 

 

29 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

05 May 2022

 

 


Council

05 May 2022

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 4 

1.        Apologies Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................. 4

2.        Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga.................................................. 4

3.        Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui............................................................ 4

3.1       Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.......................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga...................................................... 4

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

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 7 April 2022............................................................................. 5

Staff Reports

6.        Heathcote Low Stopbanks Feasibility Report...................................................... 23

7.        Draft submission on Transforming Recycling discussion document........................ 35

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Council

05 May 2022

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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

3.   Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

3.2   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Council

05 May 2022

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 7 April 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/463963

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 7 April 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council Confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 7 April 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 7 April 2022

6

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

05 May 2022

 


















Council

05 May 2022

 

 

6.     Heathcote Low Stopbanks Feasibility Report

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1095956

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Kevin McDonnell, Team Leader Stormwater & Waterways Asset Planning WWW, Kevin.McDonnell@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, GM 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 to report back on technical feasibility of low stopbanks along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River and to seek a decision from Council on cancelling the project.  This report has been written in response to Council resolution CNCL/2017/00326, item 1d dated 8 November 2017; “Approving that staff continue to investigate the technical feasibility of low stopbanks to reduce frequent underfloor flooding, consult with affected communities should technical feasibility be confirmed and report back to the Committee.”

1.2       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the impacts on the community, cultural values, the environment, and the ability of Council to meet levels of service.

1.3       The technical feasibility of low stopbanks has been confirmed for four different frequent flooding scenarios. However, the low stopbanks project has a low priority, with funding allocation not beginning until 2041. There is no line item for low stopbanks in the 2021-2031 LTP.

1.4       Furthermore, the flood management basins upstream, along with works along the river and purchase of the worst affected properties, has reduced the fluvial flood risk along the river. While the tidal risk remains in the lower reaches, there are other Council workstreams (such as the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme) identifying options to address flooding in areas affected by sea level rise. As such it is considered appropriate to cancel the current project, and for it to be included in future floodplain management projects if it is considered an appropriate response.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the staff investigation concluding that low stopbanks are technically feasible.

2.         Approve that staff do not consult on low stopbank options.

3.         Approve that the project is cancelled and removed from the Long Term Plan, and for the project to be included in future floodplain management projects if it is considered an appropriate response. 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Following the July 2017 flooding along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River a range of floodplain management options were identified. Low stopbanks were identified as a possible means to restore the extent of underfloor, property and road flooding to pre-earthquake levels and would work in conjunction with the remainder of the floodplain management strategy (such as storage basins and dredging). The types of low stopbanks considered range from the addition of a kerb to the riverside of the road to low walls. The background to the project, a description of the different types of low stopbanks proposed, and the outcome of the feasibility study are given in the Details section of this report.

3.2       Since that time technical feasibility has been proven but low stopbanks only address low priority flooding compared to other flood management needs in the city, and also do not address a specific level of service.

3.3       The original intention was to consult on low stopbanks if feasibility was proven, but as the project is low priority and has been deferred until 2041 in the recent 2021-2031 LTP, it is not considered appropriate to consult on the option at this stage. The deferral was subject to the LTP consultation process.

3.4       In addition, since the July 2017 floods, over $80 million has been allocated to floodplain management in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River catchment. This has included purchase of the most frequently flooded houses, dredging, bank widening and strengthening, as well as beginning construction on four major flood basins. Combined, these works have reduced the risk of flooding along the river, although these works have less impact in areas subject to tidal flooding.

3.5       Low stopbanks are not required for implementation of the floodplain management scheme described above and which is currently being implemented. Low stopbanks were instead considered for management of the residual lower priority risks that remain when the full scheme for flood management across the whole of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River catchment is implemented. In addition to helping manage lower priority residual risks, the stopbanks may assist in partly mitigating potential effects arising from large storms which are outside the design events.  Such risks will be considered when planning the implementation of any future floodplain management measures, along with other factors which will form part of that future consideration such as other Council flood management workstreams, new technology and process advancements.

3.6       While in future stopbanks may be identified as forming part of an appropriate response to flooding, it is recommended that they are considered in the context of a range of possible future floodplain management measures, including policy approaches. The understanding of the impacts of climate change on both tidal and fluvial flooding will also have changed by 2041. The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme is also looking at the impacts of climate change in tidally affected areas. Overall it is considered better to cancel the current project and to review it as a possible option in the future.

3.7       The disadvantage of this option are that some in the community already have an expectation that consultation will take place. We also miss an opportunity to have an informed debate regarding stopbanks along the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River outside of an emergency situation.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       An alternative option would be to consult with affected communities as originally planned. A range of different options could be presented to the community, such as:

·   Implementing low stopbanks with an approximately 5-year average recurrence interval (ARI) level of service (without climate change or sea level rise) as other projects occur in the area on an ad-hoc basis (e.g. when roadworks occur, major cycle routes are implemented or masterplan landscaping is undertaken). Opportunities to achieve some of the outcomes through transport projects will continue to be considered by staff

·   Implementing low stopbanks with an approximately 5-year ARI level of service (without climate change or sea level rise) with the funding and programme as currently budgeted (implementation FY41-48)

4.2       The primary advantage of this option is that it meets the expectation set in 2017 that the project would be consulted on. It also allows a debate on whether low stopbanks are an appropriate means of flood management to take place outside of an emergency response situation.

4.3       There are a  number of disadvantages of this option, including:

·   Consultation would raise expectations within the community that low stopbanks will proceed when this has already been deferred in the LTP

·   Low stopbanks along the Heathcote are of lower priority than other flood management needs in the City

·   There is no clear policy direction to implement

·   There is the potential to set a precedent if low stopbanks proceed, and the risk of inconsistency of approach across the city to addressing similar issues.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       While the staff recommendation is that the project does not proceed, the background to, and results of, the feasibility are covered below to provide the full context to the recommendation.

Ōpāwaho Heathcote River floodplain management works

5.2       Flooding has been a significant issue along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River since human settlement along the river corridor intensified, particularly when the lower river terraces were settled in the early 20th century.

5.3       The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (‘earthquakes’) resulted in significant changes to land drainage throughout the city. The key effects for the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River were:

·   Loss of channel capacity due to bank slumping, lateral spread, and increased sedimentation due to liquefaction

·   Tectonic uplift at the mouth of the river resulting in a reduced capability to drain upstream

·   Land settlement in places resulting in a drop of land levels adjacent to the river.

5.4       In response to this, in November 2017, Council approved a package of physical works (storage, dredging and bank stabilisation) across the catchment and property specific interventions (Flood Intervention Policy) to mitigate the earthquake effects on flooding. Details of the options presented to Council at the time can be found in the agenda of the 23 November 2017 meeting.

5.5       The combined flood mitigation benefits of these approved works is significant, with benefits provided in both frequent and extreme events. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the benefit as estimated in November 2017, showing how the numbers of dwellings modelled to be at risk of flooding above the floor level has changed as a result of the earthquakes, and then the improvement through the storage scheme and then with the additional options. This results in a substantial improvement over the pre-earthquake situation, although in an extreme event 10 dwellings which were modelled to not be at risk pre-earthquakes remain at risk post-earthquakes. 

Figure 1 Frequent flood risk along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River (10 year ARI, as estimated in November 2017)

Figure 2 Extreme flood risk along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River (50 year ARI, as estimated in November 2017)

5.6       The approved works are either complete or in progress. It is currently estimated that the full benefits of the scheme will be realised by 2023.

5.7       The works approved are in addition to the planning controls provided by the District Plan. Most of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River corridor being considered for low stopbanks is in the Flood Management Area and the High Flood Hazard Management Area.

5.8       In the Flood Management Areas floor levels are set a minimum of 400 millimetres above the modelled 200-year average recurrence interval (ARI) event with climate change and 1 metre sea level rise. The High Flood Hazard Management Areas are those with high risk to life in extreme flooding, and planning rules restrict intensification in these areas.

Stopbanks for flooding as presented in November 2017

5.9       High stopbanks and/or floodwalls could be used to protect buildings at risk of overfloor flooding in a more extreme 50 year ARI event. However, the likely heights of stopbanks or walls required – and the large width of stopbanks if constructed – are unlikely to be technically viable or acceptable to the community without major changes to the riverside environment. In some places the stopbanks would be over 1.8 m in height. In addition, the cost of stopbanks or walls to provide this level of protection has been previously estimated at several hundred million dollars – well in excess of the value of the property protected.

5.10    This is in contrast to the stopbanks along the Ōtākaro Avon River, which has an extensive floodplain allowing stopbanks to be easily installed, with less impact on the riverside environment. The Ōtākaro Avon River stopbanks currently provide protection against a 100 year ARI event. It is not feasible to provide this level of protection along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River.

5.11    As an alternative to high stopbanks to protect against extreme flooding, low stopbanks to address frequent underfloor, property and road flooding were considered. Low stopbanks would address issues which cause significant distress and disruption to the community, including:

·   Detrimental psycho-social effect on residents (underfloor flooding can be as distressing as over-floor flooding for some)

·   Emergency Operations Centre activation and the impacts on staff and resources

·   Wastewater overflows to river (road flooding results in the sewer system being overloaded)

·   Wastewater under houses, on property, in playgrounds and on streets

·   Closure of roads, loss of access, and damage to roads

·   Danger to life if the flood waters are entered in many locations

·   Contents damaged in garages, under homes and cars written off

·   Reputational damage to Council.

5.12    At the time it was proposed that low stopbanks could be considered between Hansen Park and Colombo Street to restore pre-earthquake levels of flood risk in the most impacted locations, focusing on those areas with:

·   Frequent underfloor flooding

·   Deep road flooding (>300 mm) and limited alternative access for large numbers of houses.

5.13    This section was proposed for low stopbanks in the context of restoring pre-earthquake levels of flooding. Downstream of Hansen Park the dredging works were estimated to restore pre-earthquake levels of flooding (which, based on the modelling at the time, meant there would still be 47 houses at risk of frequent underfloor flooding, and 2.8 km of road with flooding >300 mm depth). However, upstream of Hansen Park, even with the dredging, storage and house purchases, the numbers of houses at risk of frequent underfloor flooding and length of road inundated were higher than pre-earthquake. Low stopbanks were considered to be the only option available to mitigate this increase in impact in this area.

5.14    In the November 2017 report to Council it was recommended that further work on technical feasibility of low stopbanks be undertaken.

5.15    The original extent for low stopbanks was from Hansen Park to Colombo Street. In order to provide an equal level of service along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River, the feasibility assessment of low stopbanks was extended to Radley Street (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Current proposed extent of low stopbanks in green (background colours show Community Board boundaries)

Assessment of Technical Feasibility

5.16    Beca Ltd were engaged to assess the technical feasibility of low stopbanks. The key areas of interest for assessing technical feasibility were:

·   Impact on road layout, transport, parking and accessibility

·   Ecological impact: trees, aquatic ecology

·   Effects and mitigation of stormwater and wastewater issues during and after flood events: gravity and/or pumped drainage of floodplain behind the stopbanks after overtopping, providing a range of options to mitigate these.

·   Impact on services

·   Landscape impacts, including options for integration to deliver the Mid-Heathcote River/ Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan works

·   Constructability

·   Resilience, particularly to lateral spread or subsidence along the river edge.

5.17    Beca Ltd have concluded that low stopbanks are technically feasible for the three level of service scenarios presented in this report.

5.18    Worley Parsons were engaged to assess the potential for low stopbanks to increase drowning risks, as aspects of the design (e.g. footpaths) may encourage the public to interact closer to the river hazard. The conclusion was that the risk is not increased above current conditions.

Levels of Service and Extent Considered

5.19    Low stopbanks are an option to mitigate the effects of ‘frequent’ flooding. Frequent flooding is not a defined standard, but was originally interpreted as an event with approximately a 10-year ARI. Two options were developed with a 10-year ARI level of service, one without climate change and one including climate change (2ºC) and 0.5 m sea level rise. Both of these options, for the area between Colombo Street and Hansen Park, exceeded the allocated budget.

5.20    In order to develop a feasible option within the budget, a 5-year ARI option was developed. While this provides a lower level of service, it still mitigates the impact of the type of flood events that occur most winters. For example, in the 2019 Queens Birthday weekend event (1 June), low stopbanks may have prevented inundation of roads and properties along the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River.

5.21    The original area covered by the low stopbank proposal was from Colombo Street to Hansen Park. However, this could be seen as providing a lower level of service to properties downstream of Hansen Park. Feasibility assessment was extended down to Radley Street to provide a consistent level of service along the river. It is considered that the 5-year ARI option could be value engineered to fit within the current budget.

Forecast Cost for Stopbanks from Colombo Street to Radley Street

5.22    The estimated total outturn cost to complete stopbanks designed for a 10-year ARI level of service, including climate change (2ºC) and 0.5 m sea level rise, is expected to be $58 million. This is approximately $31 million over the budget of $27 million.

5.23    The estimated total outturn cost to complete stopbanks designed for a 10-year ARI level of service without climate change is expected to be $40 million. This is approximately $13 million over the budget.

5.24    The estimated total outturn cost to complete stopbanks designed for a 5-year ARI level of service without climate change is expected to be $22 million. This is within the budget.

5.25    The actual total outturn cost estimates in the section above could range from -25% to +35%. A principal’s contingency of 25% has been used in the estimated total outturn cost calculations.

Low stopbank types

5.26    A number of different types of stopbanks were incorporated into the concept design, ranging from adding a kerb on the riverside and re-grading the road to low walls to earthen embankments. Different levels of service result in a different mix of low stopbank types. The mix of stopbank types for each level of service is shown in Table 1.

 

Level of service

Low wall

Earth Embankment

Hybrid embankment/wall

Kerb and/or road regrade

5-year ARI

17%

22%

31%

30%

10-year ARI

14%

33%

36%

17%

10-year ARI with climate change/SLR

22%

17%

61%

Not assessed

Table 1 Distribution of stopbank type by level of service

5.27    The stopbanks also range in height (and therefore impact) depending on the stopbank location and level of service provided. 

Level of service

Average height

Height range

5-year ARI

0.25 m

0.1-0.8 m

10-year ARI

0.45 m

0.1-1.0 m

10-year ARI with climate change/SLR

0.75 m

0.3-1.2 m

Table 2 Average stopbank heights and predominant range by level of service

Low stopbank additional benefits

5.28    The benefits of low stopbanks are primarily the reduction of frequent underfloor, property and road flooding.

5.29    Of the construction costs associated with the low stopbanks, approximately 60% of the cost is for bank stabilisation, replacing services under the low stopbank location, adding kerb and channel and resurfacing the road and landscaping. This brings other benefits to the areas affected by the low stopbanks.

5.30    In addition, in the areas where the low stopbanks are installed, many of the aims of the Mid-Heathcote River/ Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan will be implemented, such as narrowing roads to reduce speed, increased riverbank planting, prevention of parking on the river berm and footpaths along the river.

Low stopbank impacts and risks

5.31    The low stopbanks would result in impacts along the river corridor, and introduce some risks. These include:

·   Immediate loss of tree canopy where mature trees need to be removed to make way for the low stopbanks

·   Loss of on-street parking in most areas where low stopbanks are installed

·   Setting a precedent for a level of service to be applied citywide

·   Being inconsistent with the approach being taken by Council for other areas

·   Residents may consider flooding to be ‘fixed’, and therefore be less prepared when a larger flood, which overtops the stopbanks, occurs (and it will); this would lead to a less resilient outcome through community complacency

·   If flooding is considered by residents to be ‘fixed’, then they may be encouraged to increase their investment in the area; this in turn could lead to Council being held responsible by residents to provide higher protection in the future

·   It could be seen as predetermining a long term approach of ‘defending’ against flooding, rather than changing land use and adapting to living with water

·   When an overtopping flood occurs, residents may be caught unaware as the early signs of road flooding would not be present

·   Wastewater overflows may accumulate on the road-side of the stopbanks and could result in worse outcomes than if discharged into the river and diluted

·   The community may expect Council to make the stopbanks higher over time rather than accepting the level of service provided.

5.32    These impacts will vary depending on stopbank height and type. For instance, where only a kerb or road regrade is needed most of the impacts disappear. However, where a higher earthen embankment is proposed then the impacts would be the most severe, and all of the impacts listed above are likely to occur.

Community Views and Preferences

5.33    Community views and preferences were tested by the project with the public engagement that took place following the July 2017 flooding, and in particular the public meetings held in October 2017. In the November 2017 report to Council, staff summarised public reaction to low stopbanks as follows, “Initial response from the community at past public meetings have provided a mixed response, with some supporting them due to the impacts of the flooding, and others considering that the character of the river banks will be compromised.” This summary is still considered appropriate.

5.34    Updates have been provided during joint Seminars with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Boards on 23 November 2018 and 22 July 2019. The Boards reaction to low stopbanks is mixed, with some in favour and others concerned about the impacts on the nature of the riverbanks.

5.35    Given that the funding for this project has been significantly deferred, and that the level of service offered by the low stopbanks is not currently supported by policy (and therefore has the potential to set a precedent) consultation is not recommended. To be meaningful and useful, consultation should ideally happen within an 18 month – two year window of the start of project funding.

5.36    However, following the Council’s decision on this report and given the significance of the matter it would be appropriate to undertake some further communication with local communities via the Community Board about the current suite of works that the Council has undertaken, i.e. the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River floodplain management works, and where the Council has landed in relation to the low stopbanks.

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

5.37.1 Linwood-Central-Heathcote

5.37.2 Spreydon-Cashmere

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: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.6.1 Manage the risk of flooding to property and dwellings during extreme rain events: Annual reduction in the modelled number of properties predicted to be at risk of habitable floor level flooding of the primary dwelling in a 2% AEP Design Rainfall Event of duration 2 hours or greater excluding flooding that arises solely from private drainage - ≥0 properties per annum on a rolling three-year average

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is to cancel the project is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.3       The decision is consistent as there is currently no policy which addresses frequent underfloor, property and road flooding and so implementing low stopbanks would be an exception to Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.5       If the project proceeds, then Mana Whenua will be consulted as part of the process during the project development.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       The decision in this report relates to consultation and closure of a project and so has minimal climate change impacts. However, if the low stopbanks were to proceed they would provide an opportunity to mitigate some of the climate change impacts from rising sea levels, and therefore rising river levels in the area under consideration for low stopbanks.

6.7       The procurement of materials for the low stopbanks, if these were to proceed, would need to consider the use of local materials as far as possible to reduce the carbon footprint of the construction. 

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       The design of the low stopbanks, if the project were to proceed, would need to take into account accessibility along the river and seek opportunities to improve accessibility where possible.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – It is estimated that there will be a cost of approximately $15,000 to close out the project.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Cancelling the project will reduce future stopbank maintenance costs, but there may be higher road maintenance and flood clean-up costs instead. This has not been quantified.

7.3       Funding Source - Existing project CPMS ID 46688, with a remaining budget of approximately $47 million available between 2041 and 2048.

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 Local Government Act 2002, the Council has broad powers to make decisions about when to progress a project, when to pause a project and when to stop or close a project.

8.2       When the Council adopted the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, it did not include a line item for this project in its 2021-2031 budgets.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3       In 2017, the Council resolved as part of a package of measures that it would “approve that staff continue to investigate the technical feasibility of low stopbanks to reduce frequent underfloor flooding, consult with affected communities should technical feasibility be confirmed and report back to the Committee.” 

8.4       Whilst technical feasibility has been confirmed, the Council determined through the LTP process that it would not progress these measures in the next 10 years (and indeed in the next 20 years).

8.5       It is appropriate from a legal perspective to close off the project in light of this long time frame.  Even though the Council indicated that it would consult once technical feasibility has been confirmed  it would not be appropriate to consult the public in relation to a project that may not begin for another twenty years.

8.6       When making decisions, the Council is required to comply with its decision-making obligations in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Section 79 provides that it is for each Council to determine how it will achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78, although as a general rule compliance should be largely proportional to the significance of the matter.  Essentially, the more significant the matter, the higher the standard of compliance is expected from the Council.

8.7       Section 78 does not require the Council to undertake a consultation process of itself but the Council must have some way of identifying the views and preferences of interested and affected persons. 

8.8       In this case, the Council has an understanding of current views and preferences in relation to the low stopbanks.  Over the last few years, there has been a mixed response in relation to low stopbanks with some supporting them due to the impacts of the flooding, and others considering that the character of the river banks will be compromised.

8.9       On this basis, as noted above, given the significance of the matter it would be appropriate to undertake some further communication with local communities via the Community Board about the current suite of works that the Council has undertaken, i.e. the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River floodplain management works, and where the Council has landed in relation to the low stopbanks.  

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The risks considered in this section relate to not consulting on and closing the low stopbanks project, and not to the implementation of low stopbanks.

9.2       There is a risk with not undertaking further consultation on the low stopbanks because the Council indicated in 2017 that it would do so. However, it is unlikely that mixed views on the low stopbanks have changed and given that matters have essentially moved on following the 2021-2031 LTP, this risk can be mitigated by undertaking some further communication with local communities via the Community Board about the current measures to mitigate flooding.

9.3       Closure of the project maintains the current risk of frequent underfloor and road flooding, which will increase with time due to climate change impacts. This risk is partially mitigated by the flood management measures already in place, although these have less impact in tidal areas. However, this is an existing risk, and there are higher priority areas in the city where the risk is currently greater and these areas are being prioritised.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Peter Christensen - Surface Water Engineer

Martin Densham - Project Manager

Katy McRae - Head of Communications & Engagement

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Kevin McDonnell - Team Leader Asset Planning

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

05 May 2022

 

 

7.     Draft submission on Transforming Recycling discussion document

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/350081

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Rowan Latham, Contract & Project Lead, Rowan.Latham@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, GM 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 Council to consider and approve the draft submission to Ministry for the Environment (MfE), in response to the consultation on their Transforming Recycling discussion document.

1.2       Submissions are due with MfE by Sunday 8 May 2022.

1.3       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be significant community interest in these proposals, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft submission to Ministry for the Environment on their Transforming Recycling discussion document (Attachment A).

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Making submissions is an important way to influence national policies and legislation development.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The alternative option to the recommendation outlined above is for the Council to not make a submission on these proposals. This is not the preferred option as it is important for the Council to advocate on issues that affect the Christchurch community and Council business.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Key submission points:

5.1       The submission supports the proposal to introduce a Container Return Scheme (CRS), applicable to all beverage containers. Such a scheme would shift the responsibility for beverage container collection and recycling from Territorial Authorities to producers, with a refund to consumers on all returned containers.

5.2       The submission supports improvements to household recycling, including the proposal that a standard set of materials should be collected for recycling at kerbside. Additionally, it notes that while our Council is very closely aligned to the proposed standards, many councils are not and that the inclusion of minimum standards could support further diversion through greater investment and innovation.

5.3       The submission notes that contamination of kerbside recycling is a significant  issue and a large part of the confusion is due to mixed messaging of what can be recycled, combined with inconsistencies between collection services. It also notes that clear messaging is needed for public compliance on this issue and suggests also adopting standardised recycling labelling.

5.4       With respect to the separate collection of glass and paper/cardboard, the submission supports councils retaining this decision based on processing technology and capability, noting this would result in these items remaining comingled for some councils. In order to introduce compulsory separate collections for either glass or fibre the submission identifies the current gap in processing capacity, in addition any mandate should allow the impact of the CRS is able to be assessed prior to implementation.

5.5       The submission supports the proposal for separate collection of food scraps, and recommends that councils be able to choose whether to collect food scraps separately or combined with garden organics. The submission highlights risks with excluding fibre products from composting (proposed), noting the beneficial properties these products add to composting process and the need for an alternative to landfill (for non-recyclable fibre products or contaminated fibre products).

5.6       The submission also supports the proposal to phase in separate collection of food scraps for all businesses, with recommendations to provide clear requirements, education and support for food redistribution organisations and food recovery services.

5.7       The submission aligns with points raised in the submission of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. Council staff have contributed to drafting of the regional response.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1   Activity: 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 decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       While the decision to make this submission does not have any climate change implications, the proposals included in the consultation document are intended to address the waste-related recommendations outlined by the Climate Change Commission in their advice to Government (Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa).

 

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       While the decision to make this submission does not have any accessibility considerations, MfE’s consultation document acknowledges that improved accessibility is critical to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the Container Return Scheme

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement - the cost of preparing a submission has been met from existing budgets.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - there will be no ongoing costs associated with making this submission.  

7.3       Funding Source - existing operational budgets.

Other / He mea anō

7.4       None.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       This consultation is public and open to any person or organisation.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There are no significant risks associated with this decision.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft submission on Transforming Recycling discussion document

39

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Transforming recycling: Consultation document

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

 

 

 

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

Rowan Latham - Contract & Project Lead

Ellen Cavanagh - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Ross Trotter - Manager Resource Recovery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

05 May 2022