Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 9 June 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

 

 

3 June 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

Samantha Kelly

Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support

941 6227

Samantha.kelly@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.
To watch the meeting live, or a recording after the meeting date, go to:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, go to:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Council

09 June 2022

 

 


Council

09 June 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 - 12 May 2022............................................................................. 7

6.        Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 4 May 2022......................................................... 27

Community Board Monthly Reports

7.        Monthly Report from the Community Boards - May 2022....................................... 45

Health and Safety Committee

8.        Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 6 May 2022.............................. 89

Urban Development & Transport

9.        Urban Development and Transport Committee Minutes - 31 March 2022................. 95

Staff Presentation

10.      Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Recovery Update............................... 105

Staff Reports

11.      27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Consultation Outcome............................. 111

12.      Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan.................................. 125

13.      Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw Review................................................................................................ 175

14.      Plan Change 6 (Homebase Extension) Decision Recommendation......................... 239

15.      210 Armagh Street - Proposed Lease over Rauora Park........................................ 365

16.      Halswell Junction Road Extension project - Request for additional funds.............. 373

17.      Residents Survey Results 2021 - 2022............................................................... 385

18.      Electricity Procurement.................................................................................. 633

19.      Mayor's Monthly Report - May 2022.................................................................. 639

20.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 643

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Council

09 June 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

09 June 2022

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 12 May 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/622549

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 12 May 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council Confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 12 May 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 12 May 2022

8

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

09 June 2022

 



















Council

09 June 2022

 

 

6.     Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 4 May 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/626754

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council – Annual Plan meeting held 4 May 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council - Annual Plan meeting held 4 May 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - Annual Plan - 4 May 2022

28

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support

  


Council

09 June 2022

 

















Council

09 June 2022

 

 

7.     Monthly Report from the Community Boards - May 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/646994

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 May 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board May 2022

46

b

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

49

c

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

57

d

Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board Area Report May 2022

63

e

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Area Report May 2022

72

f

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

77

g

Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report May 2022

82

 

 


Council

09 June 2022

 




Council

09 June 2022

 









Council

09 June 2022

 







Council

09 June 2022

 










Council

09 June 2022

 






Council

09 June 2022

 






Council

09 June 2022

 








Council

09 June 2022

 

 

8.     Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 6 May 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/611960

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leah Scales, GM Resources/CFO, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee held a meeting on 6 May 2022 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 6 May 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee - 6 May 2022

90

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Simone Gordon - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

09 June 2022

 





Council

09 June 2022

 

 

9.     Urban Development and Transport Committee Minutes - 31 March 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/715573

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Urban Development and Transport Committee held a meeting on 31 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 Urban Development and Transport Committee meeting held 31 March 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Urban Development and Transport Committee - 31 March 2022

96

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Simone Gordon - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

09 June 2022

 









Council

09 June 2022

 

 

10.   Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Recovery Update

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/720405

Presenter:

Michael Croucher, Senior Programme Manager, michael.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Summary

1.1       This presentation provides an update on the recovery activities following the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant fire in November 2021. 

1.2       At the Finance & Performance Committee on 28 April 2022 it was resolved that fortnightly updates would be provided to either the Finance and Performance Committee or Council.

1.3       This update includes a summary of the activities presented by staff to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 26 May 2022. 

1.4       Staff will provide a Power Point presentation to the Council in support of this update with the activities that have been undertaken since that meeting, those currently underway and next steps.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this update.

3.   Key activities presented to Council on 12 May 2022

Filter Media Removal Contract

3.1       Southern Demolition & Salvage Limited were awarded the contract to remove the media from the Trickling Filter structures on 11 May 2022.

3.2       Machinery began arriving on site 12 May 2022 with media removal scheduled to start 6 June 2022.

3.3       The media material is scheduled to be completely removed by early Spring 2022.

3.4       Works progress is currently on programme.

The Recovery Actions (25 March till 12 May)

3.5       Approval to remove the filter media from the trickling Filters was received from our insurers on 25 March 2022. 

3.6       25 March – 5 April: Procurement options investigated to ensure that we are still meeting requirements under Council’s procurement process and Office of the Auditor General best practice guidance.

3.7       Executive Team briefed on 6 April and decision on procurement options made 11 April.

3.8       13 April meeting with preferred contractor held to discuss requirements.

3.9       14 – 28 April: Contractor securing sub-contractors and suppliers.  At same time Council staff were preparing contract documentation.

3.10    Finance and Performance Committee meeting with project briefing and deputations held 28 April.

3.11    Proposal received from contractor on 28 April, with staff review completed 2 May.

3.12    General terms and conditions of contract finalised 3 May.

3.13    Informal briefing to the Insurance Subcommittee on insurance matters given on 6 May.

3.14    10 May: Insurance Subcommittee meeting (with morning site visit to CWTP).

3.15    Letter of award issued to contractor 11 May.

3.16    Site establishment commenced 12 May.

3.17    Sheetpiling for ramp 1 due for completion 30 May.

CWTP Interim Operations Update

3.18    The concrete plugging of the Trickling Filter outlets has started, with wastewater being over pumped into Grit Tank 5 as this takes place.

3.19    The Trickling Filter by-pass pipeline is nearing completion.

3.20    Excavated material from the Trickling Filter by-pass trench is being temporarily stored on site in the concrete lagoons – to allow testing for contaminants to be carried out before disposal.

3.21    Installation of power cables to the new aerators in the converted clarifiers has been completed and the aerators switched over to site power.

3.22    While the Oxidation Ponds performed well over the summer months cooler temperatures and reduced sunshine hours are now impacting their performance, leading to a deterioration in water quality and an increase in odour over the last few weeks.

3.23    The higher load of organic material being discharged into the Oxidation Ponds since the fire has created an environment that is unsuitable for midges, which are a primary food source for a number of the bird species that inhabit the ponds.

3.24    The reduction in midge numbers has resulted in a significant numbers of birds being displaced to other feeding locations across the wider area.

3.25    While the quality of the water within the ponds has degraded since the fire we are still operating within the conditions of our consent for discharge to the ocean outfall pipeline.

3.26    Weekly coastal water quality samples for coliforms and Enterococci are being taken at the New Brighton Beach Surf Club, South New Brighton Beach and Sumner Beach Surf Club.

Trickling Filter Media Removal

3.27    Plant and materials continue arriving on site.

3.28    Some vegetation has been removed and gravel spread and compacted to form a working area around the Trickling Filters.

3.29    Sheetpiling for Ramp 1 is 40% complete.  The ramp is scheduled to be completed week of the 30th May.

3.30    Works are currently running to programme.

3.31    Vibration during installation of the sheetpiles resulted in an enquiry from a nearby resident.  This resident was contacted by staff and given an explanation as to what was causing the vibrations and the timeframe for the sheetpiling.

3.32    Drone footage of the Tricking Filter captured Wednesday 25 May was shown.

Environmental & Health Monitoring

3.33    Staff have been fully trained to take air (odour) samples, which will be analysed and results published regularly in collaboration with Environment Canterbury and Community and Public Health.

3.34    Sampling has been undertaken taken on 28 April, 12 May, 18 May and 25 May.  We are testing across the site to identify and characterise the main sources of odour.  We are also testing at increasing distance from the plant to understand how the odour travels and to determine the level of gases in residential areas.

3.35    Hydrogen Sulphide and Mercaptans have been identified as the primary components of the odours emanating from the plant.

3.36    We are meeting weekly with Environment Canterbury and Community Public Health to discuss the monitoring results and the monitoring sites, both across the plant and the community.

3.37    Through the Ministry of Education we are engaging with a number of schools and Early Childhood Education Centres.

3.38    A provider has been engaged to collect and analysis samples from a number of dwellings where residents have reported paint discolouration.

3.39    We are leasing a continuous monitoring hydrogen sulphide detection device for testing with the intention of acquiring further devises should the testing prove beneficial.

Community Support

3.40    At its 28 April 2022 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee noted the impact of the odour from the treatment plant on residents and requested advice from staff on ways that support could be provided (FPCO/2022/00018).

3.41    Councillors asked that this advice include the establishment of a fund to support the provision of financial support to residents most affected by the odour.  At a community meeting on 13 May 2022, residents also asked for support to alleviate what they described as financial and psychosocial impacts of the odour.  Councillors present at the community meeting reiterated their desire to provide assistance to alleviate some of the burden on the residents.

3.42    Staff have worked with community and government partners to identify a process to:

·   Provide financial support for households most affected by the odour.

·   Provide a support package to 23 schools and early childhood education centres identified by the Ministry of Education as being effected.

·   Provide information and connections to other support available in the community

·   Facilitate access to information and organise workshops to deliver guidance around liveability.

3.43    Staff proposed that Council provides a financial contribution to households in the most affected area (3380 households).  This area is bounded by Buckleys Road, Pages Road, State Highway 74, and Linwood Avenue.  In exceptional circumstances other people just outside the defined area affected by the odour may receive some support, but this will be determined on a case by case basis.

3.44    The contribution is to assist covering costs for residents related to the odour, including laundry services, doctor appointments, vet appointments, heat pump cleaning, the purchase of appliances and firewood, and increased power use.  There will be controls put in place to ensure only those eligible will receive the support.  There will be an audit trail created.

3.45    Community partners will provide the funding on Council’s behalf, on request from households. 

3.46    Staff considered providing this support via a rates rebate but this is not proposed as it would target property owners rather than all residents (i.e. renters).

3.47    The community support package also includes working with local schools, early childhood education providers and community agencies to provide other support and activities to mitigate the stress on the community and ensure access to information.

3.48    It was proposed that up to $1 million be allocated from the forecast surplus in the FY22 budget to the community support package.  The Finance & Performance Committee signed off the report on 26 May with funding allocation to the partner agencies from 30 May.

3.49    A community information workshops calendar will be published 8 June and an information booklet will be in eligible people’s mail boxes by 30 May.

Communication Update

3.50    A Start Works Notice has been distributed to surrounding households.

3.51    A rolling blog has been established on our website providing information on; wind forecasts for the coming day, progress updates, air monitoring testing results, community support package information and new questions and answers.

3.52    We are continuing with the weekly E-newsletter and updating our website two to three times for week.  Our question and answer database is also being continuously updated.

3.53    Booklets on the proposed community support package have been prepared and are ready for distribution to households within the area identified as being most affected.

3.54    Information panels for community providers and Eastgate Mall are being prepared.

3.55    On-site media opportunity being planned for post Queens Birthday Weekend.

3.56    Treatment plant site walkthrough video scheduled for next week.

Reporting

3.57    Staff are providing updates fortnightly to Council and Finance & Performance Committee meetings covering the operational status of the plant, actions taken since the last update, actions underway and next steps.

3.58    Monthly reporting to the Insurance Subcommittee covering contractor performance and detailed reporting on insurance matters.

3.59    We will also be reporting to Health & Safety and Audit & Risk Committee meetings on matters relating to health and safety and risk.

3.60    We are meeting with the Ministry of Education to discuss what support School’s and Early Childhood Learning Centres may require, 27 and 31 May.

3.61    Joint Waitai Coastal-Burwood and Waikaura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board presentation was programmed for 30 May.

3.62    Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee on 8 June.

3.63    Weekly catch-ups with Environment Canterbury and Canterbury District Health Board.

4.   Current activities and Next Steps

4.1       A Power Point presentation from staff will be provided at the meeting on the activities that have been undertaken since the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on the 26th of May and the next steps

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this update.

 

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

Michael Croucher - Senior Programme Manager

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

09 June 2022

 

 

11.   27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Consultation Outcome

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/114118

Report of Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council to determine the future of Council owned land identified as 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Diamond Harbour (the land).  This report has been written in response to the Council resolutions passed as part of its Long Term Plan (LTP) deliberations 2021 - 2031 and the resulting consultation.

1.2       On 21 June 2021 the Council passed the following resolutions relative to these properties in response to feedback received during the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan consultation.

1.2.1   M19: Disposal of surplus council-owned properties

1.2.2   M19A: That the Council is authorised to dispose of all properties other than 27 Hunters Road, 42 Whero Terrace, 5 Worcester Boulevard, and the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall, noting that the following will need to be done to consider options for their future use:

1.2.3   M19Aiii: That the Council defer making a decision about the properties at 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Diamond Harbour until a targeted consultation process can be undertaken to gather additional information to support the material gathered through the LTP consultation process. Council creates a project in the first year of the LTP and sets aside a budget of $65,000 for this purpose. Report back to Council for a final decision as part of the FY 2022/23 annual plan process.

1.2.4   M19Biv: The head of facilities, property and planning taking into consideration as part of the divestment process bio-diversity, heritage and cultural advice.

1.3       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the impact of the recommendations in this report on the wider Christchurch City Council area.

1.4       Taken in a local context there is significant interest in the future of the site, therefore the recommendations in this report balance the needs/desires of the local community to be involved in decision making on the future of the site, with the Council’s wider obligations for the whole City.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Acknowledges the views of the submitters from the Council’s targeted consultation process including the Banks Peninsula Community Board’s submission from its meeting on 14 February 2022.

2.         Note there is community support for the sale of the land for residential and other purposes subject to the development reflecting community aspirations.

3.         Notes that the recommended paths forward is to:

a.         Develop an Outline Development Plan for the properties collectively known as 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue;

b.         Protect the revegetated gullies and access tracks;

c.         Subdivide the site and place covenants on the property titles that requires development to be in accordance with the Outline Development Plan; and

d.         Dispose of the balance of the site not required for Council purposes.

4.         Refers the matter to the 2023/24 Annual Plan for prioritisation and funding;

5.         Defers any decision to declare 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue surplus to operational requirement until such time as an Outline Development Plan is completed. 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The reasons for the recommendations in this report have been made by taking into account the views of the local community following both the LTP consultation and subsequent targeted consultation with the local Diamond Harbour community

3.2       The recommendations in this report also consider the matters raised in the Banks Peninsula Community Board’s submission. 

3.3       It is clear the Diamond Harbour community is interested in the future of this land and has a wide range of views on what the outcomes could be.

3.4       This is borne out in the feedback received and as summarised in the consultation summary attached to this report. All the submissions received can be viewed on the Councils Have Your Say web site.

3.5       Staff have considered how the community’s interests can be addressed.  The recommended approach is to undertake a community focused land use planning exercise.  The output of this process would be an Outline Development Plan, which reflected community and the Council’s objectives. 

3.6       An Outline Development Plan is considered to be an effective mechanism to shape future development and make provision for the needs and aspirations of the community, it takes into consideration the layout and design of the road network, parks, infrastructure and any other relevant matters that are raised through consultation. 

3.7       The Outline Development Plan (ODP) would be given effect through restrictions on title.  Any future purchaser would be required to develop the land consistent with the ODP. 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The consultation document included 5 options which are included in this section. Some aspect of all the options consulted on have merit, it has become obvious through the consultation process not any one option provides an outcome the community wants.

4.2       Therefore parts of each option have outcomes that could be considered. It is for this reason staff consider an Outline Development Plan process gives the best opportunity to include the parts of each option that have overall community buy in.

4.3       The options consulted on and there advantages and disadvantages are

4.3.1   Complete covenant and sell - Complete the covenant over Sams Gully, Morgans Gully and the third gully, with protections for the walkways and dispose of the remainder of the land.

Advantages 

·     Protects the gullies

·     Ensures walking tracks are protected

·     Reduces costs to rate payers

·     Generates a capital return that can be used to meet other community needs

Disadvantages

·     Set-up costs of covenants and easements

 

4.3.2   Retain as a park – In the short term this would result in no change, with the gullies continuing to be revegetated through community partnerships and the flat land leased for grazing.

Advantages

·     Ongoing public ownership and control

·     Increased accessibility to grazed areas over time

Disadvantages

·     There does not appear to be evidence that additional park land is required to meet community needs

·     Ratepayers will face ongoing holding costs and increased development, maintenance and operational expenses

 

 

4.3.3   Council develops the land – We could consider developing the property, in consultation with the community, either directly or with a development partner. This is likely to carry significant financial risk – the revenue gained may be less than the cost of development and is not our core business.

Advantages

·     Allows for community input into development

·     Would provide revenue stream if economically viable

Disadvantages

·     Development risks – We are not a land developer and there is unknown demand

 

4.3.4   Transfer ownership to the community – As we don’t need the land but it is valued by the community, it could be transferred into community ownership. This could be at below market price, subject to us being able to recover the capital value of the land should the community decide to dispose of it or develop it in the future.

Advantages

·     Local community controls the land

·     We don’t incur costs from holding the land

·     Revenue from sale

·     No need for covenants

Disadvantages

·     Community carries holding costs

 

4.3.5   Status Quo – Finalise the covenant over Sams Gully, Morgans Gully and the third gully, with protections for the walkways and continue to graze the flat land

Advantages 

·     Maintains the status quo

Disadvantages

·     Holding costs of $15,000 per annum

·     No Revenue from sale

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Consultation was open from 15 October to 16 November 2021. We received 234 submissions.

5.2       Of the 234 submissions, only eight are strongly against any change to the land (for reasons such as maintaining uninterrupted views and retaining the ‘village’ feel).

5.3       The majority of submitters actually want a mixture of the options.

5.4       Consistently across all options people want the gullies ‘protected’ – either with covenants or as reserves.

5.5       More details can be found in the consultation summary attached.

5.6       Council purchased the land collectively known as 27 Hunters Road in 1913 under the Lyttelton Borough Extension Act 1911. This Act allowed the then Council to develop land outside of its Borough for residential purposes. Multiple subdivisions occurred up until the 1970’s leaving the balance as we now know it.

5.7       Council had no identified use for the property and included it in its 2021 – 2031 LTP for potential disposal. As a result of that general consultation Council required further targeted consultation and passed the resolutions listed in Section 1 of this report.

5.8       During the Consultation period other interested parties or considerations came to light, not so much as part of the consultation process but coincidentally, these can be summarised as follows:

5.8.1   Use for a cemetery – Parks Staff are investigating sites within Diamond Harbour for a possible new cemetery.  Initial investigations indicate the ground quality of parts of this site  would be suitable, with land parcel adjacent to Whero Avenue (5.5ha or 14% of the site) looking the most promising. Further investigations and planning will be undertaken in order to provide more detail.

5.8.2   Fire Service site – Fire and Emergency New Zealand  are looking for a permanent site within the Diamond Harbour area, part of this site could well be suitable.

5.8.3   School facilities – it is understood that the if there was an increase in residential land becoming available in Diamond Harbour this would impact of the area required for the School site.

5.8.4   Westpac Rescue Helicopter – The rescue helicopter has used the property for a landing site when required, it may be possible to retain a suitable landing site even if developed.

5.8.5   There is interest in establishing a community garden in Diamond Harbour, a suitable site is required.

5.8.6   Private occupation of public land – in part some adjoining properties are using the land for private purposes.

5.8.7   There are portions of road that need to be legalised and potential opportunity to stop some roads if no longer required.

5.9       The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas: Banks Peninsula

Outline Development Plan

5.10    It is clear that there is significant local interest in this area and a number of interests as indicated in this report.

5.11    It is the staff view that to accommodate all interested parties a detailed planning process needs be undertaken. This would provide a clear strategy for development and provide future certainty for all.

5.12    The Christchurch District Plan contains a number of ‘outline development plans’ to guide the form and staging, where applicable, of subdivision and development, generally in greenfield areas. They typically include an integrated plan illustrating, spatially, key features (such as existing waterways, cycle and pedestrian links) and development requirements (including new connections, land required for stormwater management and future potential land use activities). Each plan is accompanied with a narrative which sets out a description of the area and its history; guidance on development form and design elements; and more specific and detailed explanation of the development requirements. Developing an Outline Development Plan for the subject area could be a useful and effective tool to ensure the development of the subject land achieves the aspirations of the community and Council.

5.13    An ODP alone however, cannot guarantee full protection of key features and achievement of outcomes sought. Other mechanisms such as easements, covenants and investment in infrastructure will still be necessary.  An ODP can however provide the justification and rationale for the application of other mechanisms and investment. 

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The proposed disposal fits with the Council’s Strategic Framework because it involves a project that identifies future community needs and will result in the transfer of property rights.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Economic Development

·     Level of Service: 5.1.9.2 Facilitate urban development activities that contribute to a prosperous local economy  - Prepare a property development strategy and framework

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decisions are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The decisions in this report if adopted will put in place a process to adopt an Outline Development Plan to be included in the District Plan. This process will consider applicable Council plans and policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.5       The local Runanga were contacted directly as part of the targeted consultation.

6.6       If the Council chooses to accept the recommendation, then Mana whenua will be kept informed and involved in the ongoing community discussions.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7       There are potential climate change considerations from this report.  These include:

6.7.1   Climate hazard matters: Lower rainfall, drought, higher temperatures, extreme rainfall events; and

6.7.2   Climate change mitigation matters: travel emissions risks; better building (high energy efficiency; low embodied carbon) opportunities; local employment creation opportunities; carbon offset opportunities; and

6.7.3   Climate change adaptation matters: alternative local residential opportunities.

6.8       The site is located within the Banks Peninsula – Coastal section of the Climate Change Risk Screening for Christchurch District (April 2022).  

6.8.1   Most of the extreme and major hazards listed in this document do not apply directly to the site, with the exception of those listed in 0 above.

6.8.2   The risks associated with direct hazards can be mitigated through design (e.g. onsite storm water detention to slow run off and provide alternative water sources)  or infrastructure provision (e.g. the water supply is piped from the Christchurch system)

6.8.3   The other hazards (e.g. Coastal flooding, tidal shifts, storm surge, rising groundwater, fluvial flooding) listed in the screening report will have an indirect impact on the site.  Mitigation of or adaption to the risks associated with these hazards is required regardless of the site specific decisions, as they affect the existing built environment as well as any potential future development.

6.8.4   A hazard from the Banks Peninsula – Inland section also applies to this site.  This hazard is the increased risk of wildfire. 

6.9       The subdivision and development of this modified site could be perceived as contributing to climate change, through the emission associated with site preparation, construction and activities.  It also, however, creates opportunities such as alternative residences for local communities forced to relocate because of hazards, carbon offsetting through further planting of the gullies, and potential local employment creation spaces.  The outline development plan process will allow for these matters to be considered in depth.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10    The decisions in this report do not impact on accessibility because they relate to a procedural and administrative matters only.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The estimated costs to prepare the Outline Development plan will be in the region of $200,000.  Costs will include staff time, engineering, legal and planning advice, surveying and valuation costs.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Nil

7.3       Funding Source – The future disposal of this property provides a revenue generating opportunity for Council, with an estimated return in the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 range depending on the results of the ODP process.  These funds could be used to offset the costs, with borrowings being used to address the cash flow issue.  The appropriate process to address the priority of the borrowing against other priorities is the next Annual Plan process.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Council has the general power to consult with the community and register restrictions on title of land that it owns.

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 minimal risk in Council adopting the recommendations in this report because it will provide the Diamond Harbour residents the opportunity to feed into the outline development plan and influence the outcomes of planned development. It also gives Council time to address additional matters that have come to light.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Hunters Rd and Whero Ave Analysis

119

b

Community Board Submission

123

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Submissions

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2021/12-December/Hunters-Whero-Submissions-for-web.pdf

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Samantha Sharland - Engagement Advisor

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

  


Council

09 June 2022

 





Council

09 June 2022

 


Council

09 June 2022

 

 

12.   Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/614439

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Paul Dickson, Drainage Engineer, paul.dickson@ccc.govt.nz
Clive Appleton, Healthy Waterways Programme Lead, clive.appleton@ccc.govt.nz
Hannah Ballantyne, Engagement Advisor, hannah.ballantyne@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager 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 inform the Council about the outcome of public consultation on the draft Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan. 

1.2       To present the finalised Stormwater Management Plan for Council adoption so that it can be submitted to Canterbury Regional Council by 30 June 2022.

1.3       The Stormwater Management Plan is a requirement of the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent CRC214226 (Comprehensive Consent) that was granted to the Council by Canterbury Regional Council, on 20 December 2019.

1.4       Condition 4 of the Comprehensive Consent requires the Council to develop Stormwater Management Plans for areas across the City and Banks Peninsula settlements where there are stormwater networks.

1.5       Condition 8 of the Comprehensive Consent requires public consultation of each draft Stormwater Management Plan and, where applicable, to incorporate feedback to finalise the Plan.

1.6       The decision in this report is of medium-to-high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering that the Stormwater Management Plan is important to all Māori, river care/community associations, Community Boards and the Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee (as evidenced by the feedback).

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the attached Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment A).

2.         Adopt the Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment A).

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The recommendations in this report are to enable the Council to submit the finalised Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan to Canterbury Regional Council by 30 June 2022, as required by the Comprehensive Consent.  

 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Two optional approaches have been considered for SMPs generally: Option A – compliance and aspirational and Option B - compliance. 

4.2       A Stormwater Management Plan corresponding to Option A would develop aspirational contaminant load reduction targets to be effected by at-source controls. This option would contain measures known to be generally approved by consultees. However Option A would involve committing the Council to (a) unfunded actions, (b) contaminant reduction programmes that while desirable are not definitely attainable, and (c) contaminant reduction methods that would need to obtain legal support.  It was concluded that the risks for the Council of adopting this option were too high.

4.3       This Stormwater Management Plan has been developed from the second (compliance) Option B. It (a) complies with all consent conditions, (b) adopts a programme of capital work already in the Long Term Plan and (c) introduces regulatory processes that are within the Council’s powers under the Local Government Act.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The Stormwater Management Plan was developed in consultation with parties specified in the consent conditions:

·    Te Ngai Tūahuriri Rūnanga

·    The Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee

·    The Waitai Coastal-Burwood and Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards

·    The Department of Conservation

·    The Canterbury Regional Council Regional River Engineer.

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

·   Waitai Coastal-Burwood and Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote.

5.3       Consultation on the Stormwater Management Plan ran from 28 February to 26 April 2022.

5.4       During this consultation period we sent out emails to key stakeholders, distributed consultation documents, put a public notice in necessary print publications, and attended a residents’ association forum.

5.5       We received 16 submissions – 7 from individuals and 9 from organisations.

5.6       A predominant theme of submissions supports actions to reduce sediment discharges. Submitters strongly encourage the Council to be proactive in addressing erosion sites through stabilisation works, planting and greater use of regulatory powers to control construction sites.

5.7       The second most common theme is to ask the council to address coastal flooding caused by the tide or by impeded flow paths (e.g. behind sea walls).

5.8       Some submitters advocated on-site mitigation of stormwater quantity and quality.

5.9       Feedback from commercial organisations could not be easily summarised into themes and tended to address matters related to the nature or specific interests of the organisation.

5.10    Attachment B to this report includes a summary of submissions, and Attachment C the table of submissions received.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The activity supports the Integrated Water Strategy 2019.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Stormwater Drainage

·     Level of Service: 14.0.3 Council manages the stormwater network in a responsible and sustainable manner: Resident satisfaction with Council’s management of the stormwater network - ≥40% satisfaction

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, being a plan generated for the purpose of statutory compliance.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       he Council is required to work in partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga, with assistance from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, to implement the Comprehensive Consent. The Comprehensive Consent deals with a wide range of significant decisions to be made in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.5       The impact on Mana Whenua can be assessed with reference to Policies and Issues in the Maahanui Iwi Management Plan which states expected outcomes for activities covered by the Stormwater Management Plan. The Plan acknowledges the Iwi Management Plan Policies but cannot deliver on some Issues due to constraints on its scope. This may limit Mana Whenua support as indicated in the Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd Cultural Impact Assessment for the Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan.

6.6       The Council is working, with assistance from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, to ensure that implementation of the Plan both minimises impacts and enhances Mana Whenua values, where possible, as outlined in the Cultural Impact Assessment.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7       Climate change is taken into account in references to planning and design rainfall intensities.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       Accessibility is not relevant to this plan.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – this Plan does not initiate any additional capital projects.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – operational costs are business as usual, however operating costs will increase as new treatment basins are built.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision because the Stormwater Management Plan is produced to enable the Council to comply with a resource consent condition under the Resource Management Act.

8.3       This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.  However the Legal Services Unit has been involved in the preparation of Plans.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The Canterbury Regional Council may question aspects of the Plan including how targets were set for contaminant load mitigation. In this case the two organisations can discuss how targets could be revised. This could also happen at any stage after the Plan has been submitted within its ten year review period as more effective treatment/ mitigation options become available.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater management Plan (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal draft Stormwater Management Plan - Submission table for web

129

c

Ihutai-Estuary and Coastal Stormwater Management Plan - Report on Consultation

170

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Paul Dickson - Drainage Engineer

Hannah Ballantyne - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

09 June 2022

 










































Council

09 June 2022

 





Council

09 June 2022

 

 

13.   Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw Review

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/449569

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Phil Mauger, Bylaw Hearings Panel Chairperson

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance, Lynn.McClelland@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 two draft bylaws proposed to replace the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014.

1.2       The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council adopts both bylaws, largely as proposed, but with some changes as a result of the consultation and hearings process. The recommended changes are mainly clarifications and improvements based on the submissions received.

1.3       If the Council accepts the Hearings Panel recommendations and adopts the bylaws as attached, the new bylaws will come into force on 1 July 2022, and replace the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014.

Decision-making matters

1.4       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.”

1.5       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: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_AGN_7959_AT.PDF   

Minutes: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_MIN_7959_AT.PDF

Attachments: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_MAT_7959.PDF

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022

1.         Adopt the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022, in its final form (Attachment A).

2.         Note the following changes to the clauses of the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022, as a result of the consultation and hearings process (as so shown in Attachment A):

a.         Insert a new definition of Council water supply in clause 3(1) as follows:

b.         Council water supply means a public water supply system owned and managed by the Christchurch City Council.

c.         Replace the definition of private drainage system with a definition of  private wastewater drains in clause 3(1) as follows:

d.         Private wastewater drains means the system of pipes and fittings installed on the customer’s side of the point of discharge to convey wastewater off the property to the public wastewater system. 

e.         Amend the definition of prohibited waste in clause 3(1) so that it refers to prohibited wastes instead of prohibited substances.

f.          Amend clause 7(4) (restricted activities within maintenance access corridors) so that it refers to the water supply system instead of the stormwater network.

g.         Amend clause 9(6)(b) (protection of source water and the water supply system) so that it refers to chemical or agricultural applications.

h.         Amend clause 17(1) (supplementary water storage for Banks Peninsula water supply areas) to update the specified water supply areas by including Takamatua within the Akaroa supply, as well as clarifying that the clause applies where connection to the Council water supply is sought.

i.          Replace the references in clause 29 (restricted activities within maintenance access corridors) to the water supply system with references to the wastewater system.

j.          Amend clause 18(2)(c) (backflow prevention) to refer to the Water Services Act 2021 instead of the Health Act 1956.

3.         Note that a number of additions and improvements are made to the preamble and explanatory notes contained in the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 as a result of the consultation and hearings process (as so shown in Attachment A).

4.         Determine, in accordance with section 155(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5.         Approve the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 coming into force on 1 July 2022.

6.         Approve that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 comes into force.

7.         Give public notice as soon as practicable that the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on 1 July 2022 and that copies of the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

8.         Revoke from 1 July 2022 the Council’s Policy on Water Supply Pipes Installed in Private Land 2001, noting that the terms of the Policy have been included in the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022.

9.         Delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the Christchurch City Council Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 as the case may be, and that this power may be sub-delegated.

Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022

10.       Adopt the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022, in its final form (Attachment B).

11.       Note the following changes to the clauses of the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022, as a result of the consultation and hearings process (as so shown in Attachment B):

a.         Delete clause 10 relating to the requirement for on-site stormwater management, as the requirement is provided by clause 7 of the bylaw and a new explanatory note.

b.         Amend clause 11 (managing drainage from artesian springs and wells on private land) so that it applies in a more limited way and now refers to preventing nuisance and damage from unmanaged artesian water.

c.         Amend clause 13 (restricted activities related to discharge of water other than stormwater) so that it more clearly states the types of water (other than stormwater) referred to.

d.         Amend clause 15(1) (restricted activities related to waterways) so that it allows a person with written authority from the Council or an authorised agent of the regional council to carry out certain activities in a waterway.

e.         Insert a new clause 15(2) so that clause 15(1)(restricted activities related to waterways) does not apply to fencing near waterways in rural zones, which is regulated by the District Plan.

f.          Amend clause 15(3) (restricted activities related to waterways) to allow certain actions by the regional council or where a person is undertaking temporary erosion and sediment control measures under an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

g.         Amend clause 22(1) (erosion and sediment control plans) so that it specifically refers to any person intending to undertake earthworks where there is any risk that sediment generated by the works could become entrained in stormwater.

h.         Amend clause 32(1)(b) (industrial stormwater audit programme) to refer to further information being provided on request.

i.          Amend clause 35(2) (transitional arrangements for industrial stormwater dischargers with individual consents with Canterbury Regional Council) to clarify that an occupier needs to apply for a licence under this bylaw prior to surrendering a stormwater discharge resource consent held with the regional council.

12.       Note that a number of additions and improvements are made to the explanatory notes contained in the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 as a result of the consultation and hearings process (as so shown in Attachment B).

13.       Determine, in accordance with section 155(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

14.       Approve the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 coming into force on 1 July 2022.

15.       Approves that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 comes into force.

16.       Give public notice as soon as practicable that the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on 1 July 2022 and that copies of the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

17.       Delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 as the case may be, and that this power may be sub-delegated.

18.       Resolve under clause 27  of the Christchurch City Council Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022, to adopt the Register of Industrial and Trade Activities (to come into force on 1 July 2022), as set out in Attachment C in its final form, and noting the following changes as a result of the consultation and hearings process:

a.         Adding two footnotes to the bottom of the first page of the Register which confirm that properties not meeting the thresholds in the Register are not required to apply for an industrial stormwater discharge licence; and the date the Register comes into force.

b.         Making a clarification to the hydrocarbon entry under the heading “Bulk storage and handling centres” for the exclusion of service stations, truck stops and commercial refuelling facilities.

c.         Making a clarification to the entry under the heading waste management and resource recovery industries by deleting the reference to chemical containers.

d.         Amend the compliance timeframe from 6 months (1 January 2022), to 7 months (1 February 2022) to avoid it falling on a public holiday.

 

 

3.   Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1       Three Waters Bylaws enable the Council to protect essential public infrastructure, protect public health, and ensure the three waters systems are functioning efficiently.

3.2       The review of the Council’s Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014 was initiated due to new regulatory requirements for drinking water, and the new resource consent the Council holds for the discharge of stormwater to the environment[1]. The proposed replacement bylaws enable the Council to meet new obligations associated with these regulatory changes.

3.3       The Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee considered the review of the existing bylaw on 10 November 2021, and approved two separate draft bylaws for consultation.  One for water supply and wastewater, and the other for stormwater and land drainage.

3.4       The background was well documented in the staff report to the Three Waters Environment and Infrastructure Committee (Agenda 10 November 2021, items 9 to 11) which contains: information about the review of the bylaw; reasons for the proposed changes to the bylaw; and, the required legislative considerations. It also includes the two Statements of Proposal – one for the proposed Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022, and the other for the proposed Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022.

Legislative Requirements

3.5       The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the authorising provisions for bylaws, as well as the process, considerations and requirements for making a new bylaw, or proposing changes to a bylaw.  The Act also requires a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to be undertaken when proposing significant changes to a bylaw or making a new bylaw.  In this instance, the SCPs for each draft bylaw were run together.

3.6       The two bylaws are made under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002, and these sections together form the scope of matters the bylaw can regulate.

3.6.1   Section 145 is the more general bylaw-making power, for the purposes of: protecting the public from nuisance; protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety; and, minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

3.6.2   Section 146(b) is the activity specific bylaw-making power, and enables bylaws to be made to protect water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure from damage and misuse[2].

3.7       There are also legal determinations which must be considered by the Council when reviewing and making bylaws. These are set out under section 155 of the Act and are: whether the bylaw is the most appropriate way to address a perceived problem; whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and, whether the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Council determined that bylaws are the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems in 2021.  Determinations about whether the bylaws are the most appropriate form of bylaw and whether the bylaws give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 are reflected in the Hearings Panel’s recommendations to the Council.

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

4.1       Feedback on the proposed replacement bylaws was sought through an SCP. Consultation opened on 29 November 2021 and closed on 9 February 2022.

4.2       Consultation information was made available on the Council’s Have Your Say webpage. The opportunity to provide feedback was publicised via Newsline and social media. Approximately 600 identified stakeholders were contacted directly.

4.3       An information session on the Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence was held on 1 February 2022, which was attended by 19 representatives from organisations.

4.4       Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) facilitated advice from Ngai Tahu and the Paptipu Rūnanga on the bylaw review from January 2021, through to the formal SCP stage. Verbal feedback on the direction of the proposed changes was provided to Council and considered prior to the draft bylaws being adopted for consultation. MKT also made a joint submission on behalf of the Papatipu Rūnanga through the SCP.

4.5       27 submissions were received, of which, 16 indicated that they would like to be heard.

4.6       Submitters comprised of eight individuals, five Community Boards, four environmental organisations, four businesses, three industry bodies, the Canterbury Regional Council, the Canterbury District Health Board and MKT.

4.7       The Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel contains a comprehensive analysis of the submissions including detailed responses to the key themes, however, a summary of the feedback on the key proposals of each bylaw can be found below:

Draft Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw

Proposal

Balance of Submissions

Comment

Backflow prevention

A new requirement to notify change in activity or to provide information (cl.18).

Submitters supported this proposal.

All submitters who commented on this proposal were in support.

Prohibition of certain equipment that may cause pressure surges

Submitters supported this proposal.

Most submitters who commented on this proposal were in support.

Aerial applications

A new requirement to notify Council if undertaken near community drinking water protection zones.

Overall this proposal is supported by the majority of submitters.

Two submitters sought clarification on the notification process; or whether it applied to drone technologies. One submitter suggested Papatipu Rūnanga are also notified.

Notification of chemical spills near community drinking water zones

A new requirement to notify the Council of spills near community drinking water protection zones

Overall this proposal is supported by submitters.

MKT recommended they are also notified of spills within or near sites of significance.

Banks Peninsula supplementary water storage tanks

A change to allow one tank to meet multiple regulatory purposes.

Submitters supported this proposal.

All submitters who commented on this proposal were in support.

Water wastage

New clause making water wastage an offence.

Overall this proposal is supported by the majority of submitters.

Some submitters raised concerns regarding how “excessive” will be defined and applied, including not penalising tenants. Two requested the Council lead by example by promptly addressing network leaks.

Water meter accessibility

A new requirement for Council-owned meters to be installed on Council land; and authority to relocate the meter.

Submitters supported this proposal.

All submitters who commented on this proposal were in support. One submitter recommended contingency not to charge for meter relocation if, for any reason, the location is not under the control of the householder.

Tree roots – damage to network infrastructure

Prohibits planting in locations where it is likely to cause damage; and requires removal/trimming if found to be restricting access or causing damage.

Overall this proposal appears to be supported by the majority of submitters, but concerns were raised.

Concerns were raised about it being difficult to comply with (i.e. not knowing requirements or where underground services are), and whether the costs associated are fairly allocated.

Prohibited waste

Strengthened provisions around what is not permitted to be disposed of into the wastewater network, including defining what is considered “prohibited waste”.

Overall, this proposal is supported by submitters.

Some submitters thought this clause should be strengthened (i.e. no exceptions) and well-promoted.

New application and approval clauses for wastewater

Overall, this proposal is supported by submitters.

One submitter sought clearer links with the Council’s Trade Waste Bylaw.

 


 

Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw

Proposal

Balance of Submissions

Comment

Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence

A new requirement for all industrial premises (where business activity has the potential to contaminate stormwater) to obtain an Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence (ISDL), pay an annual risk-based fee, and be subject to audits and monitoring.

Overall, views were mixed on the ISDL proposal.

Half of the submitters supported the proposal (either fully or specified elements) and the other half highlighted concerns.

Concerns were primarily centred on the justification of the proposed fees and insufficient implementation details.

One submitter proposed the ISDL should also be a control for zinc contamination (i.e. runoff from large roofs).

Requirements for Earthworks (ESCPs)

Requirement for Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for earthworks where this is not otherwise required through a building or resource consent. The bylaw provisions are part of a new, wider system for the better management of erosion and sediment from development sites.

Overall, this proposal is supported by the majority of submitters.

Some submitters raised concerns about threshold requirements or the scope of work covered by the definition of “earthworks”.

Notification of spills

A new requirement to notify the Council of any spills or discharges of prohibited substances.

Submitters supported this proposal.

One submitter suggested Council consider a self-reporting platform to manage notifications.

Prohibited substances must not enter the network

Strengthened provisions around what is not permitted to be disposed of into the stormwater network, including defining “prohibited substances”.

Overall, submitters supported this proposal.

A number of submitters highlighted the need for public education.

MKT requested they are also notified of spills within or near sites of significance.

Two submitters sought tighter definition of “prohibited substance” (e.g. specified substances or limits).

Stormwater Quality Standards

Improved clarity around potential standards that may be made by resolution of the Council (i.e. what they might include and how they might apply)

Overall, views of submitters on this proposal were mixed. The majority commenting on this clause of the bylaw raised concerns.

One third supported this proposal as is, while the others had concerns around the uncertainty of what these standards might be.

Maintenance of Private Stormwater Devices

A new requirement for property owners where private stormwater devices (e.g. sediment traps) have been required, to maintain the device in good operating condition, and to make operation and maintenance records available to the Council on request

Submitters supported this proposal.

All submitters who commented on this proposal were in support.

Drainage from springs and artesian wells

New clause prohibiting the flow or discharge of water from an artesian spring or well on a private property from entering a neighbouring property, and clarifying it is the responsibility of the property owner (with the spring or well) to remedy the drainage issue.

Overall the majority of submitters supported this proposal.

Some submitters highlighted the importance of protecting waipuna/springs, which may appear to be in conflict with this clause.

Setbacks for activities near waterways

Proposal to increase the setback distance from waterways for certain activities (e.g. building structures) from one metre to three metres.

Overall the majority of submitters appear to support this proposal

Some submitters considered the proposal too restrictive – either due to the setback distance or the number and type of activities that are controlled.

 

Both bylaws

Proposal

Balance of Submissions

Comment

Maintenance Access Corridors

Ensuring access to any part of the water supply, wastewater or stormwater network for maintenance purposes, particularly where the infrastructure is in non-Council land, and an easement does not exist. Restricts some activities within the Maintenance Access Corridor.

Overall, feedback on this proposal was mixed.

Two submitters supported this proposal, and three had concerns that it was overly-restrictive, or that there should be exceptions.

Requirement to maintain and repair private wastewater and stormwater laterals.

A new requirement for property owners to maintain private drains and investigate and rectify issues.

Overall, this proposal is supported by the majority of submitters.

Some submitters highlighted the need to raise public awareness.

Some submitters raised concerns that the clause was unreasonable, that the cost to remedy might be high, or that people were unlikely to be aware of the state of their pipes.

 

5.   The Hearing Te Hui

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Phil Mauger (Chairperson), Councillor Pauline Cotter and Councillor Celeste Donovan. 

5.2       The Hearings Panel convened via audio-visual link on Friday 25 March, Monday 28 March and Wednesday 6 April 2022 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal, including information provided by Council Officers.

5.3       On Friday 25 March, prior to hearing oral submissions, Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposed replacement bylaws and the submissions received. Council Officers spoke to the Hearings Panel agenda report ‘Submissions on the Proposed Replacement Bylaws for the Council’s Three Waters Services’, and particularly the attachments  which provided a comprehensive summary of submissions, staff advice in relation to  the submissions, and suggested changes to the bylaws as a result of the submissions received.

5.4       Officers also tabled the following supplementary documents:

·    A summary of submissions of those wishing to be heard, in order of appearance to assist proceedings; and

·    Drafting of three possible changes to the bylaws that had been indicated as ‘to be drafted’ in Attachment A to the staff report when the agenda was published.

5.5       Throughout the process, Hearings Panel Members raised questions in relation to the Council Officers’ report and presentation and oral submissions. The responses were made by Council Officers at the Hearings Panel meetings to assist the Hearings Panel with its considerations and deliberations.

6.   Oral Submissions

6.1       The Hearings Panel heard 10 oral submissions (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes for a list of presenters).

6.2       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 those written submissions are detailed in the Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel. Below are some of the key points that were raised during oral submissions:

6.2.1   There is a lack of public understanding regarding public responsibility for stormwater and wastewater which needs to be addressed through education;

6.2.2   Council needs to ensure that its own infrastructure is maintained to an appropriate standard before pointing the finger at private landowners;

6.2.3   Some submitters felt that industries that have been labelled as ‘high risk’ in the Register of Industrial and Trade Activities are being disproportionately treated compared to the risk they actually pose. More scrutiny should be applied across the spectrum of sites through use of an auditing mechanism;

6.2.4   Federated Farmers requested that the proposed Rural Advisory Group be set up immediately to help with understanding around rural water supplies and issues;

6.2.5   More resources are needed to ensure the fulfilment of the regulatory function of the bylaws and support the community vision around managing waterways;

6.2.6   The fee associated with the Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence does not seem fair for ‘high risk’ industries and the money that will have to be paid could be used by businesses to remediate their problems; and,

6.2.7   There should be a list of instances that may trigger a licence review.

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

7.1       On Monday 28 March and Wednesday 6 April, the Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. 

7.2       To assist the Hearings Panel with deliberations, Council Officers tabled tracked changes versions of both the Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw, and the Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw.  A tracked changes version of the Register of Industrial and Trade Activities was also tabled. 

7.3       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions and additional information received on the two bylaw proposals. The key issues that were considered by the Hearings Panel and its conclusions, are as follows:

Both Bylaws:

Issue

Unknown damage to private wastewater or stormwater laterals, and whether the onus is entirely on the private property owner for maintenance and repair.

Advice

·   The relevant bylaw clauses help to address the blockage, infiltration and capacity issues which can be prevented (ratepayer cost included) if private laterals feeding into the system are maintained. This is a particular issue in Christchurch because of earthquake damage.

·   There will be cases where damage is genuinely undetected for a period of time. This clause is intended to specifically help the Council to address instances where the damage is known, repair claims have been settled, but the private pipes have remained unrepaired.

·   The onus is on the private property owner to maintain the pipes on their property – this is not a new responsibility under the proposed replacement bylaw. It would not be considered reasonable or appropriate for the Council to take responsibility for private pipes in terms of funding the repairs or private property rights.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel does not recommend any changes to the clauses as drafted, but recommends the Council raise public awareness of the issues, responsibility to maintain private pipes, and information on inspections and initiating the insurance claim process.

 

Issue

Ability for private landowners to place temporary structures within maintenance access corridors

Advice

·   The intent of the clause is not to outright prohibit activities, but to talk to the Council first to ensure it is not going to present an access issue if urgent maintenance is required.

·   Case-by case approval is proposed because where one occupier may have equipment and means to be able to easily move a structure (e.g. temporary placement of containers) another may not.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel discussed the need for flexibility in certain circumstances and agreed to the case-by-case approach. The Hearings Panel does not recommend any changes to the clauses as drafted.

 

 

 

 

Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw:

Issue

The possibility of addressing zinc contamination through the Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence

Advice

·   Zinc contamination comes from widespread sources and is not constrained to industrial premises. The ISDL is designed to deal with the specific risks that exist with industrial sites.

·   The Council is approaching issues associated with zinc more globally.

·   It would be possible to collect information on roofing material as part of the ISDL licensing process to begin to gather relevant data on the extent of the issue.

·   Requiring any commercial property over a certain size to obtain an ISDL would be a significant change to the proposal which would trigger the need to re-consult on the bylaw.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel acknowledges zinc contamination is an issue but does not recommend the Council extend its Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence to apply to large commercial buildings.

 

Issue

The basis of the annual fees associated with the Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence (amounts and how calculated)

Advice

·   The annual fee is set on a cost-recovery, exacerbator pays basis. (Otherwise it is funded by everyone in the serviced area).

·   The Council is legislatively bound to only charge reasonable costs.

·   Costs are for staff time and laboratory testing, based on the average hours spent on over 100 audits conducted to date.

·   Fees will be reviewed annually and adjusted as we work through the Programme to ensure we are only recovering actual costs.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel noted that the costs should not be prohibitive to making the necessary improvements, but were satisfied the costs were justified. The Hearings Panel does not recommend any changes to the proposed fee structure, and in any case noted that the actual amounts are determined through the annual plan process.

 

Issue

Assigning risk classification under the Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence

Advice

·   Risk classification is assigned based on the individual characteristics of each business (e.g. management practices) rather than being assigned based on industry type.

·   Risk classification for the purpose of an ISDL will be determined after engagement with the individual business.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel is satisfied the application of the relevant clauses is fair (i.e. will be relevant to the individual applicant) and does not recommend any changes to the bylaw in relation to ISDL risk classifications.

 

Issue

Whether the waterway setbacks should be applied in rural settings (i.e. for stock exclusion)

Advice

·   This is not intended to apply to fencing (whether temporary or permanent) for the purpose of excluding stock from waterways, if the fencing complies with all other regulatory requirements.

·   The District Plan controls fencing along waterways within rural zones and allows fencing across waterways.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel recommends the addition of a new clause so that restricted activities related to waterways (clause 15(1)) does not apply to fencing near waterways in rural zones.

 

Issue

The role of the Bylaw in managing water from springs, particularly in the context of the cultural importance of protecting waipuna/springs.

Advice

·   The intent of this clause was to address unmanaged water in urban environments, which can affect infrastructure and cause public health issues (e.g. moisture in homes, building subsidence, boggy berms or algae causing a slip hazard on footpaths).

·   New springs that have emerged as a result of the earthquakes has been a common source of unmanaged water in urban environments in recent years.

·   Some responsibilities sit with Environment Canterbury under the Land and Water Regional Plan.

·   The Council has responsibilities to regulate against nuisance and damage.

·   Submissions have highlighted the need for this clause to be more specific in its intent, and that it should deal with springs in a more sympathetic and caring way.

Conclusion

The Hearings Panel recommends the clause is amended to apply in a more limited way which focusses on preventing nuisance and damage, and does not imply capping as a preferred solution. The Hearings Panel also consider that the Council should be notified if anyone is intending to cap or modify a spring, and recommend an explanatory note is added to this effect.

 

7.4       Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations.  The Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022, and the Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022, as recommended by the Hearings Panel, are attached to this report. All changes from what was proposed in the draft bylaws are marked up in each document.

7.5       A large proportion of the changes recommended by the Hearings Panel are for the purpose of clarifying or improving the bylaw, without any significant change of intent. There are also a number of changes to explanatory notes to improve context and understanding of each bylaw. These changes are in response to submissions received, and are documented in the Staff Report to the Hearings Panel[3].

7.6       The Hearings Panel discussed the compliance timeframe given for industrial premises to apply for an Industrial Stormwater Discharge Licence and recommended that this is extended for businesses so it does not fall on a public holiday during the Christmas/New Year period.

7.7       The Hearings Panel is recommending that the Council’s Policy on Water Supply Pipes Installed in Private Land (2001) is revoked, given that the policy is now incorporated into the Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022.

7.8       The Legal Services Unit reviewed the changes proposed to ensure they comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, including that they were the most appropriate and proportionate ways of addressing the perceived problems.

7.9       The Legal Services Unit also considered the tenor of the changes proposed in light of the submissions made, and the parameters of the consultation materials. The Unit advised the Hearings Panel that the changes proposed were appropriate refinements of the proposal that was consulted on, and that further consultation is not required because of the changes recommended by the Hearings Panel.

7.10    In addition to its recommendations, the Hearings Panel also noted the following:

7.10.1    There were a large number of comments from submitters about the need for public education around stormwater contaminants and the need for resourcing to support the mindset shift;

7.10.2    There were a large number of comments from submitters about erosion and sediment control challenges and a lack of resourcing for monitoring and enforcing this;

7.10.3    The request from Federated Farmers to set up the agreed Rural Advisory Group urgently;

7.10.4    While there is a desire to achieve stormwater quality improvements as quickly as possible, the Hearings Panel noted the legitimate challenges for businesses making the transition to the new ISDL system. The Hearings Panel urged that Council supports businesses to navigate the process, has some flexibility where required, and gives advice where possible to enable compliance with new requirements. This may require additional resourcing.

8.   Reference Documents

Document

Location and Description

Hearings Panel Agenda

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_AGN_7959_AT.PDF

This includes the Council officer report on submissions on the proposed replacement bylaws, as well as staff advice in response to submissions to support the deliberations of the Hearings Panel.

Hearings Panel Minutes

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_MIN_7959_AT.PDF

Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/03/BHPCC_20220325_MAT_7959.PDF

The attachments include additional information provided by submitters during hearings and the two bylaws marked up with changes as recommended by the Hearings Panel at the conclusion of deliberations.  

Have Your Say Webpage

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/472

This comprises consultation materials including the proposed replacement bylaws as consulted on.

Committee Agenda 10 November 2021

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/TWIA_20211110_AGN_5462_AT.PDF

Staff reports to adopt the draft bylaws for consultation (items 9-11).

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author                       Andrew Campbell - Hearings Advisor

Approved By           Councillor Phil Mauger - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 (Tracked Changes Version)

190

b

Stormwater and Land Drainage Bylaw 2022 (Tracked Changes Version)

214

c

Register of Industrial and Trade Activities (Tracked Changes Version)

236

 

 


Council

09 June 2022

 

























Council

09 June 2022

 























Council

09 June 2022

 




Council

09 June 2022

 

 

14.   Plan Change 6 (Homebase Extension) Decision Recommendation

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/524172

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Emily Allan, Senior Policy Planner, Emily.allan@ccc.govt.nz
Mark Stevenson, Manager - Planning, Mark.Stevenson@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 present the Hearings Panel’s recommendations on Private Plan Change 6 (Homebase extension) and to recommend the Council adopts the recommendations as its decision.

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 has been determined as medium on the basis of the effects and the degree of risk (i.e. concerning primarily effects on the Shirley Key Activity Centre and adjoining residential area).

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receives the report and recommendations of the Hearings Panel on Plan Change 6 (Homebase extension);

2.         Accepts, accepts in part or rejects the submissions on PC6 as recommended by the Hearings Panel and attached to their report for the reasons set out in the Hearing Panel’s report in Attachment 1.

3.         Adopts, as the decision of the Council, the recommendations of the Hearings Panel that Plan Change 6 be approved as per the Hearing Panel’s report as Attachment 1, under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The private plan change request is to rezone the adjoining land to the north of the existing Homebase retail centre on Marshland Road from Residential Suburban zone to Commercial Retail Park.

3.2       The scope of the plan change is to rezone the land, remove references to the Mairehau Final Development Area from the District Plan (delete 14.3.i.i.l, 14.4.3.1.3, 14.4.3.2.7c and Figure 5) and to amend Chapter 15 Rule 15.7.2.4 by adding a new rule that applies a 32.4 degree recession plane at the western boundary of the site.

3.3       The staff recommendation is to adopt the recommendations of Commissioners Sarah Dawson, Ian Munro and Ken Fletcher (Referred to hereafter as ‘Hearings Panel’ or ‘Panel’) on proposed plan change 6. This has regard to the statutory process that the plan change has been through to this point and the Panel’s consideration of the submissions and evidence received by the Hearings Panel.

3.4       The Hearings Panel have determined that the proposed plan change is appropriate with amendments as outlined in paragraph 5.8.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Council can adopt the Panel’s recommendation as its own decision, but the adoption must be of the recommendations in their entirety.

4.2       The Council cannot reject a recommendation outright or substitute its own decision as it has not heard the submissions and evidence. Legal advice is that natural justice principles would be infringed if the Council were to make a decision on the plan change that differs from the recommendation given by the Panel unless the Council gave the submitters the right to be heard when the Council reconsiders the proposed plan change.

4.3       Accordingly, the options available to the Council, if it does not wish to adopt the Panel’s recommendation as its decision, are to:

a.    Ask the Panel for clarification of any aspect of the Panel’s recommendations;

b.    Refer the plan change back to the Panel with a direction that they reconsider all or any part of their recommendation, and then adopt the subsequent recommendation of the Panel – which may be unchanged from the current recommendation. If the Council wishes to refer the matter back to the Panel, it must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. For example, if an issue the plan change is seeking to address has been overlooked. Those grounds do not exist here.

c.    Appoint different commissioners or for Council to consider the plan change and supporting reports itself, ensuring that the new decision makers hear from the submitters.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Plan Change and Background

5.1       The private plan change request is to rezone the adjoining land to the north of the existing Homebase retail centre on Marshland Road from Residential Suburban zone to Commercial Retail Park.

5.2       The scope of the plan change request is to rezone the land, remove references to the Mairehau Final Development Area from the District Plan (delete 14.3.i.i.l, 14.4.3.1.3, 14.4.3.2.7c and Figure 5) and to amend Chapter 15 Rule 15.7.2.4 by adding a new rule that applies a 32.4 degree recession plane at the western boundary of the site.

5.3       The decision on clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA to accept the plan change request for notification and processing was made at the Urban Development and Transport Committee on 7 October 2020.

Submissions and Hearing

5.4       The plan change was publicly notified on the 15 October 2020 with the submissions period closing on 16 November 2020. Sixty-eight (68) submissions were received on PC6, comprising 119 submission points. Of these, 11 submission points supported or supported in part PC6, 26 sought amendments to PC6, 3 were neutral, and 79 opposed or opposed in part PC6. The main issues raised by the submitters were:

5.4.1   Traffic effects including access from the site to Clearbrook Palms subdivision.

5.4.2   Economic effects on the centres based framework for Christchurch.

5.4.3   Urban Design effects and possible mitigations.

5.4.4   Environmental Health concerns regarding noise and light spill.

5.4.5   The loss of residential zoned land.

5.4.6   Concerns regarding sufficiency of infrastructure.

5.5       Further submissions were sought on 18 January 2021 and closed 1 February 2021. The further submission time period was extended under s37 of the RMA by 1 week to 9 February 2021 to enable a submitter to prepare a submission due to unforeseen events.

5.6       Council appointed a Hearings Panel to hear the submissions. The hearing was held in July 2021 and resumed in November 2021 following a request from the Panel for additional planning and economic evidence.

Panel’s Recommendation

5.7       The Panel’s recommendation is to adopt PC6 as set out in Attachment 1 and to accept, accept in part or reject the submissions on PC6 as appended to their report.

Summary of Key Changes Recommended by the Hearings Panel

5.8       The Panel has recommended that the Proposed Plan Change for the rezoning of the land from Residential Suburban Zone to Commercial Retail Park Zone is approved, with the following changes:

5.8.1   A limit on the total amount of floorspace for all activities to 20,000 m2 and limits on the total amount of floorspace for retail activities prior to October 2026 and October 2031;

5.8.2   Restrictions on store types that can establish on the site prior to October 2031 including clothing or footwear stores and a supermarket;

5.8.3   Specific rules for the site in respect of maximum building height, a recession plane, minimum setbacks from the boundaries, and a requirement for landscaping,

5.8.4   A requirement for pedestrian and cycle access through the site from either Sanctuary Gardens or Havana Gardens to Marshland Road, and not permitting vehicle access over the western boundary,

5.8.5   Additions to the matters to be assessed for any high trip generating activity exceeding thresholds defined in the Transport chapter, including pedestrian and cycle access and CPTED.

5.9       The Panel also supports the removal of the Mairehau Development Plan references in the District Plan.

Reasons for Recommending Approval of the Proposed Plan Change

5.10    The Panel referred to the economic expert’s advice in stating that the site is well suited to and consistent with the locational characteristics typical of large format retail activity[4].  As Council’s economic expert stated, it is a “cracking site”[5]

5.11    The Panel accepted that there is currently an imbalance in the supply of large format retail across the City, with under-provision in the north and east of the City compared to the south and central areas[6].

5.12    The Panel heard no evidence that the operative residential suburban zone would address any local housing shortage or other residential problem in the same way that they accepted the proposed Commercial Retail Park Zone would assist to address a medium to long-term shortfall of supply for retail activity in the area, reduce retail leakage out of the area, and reduce vehicle kilometres travelled[7].  These are in the Panel’s view benefits to the community provided by a Commercial Retail Park Zone on this site.

5.13    The Panel have found that Council’s economic expert’s proposed staging, including the exclusion of specific store types over ten years will mitigate the adverse retail distribution effects of the proposal on The Palms, Shirley to a significant extent and avoid significant adverse effects on that District Centre (KAC)[8].

Panel’s Conclusions on Council’s Recommendations

5.14    Council recommended that further consideration be given to the loss of residential land. It was concluded by the Panel that the anticipated residential capacity of the site (70 dwellings)) was inconsequential and would have no implications for the Council to meet its residential land supply obligations[9].

5.15    Council, through planning evidence, sought to draw attention to the efficiency reduction through losing the ability to develop and use land that is located well within the City’s urban area and with servicing capability already available[10]. The Panel acknowledged the Applicant’s planning evidence that it had not undertaken a detailed evaluation of the costs and benefits of using this site for housing versus the need to develop alternative land elsewhere. However, the Panel were not persuaded that these matters are of sufficient consequence to demonstrate that it is more appropriate for this site to remain available to assist in meeting the City’s housing requirements[11]. The Panel considered that it would have minimal implications for costs to the Council, or the community, of meeting future residential land supply requirements[12].

5.16    Council’s economic expert advised that the proposal would result in significant retail distributional effects on The Palms, Shirley[13], being beyond the effects ordinarily associated with trade competition. Furthermore, the Panel found that The Palms has not recovered from the effects of the earthquakes and is in a vulnerable state of retail health. On this basis, staging of the development was proposed and the Panel determined that the staging proposed by Council’s economic expert will mitigate the adverse retail distribution effects of the proposal on The Palms, Shirley to a significant extent[14]. The Panel went further and considered supermarkets should be added to the store type exclusions over the first 10 years[15]. The Panel also determined that any development in excess of these limits as discussed should be a non-complying activity, consistent with Council’s planning evidence on this point.

5.17    Council’s evidence also raised concern about how the proposed rezoning would fit in the context of the urban form due to the proximity to The Palms, Shirley and how commercial development at the Homebase site would be consistent with the centres hierarchy of the District Plan. The Panel considered that the District Plan is silent on where or in what circumstances large format retail activities should or should not be positioned, including relative to other types of urban centres[16]. The Panel stated that they did not see the ‘strategic fit’ argument as having merit. The Panel considered that effects relating to the distribution of large format retail activities relate to economic effects and not to urban design effects[17].

5.18    Both Council’s urban design and landscape evidence recommended a more intensive building setback and landscape mitigation outcome along the road boundaries of QEII Drive and Marshland Road comparative to other rural urban boundaries in Christchurch. These recommendations included restrictions relating to building frontages and transparency along the road frontage, continuous building length limits and signage restrictions. The Panel accepted Council’s expert evidence on the need for increased setbacks and planting, but recommended that these setbacks are reduced in extent from the level proposed by Council[18]. The Panel did not accept the need to include additional rules sought by Council relating to transparent glazing, continuous building length and signage[19].

5.19    The Panel concluded that the 3m shared path recommended by Council urban design and landscape experts could be accommodated in the setback provided, but that it was Council’s responsibility to provide the infrastructure as it would benefit the broader transport network around the PC6 site and there was no resource management justification to attribute this infrastructure cost to the Applicant, which is limited to addressing the effects of the proposed change in zoning[20].

5.20    With regards to the boundary treatment for the western boundary of the site adjoining the Sanctuary Gardens subdivision, Council’s urban design expert proposed a reduced height of 11m relative to what was initially proposed of 15m, and a setback from the boundary of 11m. Council’s urban design expert also sought a restriction on building length. The Panel agreed with the proposed setback on the western boundary of 11m while proposing a height limit of 12m[21]. The Panel did not agree that there was a basis for requirements restricting building length[22].

5.21    Council’s transport expert supported access from the Sanctuary Gardens subdivision by requiring pedestrian and cycle access, but restricting vehicle access. The Panel found that prohibited activity status for vehicle access would not be justified but did recommend non-complying activity status for this activity[23]. Many submitters opposed access including pedestrian and cycle access[24], and the Applicant’s transport expert proposed that pedestrian and cycle access should be encouraged but not required[25]. The Panel agreed with Council’s transport expert that pedestrian and cycle access should be required and also included a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design provision to ensure that access will be provided in a safe manner[26].

5.22    Council’s urban design expert sought for a pedestrian and cycle access to be provided from the site to QEII Drive to reflect the historic Mairehau Development Plan. The Panel considered that this was not necessary as access would be required to Marshland Road[27].

5.23    Council’s ecological expert noted that although commercial land use would result in a greater occurrence of flashier flows in the waterways and an increase in the concentrations of stormwater contaminants, these effects could be mitigated through appropriate stormwater management. The Panel concluded that they were satisfied those consenting processes would enable appropriate consideration of ecological effects (as well as effects on neighbouring properties where relevant)[28]. Council’s ecological expert also sought that the references to the Mairehau Development Plan were retained due to the ecological enhancement of waterways and landscaped areas provided in the Plan to protect and improve biodiversity in the area and downstream. The Panel found that the provision in the Mairehau Development Plan would not achieve the biodiversity protection sought by Council’s ecology expert, and have preferred to include specific requirements for building setbacks and landscape planning[29]

5.24    With regards to Water Supply and Wastewater infrastructure, geotechnical engineering and land contamination, both the Council experts and the Applicant experts were aligned in their opinions and the Panel accepted these positions without change.

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: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 9.5.4 Process private plan change requests. - 100% of any proposed private plan changes comply with statutory processes and timeframes

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act and is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies to enable public participation and engagement.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decision involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, having regard to waterways within and near the site. The decision therefore impacts on Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       Mana Whenua were advised of the private plan change request directly by the Applicant prior to lodgement and did not make a submission on the plan change.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       Objective 8 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Objective 8 requires that New Zealand’s urban environments support reductions in greenhouse gases; and are resilient to the current and future effects of climate change. Notwithstanding this, the Panel concluded that there is nothing directive as to the appropriateness of one alternative zoning or the other.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The rezoning of the land for commercial activities supports access to employment and services by walking, cycling and private vehicle, with provision made for access to the adjoining residential area. 

6.7       Access for mobility impaired will be considered through the consenting process including requirement for mobility parking.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Adopting the proposed plan change will not result in additional costs to Council beyond what has been budgeted for.

7.2       The costs of staff time on Proposed Plan Change 6 has been charged to the applicant consistent with Council’s fees and charges policy.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Section 73(2) of the Resource Management Act enables any person to request a change to the District Plan and sections 74 and 75 prescribe the matters that Council is to consider in changes to the District Plan. The Panel’s report has applied the appropriate considerations under the RMA.

8.2       The Resource Management Act requires the Council to make a decision on the Panel’s recommendation on this private plan change request. The plan change proponent and submitters have the right to appeal to the Environment Court on the Council’s decision on proposed plan change 6.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3       The process requirements if the Council wishes there to be a reconsideration of any part of the Panel’s recommendations are set out in paragraph 4.3 above.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is a risk that the applicant and/or submitters consider that there is insufficient evidence and/or inadequate consideration has been to issues raised during the process. This has been mitigated by the appointment of independent commissioners to objectively assess the merits of the request and to hear evidence and submissions. There also remains the opportunity for those parties to appeal the decision to the Environment Court for further testing.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 Panel's report

247

b

Attachment 2 Plan Change 6 as recommended by Panel

343

c

Attachment 3 Panel's recommendations on submissions

353

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Emily Allan - Senior Policy Planner

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

09 June 2022

 

































































































Council

09 June 2022

 











Council

09 June 2022

 













Council

09 June 2022

 

 

15.   210 Armagh Street - Proposed Lease over Rauora Park

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/558431

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Luke Rees-Thomas, Property Consultant, luke.ReesThomas@ccc.govt.nz
Russel Wedge Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory, russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Council to enter into a new ground lease agreement with Armagh Wells Limited (AWL), owners of the former MED building at 210 Armagh Street. The lease will cover an area which already includes an existing easement in favour of AWL. An extra 43.5m2 (approximately) of Rauora Park is requested to enable one additional car park space (Refer Attachment A for plan).

1.2       This report has been written in response to a request from AWL to formalise a lease of the space. A lease arrangement will enable part of the existing easement to be fenced and increase safety for the public when the adjacent basketball court is in use.

1.3       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the impact of the new ground lease on local residents, the safety of users within the recreational space and the extent of the existing easement.

1.4       A public consultation process was advertised with no submissions being received.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approve the granting of a ground lease to Armagh Wells Limited, 210 Armagh Street, over a 277m2 area of Rauora Park, for a period of up to 15 years total, on terms consistent with this report.

2.         Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude all documentation as required to implement the proposed lease.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The granting of a ground lease over part of the existing easement area will maintain access to the MED building car parks. A new see-through fence will also provide a barrier to safeguard the public, especially young children, from running in front of vehicles that are using the easement area to access their car parking spaces.

3.2       The existing right of way easement behind the MED building to their car parks cannot be fenced off under the conditions of the existing easement. A lease will provide exclusive use of the area, enabling AWL to erect a fence along the boundary for the safety of both the public who use the play area in Rauora Park and tenants of the MED building.

3.3       To allow enough parking space for the MED tenant vehicles, AWL have requested an additional 43.5m2 of land to be included in the lease. This area of park is not being used for recreation and will not affect public access.

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Status Quo – Do not grant the new ground lease to AWL – not recommended

4.1.1   Advantage – the public could continue to walk and play over all of the existing easement area behind the MED building.

4.1.2   Disadvantage – public safety, especially young children, could be at risk when vehicles from the MED building drive across the easement to their parking area (on MED land).

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1       Armagh Wells Limited (AWL) own the MED building located at 210 Armagh St. The building is a listed heritage asset within the District Plan.

5.2       AWL hold a right of way easement from Huanui Lane to their parking area behind the MED building (refer Attachment A, area shaded purple). Huanui Lane is a legal road that joins Armagh Street and runs south in front of Rauora Park to Gloucester Street.

5.3       The existing easement is over the northern end of Rauora Park and borders the edge of the half-court basketball play area. The easement was established while the land was managed by Ōtākaro before being handed over to the Council.

5.4       AWL want to secure their vehicle parking area behind the MED building, which is being fitted-out for new tenants. This includes AWL building a solid wall around the vehicle parking area for security of the vehicles. To fit all of the tenant’s vehicles in the secure area, AWL have requested an additional area of approximately 43.5m2 be leased, adjoining their easement area, on land that is managed as Rauora Park. This area of Rauora Park is not being used for public access nor recreational activities.

Proposed Lease area in purple and yellow (purple existing easement & yellow Rauora Park). Pink area land owned by MED property.

5.5       To increase the safety of the public when using the half-court, staff suggested a see-through fence be erected along the boundary of the easement next to the half-court and play area. The fence would separate the vehicle movements from the recreational users of Rauora Park, ensuring a safe environment is provided for the public. Staff were concerned with the safety of young children playing on the easement and the adjoining basketball court when there were vehicles travelling along the easement. Refer Attachment B for imagery of the proposed improvements. The fence cannot be erected under the conditions of the existing easement but would be permissible if the area was leased. A lease scenario would allow AWL to control the space on an exclusive basis. This is preferred in order to ensure cars are separated from Rauora Park users.

5.6       Lease terms have been agreed with AWL, as follows:

§  15 years total duration (including renewal options)

§  A commercial land rental shall be paid on the space additional to the existing easement area. This rental shall be reviewed annually accounting for CPI increases

§  A nominal rental will be paid for the area which is already covered by an easement. This accounts for AWL to finance installation of the new fences, which shall benefit both parties. Council staff also view this subsidy in relation to its support of heritage building activation within the CBD

§  The Lessee will facilitate and finance all maintenance on the leased area during the term, including the boundary fences

§  The leased land shall only be used for access to and from the car parking area, as shown on Attachment A

§  Council staff will approve the final design and materials for the new fence before construction

5.7       Typically leases of Council land require staff to publically tender the opportunity. However, in this instance the proposal was unsolicited and is unique to the location. The land could not be leased to any other party for this purpose, nor is the land desirable for any other application, given the existing Right of Way easement in favour of AWL.

5.8       Staff are satisfied that necessary process has been completed and are now in a position to recommend the lease be granted.

Community views and preferences

5.9       The land in question is defined ‘park’ under Section 138 of the Local Government Act. A ‘park’ being:

(a) land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes; but

(b) does not include land that is held as a reserve, or part of a reserve, under the Reserves Act 1977.

5.10    The Council must consult when considering the disposal of a ‘park’, a disposal includes a lease of over 6 months in duration, which applies in this situation.

5.11    A public notice was placed in the Christchurch Press newspaper advising of the proposed lease and inviting any comments or suggestions to be submitted from Saturday 2 April until Friday 29 April 2022. The same advert was publicised on the Council’s webpage. No submissions, comments or suggestions were received at the time of closing.

5.12    The public notice was in compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 Sections 78 and 138, where staff are required to notify the public of the proposal to grant a new ground lease to AWL for a period up to 15 years. Rauora Park is not subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

5.13    A staff Memo dated 31 March 2022 was sent to elected members including the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board advising of the public notification of the proposed lease at 210 Armagh Street from Saturday 2 April until Friday 29 April 2022.

5.14    The decision affects the following Community Board areas:

5.14.1 Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Resilient Communities – Vibrant and thriving city centre

6.1.1   A community with growing, liveable central city neighbourhoods

6.2       Prosperous Economy – Great place for people, business and investment

6.2.1   Local businesses build the economic, social and environmental competitiveness of our city, delivering quality jobs and careers.

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

6.3.1   Activity: Parks and Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.10.1 Appropriate use and occupation of parks is facilitated - Formal approval process initiated within ten working days of receiving complete application – 95%

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5       Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited were not contacted as the proposed land to be leased already holds an easement, which was installed by Ōtākaro, who would have considered any intrinsic values to mana whenua before registration. The Council’s Treaty Relationships Team has been advised of the proposed lease.

6.6       The land in question is not noted as a cultural site of cultural significance to Tangata Whenua. The proposed transaction does not include any environmentally contentious issues.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7       There is no impact on climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       Accessibility around the existing easement will be maintained.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The lease agreement will be covered by the Parks Unit Operational budget.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The on-going maintenance will be covered by the AWL the lessee.

7.3       Funding Source – AWL have agreed to fund the boundary fence, no further funding is required.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council holds delegation to approve leases over ‘park’ land located within the CBD.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The legal considerations relate to the requirement of staff to consult with the public under Section 138 of the Local Government Act and the leasing documentation required to enter into an agreement with AWL.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Staff will need to ensure the proposed improvements are developed as indicated in the attached plans. The lease agreement will annex these plans and provide ability for the Council to enforce consistency.

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Lease Area

371

b

MED Building Concept Plan & Interface to Rauora Park

372

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

MED Building Heritage Assessment

District Plan Link

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

09 June 2022

 


Council

09 June 2022

 


Council

09 June 2022

 

 

16.   Halswell Junction Road Extension project - Request for additional funds

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/377998

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Sandra Novais, Project Manager – Transport, Sandra.novais@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 advise the Council of the increased forecast costs to implement the Halswell Junction Road Extension project. 

1.2       This report has been written following receipt of updated costs estimates from both KiwiRail and Council indicating a significant budget shortfall to complete the project.

1.3       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

1.4       The level of significance was determined by using the Significance Assessment Worksheet and has been classified as Medium as the new road provides a strategic link in the freight transport network, and also due to the significance of the cost increases and risk of further increase in the rail infrastructure works. In addition, there is strong community support for the project.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the inclusion of additional capital funds of $5,500,000 in FY24, to allow completion of the Halswell Junction Road Extension project, as part of the FY23 Annual Plan process.

2.         Request staff to initiate Governance level talks between the Council and KiwiRail with a view to finding solutions to address programme and cost escalation concerns.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       This project creates a new link road from Halswell Junction Road at Foremans Road to Waterloo Road providing a significant improvement for the local freight network connecting through to Pound Road.  The new link road includes a proposed level crossing and new traffic signals over existing KiwiRail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure includes four existing tracks and sidings.

3.2       The first stage of the project has been completed in conjunction with a section of the Major Cycleway Route (MCR) South Express.  A section of Waterloo Road north of the new proposed level crossing including the intersection, and along Waterloo Road to the existing level crossing at the intersection of Halswell Junction Road and Waterloo Road, has been completed and provides a connection in the MCR.  Work started in August 2021 and was completed in February 2022.

3.3       Stage 2 of the project delivers the majority of the works, being construction of the new link road and associated connections back into the existing network, and the removal of the existing Halswell Junction Road rail crossing with a road closure at that location. The detailed design for the Council’s road works for Stage 2 is completed and ready for tender and has been on hold waiting updates on cost estimates from KiwiRail.

3.4       There is significant integration with KiwiRail infrastructure required for the installation for the new road.  Due to the location of the new road, KiwiRail sidings and track are having to be relocated and will be done as part of the project cost.

3.5       Significant delays have been experienced due to the KiwiRail component for some time now.  A shortage of experienced staff at KiwiRail has increased the delays to the project.  COVID has exacerbated this and in major weather events KiwiRail staff are redirected onto their core business of getting their lines up and running.  In order to get design work completed international resources have had to be engaged via KiwiRail.

3.6       KiwiRail has begun some of the work required for the track relocations and works completed to date are:

3.6.1   Investigations required for detailed design and resource consent application;

3.6.2   Design for tracks and civil works and partial design for signals;

3.6.3   Purchase of track and signalling materials;

3.6.4   The existing Islington Siding has been removed.

3.7       KiwiRail has recently updated their cost estimates and advised that the total cost of their works is estimated to be $11,105,277.  This exceeds the previous estimate of $6,899,427, thus an increase of $4,205,850 (the revised figure includes 10% contingency). This is further explained in Section 5 of this report.

3.8       It is important to note that Council has a remaining commitment of approximately $2,000,000 to KiwiRail to complete works already started on relocation of the Islington Siding that conflicted with the new link road.

3.9       There are still risks associated with both time and costs for the KiwiRail component, as per below: 

3.9.1   Time: KiwiRail’s current programme is dependent on a number of things including confirmation of Council funding, KiwiRail resourcing, supply of materials which may be impacted by international shipping delays, and their ability to shut down the lines to carry out works which has seasonal dependencies.

3.9.2   Cost: Risk remains due to uncompleted design and future materials purchases. These are impacted by resource supply and COVID impacts including international supply chains.

3.10    There have been increased costs estimated for the Council’s roading component of the project of approximately $1,300,000.  This increase in costs is due to detailed design site investigations identifying an increase in contaminated land, confirmation of utility works required, and updating the estimate based on recent contract rates. A contingency of 30% has been included in the total cost estimation to reflect the current market and uncertainty.

3.11    The project is at a stage where it cannot proceed further without additional budget of $5,500,000 being allocated.   If additional funding is allocated, the Council’s component can then be tendered and KiwiRail can continue with their part of the works.

3.12    Options for additional funding have been considered however it has not been able to be sourced from within the wider Transport Capital Programme.

3.13    It is therefore requested that Council consider allocating additional funding via the Annual Plan.

3.14    There is strong support for this project to proceed from both the business community and the Community Board.  As well as the improvements to the freight network, the project will provide significant amenity and safety improvements for all road users and will remove large vehicles from the existing section of Halswell Junction Road between Foremans Road and Waterloo Road.

3.15    If funding is approved, it is anticipated that construction could be completed by June 2023.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Option 1 (Preferred) -  Additional funding provided via Annual Plan

4.1.1   This option would allow the project to continue thus meeting strategic objectives of providing this significant link in the Hornby freight network.

4.1.2   The project provides improvements for all road users including cyclists and pedestrians.

4.1.3   The project improves the amenity of residential section of Halswell Junction Road between Foremans Road and Waterloo Road, where heavy vehicles currently have to travel.

4.1.4   This option removes the existing rail crossing and complex intersection at Halswell Junction Road and Waterloo Road, replacing it with a safer link created by the new road.

4.2       Option 2 – Substitute funding from another LTP Transport project

4.2.1   This option is not supported as it requires prioritising either renewals or various improvement projects against a strategic network project all of which are deemed necessary to meet future Council objectives.

4.3       Option 3 – Alternative design to new link road

4.3.1   An alternative design option to the new link road was investigated during the scheme development phase and was not supported as previously reported to the Community Board and Council and resolved as per resolution CNCL/2018/00026 (https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/03/CNCL_20180301_MIN_2282_AT_WEB.htm).

4.3.2   This option was not supported as it does not provide significant improvement on the connectivity to Waterloo Business Park and the Hornby Freight Hub, nor realises the improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, and residential amenity that the new link road provides.

4.4       Option 4 – Place project on hold

4.4.1   This option is not supported as it delays providing significant improvement on the connectivity to Waterloo Business Park and the Hornby Freight Hub, nor does it realise the improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, and residential amenity that the new link road provides.  The benefits of this project have been sought by the community for some time with delays to date having already been a source of frustration.

4.4.2   This option would require changes to the MCR South Express design on Waterloo Road where it travels past the rail crossing that is proposed to be removed with the adjoining street cul–de-sac.

4.4.3   Depending on the length of the delay in delivery if the project is placed on hold, if significant, a large portion of the costs to date may have to be written off.

4.5       Option 5 – Cancel Project

4.5.1   This option is not supported as it does not provide any improvement on the connectivity to Waterloo Business Park and the Hornby Freight Hub, nor realises the improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, and residential amenity that the new link road provides.

4.5.2   This option would require changes to the MCR South Express design on Waterloo Road where it travels past the rail crossing that is proposed to be removed with the adjoining street cul–de-saced.

4.5.3   If the project is cancelled, a large portion of the costs to date may have to be written off.

 

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       This project was consulted on with the community in 2017 and at that time it was envisaged that construction would be completed by 2019.

5.2       Due to complexities of the interface with KiwiRail infrastructure, their issues due to resourcing and COVID this project delivery has been delayed.

5.3       This project was strongly supported by the Community Board and Waterloo Business Park as it provides a significant improvement in freight connectivity to the Business Park and the Hornby Freight Hub.

5.4       The project also received strong support from the local community.

5.5       There is no NZTA funding for this project.

5.6       The project spend to date is approximately $7,200,000 and includes property purchase, design, KiwiRail costs to date, and construction of the first stage of the works.

5.7       In 2019 the estimated total cost of the KiwiRail component of the works was $6,899,427 including 20% contingency.  This has escalated to a now estimated $11,105,277. Thus an increase in forecast cost of $4,205,850.

5.8       The increase in the KiwiRail costs is in part due to the following:

5.8.1   Detailed site investigations have required construction formation depths to be increased.

5.8.2   Additional subsoil drainage required.

5.8.3   The need to dispose of contaminated material to Hororata and Kate Valley has increased costs.  Previously this was to go to Green Island which is no longer an option.

5.8.4   A shortage of skilled resource has required the rail signalling design to be outsourced internationally.

5.8.5   Material price increases.

5.8.6   Complexity of the rail signal design has significantly exceeded the initial signalling estimates.

5.9       The forecast cost of the roading component of the project has increased by $1,000,000 (excluding contingency).  This is attributed to the following:

5.9.1   $500,000 is attributed to the revision of the design cost estimate using the rates from recent tendered projects.

5.9.2   $500,000 is due to the extra costs identified after completion of review of design documents, recent investigations and agreements with third parties. These costs couldn’t be identified earlier as they were caused by recent installations, investigation and change in requirements from utilities providers.

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

5.10.1 Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The decision relates to approval of additional funding to extend Halswell Junction Road from Foremans Rd to Waterloo Rd with a new proposed level crossing. This will provide a more direct link between Halswell Junction Road and Pound Road improving the Hornby Freight Hub route.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Transport

·     Level of Service: 16.0.3 Improve resident satisfaction with road condition - ≥25% resident satisfaction

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.4       This project is a Network Improvement to support CTSP (Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan). Provide a direct route for freight to Hornby Business Hub.

6.5       This project is the link to the northern section of Halswell Junction Road from Waterloo Road to Pound Road which has been constructed by the Waterloo Business Park with contribution from the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6       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

6.7       The funding is required to complete a new link road including a level crossing and aligns with promoting active travel through a more direct network with better cycle, public transport and pedestrian facilities contributing to reduced carbon emissions.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       The new link road will give a more direct network for the freight industry and will give better and safer facilities for cyclist and pedestrians. It will also deliver a safer new level crossing with the closure of the current/existing level crossing.  A new footpath will be provided on the east side of Halwell Junction Road between Main South Road and Foremans Road.

6.9       The current/existing level crossing represents a safety risk to the network scoring low in the ALCAM (Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model).

 

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement - $18,028,847 total estimated costs, including $5,500,000 on top of current approved budget.  The additional capital budget results in an extra 0.06% on the projected rates increases over 2 years from 2023/24.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs –The costs of the new link road will be covered by the Transport maintenance budgets.  If the project is delayed then the Transport maintenance budgets will be used to maintain the existing road network.

7.3       Funding Sources – The current capital budget is included in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan on Project #924 Halswell Junction Road Extension.  Operating budgets are included in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan under the Transport Activity. The additional funding has been recommended into the final 2022/23 Annual Plan process as recommended.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council has authority to approve the additional funds.  

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       Council entered into a legal agreement with KiwiRail regarding relocation of the siding. This work has started and requires approximately $2,000,000 still to be spent to complete the works.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       If the project does not proceed or is put on hold, significant dissatisfaction is anticipated from community stakeholders including Waterloo Business Park.

9.2       The tender of the Council’s civil works for Stage 2 cannot be advertised until there is certainty of sufficient funding to complete the entire project. 

9.3       KiwiRail tender for the track and civil works cannot be awarded until the requested additional funding is approved.

9.4       There remains a risk of cost escalation for the KiwiRail component of the works for any components that are still based on design estimates.  This risk has not been able to be mitigated to date.

9.5       For both the roading and KiwiRail components of the work there remains a risk of cost escalation.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell Junction Road Extension - Scheme Plan approved

380

 

 

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

Sandra Novais - Project Manager

Approved By

Sharon O'Neill - Manager Planning & Delivery Team

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Council

09 June 2022

 






Council

09 June 2022

 

 

17.   Residents Survey Results 2021 - 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/636140

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Peter Ryan, Head of Performance Management, peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz;
Kath Jamieson, Team Leader Monitoring and Research, kath.jamieson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive
lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform Council of high level results from the Residents Survey 2021/22 prepared by the Monitoring and Research Team and the proposed response plan.

1.2       The Residents Survey programme has been running since 1991. It is a central component of the Council’s wider service Performance Framework and is made up of two parts. The General Service Satisfaction Survey seeks feedback on services used by the majority of residents (such as roads and water supply). The Point of Contact surveys seek feedback on specific services that not everybody in the community might use – so it obtains that feedback directly from users (such as libraries, or consents).

1.3       The General Service Satisfaction Survey was carried out in January and February 2022 and the Point of Contact surveys were carried out at various point in the 2021-2022 financial year.  Participation levels were high as both surveys concluded before community spread of Covid occurred in Christchurch.  

1.4       Both surveys have been run for many years and provide extensive information on trends over time. They are among the largest and most rigorous surveys run in Christchurch.

1.5       The surveys also provide robust data to measure achievement of Long Term Plan (LTP) levels of service targets. Here they are provided in summary form, showing results against levels of service and trends over time.

1.6       Heads of Service have been provided with the data for reporting on level of service results.

1.7       Feedback from the community is critical to the development of responsive plans and budgets, as well as better service delivery.

1.8       Detailed reports are attached in summary form. Overall satisfaction with the services CCC provides (over 2021/22) has declined slightly at 42% (49% last year).

1.9       Respondents were asked why they were satisfied, neutral or dissatisfied with overall Council service performance and some gave a mix of both positive and negative reasons for their answers.

1.10    Of those who said they were dissatisfied with Council performance, 9% were dissatisfied with roads and road maintenance and 8% disapprove of council spending. Rates increases were mentioned in 6% of comments overall.

1.11    Respondents were asked which one area the Council performed best in over the last year and which one area required the most improvement. The top 5 performers (in order) were waste management (28%), parks and reserves (15%), libraries (13%), recreation and sport centres (8%), and information and communication and water supply (5% each).

1.12    Areas needing most improvement are roading (25%), water supply (11%), Council decision making / financial management (9%), waste management and information and communication (7% each).

1.13    The Executive Leadership Team is strongly committed to addressing these survey results. Each Head of Service has prepared a response, which includes analysis of underlying drivers behind the feedback as well as advice on how CCC must respond.

1.14    This is the first time this kind of detailed response has been prepared. All of this advice is being provided to councillors and will be actioned via direction from the relevant General Managers.

1.15    The results (and Heads of Service responses) will be useful in informing the Annual Plan.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the surveys as well as the Heads of Service advice on next steps and remedial actions.

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

General Service Satisfaction Survey Results Table Summary 2022

388

b

General Service Satisfaction Survey Report 2022

390

c

Residents Survey Programme 2021-2022 Snapshot Summary

562

d

Point of Contact Surveys Report 2021-2022

563

e

Point of Contact Results Table Summary 2021-2022

630

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Aimee Martin - Research Analyst

Kath Jamieson - Team Leader Monitoring and Research

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Council

09 June 2022

 



Council

09 June 2022

 













































































































































































Council

09 June 2022

 


Council

09 June 2022

 




































































Council

09 June 2022

 




Council

09 June 2022

 

 

18.   Electricity Procurement

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/703561

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Steven Nichols, Energy Analyst, steven.nichols@ccc.govt.nz
Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities, Property and Planning, bruce.rendall@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to enter into a contract with Meridian Energy Limited for the provision of electricity to the Council’s facilities supplied by Time of Use (TOU), Non Half Hour (NHH) and Unmetered (UNM) connections.

1.2       Distributed Unmetered loads (DUML) for street lighting are covered under a smaller electricity contract which has been approved under existing delegations.

1.3       This report has been written in response to the results of MBIE’s All-of-Government secondary procurement process for the Council’s electricity contracts.

1.4       Council’s current electricity contract expires on 20 September 2022. The new pricing from Meridian Energy starts 1 October 2022 for a period of 36 months.

1.5       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by assessing the relevant policy criteria.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Award the MBIE All-of-Government (AoG) electricity agreements to: Meridian Energy Limited for Time of Use (ToU), Non-Half Hourly (NHH) and Unmetered (UNM) connections of electricity to the Council’s facilities for a term of 36 months and a predicted value of $36.7 million excluding line charges (based on the Council’s projected demand profile).

2.         Authorise the General Manager Resources to sign agreements with Meridian Energy Limited for the supply of electricity to new Council facilities as they open under the terms and conditions similar to the above.

3.         Authorise the General Manager Resources to undertake contract variations and renewals for regular business activity, within the terms and conditions of the electricity agreements.

4.         Note the financial impact on the financial year (2022/23) is in line with previous estimates and budgets.

 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The pricing offered by Meridian Energy for TOU, NHH and UNM installation control points (ICPs) presents the lowest cost to the Council over a 36 month term compared to offers from all MBIE panel members who submitted pricing.

3.2       As part of continued investigations into future electricity supply options, staff have considered 18 and 36 month terms. Given the current volatility in electricity pricing on the wholesale market, an 18 month contract term posed a large cost impact compared to a 36 month contract term, regardless of supplier.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Alternative options considered were:

4.1.1   A “financial” approach, which would involve the Council purchasing electricity on the wholesale spot market whilst securing contract for difference hedges to mitigate spot pricing volatility. The advantages of this option included the historical price advantage of hedge contracts over fixed price contracts (usually 7% on average), however in recent years, this price advantage has been significantly reduced. This approach is more complex and would require both internal and external resource and expertise to make regular decisions regarding which hedge to purchase and when. External consultants would provide advice on hedging purchases and conduct RFPs for hedge contracts on behalf of Council.

4.1.2   A “financial” approach with renewable power purchase agreements.  The advantages of this option include the ability to purchase and accommodate renewable power purchase agreements alongside hedge contracts. However, the disadvantages included significant monthly volatility in pricing, particularly when larger renewable power purchase agreements are added. The success of this approach would require the power purchase agreement have a very competitive price in order to achieve better value for money over fixed price contracts.

4.1.3   A hybrid option where Council enters into an agreement with a retailer which allows a customer to purchase electricity on mostly fixed prices which a predetermined level of spot pricing (e.g. 30%). Council could then enter into renewable power purchase agreements with generators and nominate the level of spot pricing to match the output of the renewable generator. The advantages of this option include the ability to mitigate the exposure to spot pricing. However, the disadvantage of this option are that the level of spot pricing can only be set once per month which would not be frequent enough to change with the output of the renewable generator to avoid significant volatility in monthly electricity costs.

4.2       Following the 24 March 2022 Finance and Performance Committee approval of the electricity procurement plan, staff have, and are continuing to, investigate both opportunities with Kōwhai Park and with rooftop solar power purchase agreements (PPAs). Kōwhai Park is on track to be operational by Q3 2024 (calendar year) and rooftop solar PPAs are currently going through Council’s procurement process.

4.3       Rooftop solar PPAs are able to be pursued concurrently with retail electricity contracts, and can be deployed at any time with no penalty from the retailer.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Council is a significant consumer of electricity in Christchurch with an approximate annual total consumption of over 83 GWh (Gigawatt hours) across street lighting, time-of-use and non-half-hourly metering types. This usage profile has shifted from 69GWh in 2017, to 100GWh in 2019, and back to the current figures.  The reasons for the decrease are related to permanent changes associated with the street light LED roll out and temporary change associated with Covid 19 shutdowns.

5.2       The Existing electricity supply arrangements via the MBIE All-of-Government (AoG) electricity agreement will expire on the 30 September 2022.

5.3       Council need to have new electricity contracts in place before the expiry date or risk being subject to spot pricing in a highly volatile market.

5.4       In March 2022, the Finance and Performance Committee approved a procurement plan for electricity.  The procurement has been undertaken consistent with this plan.

5.5       The new offered pricing represents a unit rate increase, however, this was predicted based on market forecast, and sufficient funding has been included in budgets.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Electricity is essential to providing the required services to the Council and the community.

6.2       Council has set itself a target of becoming net carbon neutral by 2030.

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

6.3.1   Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.29.2 We provide advice and projects that reduce the energy used in Council facilities - At least 3.3% reduction year on year greenhouse gas emissions, excluding methane (Based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target for Christchurch, Option 1)

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

 

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       Electricity related greenhouse gas emissions represent a significant portion of Council’s overall emissions profile. Staff have considered this as one of the stated strategic objectives for electricity procurement. This objective is to reduce the emissions factor from the electricity that council purchases and to show climate leadership. Emissions factor is calculated as the mass of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted whenever a unit (kWh) of electricity is generated, either from the grid as an average or from a specific generation source (e.g. solar PV).

6.7       Currently electricity supplying Council facilities is sourced from the grid and, for the purposes of Council’s greenhouse gas inventory, the associated greenhouse gas emissions are calculated using the grid average emissions factor published by the Ministry for the Environment. Despite the fact that the majority of electricity supply in the South Island is from hydro and wind generation, the only accepted emissions factor used for greenhouse gas inventories is the national grid average emissions factor which includes the fossil fuelled generators in the North Island.

6.8       In order to reduce the emissions intensity for electricity purchases, electricity purchases either need to be offset using renewable energy certificates or carbon credits, or directly sourced from generation that has a lower emissions factor than the grid average emissions factor.

6.9       Electricity sourced from behind the meter solar PV generation would achieve this through sourcing a portion of the electricity from a solar array attached to a rooftop (for example) that would otherwise purchase from the grid.

6.10    While behind the meter solar PV will reduce Council’s greenhouse gas emissions, there is a practical limit to the amount of solar PV panels that can be deployed on Council facilities. Staff have therefore also considered power purchase agreements with renewable energy generators. While the electricity generated from these sources is considered low carbon, the electricity delivered to council would still use the grid average emissions factor. However, this can potentially be mitigated through the purchase of renewable energy certificates, however these need to be certified for the purposed of calculating Council’s greenhouse gas inventory.

6.11    There is also consideration that, while a renewable PPA may not affect the emissions intensity of the electricity supplied to Council facilities, it would contribute to increasing the availability of low carbon electricity for the wider Christchurch community, as this power would be available in the electrical grid, incrementally reducing the grid average electricity factor by avoiding greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise be emitted by generators elsewhere.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.12    Not applicable as the procurement process to purchase electricity does not affect accessibility.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – There are no additional costs required to implement this decision

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs - $36.7 million

Y1

Y2

Y3

Total*

Meridian

$10,684,728

$12,987,237

$12,987,237

$36,659,202

*Note this analysis does not include lines charges

 

7.3       Funding Source – Electricity costs are budgeted across activities.  The budgets are sufficient to include all costs (i.e. electricity charges and lines costs)

Other / He mea anō

7.4       NA

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       Council has the authority to purchase electricity.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The commercial and contractual framework to be used is the same as the current arrangements.

8.3       This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       When the Finance and Performance Committee approves the procurement plan, staff identified that the main risks were financial. Due to market conditions at this time, staff predicted that there is likely to be an increase in electricity prices.

9.2       The risk prediction was based on publically available market prediction.

9.3       By entering into electricity contracts with suppliers, the Council is exercising risk management through avoiding exposure to the wholesale spot electricity market.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Steven Nichols - Energy Analyst

Paul Bakker - Procurement & Contracts Category Lead

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

  


Council

09 June 2022

 

 

19.   Mayor's Monthly Report - May 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/634369

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

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

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

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

2.   Mayors Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this Report.

2.         Approves the travel of the Mayor and Councillor Galloway to Adelaide to lead the Christchurch - Adelaide sister city 50th anniversary commemorations, recommitment, and engagements to further the objectives of the International Relations Policy.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Monthly report May 2022

640

b

Adelaide Sister City 50th Anniversary travel

642

 

 


Council

09 June 2022

 



Council

09 June 2022

 

 


Council

09 June 2022

 

 

20.   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

09 June 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

21.

Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 6 May 2022

 

 

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

 

 

 



[1] CRC214226: A comprehensive Resource Consent to Discharge Stormwater from within Christchurch City onto or into Land, into Water and into Coastal Environments.  The Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC) was granted in December 2019.  It is a resource consent granted under Environment Canterbury’s Land and Water Regional Plan, and enables the Council to discharge stormwater from its reticulated stormwater network to land and water.

[2] Section 146(1)(b) says that a territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for the purposes of managing, regulating against, or protecting from damage, misuse or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures or infrastructure associated with: water supply; wastewater, drainage and sanitation; and, land drainage. 

[3] See Attachment 1: Summary of submissions and advice for deliberations on the proposed replacement bylaws, which contains a summary of submissions, staff advice and drafted amendments for consideration by the Hearings Panel.

[4] Paragraph 353 of Panel’s report

[5] Paragraph 353 of Panel’s report

[6] Paragraph 355 of Panel’s report

[7] Paragraph 358 of Panel’s report

[8] Paragraph 360 of Panel’s report

[9] Paragraph 249 of Panel’s report

[10] Paragraph 253 of Panel’s report

[11] Paragraph 253 of Panel’s report

[12] Paragraph 253 of Panel’s report

[13] Paragraph 184 of Panel’s report

[14] Paragraph 236 of Panel’s report

[15] Paragraph 236 of Panel’s report

[16] Paragraph 258 of Panel’s report

[17] Paragraph 260 of Panel’s report

[18] Paragraph 269 of Panel’s report

[19] Paragraph 270 of Panel’s report

[20] Paragraph 273 of Panel’s report

[21] Paragraph 297 of Panel’s report

[22] Paragraph 295 of Panel’s report

[23] Paragraph 279 of Panel’s report

[24] Paragraph 280 of Panel’s report

[25] Paragraph 285 of Panel’s report

[26] Paragraphs 287 – 288 of Panel’s report

[27] Paragraph 313 of Panel’s report

[28] Paragraph 337 of Panel’s report

[29] Paragraph 339 of Panel’s report