Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 1 June 2022

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

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

 

 

27 May 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

 

Simone Gordon

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6527

simone.gordon@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 view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE committee of the Whole - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga

 

 

Chair

Councillor Templeton

Deputy Chair

Councillor Coker

Membership

The Mayor and All Councillors

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Delegations

The Council delegates to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee authority to oversee and make decisions on:

·             Enabling active citizenship, community engagement and participation

·             Implementing the Council’s climate change initiatives and strategies

·             Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·             Heritage

·             Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·             Overseeing the Council’s housing asset management including the lease to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust

·             Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·             Museums

·             Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·             Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm (for the avoidance of doubt the Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor).

·             Hagley Park, including the Hagley Park Reference Group

·             Community facilities and assets

·             Suburban Master Plans and other local community plans

·             Implementing public health initiatives

·             Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·             Civil defence including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·             Community events, programmes and activities

·             Community development and support, including grants and sponsorships

·             The Smart Cities Programme

·             Council’s consent under the terms of a Heritage Conservation Covenant

·             Council’s consent to the removal of a Heritage Conservation Covenant from a vacant section.

Bylaws

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to:

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

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

o      Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018

o      Brothels Bylaw 2013

o      Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

o      Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2016

o      Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

o      General Bylaw 2008

o      Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2018

o      Public Places Bylaw 2018

Submissions

·        The Council delegates to the Committee authority:

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

Community Funding

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to make decisions on the following funds (but not limited to), where the decision is not already delegated to staff:

·             Heritage Incentive Grant Applications

·             Extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants

·             Christchurch Heritage Festival Community Grants over $5,000

·             Applications to the Events and Festivals Fund

·             Applications to the Capital Endowment Fund

·             Applications to the Enliven Places Projects Fund

·             Applications to the Sustainability Fund

·             Applications to the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund [The Funding Committee will make recommendations on applications to this fund and report back to this Committee]

·             Applications to the Discretionary Response Fund

·             Applications to the Place Partnership Fund

·             Applications to the Community Organisation Loan Scheme

Limitations

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

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

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

·             The Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

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

·             the power to make a rate; or

·             the power to make a bylaw; or

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

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

·             the power to appoint a chief executive; or

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

·             the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

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

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

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

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

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B          Reports for Information

Part C          Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff Reports

C         7.        Draft submission on National Adaptation Plan....................... 17

B         8.        Community (Social) Housing Update Report 1 November 2021 to 30 April 2022....................................................................... 21

B         9.        Ōtautahi-Christchurch District Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker............................................................................... 29

C         10.     South Library Te Kete Wānanga o Wai Mōkihi - Earthquake Repair Options.................................................................... 31

C         11.     Sustainability Fund: Grant Allocation.................................. 189

B         12.     Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report - October 2021 - March 2022................................................................................. 197

C         13.     Events and Festivals Fund.................................................. 213

C         14.     Sub-delegation of Time Extensions for Heritage Grants........ 227  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

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

That the minutes of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 30 March 2022  be confirmed (refer page 8).

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

 

4.1

Cancer Society of New Zealand

Amanda Dodd (Deputy Manager Health Promotion) will speak on behalf of the Cancer Society New Zealand to update the Committee on the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan.

 

4.2

Foodbank Aotearoa New Zealand

Dr John Milligan (Chief Executive, Foodbank Aotearoa New Zealand) will discuss how the organisation uses their experience, resources, and relationships and through the food banking model, they address food security as well as mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

4.3

Hagley Film Project

Izzie Evans will present to the Committee her short documentary film ‘Hagley Inside Out’

Film link available here: https://vimeo.com/657606547

 

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

Unconfirmed

 

 

Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 30 March 2022

Time:                                    9.31am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Visual Link

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Simone Gordon

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6527

simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B          Reports for Information

Part C          Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga: Given by Councillor Galloway.    

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00006

That the apologies received from The Mayor for lateness be accepted.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Chen                                                                              Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

 

Councillor Templeton declared an interest in Officer Recommendation 2 in Item 11.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00007

That the minutes of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 be confirmed.

Councillor Scandrett/Deputy Mayor                                                                                    Carried

 

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

4.1

Sustainable Coastlines

Emma Hunter presented her MSc research on the "Quantification and Characterisation of Pre-Production Pellet Pollution in the Avon-Heathcote Estuary/Ihutai, Aotearoa-New Zealand" to raise awareness of this issue and encourage discussion around solutions. In addition, Emma introduced the work that she is doing with Sustainable Coastlines.

 

Attachments

a      4.1 Emma Hunter - Presentation  

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2

Historic Places Canterbury

Mark Gerrard spoke on behalf of Historic Places Trust Canterbury regarding the Council’s Heritage Strategy. Mr Gerrard gave feedback on the Trust’s concerns with the Council’s application of the strategy, especially in regards to adopting a whole life of carbon cycle when costing buildings and demolitions.

The Committee requested that Mr Gerrard be sent a copy of the report regarding the demolition of Centennial Hall.

 

Attachments

a      4.2 Mark Gerrard - Presentation  

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Te Tira Kāhikuhiku - December 2021, February 2022 and March 2022 Minutes

 

Committee Comment

1.        The Committee requested an update with a table of all leases and licences of Red Zone land currently held, when they expire, and what the proposal is going forward for renewal rollovers and how this fits in with Council policy. This applies to Council owned land and land that will soon be owned by Council.

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00008

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee receives the Minutes from Te Tira Kāhikuhiku meetings held on the follow dates

 

·    9 December 2021

·    22 February 2022

·    15 March 2022

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Coker                                                                                       Carried

 

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.00am during consideration of Item 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Christ's College FENZ Access Easement In Botanic Gardens

 

Committee Resolved Officer Recommendations accepted without change SACRC/2022/00009

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee, acting under the delegated authority of the Christchurch City Council:

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of a pedestrian Right of Way easement with restricted access for only Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) purposes, to Christ’s College Canterbury over that part of the Local Purpose (Botanic Garden) Reserve known as the Botanic Gardens (Part Reserve 25 in Record of Title 668229) shown as hashed blue area on the plan below at paragraph 5.5, subject to:

a.        The acknowledgement that a public notice is not required in this instance.

b.        A recommendation that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of an easement referred to in (1) above.

c.         All necessary statutory consents under, but not limited to, the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act being obtained by Christ’s College.

d.        Christ’s College meet their own and Council’s costs associated with the creation and execution of this easement.

2.         Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Chief Executive, to conclude negotiations with Christ’s College and to finalise the documentation required to implement the easement.

Councillor Mauger/Councillor Scandrett                                                                             Carried

 

 

8.   Community Facilities update report

 

Committee Comment

1.        In discussing the Representation Review and changes to the Community Board structure, the Committee requested a briefing outlining the plan for the transition of the spaces that are being used, staffing and transitioning various community groups across to new Community Boards.

 

Committee Resolved Officer Recommendation accepted without change SACRC/2022/00010

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Community Facilities update report.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Coker                                                                                 Carried

 

Attachments

a      Community Facilities Update  

 

9.   Heritage Incentive Grant Fund Applications

 

Committee Comment

1.        The Committee requested for officers to check if unused Council owned slate stones can be donated to heritage projects.

2.        The Committee resolved to defer Officer Recommendations 1-2 regarding St Michael and All Angels Church, to the Council meeting on 7 April 2022. This is to allow officers time to investigate additional funding avenues for the project.

3.        Officer Recommendations 3 – 6 were accepted without change.

 

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu  

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve a grant of up to $26,288 for conservation of the west Rose Window at St Michael and All Angels Church, 243 Durham Street South, Christchurch.

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

3.         Approve a grant of up to $87,500 for conservation, upgrade, repair and maintenance works to St Barnabas Church Hall located at 8 Tui Street, Fendalton, Christchurch.

4.         Note that payment of the St Barnabas Church Hall grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

5.         Re-approve the lapsed grant of up to $5,136 for conservation and maintenance works to the heritage building located at 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.

6.         Approve a grant of up to $5,692 for conservation and maintenance works to Kinsey Cottage and Darkroom, Ferrymead Heritage Park, Christchurch.

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00011

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Defer the following Officer Recommendations to the Council meeting on 7 April 2022:

Officer Recommendation 1: Approve a grant of up to $26,288 for conservation of the west Rose Window at St Michael and All Angels Church, 243 Durham Street South, Christchurch.

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

2.         Approve a grant of up to $87,500 for conservation, upgrade, repair and maintenance works to St Barnabas Church Hall located at 8 Tui Street, Fendalton, Christchurch.

3.         Note that payment of the St Barnabas Church Hall grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

4.         Re-approve the lapsed grant of up to $5,136 for conservation and maintenance works to the heritage building located at 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.

5.         Approve a grant of up to $5,692 for conservation and maintenance works to Kinsey Cottage and Darkroom, Ferrymead Heritage Park, Christchurch.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Davidson                                                                       Carried

 

The Mayor left the meeting at 11.11am during consideration of item 11.

The meeting adjourned from 11.11am and reconvened at 11.16am.

 

11. Community Applications to the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund

 

Committee Comment

1.        Councillor Galloway provided a brief update to the Committee on the Mayors Welfare Fund.

2.        Officer recommendations 1, 3 and 4 were considered together and were accepted by the Committee without change.

3.        An amendment for the funding for Woolston Brass (Officer Recommendation 2) was considered and voted on separately. The amendment resolved to increase Woolston Brass’ initial funding allocation from $200,000 to $270,000 from the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund.  The Committee then approved an additional funding allocation of $130,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund. (Refer to Resolutions 4 and 5)

 

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Makes a grant of $300,000 from the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund to The Society of St Vincent de Paul towards construction of the Pavitt Street Social Housing Project

a.        Payment will be released in one instalment of $300,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly and upon completion of the Pavitt Street Social Housing Project.

2.         Makes a grant of $200,000 from the 2021/2022 Capital Endowment Fund to Woolston Brass for Band Room.

a.        Payment will be released in one instalment of $200,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly, and upon completion of the Dampier Street rebuild.

3.         Makes a grant of $200,000 from the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund to North Avon BMX Club for the Bexley Reserve Pumptrack construction costs.

a.        Funding to be released as one instalment of $200,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.      Funding to be released as one instalment of $200,000 on receipt of evidence that the fundraising and appropriate consents are completed, approved by Unit Manager Community Support and Partnerships.   

4.         Makes a grant of $100,000 from the 2021/2022 Capital Endowment Fund to Canterbury Softball for upgrading the softball diamonds to artificial surfaces.

a.        Funding to be released in one instalment of $100,000 conditional on Community Board approval for the upgrade and on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly, and upon completion of the instalment of surfaces.

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00012

Part C

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Makes a grant of $300,000 from the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund to The Society of St Vincent de Paul towards construction of the Pavitt Street Social Housing Project

a.        Payment will be released in one instalment of $300,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly and upon completion of the Pavitt Street Social Housing Project.

2.         Makes a grant of $200,000 from the 2021/22 Capital Endowment Fund to North Avon BMX Club for the Bexley Reserve Pumptrack construction costs.

a.        Funding to be released as one instalment of $200,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.           Funding to be released as one instalment of $200,000 on receipt of evidence that  the fundraising and appropriate consents are completed, approved by Unit Manager Community Support and Partnerships.   

3.         Makes a grant of $100,000 from the 2021/2022 Capital Endowment Fund to Canterbury Softball for upgrading the softball diamonds to artificial surfaces.

a.        Funding to be released in one instalment of $100,000 conditional on Community Board approval for the upgrade and on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2023, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly, and upon completion of the instalment of surfaces.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Coker                                                                                 Carried

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00013

Amendment Moved by Councillor Johanson and Seconded by Councillor Cotter

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1. 

2. 

3. 

4.        Makes a grant of $270,000 from the 2021/2022 Capital Endowment Fund to Woolston Brass for Band Room.

The division was declared carried by 13 votes to 2 votes the voting being as follows:

For:                         Councillor Coker, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Chen, Councillor Chu, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Davidson, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor Mauger, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett

Against:                Councillor Gough and Councillor MacDonald

Abstained:            Councillor Templeton

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Cotter                                                                               Carried

 

Committee Resolved SACRC/2022/00014

Amendment Moved by Councillor Johanson and Seconded by Councillor Cotter

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

5.        Makes a grant of $130,000 from 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to Woolston Brass for Band Room.

a.        Payment will be released in two instalments of $270,000 and $130,000 on receipt of evidence that satisfactory fundraising has been achieved to make the project viable no later than 30 June 2024, approved by the Head of Community Support & Partnerships Unit.

b.        Reporting is to be submitted 12 monthly, and upon completion of the Dampier     Street rebuild.

The division was declared carried by 13 votes to 2 votes the voting being as follows:

For:                         Councillor Coker, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Chen, Councillor Chu, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Davidson, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor Mauger, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett

Against:                Councillor Gough and Councillor MacDonald

Abstained:            Councillor Templeton

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Cotter                                                                               Carried

 

 

 

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by Councillor Galloway.

 

Meeting concluded at 11.44am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022.

Councillor Sara Templeton

Chairperson


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

7.     Draft submission on National Adaptation Plan

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/539239

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Jane Morgan, Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning
Sarah Pahlen, Adaptation Advisor

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1      The purpose of this report is to consider and approve the draft Council submission to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), in response to the consultation on their draft National Adaptation Plan and the associated managed retreat proposals.

1.2      Submissions are due with MfE by Friday 3 June 2022.

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

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve the draft Council submission to Ministry for the Environment on their draft National Adaptation Plan.  (Attachment A under separate cover).

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

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

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

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

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Draft National Adaptation Plan

5.1      The draft National Adaptation Plan (NAP) outlines the actions the government will take over the next six years to build climate resilience, and is in response to the priority climate-related risks identified in the National Climate Change Risk Assessment, released in August 2020.

5.2      New Zealand’s first national adaptation plan will build the foundation for adaptation action. The consultation also outlines proposals for managed retreat policies.

Key submission points

5.3      Please note that the Council’s draft submission on the National Adaptation Plan will be uploaded as an attachment under separate cover by 31 May due to the short timeframe for the submission period.

5.4      While the draft NAP signals direction and actions, most actions are already known and scheduled. The Council asks that central government act with greater aspiration and urgency, and speeds up central government’s delivery of actions to gain sufficient momentum.

5.5      Significant, complex and wide ranging reform is underway concurrently across resource management, water services, emergency management and the future of local government. Each of these inter-dependent legislative reform programmes impact on the roles and responsibilities of local government, and yet the future of local government is scheduled to be clarified last in the sequence. Therefore Council seeks earlier guidance around the eventual roles and responsibilities of local government to allow us to operate effectively and ensure that communities and other stakeholders also share an understanding of the final destination of these reform processes.

5.6      We note the draft NAP places a disproportionate emphasis on local government’s existing roles and responsibilities and de-emphasises central government’s role with respect to adaptation actions. The submission also asks that if central government assigns additional roles and responsibilities to local government through legislative change, that there be commensurate allocation of funding to enable resourcing of these responsibilities.

5.7      The Council welcomes the commitment to delivering data, information, tools and guidance however, these need to be designed with end users in order for implementation to be successful.

5.8      The submission argues that the Canterbury earthquake experience should directly inform the development of the Climate Adaptation Act. We also seek the opportunity to help inform the development of this legislation.

5.9      The Government needs to take a greater role in building hazard literacy and understanding of climate science and impacts across people of all ages. While people and communities are at the heart of the draft NAP, there appears to be an absence of any genuine attempt to engage them in the consultation process.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1      This submission aligns with the Council’s strategic framework, particularly the strategic priority of meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4      Council staff have discussed at a high level the content of the Council’s submission with Te Rūnanaga o Ngāi Tahu given the intrinsic values Māori hold with whenua, wai and the environment and in acknowledgement of the importance of a partnership approach.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5      The NAP is a critical step towards preparing for the impacts of climate change.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

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

7.3      Funding Source - existing operational budgets.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.2      As per the 23 January 2020 Council resolution CNCL/2020/00008, all Committees of the Whole have been delegated authority to approve draft submissions on behalf of the Council.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1      There are no significant risks associated with this decision.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Draft submission National Adaptation Plan (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

National Adaptation Plan consultation document

https://environment.govt.nz/publications/draft-national-adaptation-plan/

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a)  This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Morgan - Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning

Sarah Pahlen - Advisor Adaptation Planning

Ellen Cavanagh - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

8.     Community (Social) Housing Update Report 1 November 2021 to 30 April 2022

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/593612

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning
Bruce.Rendall@ccc.govt.nz
Cate Kearney, Chief Executive, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/CFO, Resources Group, Finance, Leah.Scales@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1      The purpose of this report is to update the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on community (social) housing activities. 

1.2      The report stands to provide an update on activity for the period 1 November 2021 to 30 April 2022.

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Community (Social) Housing Report

 

3.   Matters to be Included

3.1      In December 2019 Council adopted a reporting framework that involves a report addressing the following matters:

Portfolio status of units categorised into the following groupings:

·    Council owned Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT) operated.

·    ŌCHT owned and operated.

·    Council owned community housing provider operated.

·    Other.

3.1.1   Programmes of work included the following:

·   Strategic undertakings.

·   Housing fund.

·   Planned works including maintenance.

4.   Portfolio

4.1      At 30 April 2022, the Council's community housing portfolio consisted of 1944 units.  This total comprises 1864 units under Deed of Lease to ŌCHT, 23 units leased to other community organisations (four complexes), and three remaining owner occupied units, all in one complex.  54 units have been closed pending redevelopment (two complexes).

4.2      Council is facilitating the growth of social housing through a variety of mechanisms including capitalisation of, and loans to, ŌCHT.  During the reporting period ŌCHT opened 70 new units in Richmond and Edgeware and has another 41 under construction or planned for completion by September 2022. 

Complex Name

Number of Units

Projected Opening Date

Glovers Road

6

Construction in progress. Estimated completion May 2022.

Willard Street

35

Awaiting building and resource consent. Estimated completion date September 23.

Table 1.

4.3      The planned aggregate total of facilitate properties (including ŌCHT developments) by June 2022 will be 2560 units bringing the level of service supply to just shy of the pre-earthquake total of 2649 units.  Council is also in preliminary discussion with ŌCHT about how it can facilitate additional community housing, both social and affordable.

4.4      ŌCHT are currently well advanced in planning 35 homes in Willard Street. Tenants and neighbours are aware of plans for a whanau development with 17 - 2, 3, 5 bedroom homes and 18 one bed homes.

4.5      ŌCHT has advanced planning the redevelopment of the Council owned Carey Street complex and have commenced investigation at the Council owned Sandilands complex.  Council has informed Carey Street neighbours of the investigations and will notify Sandilands neighbours at an appropriate time.

4.6      While other early investigations are underway these are not named due to the very preliminary feasibility status of the investigations in these tenanted properties. 

4.7      To the best of our knowledge the current supply of community housing in Ōtautahi Christchurch is:

Provider

No. Units

Kāinga Ora (December 2021)*

6,999

Christchurch City Council**

1,944

ŌCHT (owned)

 610

Community Housing Providers***

 344

Total

9,897

Table 2.

 

*Owned by, or leased to, Kāinga Ora

**1,864 units leased to ŌCHT  

***Owned or managed, excluding ŌCHT

4.8      During this reporting period Kāinga Ora completed 41 new homes and have 235 homes under construction. Further information can be found on: https://kaingaora.govt.nz/developments-and-programmes/what-were-building/public-housing-developments/ 

4.9      Figure 1 is taken from the December 2021 Public Housing Quarterly Report which can be found on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website.  This shows the housing numbers in Canterbury. The number in brackets denote the previous quarter.

https://www.hud.govt.nz/assets/News-and-Resources/Statistics-and-Research/Public-housing-reports/Quarterly-reports/Public-housing-quarterly-report-December-2021.pdf

Graphical user interface, text, application, email

Description automatically generated
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Fig 1. (HUD) Quarterly Report December 2021

5.   Strategic Undertakings

Changes to Maintenance Responsibilities

5.1      The transition of major maintenance to ŌCHT took effect from 1 July 2021, through an exchange of letter addendum to the lease.

5.2      The first term of the lease ended on 2 October 2021, ŌCHT took up the right of renewal with several minor changes (separately reported to the Council).  The substantial changes have now been agreed, including incorporate the maintenance matters, and the new lease is substantially in place.  Subsequently the Deed of Lease between the Council and ŌCHT has been reviewed and proposed variations are in the final approval stage.

Security Restructuring

5.3      Council and ŌCHT have undertaken restructuring of loan security arrangements.  This work involved mortgages in favour of Council over several ŌCHT properties to secure $55 million of loans.  A further $45 million worth of security is provided through General Security Agreements.   Some ŌCHT properties have been removed from the security arrangements to allow them to be used to secure additional debt financing for new developments.  Overall the restructuring of security has resulted in better protection for Council while also allowing ŌCHT to undertake additional developments.  

Land Swap

5.4      During the period, Council and ŌCHT have been exploring a potential land swap option to facilitate two new mixed tenure developments.  This matter will be the subject of a separate report to the Council.

Council Surplus Land

5.5      The Council has a policy of considering any surplus land for housing purposes.   During the period covered by this report, the Council has been in negotiation with ŌCHT about the possible sale of surplus Council land for housing developments.  These negotiations are progressing well and will be reported to Council at an appropriate time.  

Asbestos Management Working Group

5.6      The Council has an organisation wide programme of work to undertake surveys and prepare asbestos management plans for all pre-2000 buildings including social housing. 

5.7      Housing staff continue to represent housing on the working group tasked with ensuring completion of this Council wide legislated programme of work. The development of a long term building management system will see QR coding on Council buildings enabling onsite contractor access to reports and information and contributing to safe work practices.

5.8      A key deliverable is negotiation with ŌCHT for entry to units to ensure timely completion of asbestos surveys. From this survey a management plan (base plan) is developed, and made available for contractor reference.

5.9      Council has worked with ŌCHT to manage the impacts of legislated asbestos surveys and other inspections on tenant’s quiet enjoyment of their homes.  This has worked well with the majority of the asbestos surveys being completed.  There are approximately 90 units across 13 complexes to be completed. 

Community (Social) Housing Strategy

5.10    The Council approved this Strategy in January 2021 and staff are working to implement relevant actions.  Specifically (but not comprehensively):

5.10.1 We are encouraging and incentivising a range of tenure and housing models through working with partners in the affordable housing space to identify how Council land could be used to facilitate affordable housing developments.

6.   Housing Fund

6.1      In line with the Council Policy to maintain Community (Social) Housing as a ‘rates neutral’ service all housing financial activities are accounted for under a specific Housing Fund. All housing revenues are paid into the fund and all expenses drawn from it.

6.2      The predicted rental income for the 2022-23 FY is $15,649,000.

6.3      The opening balance of the housing fund at 1 July 2021 was $2,853,000 and closing at 30 April 2022 with a balance of $3,668,000 deficit. 

6.4      Financial movement for the reporting period can be attributed to net operations including planned and major work, plus the minor maintenance programmes managed by ŌCHT.

6.5      The fund is forecast to end the financial year with a balance of $904,000.  While this low balance is concerning, it reflects the focus on expenditure to lift unit quality and the accelerated implementation of the healthy homes (Warm and Dry) requirements.

6.6      To date we have chosen to meet the costs of the Warm and Dry programme from the Fund without using the approved $10m loan.

6.7      The fund is expected to move into an accumulation phase from FY24 onwards but will remain constrained until the end of the decade.

7.   Work Programmes

7.1      When major repairs or planned works are undertaken, units are removed from the 'ready to let' listing for the duration of the works.

7.2      As at 30 April 2022, 105 units (compared to 101 in the previous report) were unavailable to let for various reasons.

Reason

Unavailable Units

Comments

Temporary Accommodation

10

ŌCHT works programme - major upgrade

Asbestos

4

 

Fire Damage

1

Insurance repairs - Boyd Cottages

Meth contamination

3

Over 15µg/100 cm2 threshold- require remediation

Planned / Major work

14

ŌCHT works programme - major upgrade

Pending redevelopment

73

Andrews Cres, Carey St and Sandilands (54 outside of lease and 19 within the lease)

7.3      54 units are closed due to age, condition, and financial viability.  The future of these buildings is currently being considered as part of new build financing investigations.  Options include redevelopment of the sites, subject to funding, or "capital recycling", i.e. sales with the return reinvested to improve the portfolio.

7.4      Some of the planned /major works reflect the industry wide shortage of resources, particularly Gib.

7.5      The Maintenance budgets for FY22 are OPEX $4,705,341 and CAPEX $6,898,096 totalling a budget of $11,603,437.

7.6      Works planned, commenced or completed during the period 1 November 2021 to 30 April 2022 is detailed below.

Work Programme

Unit/Complex

Asbestos Removal

Airedale

Martindales

Norman Kirk

Wycola

Phillipstown

Jennifer/Manor

Exterior Painting

Veronica

Cedar

Forfar

Thurso

Knightsbridge

Bartlett

Jennifer/Manor/Torquay

Meth Decontamination

Hadfield

Mary McLean

Bridgewater

Internal Upgrades

Wycola Courts

Aorangi

Picton/Nelson

Pickering

Greenhurst

Bathroom Upgrade

Pickering

Stairs

Greenhurst

Spouting Replacement

Forfar

Water leak repairs

Phillipstown

Roimata

Cleland

Marwick

Vincent

Plus 2 other small ones

Line Marking

Various (25 completed)

Large Tree Maintenance

Walsall

Norman Kirk

Hadfield

H P Smith

G F Allan

Mary McLean

Division

Briggs Row

Clent

Warm & Dry

Curtains various

Aluminium window repairs - various

 

Works planned for completion are detailed below.

Committed Work

Unit/Complex

Exterior Painting

Halswell

Balconies

Aberfoyle

Aorangi

Line Marking

Various (15 remaining)

Large Tree Maintenance

Various

Interior Upgrades

Wycola

Roimata

Path repairs

Division

Harman

Roof replacements

Kaumatua

Whakahoa

Water leak repairs

24 various complexes

Spouting replacement

Walsall

 

Planned to be scoped

Unit/Complex

Interior Upgrades

Pickering

Huggins

Table 5. ŌCHT planned works

 

 

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

Author

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Approved By

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

9.     Ōtautahi-Christchurch District Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/651948

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Kevin Crutchley, Resource Efficiency Manager, kevin.crutchley@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1      The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the Ōtautahi-Christchurch District Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee.

1.2      The Ōtautahi-Christchurch District Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker is available to view on the Council website: https://smartview.ccc.govt.nz/apps/emissions/?

1.3      The Council’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker allows people to see how the district is tracking across different emission sources as well as displaying general transport trends. The tracker displays transportation modes, including fossil fuelled vehicles, cycling, bus patronage, and battery electric vehicle numbers.

1.4      It also shows stationary energy use from electricity, diesel and petrol. This includes emissions from the use of gas, coal and geothermal energy to generate electricity. It also includes estimated greenhouse gas emissions from plant use such as diesel and petrol use in generators and from diesel boilers.

1.5      Data is fed-in from different emission sources and the tracker displays the monthly trends for users.

1.6      The tracker has been developed in response to the resolutions made at the 12 September 2019 Council meeting, CNCL/2019/00228;

2.f         Develop a schedule of indicators to provide updates on achievement of these targets and that these be highly visible to the public.

2.g        Develop communications, engagement and education initiatives to encourage climate friendly behaviours, and outline why we need to change and how we can.

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.    Receive the information in the Ōtautahi-Christchurch District Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracker Report.

 

 

 

 

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

Newsline article: ‘New greenhouse gas emission tracker shows the way we’re going’

https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/new-greenhouse-gas-emission-tracker-shows-the-way-were-going

 

 

 

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

Kevin Crutchley - Resource Efficiency Manager

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

10.  South Library Te Kete Wānanga o Wai Mōkihi - Earthquake Repair Options

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/529026

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Carolyn Robertson, Head of Libraries & Information, carolyn.robertson@ccc.govt.nz
Brent Smith, Head of Vertical Capital Delivery, brent.smith@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1      The purpose of this report is to update Council on the findings of the pre-project investigation into the cost and scope of repair works required to address structural damage to the South Library from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence and bring this facility up to 100% NBS Importance Level 3; and endorse the staff recommendations.

1.2      This report provides Council with a comparison of repair with a rebuild of this facility including supporting technical advice in relation to: geotechnical, structural, architectural, building services, legal, insurance, whole of life carbon, programme, cost, and funding implications.

1.3      In summary the investigation has revealed:

a.    The scope of repair required to address the structural damage at the South Library is more extensive than previously thought.

b.    The extent of fabric replacement required for a repair is almost equivalent to a rebuild.

c.    The complex repair has a high level of risk and unknowns in terms of time, cost and quality.

d.    There are significant benefits to a rebuild including; energy efficiency, comfort, reduced operational and maintenance costs, lower whole of life carbon assessment, lower capital cost, more surety of construction programme, better contractual terms and associated warranties & guarantees.

e.    Because of the anticipated length of closure we recommend setting up a temporary facility in the area if feasible.

f.     The cost estimate for repair exceeds the $13.6 million of CAPEX funds on plan.  The project will require a (future) bid for construction capital and operating funds for temporary facility in Annual Plan 2023-2024.

g.    Staff recommend a rebuild of this facility.

1.4      The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by:

1.4.1   Noting that the decision to repair the earthquake damaged South Library has already been made on 04 August 2016.  This is included in the current Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

1.4.2   The recommended resolution is that staff advance the design of the repair or rebuild to ‘concept’ and validate the cost estimate before returning to Council in Q1 2023 for a decision to progress the project.

1.4.3   There is sufficient Operating and Capital budget already on plan to develop the concept design and associated cost estimate.

1.5      In terms of gauging the views and preferences of interested and affected persons, consultation will be undertaken with the current stakeholders, community groups, and also members of the local community to take all suggestions put forward into consideration during the planning and design phases of the project.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Direct staff to progress the design for a rebuild of the South Library Facility on its existing site.

2.         Endorse the development of a concept design and costing for consideration by Council in Q1 2023.

3.         Note that the advancement of the project to construction will require additional funding in Annual Plan 2023-2024 and or a Long Term Plan adjustment.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1      Rebuild on the existing site:  The preferred option, recommended by staff is the rebuild of the facility on the existing site for the following reasons.

3.2      There is now an opportunity for Council to review the rationale of a repair vs. new build option and make sure that the right long-term choice is made.  In scoping the repair consideration has been given to the following key factors:

a.     Long term performance of the building.

b.     Possible future change to the building use including the opportunity to improve function or the complete scope of issues with the original (pre-quake) design.

c.      Building Code Compliance.

d.     Recommendation of ‘Heathcote river flooding report’ and the impact of any possible underfloor or road flooding.

e.     The cost of temporary accommodation & relocation while works are carried out.

f.      The insurability of the repaired building.

g.     The complexity of contracts for the repair works including warranties for works.

h.     The (current day) difference in cost between a repair and a full replacement.

3.3      Functionality: A preliminary workshop was held with Council staff who manage and occupy the building on both the functionality and future operational requirements.  The results of this indicated that the facility provides sufficient floor area but the use of the space is inefficient.  With wholesale changes to interior fabric required for repair or rebuild, there is an opportunity to optimise building function and efficiency, providing best value for future library and community use.

3.4      Geotechnical:  Modelling and a preliminary site investigation, Attachments A and B, to inform the structural solution for repair.  Modelling has revealed that the site is low risk for lateral spread but prone to liquefaction in the deep soil layers below the water table.  This means that (shallow) ground improvement is not beneficial and in future seismic events the building will be prone to further differential settlement.

3.5      Structural Engineering: A high level structural repair design to inform the cost estimate for repair, Attachment C.  The scope of repair will include the foundations and floor slabs.  A raft slab is recommended as this gives good seismic resilience and is simple to design and construct.  The new slab can be placed on top of the existing foundation and floor slabs avoiding the need to excavate and dump the existing fabric.  This saves money and time, minimises excavation of contaminated ground, provides the opportunity to raise the floor level to mitigate flood risk and comply with current flood level requirements.

The internal pre-cast concrete walls are quake prone and the engineer recommends removing these to reduce the seismic load on the building.  Given the existing floor will be covered by a new slab, all of the internal walls and finished will need to be replaced.

3.6      Architectural: Advice has been provided in relation to the reuse of fabric, the interface of the new structural elements with existing building elements and code compliance, Attachment D.  South Christchurch Library is approaching a 20-year life span, which brings several building elements to their considered “end of life” and will require replacement in the near future.

The necessary structural repairs require building consent, and due to Building Code changes since the building was consented and constructed, elements of the building design and fabric will require upgrade.

A patch work repair to the system is unattainable with a high level of risk and unknowns outweighed by the benefits of a new system.  A new façade system to the outside line of the new steel will provide continuity and simplification of the construction and sequencing with the roof replacement.  This solution will remove the risk of any residual earthquake damage and any potential weather tightness issues caused by the condition of existing system.  A new continuous façade system will also have a positive impact on the thermal performance of the building and internal comfort level.

3.7      Building services:  The heating ventilation and cooling (HVAC) system is approaching the end of its useful working life and would become redundant in the repair and rebuild scheme.  The current and ongoing issues with sewer and HVAC can be addressed in the repair or rebuild scope.

3.8      Whole of life carbon: An assessment has been prepared in accordance with EN 15978 (2011), Attached E.  The carbon assessment makes comparisons against Council’s Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy (issued 2021).

The assessment shows repair offers a greater level of re-lifting to existing building fabric while a new build offers the greatest potential to improve the environmental impact of the structure, thermal performance, servicing strategy, comfort and daily performance of the building.

3.9      Insurance: In order for Council to be in the best possible insurance position going forward we would need a repair strategy that rectifies all the existing earthquake damage and is able to be consented under the Building Act.  There are specific clauses in Council's insurance policy that state any damage that existed at the start of the policy period (i.e. unrepaired EQ damage) is not covered in another event, regardless of cause.  All repairs must comply with Building Act where applicable. A rebuild means that full insurance cover can be obtained to replacement value and the Building Act complied with as matter of course.

3.10    Legal:  The legal advice is consistent with the insurance position in that a rebuild is considered to be more straightforward than a repair.  A repair is inherently more difficult to scope because of unforeseen damage which results in less contractual certainty and more potential for cost & time overrun.  There are also issues with risk and liability in relation to old & new fabric and consents.  A rebuild offers greater certainty for scope and cost, tighter contractual terms.  There is also more programme certainty.

3.11    Cost: There is currently a CAPEX budget of $13.6 million on plan for the period FY22-27.

The cost estimate for the proposed repair and a cost estimate for an equivalent new build on the same footprint is repair $26.6 million vs. new build $24.9 million, Attachment F.

This is an early concept level cost estimate but gives a clear indication that the cost of repair will exceed the allocated funds.  This is because the updated scope of repair is more extensive than the “do-minimum” repair option selected in 2016 and associated prices have escalated significantly since the previous estimate was prepared.

The cost of repair exceeds the cost of a new build because of the complexity and inefficiency of construction within an existing building.  In addition to this base cost estimate we would expect that the project contingency needed for repair would also be a higher than that of a new build.

These cost of repair and new build are similar because the extent of fabric replacement required in the repair is almost equivalent to a full replacement.  In the case of repair, all of the interior and much of the exterior building fabric requires replacement.

3.12    Programme: Council previously deferred this repair project through a previous Long Term Plan, so it could be sequenced to occur after the new Hornby Centre opens in 2023 and ensure that another facility was available within the libraries network.

Following a decision by Council on repair of new build the project will enter the design phase, followed by construction (Council approvals and funds permitting) in calendar year 2024.  It is estimated that the repair or new build would take about 18 months.  A construction timeline will be confirmed once the scope, funding and procurement plan is confirmed.  No start date has been set.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1      Repair of the existing building - not recommended.

Advantages

·    Community perception that a much used and loved facility is not demolished and replaced.

Disadvantages

·     The working structure of the building needs to be replaced and with it all of the internal and much of the exterior fabric.  The remaining roof structure and the south wall could be reused but will compromise the design and function of the repaired building

·     May pose warranty, building compliance and insurance issues.

·     The repair is more expensive in terms of capital outlay

·     The repair will have a higher operating cost due to the inefficiency of the thermal envelope and constraints on heating and ventilation services. 

·     In addition although the repair brings the building strength back to 100% NBS, this is a life safety rating and the repaired building will not be as resilient as a new build.

4.2      Rebuild on the existing site but adjacent to current facility (rather than on the same footprint) - not recommended.

Advantages

·     The existing facility could be decommissioned once the new one was operational avoiding the need to establish a temporary facility – saving $211,000 facility costs.

Disadvantages

·     The existing facility would be operating immediately adjacent to the construction zone which does not leave sufficient safe working space for construction and puts users at risk by placing them in close proximity to the construction site.

·     The existing slab could not be reused which would add approximately $1 million of cost to the build as well as impacting the carbon footprint.

·     The available ground space on the site would force the new building footprint to be smaller than the existing one and compromised in terms of functionality due to the boundary constraints of the long narrow site and the location of wellheads and protected trees plus the setback requirements for the access way and river.

·     The access way, off Colombo Street, is zoned as legal road and would need to be stopped if the building were to be placed on or near it.

4.3      Renovation of the Council owned distribution centre (at 54a Colombo Street) - not recommended.

Advantages

·     The existing facility could be decommissioned once the new one was operational avoiding the need to establish a temporary facility – saving $211,000 facility costs.

Disadvantages

·     The building is a single storey warehouse type structure with steel portal frames and precast concrete wall panels.  The construction drawings are dated July 1986 and it is assumed that construction was soon after this.  It has been assessed as > NBS 38%.

·     The distribution centre is significantly smaller than the current facility, with approximately 840m2 of floor area.  This corresponds to only 34% of the current facility floor area.

·     A comprehensive renovation including strengthening and fit out plus the installation of a lift would be required to make this building serviceable as a community facility.

·     The current use would need to be transferred to another site

·     It is anticipated that Community expectation would be that a similar level of service would be provided at the repaired/rebuilt facility.  This includes Library, Customer Service and Community Board spaces and services, plus a café, bookable meeting rooms and the creative learning and programming spaces.  Moving to a building with reduced floor space is unlikely to provide sufficient space for the current service offering.

·     Obtaining consent would take longer and cost more than remaining on the current site.  The subject site is zoned Residential Suburban in the Christchurch District Plan (the Plan) and is also a ‘Scheduled Activity’, Beckenham Water Services Yard and Pumping Station – Public Utilities (PU 1).  The scheduling would not allow for the redevelopment of the site for any other purposes.  Resource consent would likely be required to establish a library on the site as a Discretionary Activity and there is a risk that the application could be publicly notified.

4.4      A new site for the facility - not recommended.

Advantage

·     The existing facility could be decommissioned once the new one was operational avoiding the need to establish a temporary facility – saving $211,000 facility costs.

 

Disadvantages

·     The existing facility is a busy community hub and well used by a number of community focused teams.  The site is centrally located in the ward and has good connectivity to public transport links as well as being an attractive setting in its own right.

·     Moving this facility to a new site would require extensive public consultation and may not be supported by the local community.

·     Establishing a new facility on a new site is expected to take considerably longer than rebuilding on the existing site and may cost more.  There is also a degree of uncertainty in relation to the availability of any suitable site in the area noting the zoning restrictions, the land to the east of the site and east of Waimea Terrace is located within a Character Area.

·     In the case that it is possible to find a suitable site, Council would still need to negotiate a sale, obtain resource consents and undertake extensive consultation with the users of the current facility and the wider public impacted by the new location.  This would take in the order of two years and cost more than consenting on the existing (scheduled – SC2– Service Centres and Community Centres) site.

·     In terms of opportunities to build on a new site in this area, a site-specific planning assessment would be required to understand what planning implications there may be.  It is noted that libraries are contained in the definition of ‘community facility’ in the District Plan. Community facilities are not provided for as permitted activities in the neighbouring Residential Zones and resource consent would likely be required to establish a library as a Discretionary Activity with the potential for the application to be publicly notified.

·     In addition to the increased cost of consenting the cost the land purchase for a new site could be an additional land cost for Council.  Although the cost of the new site could be offset by the sale of the current site, it is likely to be negatively impacted by the setback constraints, well heads on the site, contaminated land status, liquefaction potential of the site, High Flood Hazard Management Area, and adjacency to the public utility site next door which shares the access way.  Future use of the existing site would be limited to what can be consented under the District Plan which zones this as residential medium density.

·     Building a new facility on a new site in the area would require extensive public consultation which will increase the time and cost to achieve consent.

·     The opportunity to reuse the existing slab as the base for a new raft foundation would be lost with the associated cost and carbon impacts.

4.5      Defer the repair or rebuild of the facility - not recommended.

Advantages

·     Deferral would have the short term effect of saving on capital expenditure

 

Disadvantages.

·     Delaying the capital cost of construction will increase risk, liability and cost escalations with the time taken to address this repair

·     South is the only library in the network of 20 libraries not to have been either repaired or rebuilt in the last decade, following the earthquakes of 2010/11.  Despite its high use, it is not at the same standard as other libraries of similar size and function with the building services at/or near end of life.

·     The building is currently at 34%NBS (IL3) and relies on temporary strengthening (the red steel bracing on the exterior) to achieve this.  The risk to the public in a 34%NBS (IL3) building is approximately 5-10x that of an equivalent new building designed to 100%NBS (IL3).  This temporary strengthening was installed in 2012 so has now been in place for almost 10 years. As a PCBU, Council needs to decide if they are comfortable continuing with this level of risk in what is a high-use community facility.

·     The durability of the building has been compromised due to the earthquake damage from a decade ago, with potential for increased maintenance costs and damage that may well exist currently but is unseen.

·     Opex costs will continue to rise as the compromised heating, cooling, ventilation and drainage systems continue to decline and approach the end of their useful working life.  There is a higher probability that asset subcomponents reactively fail and require replacement if the rebuild is further deferred.

·     There are operating issues with the HVAC system which mean it is no longer fit for purpose.  These issues are demonstrated by:

Ø Staff work areas have become health and safety discomfort issues caused by lack of cooling, inadequate heating control and limited ventilation effectiveness.

Ø Board room and learning centre rooms suffer from the same technical issues to the staff work areas. 

Ø Members of the public and staff regularly experience discomfort due to drafts, lack of cooling and inadequate heating control.

Ø Café has inadequate odour and moisture exhaust ventilation, inadequate hot water supply and has restricted electrical capacity.

 

·    In view of the new Covid mitigation focused ventilation assessments; all the occupants in this building are at a relatively high risk due to the lack of acceptable ventilation.

·     A major failure of any of these services or the building structure itself would run the risk of facility closure for a significant period.

·     The project was deferred in 2018 and again in 2020.  The 2015 LTP budget figure for this project was $16.55 million, this equates to $22.7 million (an additional 37%) in today’s dollars and $25.7 million (an additional 55%) by project completion in late 2025.  The estimated annual escalation cost for delaying the project beyond 2025 would be an average of 3-4% per annum compounding.  The cost of the construction work will continue to increase if the work is deferred.

·     The existing Café tenant needs some certainty over the timeline for this rebuild.  By deferring the work again we run the risk of losing this tenant.

 

4.6      Private-Public Partnership - not recommended.

Advantages

·     A Private-Public Partnership would have the effect of saving on capital expenditure

 

Disadvantages.

·     Council is not currently aware of any opportunities of this nature or precedent for this model for a library-service centre hub.

·     Developing a relationship of this nature would likely add significantly to the complexity, timeframes and front end costs of the project.

·     It is possible the sort of deal that could be proposed here would be developer benefiting in being ‘gifted’ a long lease on the land and potentially build above.  It is anticipated that this arrangement could negatively impact community engagement and buy-in for the project.

·     Private-Public Partnerships have been suggested on other library projects and a mixed use development is just too complex when considering fire compliance, access, security, acoustics, etc.  Anything higher than single storey has a cost premium in the structure, stairs and lifts and increased circulation.

·     Given that the focus of a community hub like the South Library and Service Centre is the local community, we consider that Council is best placed to deliver this service. 

·     In addition to the time needed to form a contractual relationship it is anticipated that there would be more time required for the predesign/briefing and design phases, as well as consultation with the Community about a significantly larger building on the site and any new activity on the site (e.g. commercial or residential use)

·     The constraints of the existing site including setbacks, well heads, contaminated land status, liquefaction potential, High Flood Hazard Management Area, adjacency to the public utility site next door which shares the access way.  Mean that future use of the existing site would be limited to what can be consented under the District Plan which zones this as residential medium density.

 

4.7      Consider a long term lease instead of rebuilding the South Library - not recommended.

Advantages

·    Leasing would have the short term effect of saving the current capital budget of $13.6 million which would have a 0.12% rates benefit spread over 4 years.

 

  Disadvantages.

·    The annual cost of commercial rent for an equivalent floor area (2462m2) is in the order of $700,000 per annum.  This is an operating cost that would directly impact rates, adding 0.11% to rates. 

·    It is doubtful that a long term lease of a suitable space in the desired location and of a suitable size to accommodate the various services and functions would be available or a cost effective option for Council.  It is anticipated that the community would not find this option acceptable for anything more than a short term solution.

·    A site-specific planning assessment would be required to understand what planning implications there may be.  Community facilities are not provided for as permitted activities in the neighbouring Residential Zones.  This means resource consent would likely be required to establish a library as a Discretionary Activity with the potential for a publicly notified application.

·    The placement of a community hub within a leased commercial space must be carefully considered as Council has no control over neighbouring activity which could potentially put staff and customers at risk.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1      The South Library and Service Centre is a busy popular community hub as demonstrated by the statistics below.  Programme attendance at South has grown over the last few years from 5th highest in FY 2018-2019 to 2nd in FY 2020-2021 with 12,002 attendees.

Issues

·   South Library issues (of physical books and other items) for the FY 2020-2021 were 511,443. More books were borrowed from South Library than any other library in the network.

·   South Library consistently accounts for 13% to 14% of all Issues.

·   The South Library collection has over 74,000 books available for loan which accounts for 6.6% of Libraries’ total stock holdings.

Visitation (Footcount)

·     South had the sixth highest footcount for FY 2020-2021 with 289,015 visits, which accounts for almost 8% of all visits across the network.

·     There has been a noticeable increase to the Issues per Visit metric each year at South Library, where the network average has remained fairly constant, possibly indicating its loyal customer base of avid readers.

 

New members

·     In FY 2020-2021 1,422 new members were signed up, which was almost 7% of the total.

·     South consistently sits in the top 4 libraries for the number of new members signed-up.

 

5.2      Post-quake investigations were carried out in 2011 – 2013.  Temporary Repairs to strengthen the superstructure were carried out in 2012.  The original investigations carried out in the post-quake period necessarily focussed on life safety and building make safe work.  The investigations were high level, minimally invasive surveys designed to pick up critical data for temporary works.  This data was used to price and compare the original options for the repair scheme presented to Council in 2016.  This 2016 report provided estimate of scope and cost of repair noting that some elements were not fully investigated.  Key items not investigated included;

·   Insurance and legal

·   Geotech

·   Egress & Fire for code compliance

·   Flood levels

5.3      More than eight years have elapsed since the last of these primary investigations were carried out in 2013 and we now need to confirm the scope and cost of repair for this facility acknowledging that; what is acceptable today as a long-term solution may not be the do-minimum repair option chosen previously.

5.4      We have sought advice from the Legal Services Unit with respect to the utilisation of funds in the current LTP for, either a repair or rebuild.  In the case that additional funding is needed for the project, this can be covered off in the consultation process associated with either a future Annual Plan or LTP process.

5.5      Staff have investigated options for a temporary facility to house a small library and customer service offering.  The current cost estimate for the temporary facility (including moving, fit out, 2 years of rental net of current facility budgets and revenue losses) is $211,000.  An option following the closure of South Library Hours could be to extend the hours at Spreydon Library including evening and Sunday opening, plus the provision of the Mobile Library Service near the current South Library site on specific days and times, based on community demand.

5.6      It is not envisaged that further significant central government funding will be forthcoming and certainly not Capital funding to contribute to a major repair or rebuild.  Note, Council did receive operational funding from the Ministry of Education when South Library was opened for a few years to support targeted learning initiatives in partnership with the schools in the local area.  This funding did not contribute to the running costs or improvements to the facility itself.

5.7      The decision affects the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board area.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1   Activity: Libraries

·     Level of Service: 3.1.2.1 Residents have access to a physical and digital library relevant to local community need or profile  - Provide weekly opening hours for existing libraries:23-74 hours per week (as appropriate for metropolitan, suburban, and neighbourhood)  .South is a large suburban library.

·     3.1.5 Library user satisfaction with library service at Metro, Suburban and Neighbourhood libraries.

·     3.1.1.4 Collections and content in a variety of formats are available to meet the needs of the community.

·     3.1.3.1 residents have access to the internet and new technologies.

·     3.1.3.3 Access to information via walk-in to library services.

·     3.1.4 Provide public programmes and events, learning and recreational needs.

·     3.1.8  Customer satisfaction with programmes and events.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2      The decision to rebuild the South Library is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  The decision aligns with Council’s target of being net carbon neutral for its operations by 2030 and our commitments under the Council Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy (issued 2021).

6.3      Once Council has resolved to provide direction on Council's preferred option for the remediation of the earthquake damaged South Library, the preferred option (repair / new build) will be procured in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and Framework.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4      The current proposal is to rebuild the existing facility on its current site.

6.5      Should the Council decide rebuild the library and service centre on its current site (recommended option), it is not anticipated that the scale or nature of operations at the site will change significantly.  The focus for rebuilding is to replace the damaged facility with associated improvements in strength, resilience, operational performance and functionality of the building.

6.6      There is an opportunity to engage with mana whenua early in the process to ensure that te reo name; Te Kete Wānanga o Wai Mōkihi is given prominence on the new building and that the cultural narrative of the site is incorporated into the design.

 

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7      The whole-of-life carbon comparison shows the amount of carbon released at each building life cycle stage.  Climate change occurs as a result of accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reducing whole of life emissions is an important strategy for reducing climate impacts.  Rebuild has the lowest upfront emissions and total life cycle emissions, thus having a lower climate impact than the repair option.

6.8      A repair offers opportunity to re-life (re-use) existing fabric.  A rebuild offers greater scope to improve the environmental performance of the structure, envelope, servicing strategy, comfort and operational performance of the building.

6.9      In terms of net zero carbon targets:

·     Repair exceeds the 2020 benchmarks for embodied and operational targets however falls short of 2025 and 2030 targets.

·     Rebuild exceeds the 2025 target for embodies carbon and the 2030 target for operational carbon.

6.10    The total lifecycle carbon comparison is:

·   Repair 1,352 kgCO2e/m2

·   Rebuild 1,095 kgCO2e/m2.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11    We want to ensure our community facilities are accessible both to staff and visitors.

6.12    The current South Library and Service Centre is an accessible facility.  However in the course of the design process any changes in accessibility requirements for code compliance will be addressed.

6.13    Should the decision be made to build a new facility, staff investigations will include consideration of how the site and the facility as a whole are fully accessible.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1      Cost to Implement - There is currently a CAPEX budget of $13.6 million on plan for the period FY22-26.  The cost estimate for the proposed repair and a cost estimate for an equivalent new build on the same footprint is repair $26.6 million (0.13% rates increase over three years from FY2024) vs. new build $24.9 million (0.11% rates increase over three years from FY2024).

7.2      No budget is currently allocated for R&R or facility upgrades because the facility is programmed for construction.  The condition of the facility is deteriorating and there are issues with HVAC and drainage.  This facility will require R&R funds if the EQ repair work is not proceeding as programmed.

7.3      The funding currently included in the capital programme for this project is insufficient for the repair (or rebuild).  The project will require additional funding through the 2023-2024 Annual Plan or 2024 Long Term Plan process to meet the shortfall.

7.4      We will also need to make an allowance for OPEX, phased to match construction, to cover the cost of a temporary facility.  This has been estimated at $211,000 for 24 months starting from an early 2024 start and is factored into the above noted rates impact.  The costs are net of current facility operating and maintenance budgets adjusted for loss of revenues from the café lease and inability to run programmes from the smaller facility for 24 months.

7.5      Both options increase Council’s debt ratio by approximately 0.09%.

Other / He mea anō

7.6      Once a decision has been made as to whether this facility should be repaired or rebuilt, the next phase of work can be advanced.  This comprises the development of a functional brief & technical specification which will enable an elemental costing to be completed.  This work will give Council more scope definition and enable a more accurate cost estimate to be developed.  It also provides a basis for the approach to market for design and construction tenders.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1      The Council has the statutory power to either repair or rebuild the earthquake damaged South Library.

8.2      The Council has the legal ability to enter into contracts for the procurement of services, however to do so it needs to act in accordance with Section 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) 2002.  The LGA 2002 (Section 14) details the principles relating to local authorities.  The principles most relevant to the Council's procurement activity are:

8.2.1   In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

A local authority should;

·    conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner and;

·    give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner and;

·    undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices and;

·    ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets; and

·    in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into account:

The social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities; and

The need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3      The legal considerations are:

8.3.1   A rebuild provides more certainty of scope of work, and therefore more certainty of cost.  If a repair was selected as the preferred option, the condition of parts of the existing materials will not be able to be determined until works commence.  This may result in a more extensive scope of works than initially expected, and as a result, increased cost.

8.3.2   A rebuild will result in more comprehensive warranties and guarantees being available to the Council.  A repair using existing materials will potentially compromise certain warranty claims if the failure could be attributed to the quality of the existing materials.  An appropriate contract can mitigate a portion of this risk, however the risk is eliminated entirely if a rebuild is selected.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1      The complex and extensive repair needed to return the South Library to 100% New Building Standard involves a significant degree of uncertainty and therefore risk.  A new build is more easily defined and the associated construction work is fully warrantied so is a lower risk than repair.

9.2      The Council needs to consider a number of risks when considering this report.  Of particular note are: financial, legal and reputational.

Financial risks include:

·     Ongoing operational costs of maintaining a facility with the current building services systems issues;

·     Difficulty in fully scoping repair work results in a complex repair contract with an increased risk of scope variation, programme delay and associated cost increases;

·     Increases in the cost of repair / new build with inflation;

·     Vulnerability of IL3 at 34% NBS puts it at risk of closure in a future seismic or flood event;

·     Future insurance issues if the building is repaired rather than replaced and the risk that significant reinstatement costs may not be covered by insurance.

Legal risks include:

·     Difficulty in fully scoping repair work results in a complex repair contract with an increased risk of scope variation, programme delay, warranty and compliance issues.

·     Vulnerability of IL3 at 34% NBS puts it at risk of closure in a future seismic or flood event.

Reputational risks include:

·     Vulnerability of IL3 at 34% NBS puts it at risk of closure in a future seismic or flood event.

·     Concern from staff and community about delay in repair and length of closure;

·     Concern from the wider Christchurch community regarding costs of repairing or building a new facility.

·     Consistency of choice with regard to Council’s Climate Resilience strategy (repair does not meet targets)

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

South Library EQ Repair_Geotech Report_Aurecon 01 December 2021

45

b

South Library EQ Repair_Geotech PSI Report_Aurecon 02 December 2021

61

c

South Library EQ Repair_Structural Engineering Report_Lewis Bradford 08 December 2021

119

d

South Library EQ Repair_Architectural Report_Jasmax 21 January 2022

133

e

Christchurch South Library Carbon Report_Jasmax_
220317

146

f

South Christchurch Library Repair & Rescoping Cost Report R2

182

 

 

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

Lynne Armitage - Project Manager

Adrian Seagar - Insurance & Asset Manager

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Commercial & Property

Approved By

Brent Smith - Acting Head of Vertical Capital Delivery

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

















Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 



























































Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 















Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 














Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 





































Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 








Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

11.  Sustainability Fund: Grant Allocation

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/426051

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Tony Moore, Climate Resilience Lead, Tony.Moore@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1      The purpose of this report is to enable the Committee to consider an application to the 2021/22 Sustainability Fund. The application is for a time critical project that aligns strongly with the Fund’s objectives, received outside of a funding round.

1.2      The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because they are consistent with approved delegations, the Fund’s Terms of Reference, and support Council’s established climate change objectives.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Approve a grant of $49,763 from the 2021/22 Sustainability Fund to Eco-Bulb Limited for the delivery of the Christchurch Home Energy Saver project.

2.         Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Committee’s business, and any other applicable statutory authority,

a.        Revoke the delegation to the Head of Sustainable City Growth and Development in relation to the Sustainability Fund which is in Part B, Subpart 2 of the Delegations Register the authority to determine and carry out the administration requirements for this Fund, and to enter into Funding Agreements with Grant recipients, and

b.        Delegate to both the Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience and Head of Planning and Consents in relation to the Sustainability Fund which is in Part B, Subpart 2 of the Delegations Register the authority to determine and carry out the administration requirements for this Fund, and to enter into Funding Agreements with Grant recipients.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1      The Council has received an application to the Sustainability Fund, which was established to support community action on climate change. Applications are assessed against the Fund’s Terms of Reference, evaluation criteria and a rationale for the recommendations contained in this report is provided in Attachment 1.

3.2      This report brings to the Committee a proposal that is well aligned to the purpose of the Fund and time sensitive to allow commencement of the project prior to a central government fund closing in July 2022. Should this Funding recommendation be accepted, a greater level of support could become available from the Ministry of Business and Employment’s Energy’s $17 million Hardship Programme to help Christchurch residents in this currently challenging economic climate.

3.3      Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness, a change to the delegation for fund administration is recommended. Part B, Subpart 2 of the Delegations Register sets out the authority to determine and carry out administration of the Fund, and to enter into Funding Agreements. Delegation to the Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience will align administration with the group responsible for leading resilience work following a recent organisational restructure.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1      The Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee have delegated authority for the Sustainability Fund and can determine if an applicant should receive funding and the amount allocated. The Committee could decide not to fund this project, or to delay a funding decision until the next scheduled decision date for this Fund (February 2023). This would not meet the time constraints of the pilot project for which funding is sought or support application in July 2022 for central government funding to assist Christchurch households.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1      In June 2021 the Council approved the Kia tūroa te ao, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021 containing targets, goals, principles and programmes related to climate change.  The purpose of the Sustainability Fund is to encourage community, school, social enterprise or business projects that help meet these climate objectives.

5.2      The Terms Of Reference for the Sustainability Fund including: the purpose, climate change objectives and targets, evaluation criteria and a list of what is not generally funded are provided on the Council website’s Sustainability Fund page. Details of previously funded projects are also listed on this webpage.

5.3      Applications to the Sustainability Fund are generally considered within funding rounds to support efficiencies in administration and decision making. The Fund terms of reference and process do not preclude consideration of applications outside of funding rounds.

5.4      The balance of the 2021/22 Sustainability Fund is below.

Total budget available 2021/22

Total

requested

Staff recommendation

Balance if staff recommendation is adopted

$101,454

$49,763

$49,763

$51,691

 

5.5      To support Council decision making, staff have evaluated the proposal against the Terms of Reference and evaluation criteria for the Fund. The evaluation criteria are: Relevance, Benefit, Legacy, Deliverability and Measurability. The project was prioritised using the following criteria:

5.5.1   Priority 1 – Outstanding project, highly recommended for funding. Project meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund.

5.5.2   Priority 2 – Worthwhile project, recommended for funding. Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes well to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund, but to a lesser extent than Priority 1 projects.

5.5.3   Priority 3 – Satisfactory project, not recommended for funding. Meets eligibility criteria, meets most evaluation criteria, and contributes to the fund purpose and outcomes, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 projects.

5.5.4   Priority 4 – Unsatisfactory project, not recommended for funding. For example, it may not meet eligibility criteria, insufficient information was provided, other funding sources are more appropriate or the project offers a limited or uncertain benefit.

5.6      A table providing a brief summary of the proposal, the determined priority level, a funding recommendation and a rationale for the recommendation is provided in Attachment 1.

 

Understanding the Home Energy Saver proposal

5.7      Eco-Bulb Limited are a Christchurch business with strong focus on sustainability and climate action and a long relationship with the Council. Energy Mad / Eco-Bulb were one of the key sponsors of the 2008 and 2009 Earth Hour events where energy efficient lightbulbs were given to Christchurch residents to prompt involvement in the event. Earth Hour encouraged residents to switch off lights as a public demonstration of concern about climate change.

5.8      The Home Energy Saver pilot project will:

a)    Help 200 low and fixed income households facing energy hardship in Christchurch to save on average $586 in energy bills per year. Resulting in a total saving of $117,000 per year across the 200 homes.

b)    Save approximately 690 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over ten years through energy savings.  The energy used in buildings generates 20% of Christchurch’s greenhouse gas emissions.

c)    Install approximately 3,320 light emitting diodes (LED bulbs) and approximately 100 water efficient shower heads into homes. The LED bulbs have a life of approximately 10 years resulting in sustained energy savings for households. Experience has shown that many low income households are still using energy inefficient incandescent lightbulbs and many homes have inefficient downlights and would benefit from the conversation to LED bulbs.

d)    Provide household energy saving tips and help people select the best energy provider for their household energy use, resulting in substantial energy savings for the household.

e)    Collaborate with local community / health agencies and providers to align services and efficiently reach the target households, such as the Mayor’s Welfare Fund (approximately 1/3 of this fund is used to pay household electricity bills), Community and Public Health and other providers to low income households. Eco-bulb can work with Māori health and community support agencies (as they have done in the King Country) to further strengthen the benefits for these communities.

f)     Aim to complete within three months to gather information that will form the basis of a larger project and subsequent funding applications.

g)    Prepare an application to the The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Energy Hardship Programme to expand the service to help more households in Christchurch. MBIE have established a $17 million Energy Hardship Programme with funds going to support people experiencing energy hardship achieve warmer, more energy-efficient homes with lower energy bills. An expanded service could potentially reach approximately 20-30,000 Christchurch households. Applying to the MBIE fund will require Eco-bulb Limited to collaborate with local partners to deliver an expanded service.

5.9      This service is aligned and complementary to the existing services provided in Christchurch. For example none of the services currently provided install subsidised LED lights and water efficient showerheads. The existing services are mostly focused on insulating homes and energy efficient heating. Government subsidies do not currently apply to light bulbs or shower heads.

5.10    This new service can provide leads to the existing Healthy Homes service established by the Council and Environment Canterbury. The Healthy Home service would benefit from a greater number of households taking-up the advice and financial support services available.

5.11    A short video of the service currently being provided in the King Country can be found at the link below. This 5 minute video shows the provider in action and the positive response from the community. Introducing the King Country Home Energy Saver Project.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1      The decisions in this report support the Kia tūroa te ao, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021.

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

6.2.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide funding for projects and initiatives that build partnerships; resilient, engaged and stronger communities, empowered at a local or community of interest level.   - 95% or more of reports presented demonstrate benefits that align to CCC community outcomes, Council’s strategic priorities and, where appropriate Community Board plans

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3      The decisions in this report are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically the Climate Resilience Strategy 2021.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4      The Home Energy Saver service resulting from the recommended fund allocation will benefit low and fixed income households. In Christchurch the Māori and Pacific communities are over represented in this type of household. Consequently, this investment can directly benefit Māori and Pacific communities. Eco-bulb can work with Māori health and community support agencies (as they have done in the King Country) to further strengthen the benefits to these communities.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5      The decisions in this report are well aligned to the Climate Resilience Strategy. The energy used in homes and buildings generates approximately 20% of Christchurch greenhouse gas emissions. The Home Energy Saver pilot project will help to reduce emissions from 200 Christchurch households saving approximately 690 tonnes of emissions over ten years. Much greater savings will be possible should central government support be received based on this pilot project.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6      The Sustainability Fund is open to everyone through a website and online application form. Council libraries can support individuals with limited access to computers or the internet.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1      The available balance at April 2022 for the 2021/22 Sustainability Fund is $101,454.

7.2      This report is recommending granting $49,763 to the applicant.

7.3      Should these recommendations be approved, $51,691 will remain in the Fund.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1      The Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee have delegated authority to allocate grant funding from the Sustainability Fund.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2      Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness, a change to the delegation for fund administration is recommended. Part B, Subpart 2 of the Delegations Register sets out the authority to determine and carry out administration of the Fund, and to enter into Funding Agreements. Delegation to the Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience, and revoking delegation to the Head of Sustainable City Growth and Development, will align administration with the group responsible for leading the Council’s resilience work following a recent organisational restructure.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1      The Grant Funding Agreement that each successful applicant must sign before funds are allocated aims to minimise the risks to the Council. Despite this, some level of risk remains that projects may not proceed, they may fail to deliver outcomes proposed or timeframes may change. Having a good relationship with the applicants and adopting a no-surprises approach helps respond to these risks. A detailed accountability report is required from applicants which also helps manage risk.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Home Energy Saver Sustainability Fund Application Summary

195

 

 

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

Tony Moore - Climate Resilience Lead

Approved By

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

12.  Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report - October 2021 - March 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/258125

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Janine Sowerby, Senior Planner – Urban Regeneration, Janine.Sowerby@ccc.govt.nz
Dave Little, Manager Residential Red Zone, David.Little@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1      The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of implementation progress on suburban regeneration projects over the six month period from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022. The report focuses on projects for which there is funding or activity in the current financial year. Staff have been reporting on suburban regeneration implementation progress on a biannual basis since 2015. Urban regeneration projects are supported by a range of Council staff (including Urban Design, Heritage, Community Governance, Transport, Parks and Capital Delivery) and other organisations (including ChristchurchNZ).

1.2      Progress updates of particular note are provided in Section 4 below and greater detail is provided in the attached dashboard (Attachment A). This attachment was circulated to all community boards; no feedback was received.

1.3      Following a query by the Committee regarding the implementation status of suburban centre master plan actions during presentation of the last Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report (24 November 2021), staff have amended the format and content of the master plan webpages. The status of each master plan action is now clearly identified. The information includes what has been (or is being) delivered/commenced, by whom and when. Refer master plan webpages link

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report for October 2021 – March 2022.

3.   Progress updates

3.1      A selection of progress updates this reporting period is provided below. The attached dashboard has a comprehensive range of other updates and supporting information.

 

3.2      Higher priority suburban regeneration locations:

3.2.1   New Brighton:

·   Momentum has continued in the residential development phase of the regeneration project, with phases one and two of the Seaview Development selling out and the sale of three vacant development sites on Beresford Street going unconditional.

 

 

3.2.2   Linwood Village/Inner City East:

·   Consultation on the Linwood Village Streetscape Plan in February/March 2022 drew 62 submissions, which are informing changes to the design where appropriate.

3.3      Other master plan locations:

3.3.1   Main Road:

·   Work began on the Moncks Bay parking and bus stop enhancements.

3.3.2   Ferry Road:

·   Gateway enhancements (three pou) were installed at each end of Woolston village.

·   Physical works are about to start on the combined Ferry Road and Humphreys Drive crossings enhancements and Estuary edge/Coastal Pathway connection.

3.3.3   Sydenham:

·   A contract for construction of the Buchan Park remodel has been awarded to Citycare.

3.3.4   Lyttelton:

·   Public toilet upgrades are in progress at both the Lyttelton Information Centre and Albion Square. 

·   Stage 1 implementation of the Naval Point – Te Nukutai o Tapoa Development Plan was completed in late 2021. Stage 2 works are programmed to start early April 2022.

3.4      Other suburban locations:

3.4.1   Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC):

·   Avondale Bridge and Dallington Landing were completed and opened to the public. 

·   Much of Dallington Loop and part of Porritt Park were planted in locally sourced native species.

·   A total of $38,925 community funding was allocated for projects in the RRZ/OARC.

·   The establishment of an OARC co-governance entity with Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the community is reaching its final stages.

·   Request for Proposal responses for a design services panel were received from the market. Establishment of the panel will streamline implementation delivery. Projects that will enhance suburban regeneration are the City to Sea Pathway and recreational destination developments, such as landings and park upgrades.

·   The RRZ Team has been working with local community groups and residents associations to put together foraging walks in their area in the Red Zone.

3.4.2   Diamond Harbour:

·   The Request for Proposal to lease vacant land at 2E Waipapa Ave (the former Godley House site) opened on 7 March 2022 and closes on 7 June 2022.

3.4.3   Little River:

·   Construction of the new Little River Playground has been completed.

·   Following consultation and design processes for the upgrade of Little River Coronation Library, physical works are anticipated to start early next financial year.

 

3.5      City-making partners Life in Vacant Spaces and The Green Lab continued supporting projects in the RRZ/OARC, with the former also working in New Brighton, Linwood Village, Lyttelton and Waltham, while the latter worked in St Albans and Phillipstown.

3.6      South Brighton and Linwood Village continued to benefit from Enliven Places Rates Incentive funding. Community projects in Lyttelton, Redwood and Halswell have received Shape your Place Toolkit (SYPT) funding.

3.7      When assets delivered through the Enliven Places Capital Programme are no longer required, they are offered and gifted to other areas of the Council, sister organisations and communities. New Brighton, the Residential Red Zone and Sydenham were gifted assets in this reporting period.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report - October 2021 - March 2022 1 June 2022 Attachment A

200

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a)  This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Janine Sowerby - Senior Planner

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Approved By

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 













Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

13.  Events and Festivals Fund

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/204420

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Lucy Blackmore, Manager Events and Arts, lucy.blackmore@ccc.govt.nz
Tanya Cokojic, Team Leader Events Partnerships, tanya.cokojic@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1      The purpose of this report is for Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to receive the staff recommendation for the allocation of the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund for Financial Year 2022/23 and make a decision to approve or otherwise.

1.2      The report is staff generated.

1.3      The decisions in this report are considered medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the outcome of the decisions having the potential to generate community interest and the likely impact on, and consequences for, the social and economic wellbeing of the City.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund Evaluation report as Attachment A.

2.         Approve carrying forward the $119,826 remaining in the Events Discretionary Response Fund for inclusion in the 2022/23 Events and Festivals Fund to be allocated.

3.         Approve the staff recommendations for the allocation of the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund for the 2022/23 financial year as detailed in the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund Evaluation attached to this report (Attachment A).

4.         Approve the establishment of an Events and Festivals Discretionary Response Fund as per the eligibility criteria attached to this report (Attachment D).

5.         Delegate to the Head Recreation Sports and Events authority to approve grants from the Events and Festivals Discretionary Response Fund of up to $15,000 in accordance with the eligibility of the fund. 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1      All the events recommended for support meet the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund criteria highlighted in the Staff Decision Matrix (Attachment C) and have been prioritised accordingly for support.

3.2      The Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund for Financial Year 2022/23 was oversubscribed with 43 applications totalling $1,013,923 received. $521,835.00 is on budget to be allocated less $326,000.00 which is already committed on multi-year contracts leaving $195,835 available to allocate this financial year.

3.3      The Special Events Fund, also known as the Discretionary Response Fund currently has $119, 826 available to distribute. If the balance is allocated through Events and Festivals 2022/23 it would increase the total available for allocation this financial year through Events and Festivals to $315,661.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1      Reject or alter staff recommendations, or refer funding request to another fund for consideration.

4.2      Decline the resolution to carry forward the $119,826 remaining in the Events Discretionary Response Fund for inclusion in the 2022/23 Events and Festivals Fund to be allocated. This would leave a total of $195,835 available to allocate this financial year through Events and Festivals.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund

5.1      The purpose of the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund is to provide support for events that enhance regional and local Christchurch as a place to live and visit and to strengthen the distinctive lifestyle, qualities and identity of Christchurch.

5.2      Applications to this fund were received by 3 April 2022. Information provided by the applicants included the event budget and company/organisation details. An event business plan was provided for multi-year applications. Applications have been assessed against the fund criteria (Attachment C), Council strategies and within the total funding available.

5.3      The Financial Year 2022/23 fund has operated under the same process as previous years in collaboration with ChristchurchNZ. Community and regional events were assessed as part of this fund, and major/mega events being assessed under the ChristchurchNZ’s funding portfolio.

5.4      There were no applications received to the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund that were considered major/mega events.

Timeline for Assessment

5.5      25 February 2022:   Industry-wide notification of fund opening dates.

5.6      7 March – 3 April 2022:  Fund opened.

5.7      April – May 2022:  Applications assessed against the fund criteria and recommendations drafted by Council staff.

5.8      17 May 2022:  Applications presented in Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee Briefing.

5.9      1 June 2022:  Final allocation decisions made in Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee Meeting.

Events Discretionary Response Fund

5.10    In Financial Year 2020/21 an Event Discretionary Response fund was set up with funds from funded events that cancelled due to Covid-19 related reasons.

5.11    Allocation of this funding was considered under the same process as the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) with requests for amounts under $15,000 being assessed at DRF panel, and amounts over $15,000 taken to Council for consideration.

5.12    In the 2021/22 financial year any returned or unused funds from Events and Festivals Fund due to Covid-19 alert level changed impacting on the ability for events to proceed were pooled into an Events Discretionary Response fund.

5.13    The Discretionary Response Fund currently has $119, 826 available to distribute.  Staff recommend the balance of this fund be allocated through Events and Festivals 2022/23 financial year.

5.14    If the balance is allocated through Events and Festivals 2022/23 it would increase the total available for allocation this financial year through Events and Festivals to $315,661.

5.15    In the event of Covid-19 alert level changes impacting on the ability for events to proceed in 2022/23 financial year it is requested that any returned or unused funds from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund be pooled into an Event Discretionary Response Fund to be used in the same way and follow the same process as the previous Events Discretionary Response fund.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1      This report supports the:

6.1.1   Activity: Recreation, Sport, Community Arts & Events

Level of Service: 2.8.6.1 Support community based organisations to develop, promote and deliver community events and arts in Christchurch - 15,000 hours of staff support provided to 600 community organisations.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2      The decisions are consistent with these Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.2.1   Events Policy Framework

6.2.2   Community Events Implementation Plan

6.2.3   Toi Ōtautahi – Art and Creativity Strategy

6.2.4   Central City Activation Plan

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4      Events that are granted sponsorship support from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund are required to work with Council to implement sustainable waste management initiatives to reduce the impact of the event on the environment where possible and report back on this as part of their post-event report.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5      Events that receive sponsorship support from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship fund are required to consider accessibility options for their event.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1      Cost to Implement – No additional cost to Council, allocation of the fund is included in existing budgets.

7.2      Maintenance/Ongoing costs – No additional cost to Council.

7.3      Funding Source – Events and Festivals Sponsorship fund.

Other / He mea anō

7.4      Not applicable.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1      The Sustainability and Resilience Committee has delegation for the allocation of the Events and Festivals Fund.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1      Insufficient funds to meet the requests may result in negative response from some applicants.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund - Evaluation 2022

218

b

Budget Spreadsheet

221

c

Staff Decision Matrix Spreadsheet

223

d

Events & Festivals Discretionary Response Fund - Eligibility

224

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund information available on CCC website

Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

 

 

 

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

Lucy Blackmore - Manager Events and Arts

Tanya Cokojic - Team Leader Events Partnerships & Development

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

 

 

 

 

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 




Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 



Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 


Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 



Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee

01 June 2022

 

 

14.  Sub-delegation of Time Extensions for Heritage Grants

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/412620

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Vivienne Wilson, Senior Legal Counsel, vivienne.wilson@ccc.govt.nz;
Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage, brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

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

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1      The purpose of this report is to provide for a sub-delegation from the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee to the General Manager of Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services and the Head of Planning and Consents in respect of extensions for heritage grants. 

1.2      This report has been written following requests from members of the Committee.

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

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Committee:

1.         Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Committee’s business, and any other applicable statutory authority

a.        Sub-delegates to the General Manager of Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services and the Head of Planning and Consents, severally, the power to grant the following extensions of time in relation to Heritage Grants:

·    Up to an 18 month extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant:

·    Up to an 18 month extension of time for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant.

b.        Limits the sub-delegation to exercising it once (one extension) for a specified Heritage Grant, noting that any further extensions would need to be determined by the Council.

2.         Notes that sub-delegations take effect on the date on this resolution, and that Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1      Members of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee have requested that this sub-delegation be made.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1      The other alternative option that was considered but not selected as the preferred option is not making these sub-delegations.

4.2      By not making these sub-delegations, the Committee will retain the status quo and continue to consider reports on whether heritage grants should be extended.  The advantage of this option is that the Committee maintains a watching brief on the execution of projects for which grants have been approved, and will allow for further extensions of time for the uptake of grants.  The disadvantage is this approach is time consuming for staff and elected members.  

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1      The Council delegated to the Sustainability and the Community Resilience Committee the authority to make decisions on the following funds (where the decision is not already delegated to staff)-

·   Heritage Grant Applications.

·   Extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

5.2      The reference to Heritage Grant applications includes applications for the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund and the Intangible Heritage Grants Fund. The Council also operated the Central City Landmarks Heritage Grants Fund.  However the Landmarks Heritage Grants Scheme was discontinued in 2020/2021 (although there are still some grants to be disbursed).

5.3      Heritage Incentive Grants and the Central City Landmark Heritage Grants are time limited.  For example, the Heritage Incentive Grant Guidelines provide that “The award of the Grant will expire 18 months from the date of written approval of the Grant. This period will only be extended with the written consent of the Committee.”[1]  The same time limit applied for grants from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grants scheme.

5.4      From time to time, the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee have considered requests for extensions for up to two years for the uptake of heritage grants.  For example, the Committee has considered and granted extensions in relation to the following:

·   20 August 2020 approval of an extension of time for Heritage Incentive Grants for the 158 High Street and 26 Canterbury Street.

·   24 February 2021 approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 141 High Street.

·   28 July 2021 approval of extensions of time for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grants for 116 Worcester Street and 387 Manchester Street.

·   24 November 2021 approval of an extension of time for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for 92 Lichfield Street.

5.5      Staff have identified that there are likely to be further extensions required for Landmark Heritage Grants for works to 116 Worcester Street and to 92 Lichfield Street. These Grants are likely to be claimed soon but may need further extensions of time as they relate to large scale projects and delays have occurred because of Covid-19.

5.6      From time to time, committee members have asked this matter be sub-delegated to staff.  The granting of time is largely an administrative matter, and it could be more efficiently managed through a staff delegation.

5.7      There is no need to allow for the granting of extensions of time for Intangible Heritage Grants as these grants are made are made at the beginning of a project rather than at the completion of a project/work.

5.8      The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas as grants can relate to various parts of the City.

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: Governance and decision-making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.28.3 Establish and maintain documented governance processes that ensure compliance with the local government legislation  - Governance processes are maintained and published on council’s website.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2      The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Guidelines for both the Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme and the Central City Landmark Heritage Grants recognise that extensions of time may be granted.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.4      The decision to create a sub-delegation does not impact on mana whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5      Not applicable.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6      Not applicable.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1      Cost to Implement - The changes to the Delegations will be entered in the Delegations Register by Legal Services

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no ongoing costs from making this change to delegations.  There are anticipated savings in elected member time in having delegations sit with staff.

7.3       Funding Source – Staff time in implementing the changes to the Delegations Register is met out of the Legal Services’ budget.

Other / He mea anō

7.2      Not applicable.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1      Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that unless expressly provided otherwise in the Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except those expressly excluded.

8.2      Clause 32(3) of Schedule 7 also provides that a committee may delegate any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers to a an officer of the local authority, but, to avoid doubt, if doing so is itself a sub-delegation, the power to so delegate is subject to any conditions, limitations, or prohibitions imposed in connection with the primary delegation.

8.3      There is an express delegation to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee in respect of granting extensions of time for Heritage Incentive Grants but both Guidelines for the Grant schemes provide that the Committee authorises extensions, and so Legal Services consider that this can be sub-delegated to staff.

8.4      Extensions of time for Heritage Incentive grants are normally limited to eighteen months (albeit the delegation to the Committee refers to two years), and therefore the same limit should apply to any sub-delegation for Heritage Incentive grants.  It also applies in practice to Central City Landmark Heritage grants.  These limits ensure that momentum is maintained with each project, although in some cases multiple extensions may need to be granted. 

8.5      The proposed sub-delegations do not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002. 

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1      There are no identified risks caused by the proposed sub-delegation.

 

 

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

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Legal Counsel

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

   

 



[1] See the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020