Agenda of Council - Thursday, 28 July 2022

Council

28 July 2022

7. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Wheels to Wings Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/200639
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Lianne Dalziel, Mayor, mayor@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davies@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Wheels to Wings Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route.

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

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

· Agenda (contains the Officers Report)

· Supplementary Agenda (Contains the Heard Submissions)

· Agenda Attachments (contains Not Heard Submissions)

1.3 The Hearings Panel is recommending that the Council approve the revised scheme design of the Wheels to Wings - Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route, as detailed in Attachment A (as summarised below). The Hearings Panel has also provided further recommendations and noting provisions to address and acknowledge some of the issues expressed by submitters. There are also a number of individual specific issues raised by submitters, which Council Officers will be actively investigating through the detailed design process.

West Section

1.3.1 A shared path from Johns Road underpass to the western end of Nunweek Park.

1.3.2 Approval in principle, for a shared path through Nunweek Park including additional angled parking adjacent to the park, subject to further investigation and viability, and if viable, further consultation with affected residents and organisations.

Central Section

1.3.3 For the section from Nunweek Boulevard to the Bishopdale roundabout to be a one-way separated cycleway on each side of the road next to the kerb.

1.3.4 For the section from the Bishopdale roundabout to Greers Road be a two-way cycleway on the north side of the road.

1.3.5 For the partial signalisation of the Bishopdale roundabout.

1.3.6 For the signalisation of the Breens Road and Gardiners Road intersection.

East Section

1.3.7 For the section east of Greers Road to be a two-way separated cycleway on the north side of the road.

Other

1.3.8 The Hearings Panel has recommended and noted a number of changes/requests which will be implemented or investigated by Council Officers through the detailed design process.

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

West Section – Waimakariri Road to Nunweek Boulevard

That the Council:

1. Approves the revised scheme design of the Wheels to Wings - Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route, as detailed in Attachment A, and including amendments listed below:

a. For the section from the Johns Road underpass to the western end of Nunweek Park to be a shared path, noting this design includes signals at Wooldridge Road (design concept 1).

b. For the section from Kilmuir Lane to the central section at Nunweek Park to be a two-way separated cycleway on south side of the road (design concept 1).

c. For the section from the western end of Nunweek Park to Kilmuir Lane, request staff to further investigate the viability of having a shared path through Nunweek Park, including additional angled parking adjacent to the park, and report back to the Council on the viability of this option.

i. Notes that if the option to have a shared path through Nunweek Park is viable further targeted consultation would be required.

ii. Notes that the Hearings Panel recommends in principle the approval for this section to be a shared path through Nunweek Park, subject to viability and targeted consultation.

iii. That if the option to have a shared path through Nunweek Park is not viable or approved by the Council, that for the section from the western end of Nunweek Park to Kilmuir Lane be a shared path as detailed in Attachment A (design concept 1).

d. Notes the following will be undertaken through the detailed design process:

i. That red markings will be investigated and a high friction surface will be included in the lead up to the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School.

ii. That the raised safety platform at the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School be built for a 50km/h speed limit.

iii. That ‘look right’ or similar markings will be applied at the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School.

iv. Staff to investigate the possibility of planting trees at 541R and 541E Harewood Road, noting that consultation with the adjacent property owner would be required.

East Section – East of Greers Road

That the Council:

2. Approves the revised scheme design of the Wheels to Wings - Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route, as detailed in Attachment A, and including amendments listed below:

a. For the section east of Greers Road to be a two-way separated cycleway on the north side of the road (design concept 1).

b. For staff to investigate if a raised safety platform to be built for a 50km/h speed limit can be installed at the signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street, and report to the Council in time for consideration of the Hearings Panel report.

c. Notes the following will be undertaken through the detailed design process:

i. Mitre 10 access - Staff to investigate treatment details around the Mitre 10 vehicle access to optimise rider safety at this location, in consultation with Mitre10. This will include options to make changes to the cycleway design, such as raising it past the access, along with finer design details such as active/more signage and speed bumps and measures to prevent encroachment of exiting vehicles into the cycleways when looking for gaps in traffic.

ii. Staff to look at other options for a high visibility alert system at the Mitre10 entrance/exit and if necessary consider a trial.

iii. Staff to continue to work with the business owner at 182 Harewood Road to investigate options to address concerns with drop off/pick up/waiting and crossing the road with students.

iv. For visible wayfinding to be installed at Wilmot Street for directions to Northlink.

Central Section – Nunweek Boulevard to Greers Road

That the Council:

3. Approves the revised scheme design of the Wheels to Wings - Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route, as detailed in Attachment A, and including amendments as listed below:

a. For the section from Nunweek Boulevard to the Bishopdale roundabout to be a one-way separated cycleway on each side of the road next to the kerb (design concept 1).

b. For the section from the Bishopdale roundabout to Greers Road be a two-way cycleway on the north side of the road (design concept 1).

c. For the partial signalisation of the Bishopdale roundabout.

d. For the signalisation of the Breens Road and Gardiners Road intersection.

e. Notes the following will be undertaken through the detailed design process:

i. That only one tree may need to be removed at the Bishopdale roundabout.

ii. That the Bishopdale Court median will be widened to provide space for vehicles turning right-out to wait clear of traffic.

iii. Staff to investigate opportunities for replanting trees noting this will be dependent on service locations.

iv. Staff to investigate warning signage and markings to address cyclist speed outside the Charity Hospital.

Other

That the Council:

4. Approves extending an existing 40km/h school speed zone on Waimakriri Road and Whitchurch Place, as detailed in Attachment A.

5. Approves the time restricted parking, as detailed in Attachment A.

6. Approves the new traffic signals, intersections and mid-block crossings, as detailed in Attachment A.

7. That the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the project are brought back to the Council or relevant Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

8. Notes that red surfacing and high friction surfacing requirements will be investigated for all crossings and raised crossings along the route.

9. Notes that staff will apply lessons learnt from other projects across the city to ensure that solutions address safety concerns.

10. Given the feedback received through the process, for staff to continue to prioritise advance bus detection and to investigate the installation of a right turn arrow from Main North Road into Harewood Rad.

11. Requests staff to ensure that other transport projects in the area within the wider network are aligned through the draft Annual Plan process, including:

a. Greers Road/Langdons Road signalisation

b. Greers Road/Sawyers Arms Road/Northcote Road intersection upgrade

c. Hoani Street/Sails Street intersection

d. Highsted Road/Sawyers Arms Road

e. Breens Road/ Wairakei Road

12. Requests staff to gather feedback from residents and local businesses along previously constructed Major Cycleway Routes to provide evidence of the effects of the cycleway.

13. Requests staff to review the detailed design to give effect to potential Ministry of Transport Accessible Streets rule changes if approved.

14. Approves extending an existing 50km/h speed restriction further northeast along Waimakariri Road, as detailed in Attachment A.

15. Approves the parking removal, as detailed in Attachment A.

16. Approves a reduction from four lanes to two lanes on Harewood Road between Crofton Road and Greers Road, as detailed in Attachment A.

17. Approves access restrictions at Hoani Street, Sails Street and Chapel Street, as detailed in Attachment A.

18. Approves the tree removal, as detailed in Attachment A, noting that with planting there is a net increase of trees along the corridor.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Wheels to Wings Major Cycle Route (MCR) is one of 13 major cycle routes planned to provide a city-wide cycle network. The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (CTSP) recognises that the development of an effective cycleway network is a key component to achieve an efficient multimodal transport network. The cycleway is proposed to be built along Harewood Road from Johns Road underpass, via Whitchurch Place and Waimakariri Road to the railway line, connecting to the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s.

3.2 High-level cost estimates, including contingency, have been completed for the preferred option and the community concept design.

3.3 The estimate for the preferred option is approximately $19 million.

3.4 The estimate for the community concept design is approximately $21.5 million.

3.5 The estimates have not yet been revised for the current construction price increases, this will be updated following the completion of detailed design.

3.6 The current project budget is $22.6 million, with construction funding in financial years 2024 - 2026. This budget includes $1.2 million transferred into the budget to complete the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection signalisation.

3.7 The Hearings Panel has recommended the cycle path be located within Nunweek Park along this section. The cost estimate for this is an additional $400,000, this is currently within budget.

3.8 Waka Kotahi subsidy of 51% on the approved scheme will be applied for.

3.9 Throughout the process the route was discussed and split into three main sections, as described below. There were thirteen design concepts across the three sections, the Officers Report to the Hearings Panel contains a full analysis on all of the options:

3.9.1 West section from Waimakariri Road to Nunweek Boulevard

3.9.2 Central section from Nunweek Boulevard to Greers Road

3.9.3 East section from Greers Road to the railway line

Timeline of decision-making

3.10 2010 Harewood Road Cycle Lane extension and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Amendment (Harewood Road) Bylaw 2009 project is approved by Council, which included the reduction of traffic lanes on Harewood Road from two to one, 3.5 metres wide, in each direction by painting chevron markings alongside the median island.

· http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/proceedings/2010/a/cnclcover26th/council26august2010fullagenda.pdf Item 13, page 145, Hearings Panel recommendation

· http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/proceedings/2010/september/cnclcover23rd/council26august2010minutes.pdf Item 13, page 20, motion was carried.

· The project was not implemented due to reprioritisation after the earthquakes.

3.11 2012 Christchurch Strategic Transport Plan identified indicative start and end points for routes for the MCR network.

· https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Strategies/ChristchurchStrategyTransportPlan2012.pdf Action 1.1.3 Making Christchurch a cycle city, page 30

3.12 2014

· Waka Kotahi Notice of Requirement recommending location of John Road Underpass, in consultation with CCC.

· Cycleway Network - Strategic Case completed November 2014, endorsed by NZTA

3.13 2017 Wheels to Wings route selection investigation.

3.14 2018 Harewood Road endorsed by Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee as the preferred Wheels to Wings route.

3.15 2019 Upgrade of the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection approved by Council, following community consultation.

3.16 2020 Scheme design.

3.17 Notice of Motion 11 February 2021

· Direct staff to conclude consultation on the project as per the 8 March date with an additional information session to be held in Bishopdale.

· Direct staff to meet with key stakeholders along Harewood Road to mitigate any potential design issues based off the initial feedback.

· Direct staff to produce a range of design options for the Community Boards to consider in public workshops prior to the commencement of the hearings process.

3.18 2021 Community consultation – 25 January to 15 March 2021 and 27 October to 17 November 2021.

3.19 2022 Hearing and decision.

Hearings Panel Briefing

3.20 A Hearings Panel briefing was held on 21 October 2021. The purpose of the briefing was to inform and update the Hearings Panel on the outcomes of the consultation, all design options considered, the preferred design, including changes resulting from consultation feedback and next steps. The briefing was live-streamed to enable public attendance, due to the COVID-19 level 2 restrictions in place : https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/video/10533

3.21 During the briefing the Hearings Panel noted their concerns regarding the high parking demand at Nunweek Park, particularly during sporting events. The Hearings Panel requested for Officers to investigate if other dedicated parking in or around the park is viable.

3.22 The Hearings Panel also raised concerns regarding the potential conflict points between vehicles and cyclists at the Mitre 10 access on Harewood Road. A request was made for Officers to provide further information on the impacts of having a two-way cycleway on the south side, after Chapel Street.

3.23 A Memorandum was provided to the Hearings Panel, which responded to the actions and requests at the briefing (included in Attachment B). The Hearings Panel were also provided with a carbon emissions report which contained information on the potential impacts on carbon emissions of the proposed cycleway (refer to Attachment C).

Joint Community Board Workshop

3.24 As directed in the 11 February 2021 Notice of Motion, an additional public workshop was held with the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board on 2 December 2021. The purpose of the workshop was to provide all updated information to the Community Boards to inform their submissions to the Hearings Panel. The workshop was also livestreamed to enable public attendance due to COVID-19 level 2 restrictions: https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/video/10610

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

Consultation Process

4.1 Below is a summary of the consultation process and submissions received. The Officer Report to the Hearings Panel contains the full detailed information (refer to Section 5 and Attachment F).

4.2 Two rounds of community consultation and engagement was undertaken on the project.

4.3 The first round of community consultation took place from 25 January 2021 until 8 March 2021. This included an extension due to requests for more time to complete submissions and changes in our COVID-19 alert levels.

4.4 During the consultation period four drop-in sessions were held for the community to meet the project team and find out more about the project. Two of these sessions were rescheduled due to changes in Covid-19 alert levels.

4.5 The second round of engagement was held between Wednesday 27 October and Wednesday 17 November 2021. Feedback was sought on the changes made to the design following the first round of consultation. Updated plans, with the design changes highlighted, were made available online.

4.6 Three information days were held at Bishopdale Mall to provide an opportunity for the community to meet the project team and view the updated information. The sessions were held from 27 to 29 October 2021. Approximately 150 people attended, including a number of casual walk-ins.

4.7 All display material was made available online on the Wheels to Wings project page. Details were shared with all previous submitters and an invite was delivered to the original drop area which included approximately 2000 properties.

Submissions received in the first round of consultation

4.8 During the first round of consultation, 1348 submissions were received from businesses, organisations and residents. Many submitters were long-time residents in the area and provided very detailed and informed feedback. Of the 1348 submissions, 172 were from residents directly on the route. The following themes were identified:

4.9 Other themes identified:

4.10 Key benefits noted in submissions:

· Better safety for people biking.

· Safe route for children to get to school.

· Connectivity to other cycleways.

· Physical and mental wellbeing.

· New signalised crossings for both pedestrians and cyclists.

· Positive impact on reducing carbon emissions.

· There was continued widespread support for signalising Harewood Road/Gardiners Road/Breens Road intersection.

4.11 Key concerns noted in submissions:

· Loss of parking – business and residential.

· Increased traffic congestion as a result of reducing four lanes to two and additional traffic signals.

· Cost of the project and whether it will get used.

· Safety – property access, driver behaviour and cycleway design.

· Safety concerns at Harewood/Greers intersection.

· Chapel Street, Sails Street and Wilmot Street changes.

· Bishopdale roundabout – design of the roundabout and proposed tree removal.

· Access for emergency services.

· Bus stop changes.

· How the wider network will function (including Langdons Road).

· Alternative route suggestions and design options.

4.12 Overall response

Submissions received in the second round of engagement

4.13 A further 86 submissions were received in the second round of engagement. This included 17 submissions from residents of Harewood Road and 39 submissions from people who attended our information days. Of the 86 submissions received, 64 were from previous submitters while receiving feedback from 22 new submitters.

4.14 Overall response

4.15 Additional themes noted that were not identified in the first round of consultation:

· Width of the cycleway (6 submissions).

· Narrowing of the side streets at Harewood Road (6 submissions).

· Support for other options (4 for the road swap option and 2 for the cycleway down the central median).

4.16 Similar themes already identified in the first round of consultation:

· The cost of the project and whether it will be used were again the main concerns raised by submitters.

· Safety concerns with having the cycleway on Harewood Road was another concern, which was also reflected in feedback, related to property access.

· Parking, both residential and for businesses and opposition to the lane reductions also featured in the top concerns.

4.17 Road swap – Two-way traffic on one side of the central median with a cycleway and access road on the other side (Community Concept Design)

4.17.1 During the consultation process submitters Mr Greenwood and Mr Neill, two local residents who have a transportation background, further developed one of the Council’s design concepts, as an alternative to the Council’s preferred design option. An independent Transport Planner representing several businesses along the route supported the central section of the further developed concept.

4.17.2 They visited various businesses and organisations along Harewood Road to share their design concept and the benefits they believed it provides to the community, including the retention of more parking than the preferred option. A number of businesses and organisations including Enliven Bishopdale, Foodstuffs and Copenhagen Bakery provided feedback supporting this option in their submission.

4.17.3 This design concept was further explored through the Hearings Panel process. Further details and commentary are provided in section 6.7 of this report. It is noted that that the Community Concept Design had not been consulted wider than with the individuals that the submitters have engaged with.

4.18 Changes as a result of feedback

4.18.1 The project team continued to meet with key stakeholders, directly affected businesses and residents to discuss their concerns, which has contributed to the changes made to the preferred design.

4.18.2 There were a total of 69 design changes made as a result of feedback received. The key design changes made were:

· Copenhagen Bakery – additional on-street parking added and accessway and cycleway design changes

· Canterbury Charity Hospital – cycleway design changes

· Bishopdale roundabout – retention of most tress

· Wilmot Street – cul-de-sac shifted to Hoani Street

· Chapel and Sails Streets – one-way vehicle access swapped

4.18.3 Statistics on the design changes are noted below and Attachment C of the Officer Report to the Hearings Panel included a list of the changes:

4.18.4 The project team also noted that continued engagement with key stakeholders and affected residents and business would also occur during the detailed design phase to address concerns where possible.

4.18.5 The map below identifies the overall areas of interest and topics:

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Hearings Panel membership consisted of Mayor Lianne Dalziel (Chairperson), Councillor Mike Davidson, Councillor Aaron Keown, Community Board Member Jason Middlemiss and Community Board Member Emma Norrish.

5.2 Prior to the hearings commencing, the Hearings Panel undertook a site visit along the proposed route on Wednesday 2 February 2022, 2-5pm. The Hearings Panel stopped at various locations. Details of the site visit is included in Attachment D.

5.3 The Hearings Panel convened on 16 February, 4 March, 16 March, 17 March, 28 March, 30 March and 13 April 2022 to consider and deliberate on all submissions and information received on the proposal.

5.4 Prior to hearing verbal submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposed route and submissions analysis. A PowerPoint presentation was made available (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments).

5.5 As part of the consultation process, as referred to in paragraph 0 of this report, two submitters developed an alternative design referred to as the “Community Concept Design”. An independent review of the Community Concept Design and the Council’s Preferred Design was undertaken by Jeanette Ward and Paul Durdin of Abley Ltd. The purpose of the review was to establish and provide an independent opinion on the relative merits and points-of-difference of the two options in the project outcomes table. The final report was provided to the Hearings Panel on 25 March 2022 (refer to the Minutes Attachments). Further information on the review is provided in section 6.7 of this report.

6. Verbal Submissions

6.1 The Hearings Panel heard from 70 submitters, these included a mixture of groups/organisations, local businesses and residents, individuals and the two affected Community Boards. The Minutes of the meetings contains the list of presenters and the Minutes Attachments contains all tabled documents.

6.2 The views expressed by the submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words through their original submissions and/or subsequent documents tabled during the process. Most key issues raised in the verbal submissions are similar in content to those presented in the original written submissions. Some of the key issues that were raised during the verbal submissions are described below. The reasons for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations on these issues are described in section 7 below. Some of the topics were also raised through the Hearings Panel questions (refer to the Minutes Attachments).

West section comments

6.3 Nunweek Park – Submitters expressed concerns with the current car parking demand at Nunweek Park, particularly during sporting events. Submitters were concerned that parking removal in this area would exacerbate the issue and requested further car parking be investigated. The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board (#38881) also requested for angle parking to be investigated.
Refer to section 7.6 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.4 Harewood School and crossing – Some submitters were concerned there would be safety issues with the signalised pedestrian crossing located outside Harewood School due to the potential low frequency the signals would be called.
Refer to section 7.7 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

East section comments

6.5 Mitre 10 Entrance
Refer to section 7.10 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.5.1 Overall Mitre 10 (#38475) were supportive of the cycleway. However, they did express concerns with the design. Mitre 10 noted their support for:

· The signalised pedestrian and cycle crossing near Matsons Avenue, which would allow vehicles and trucks to exit easier due to the breaks in traffic.

· The vehicle access restriction swap at Chapel Street and Sails Street, (Chapel Street exit only onto Harewood Road, Sails Street entry only from Harewood Road), as this will prevent rat running through the store car park.

· The removal of some on-street parking on Chapel Street and Langdon’s Road to make access easier for larger vehicles into the Mitre 10 carpark.

· The shifting and indenting of the bus stop outside Mitre10.

6.5.2 Mitre 10’s main concerns were in relation to safe access to their site, in particular, for large trucks. The proposal would require delivery trucks to enter through Chapel Street off Langdons Road and exit by Harewood Road.

6.5.3 As with other submitters, Mitre 10 was also concerned with the increasing traffic pressure on Langdons Road.

6.5.4 Mitre 10 also requested for works to be of minimal disruption for customer and delivery access, and to ensure the Harewood Road entrance is completed before works commence on Chapel Street.

6.6 Side street vehicle restrictions and traffic congestion - Many submitters expressed their concerns with the current traffic congestion in the area and felt design changes would exacerbate the issue.
Refer to section 7.22 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.6.1 Many highlighted the traffic congestion in the area around Langdons Road/Sails Street/Chapel Street/Hoani Street/ Matsons Avenue and Sawyers Arms Road had increased dramatically over the last few years. The Waipapa Papanui Innes Community Board (#37637) noted they are currently reviewing Langdons Road as a corridor.

6.6.2 One submitter (#42600) also noted safety issues with the current intersection layout of Sails Street and Hoani Street.

Central section comment

6.7 Community Concept Design developed by submitters (#37354/#42688/#37534)
Refer to section 7.13 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations and the Hearings Panel questions and responses for further advice on the concept and financials.

6.7.1 An alternative design known as the Community Concept Design was developed by two submitters who also represented the Enliven Bishopdale Group and the Bishopdale Mall Business Association. There were a number of submitters, local residents and businesses who noted their support for this alternative design option.

6.7.2 The Community Concept Design proposes to shift all through traffic on the central section of Harewood Road onto the north side of the central median, also reducing Harewood Road from four traffic lanes to two. Some indented parking is provided on the north side of the road between trees and power poles. A two-way cycleway is located against the south side of the central median, alongside a low speed one-way local access road to service properties on that side of the road. The access road connects to the main part of Harewood Road at new intersections.

6.7.3 East of Greers Road, the community concept proposes a two-way cycleway on the south side of the road instead of the north side. It does not include traffic signals at Harewood School or at the intersection with Wooldridge Road. It includes full intersection signals at the Bishopdale Court intersection (Mall), at Highsted Road and Farrington Avenue (via removal of the roundabout), and at the Matsons Avenue intersection. West of Nunweek Boulevard, the community concept proposes a shared path on the south side of the road, comparable to the consulted design.

6.7.4 The Community Concept Design has proposed some alternative design details for other parts of the route, which have been considered by the project team. Some may be incorporated in the project following further investigation on their feasibility at detailed design.

6.7.5 In their verbal submission the submitters explained the proposal and emphasised the benefits of their design in comparison with the Council’s preferred design. Submitters suggested the following advantages:

· The design estimate would cost approximately $2.5 million less.

· The design would provide better connectively for all users.

· The design would be safer for users as it avoids the installation of traffic signals at Nunweek Boulevard and Matsons Ave. The submitter stated that low use isolated traffic signals have poor safety records.

· The design includes traffic signals at the Bishopdale Court.

· The design provides increased comfort and a “greenway” which will provide large areas for loss of trees and additional tree planting.

· The design retains more on street car parking.

6.7.6 The submitters were given a number of opportunities to provide additional information regarding the design. Concept plans of the option were also developed by Council Officers. (Refer to the Minutes Attachments).

6.8 Reduction of on street car parking
Refer to section 7.19 and 7.11 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.8.1 The loss of car parking along the proposed route was a key concern for most submitters, particularly in relation to the central section. The Waimāero Fendalton Waimairi Harewood Community Board felt it important that sufficient parking remains to allow for residential visitor parking and other service vehicle access such as emergency services. They also expressed their concern with the loss of parking for businesses along the route. They felt that the removal of parking in certain places would force cars to park on other surrounding streets.

6.8.2 Many submitters were particularly concerned with the loss of car parking at Copenhagen Bakery, Charity Hospital, Golden Age and Palmers Funeral Home.

6.8.3 Brain Gains Tutors (#36389) were concerned with the loss of parking due to safe access for their students. They noted many students travelled from around the city and were dropped off/picked up by parents and some students also had disabilities, therefore, easy and safe access to the venue was required. They requested a drop-off zone be included outside their property.

6.8.4 On the contrary, some submitters made comments on the positive impacts car park reductions would have on the environment. They felt car park removal would support alternative transport modes. One submitter (#38820) also noted that roads were not just for private use. The submitter also felt that businesses overestimated the use of cars as a mode of transport for customers.

6.9 Slow environments – One submitter (#38817/42741) put forward an idea to create a slow pedestrian friendly environment east of Sails Street. The environment would be inclusive for young children and the elderly and was referred to as “Harewood Boulevard”. The design included seating, green space, landscaping and trees in order to create a slow speed environment. The submitter noted the design would be beneficial to the retirement homes and nearby schools.
Refer to sections 7.7, 7.11 and 7.20 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.10 Reducing Harewood Road from four lanes to two
Refer to section 7.19 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.10.1 Opposition to this proposal was a common theme raised during verbal submissions.

6.10.2 One submitter (#38861/42135) commented that often large vehicles park either side of their gateway which inhibits their ability to exit their property safely. They felt that reducing the lanes to two would further exacerbate the issue of exiting safely as cars currently use the second lane to move out of the way for people exiting driveways.

6.10.3 Many felt traffic congestion was already an issue and that reducing the lanes from four to two would exacerbate the issue.

6.11 Support for traffic lights at Gardiners Road/Breens Road – The majority of submitters supported the traffic lights at this intersection noting the current intersection safety issues. Many felt these should be installed regardless of the cycleway implementation.
Refer to section 7.16 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.12 Bishopdale Roundabout and Bishopdale Court
Refer to sections 7.14 and 7.15 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.12.1 Many submitters felt the traffic signals at the Bishopdale roundabout would increase traffic congestion which is already high and would be too complicated for vehicle users.

6.12.2 Some submitters requested to retain the trees at the roundabout which was supported by the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

6.12.3 Others also requested traffic signals be installed at the Bishopdale Court (Mall) due to current issues faced when entering/exiting.

6.13 Copenhagen Bakery(#38929) and Caltex (#38927)
Refer to sections 7.13 and 7.19 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.13.1 Copenhagen Bakery and Caltex were represented by independent traffic engineer, Ray Edwards. In their verbal submission Copenhagen Bakery and Caltex expressed their support for the Community Concept Design as they felt this design would work best for their customers and business, as well as users of the cycleway and the community. They also expressed concerns regarding the Council’s preferred design option.

6.13.2 Both submitters felt the Council’s preferred design had safety issues regarding conflict between cyclists and driveways and also created parking issues for the community and their buisiness.

6.13.3 In respect of their site, Copenhagen Bakery felt the Council’s preferred design created issues for vehicles and delivery trucks potentially queuing onto Harewood Road when entering the site, parking demand issues for customers and trip hazards, particularly for elderly customers.

6.13.4 Alongside their presentation, the owner of Copenhagen Bakery presented a petition containing 1300 signatures, which read: “CCC must review and re consult the public and community for this proposal 2021, due to the changes since 2010 & how many people it will affect in this community.”

6.13.5 In respect of their site, Caltex also felt the proposed design had safety issues with vehicles exiting the site and would create collisions between vehicles and cyclists.

6.13.6 Both submissions highlighted that overall the Community Concept Design provides for more on-street car parking, the signalisation of the Bishopdale Court, higher safety standards and easier use and continuity for cyclists.

6.14 Charity Hospital (#38928)
Refer to sections 7.18 and 7.13 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.14.1 In their verbal submission, the Charity Hospital advised they have expanded their site, which now extends to the corner of Leacroft Street.

6.14.2 In summary, the Charity Hospital supported the Community Concept Design as they felt this was the only viable design for their organisation, which offered good access to the site as well as offering cyclists better protection.

6.14.3 In regards to access, they also noted the Community Concept Design avoids patients and visitors having to cross the cycleway. The design would allow delivery trucks to manoeuvre in to the site without needing to stop traffic flow on the main road. They further noted that safer access is provided to visitors if they park on the street. Finally, they emphasised that the Community Concept Design had more benefits than the current situation on Harewood Road.

6.14.4 In regards to the Council’s proposed design, the Charity Hospital were concerned with elderly residents accessing nearby bus stops on both sides of the road and trips hazards. They also felt that the loss of off street parking would have an impact on visitors.

6.15 Golden Age (#372588) – During its verbal submission, Golden Age had concerns with effects the proposed design would have on its residents and visitors. They expressed concerns with the loss of on-street car parking and felt the current issue from them is the number of vehicles entering and exiting the facility. Furthermore, the submitter had concerns with the bi-directional aspect of the cycleway outside their facility.
Refer to sections 7.19 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

Other comments

6.16 Support for the proposed cycleway
Refer to sections 7.7, 7.19 and 7.20 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.16.1 The majority of submitters noted their general support for cycleways, acknowledging the merits and benefits in regards to health, promoting active travel and reducing carbon emissions.

6.16.2 Many submitters acknowledged the current safety issues and excessive speeds along Harewood Road. Some submitters noted their support for the preferred design as it offers a safer cycling option along Harewood Road, and in particular, would provide a safe environment for children learning how to ride and travelling to school. Spokes (#38778/#42807) emphasised the need for education and good sight lines.

6.16.3 There was support for ensuring the facility is designed and built wide enough so there is adequate space for all users, both on separated cycleways and shared paths. One submitter (#38790) noted the importance of good quality designs, ensuring cyclists are separated from vehicles and ensuring safety is not compromised. The submitter referred to evidence and research available which indicates that the “build and they will come” theory is proving to work. They further explained there is clear evidence supporting the cost benefit analysis of building good quality cycleways, noting the evidence does not support people’s doubts.

6.16.4 One submitter applauded the preferred design as they felt it embraces a multi model transport system (#38820), which is in line with the government’s long-term environmental goals. Other supportive comments included how the cycleway will benefit the majority of ratepayers, as well as having positive impacts for residents, for example improved street landscaping and for some, streets turning into cul-de-sacs.

6.16.5 Some submitters acknowledged the importance of completing the Major Cycleway Route network. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board noted the proposed route would connect with Northern Line, Papanui Parallel and future Nor’West Arc routes and would provide an active travel link to the airport, cycle facilities in the wider area and key activity centres. Other submitters also commented on the importance of this route as they felt this area was a ‘missing link’.

6.16.6 Although there were a number of submitters that noted their support for cycleways generally, many submitters were concerned with the overall proposed design/location.

6.17 Trees – Many submitters noted their objection to the removal of trees and requests were made to retain as many as possible.
Refer to sections 7.8 and 7.17 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.18 Number of cyclists - A number of submitters commented on the current low number of cyclists along Harewood Road and felt the cost was too high for the benefit of a small number of users. Other submitters such as Spokes, who supported the route, emphasised the importance of data collection on current cycle numbers as well as post-construction.
Refer to section 7.21 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.19 Other options
Refer to section 7.20 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.19.1 Some submitters felt there were other routes and design options that could be considered. Other suggestions included, using the berms and existing footpath, the use of painted cycle lanes and shared paths and putting the cycleway down the middle of Harewood Road.

6.19.2 Other route options such as Sawyers Arms Road were suggested. The Christchurch International Airport (#38500) was supportive of the Wheels to Wings MCR on Harewood Road, but also wanted to see improvements for cycling on Memorial Avenue to cater for more experienced riders who would not travel further for a safer facility. They also highlighted the current safety issues along Harewood Road and that one of the main barriers for people biking to the airport was due to a lack of a safe route, time and distance.

6.19.3 Some felt there was no need to separate cyclists and vehicles. Others suggested trials should be undertaken first to see how the cycleway would work.

6.20 Cost – A number of submitters were concerned with the overall cost of the project. One submitter (#38885) was also concerned with the cost of ongoing maintenance requirements. The Waimāero Fendalton Waimairi Harewood Community Board noted their preference to see less expensive options along this route. The Board also noted that if the Community Concept Design was the best option then cost should not be a reason to not do it.
Refer to section 3.2 to 3.8 and the Hearings Panel questions and responses for financial information.

6.21 Timing of projects - Similar to Mitre 10’s request, some submitters commented on the need for considered timing of other transport projects in the area. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board noted the crossing at the Harewood Road railway crossing was approved as part of the Northern Line route and requested that it be constructed as part of that project if not sooner.
Refer to section 7.22 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.22 Wider transport network issues - Many submitters noted their concern the proposal would have on the wider transport network along the entire route.
Refer to section 7.22 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.23 Speed – Most submitters were concerned with the current speed of vehicles along Harewood Road.
Refer to sections 7.19 and 7.20 for the Hearings Panel considerations/recommendations.

6.24 Process – There were some submitters who noted their objection to the consultation process under the Local Government Act 2022. A second petition was presented (#43118) containing 700 signature, the prayer read “CCC must review and re consult the public and community for this proposal 2021, due to the changes since 2010 & re negotiate the viability of the plan and design.” Another submitter also raised concerns that safety audits had not been undertaken on all of the design options.
Refer to Minutes Attachments for questions and responses related to process.

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

7.1 As part of its decision-making process the Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as supplementary information provided throughout the process. Supplementary information included, further advice from Council Officers, further advice from submitters regarding the Community Concept Design, the carbon emissions report and the Abley Independent Review Report of the preferred design and Community Concept Design.

7.2 Council Officers’ responses to the Hearings Panels questions, as attached, informed the Hearings Panel in its consideration of the range of views and issues raised by submitters. The document indicates the inquisitive approach the Hearings Panel took to the consideration of written and verbal submissions received on the proposal. This is summarised in this report in respect of significant points of the Hearings Panel’s consideration of submissions

7.3 The Hearings Panel acknowledged this particular Major Cycleway route is an extremely technical, complex and sensitive issue for members of the community, users and particularly for those directly affected. This was evident through the number of well-considered submissions and it was clear to the Hearings Panel this was a very engaged community. The Hearings Panel acknowledged the concerns raised by the community and recognised and valued the passion, time, effort and investment many people have put in to this process.

7.4 The Hearings Panel received sufficient and adequate information from Council Officers and all parties involved to formulate their recommendations to the Council.

West Section from Waimakariri Road to Nunweek Boulevard

7.5 The Hearings Panel acknowledged this section of the proposed route was the least contentious. The Hearings Panel identified three key themes they were keen to address, which were, the car parking capacity at Nunweek Park, the pedestrian crossing outside Harewood School and additional tree plantings.

7.6 Nunweek Park

7.6.1 Considerations - The Hearings Panel expressed concerns with the current parking situation at Nunweek Park, during both the briefing and the site visit, which was also echoed through verbal submissions. The Hearings Panel requested Council Officers to provide alternative solutions for additional parking.

7.6.2 Following further discussions with the Hearings Panel an alternative option was established which would move the shared path into Nunweek Park to be able to provide space to create additional angled car parks. This was further investigated by Council Officers.

7.6.3 Officers advised that the shared path would need to be constructed on the south side of the trees in Nunweek Park on the frontage to Harewood Road. However, this could affect the use of the park for other users and therefore further targeted consultation would be required. There were also Crime Prevention Through Safer Environmental Design (CPTED) issues identified such as, lack of passive surveillance from the street due to the double row of trees, especially at night. Further discussions with the arborist would be required to understand the impact on the trees being in close proximity to the shared path. Officers advised that the option could cost approximately $400,000 more (excluding the cost of assessments and further engagement).

7.6.4 Officers were able to undertake initial discussions with the parks staff, arborist and recreation and sport staff who indicated that this option could be developed. In addition, Officers felt additional lighting would mitigate any CPTED concerns.

7.6.5 Recommendations - The Hearings Panel was pleased with the positive advice on the alternative option for this section of the route. The Hearings Panel acknowledged that this solution would alleviate a number of existing concerns with car parking demand in this area. The Hearings Panel felt the additional lighting would mitigate the CPTED issues and any risk to cyclists at night would be low to minimal.

7.6.6 Noting this option would require further investigation and targeted engagement, the Hearings Panel recommended approval, in principal, for this section of the route to be a shared path through Nunweek Park.

7.6.7 The Hearings Panel also recommended the approval of the preferred design concept as the second option, should the shared path through the park be unviable.

7.7 Harewood School Crossing

7.7.1 Considerations - For the west section another key area for the Hearings Panel considerations was the signalised pedestrian crossing outside Harewood School.

7.7.2 The Hearings Panel requested for further visibility to be provided at this crossing noting the safety concerns raised by some in regards to the potential low use of isolated traffic signals.

7.7.3 Through the Abley Independent Review it was highlighted that the Waka Kotahi Pedestrian Network Guidance notes, that there may be locations where, due to a desire to encourage pedestrian priority, a signalised crossing may be appropriate with lower pedestrian flows. The review further explained it felt the signals would not be called so infrequently that they would create safety issues, based on current examples such as Sparks Road outside Hoon Hay School.

7.7.4 The Hearings Panel also discussed the logistics of how the crossing would function. Officers advised that they would continue to work with the school.

7.7.5 Recommendations - Based on the advice provided, the Hearings Panel recommended approving the preferred design option for this section. The Hearings Panel also recommended red markings and high friction surfaces to be included in the lead up, and “look right’ or similar markings to be applied.

7.7.6 The Hearings Panel also raised concerns with the speed of vehicles travelling over the raised safety platforms, particularly for emergence services. Based on Officers advice the recommendations also requests for the platforms to be built to accommodate a 50km/h speed limit.

7.7.7 Information provided after the process – The Hearings Panel requested for Officers to discuss the raised safety platform with Fire and Emergency NZ and St Johns before the Council decision-making meeting.

7.7.8 The project team met with Police, Fire and Emergency NZ and St John to discuss the cycleway at early stages of investigations in 2017, and again during the first round of community consultation at the start of 2021. The 2017 meetings informed the details of the cycleway design, with none of the organisations indicating concern with the proposed road layout changes.

7.7.9 Police, Fire and Emergency NZ and St John feedback 2021:

· Police did not have any major concerns, and supported the measures to improve cyclist safety.

· Fire and Emergency NZ noted the raised safety platforms would slow down their vehicles, however Harewood Road is no longer a strategic/main route for the fire service due to the fires station being relocated. They did not see any major issues with the overall cycleway design and acknowledged they would adapt to the design.

· Platforms were not discussed at the previous meetings with St John, a further meeting to discuss has been scheduled.

7.7.10 St John feedback 16 May 2022:

· Officers explained how the platforms are designed to be travelled over comfortably at 50 km/h and are not the speed bumps. St John acknowledged that the raised platforms will slow them down but not significantly, they are not a concern for them.

· St John advised that all their drivers drive to the conditions and there are many speed humps around the city.

· St John advised that Harewood Road is a main thoroughfare for them and noted from the plans they will still be able to get through when congested – flush median, space to pull over

· St John noted improving cycle safety is a positive and they attend quite a lot of crashes involving cyclists

· St John noted that a raised platform by Chapel Street would be a positive for the rest homes in the area.

7.8 Additional tree plantings

7.8.1 Considerations - The Hearings Panel identified a small section of green space at 541R and 541E Harewood Road (see image below), where additional trees could be planted. Council Officers confirmed the land was council-owned and additional trees could be planted in this location, in consultation with adjacent property owners.

7.8.2 Recommendations – The Hearings Panel heard from submitters about the importance of trees and were pleased to include a recommendation to plant additional trees at this location.

East section from east of Greers Road

7.9 In regards to the east section, a priority for the Hearings Panel was to address the Mitre 10 entrance. The Hearings Panel also explored other matters in relation to signalised pedestrian crossings. The Hearings Panel also acknowledged the number of submissions, which highlighted traffic capacity issues within this area. This was further explored in the Hearings Panel ‘Other’ recommendations.

7.10 Mitre 10 Entrance

7.10.1 Considerations: The Hearings Panel raised concerns with the potential conflict between cyclists and vehicles entering/exiting the Mitre 10 entrance during the briefing and again during the site visit.

7.10.2 Council Officers provided the Hearings Panel with seven alternative options that could be considered, noting the preferred design option remained the preference as it catered for all cycle movements at this location.

7.10.3 As part of their considerations, the Hearings Panel requested further mitigations regarding visibility and potential conflict be investigated during detailed design, in consultation with Mitre 10. This included designing the cycleway at road level, speed bumps, preventing vehicle movements into the cycleway, and alternative signage options.

7.10.4 The project team were able to discuss these options with Mitre 10 prior to the Hearings Panel’s final meeting. Mitre 10 confirmed the preferred design concept, with amendments to the details would work well for their entrance. Officers advised that with a simple layout design, increased clearance and greater awareness of riders, the design would be sufficient.

7.10.5 Photo one was provided to show the current situation. Photo two was provided to visualise the proposed facility type (with the difference being the cycleway in photo two is two-way). It was noted it would provide greater clearance than what is currently available for cyclists, and greater visibility with the removal of on street parking. Photo three was provided to visualise the latest guideline markings that would be installed. Officers further advised that through the detailed design process, speed humps or hatch markings could be investigated, if required.

7.10.6 Recommendations: Based on the information provided the Hearings Panel were comfortable with recommending the preferred design option for this location. The Hearings Panel also recommended for staff to investigate the treatment details to optimise rider safety at this location, in consultation with Mitre 10. This included looking at other options such as high visibility alert systems and to consider a trial if necessary.

7.11 Pedestrian Crossings

7.11.1 Considerations – The Hearings Panel was to explore options to assist the safe drop off/pick up and crossing of students at Brain Gains Tutors. Council Officers further investigated if additional car parking close to the property could be accommodated. However, the design team could not find a solution that provides safe on-street parking, but will work with the owners during detailed design to maximise student safety when accessing the property.

7.11.2 Following the earlier discussion regarding installing the raised safety platforms at the western end of the route, the Hearings Panel was keen to investigate if this could be applied at the signalised pedestrian and cycle crossing between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street. Officers advised this would need to be explored further.

7.11.3 Recommendations – The Hearings Panel included a recommendation for Officers to continue to work with the owner of Brain Gains Tutors to address concerns and for Officers to report back to the Council on the feasibility of installing a raised safety platform at the pedestrian and cycle crossing between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street.

Central section from Nunweek Boulevard to Greers Road

7.12 In regards to the central section, the Hearings Panel acknowledged the number of concerns and issues raised by many local residents and businesses. Parking removal, lane reduction of four lanes to two on Harewood Road, perceptions of increased congestion, property access, changes to the Bishopdale roundabout and the removal of trees were the most prominent concerns raised.

7.13 Community Concept Design

7.13.1 The Hearings Panel was interested in exploring the Community Concept Design presented by submitters. Further information was provided to the Hearings Panel by way of Council Officer advice, further information provided by the submitters and through an independent review undertaken by Abley Limited (transport consultants).

Abley Independent Review Report

7.13.2 The Hearings Panel considered the information presented by Ms Ward and Mr Durdin on 17 March 2022, regarding the Abley independent review report. Refer to the Minutes Attachments for the final report and PowerPoint presentation.

7.13.3 As part of the independent review process Ms Ward and Mr Durdin reviewed both sets of design concept plans and undertook a site visit (by bicycle). A workshop was held with both design teams to identify points of agreement and disagreement.

7.13.4 The points of difference identified regarding safety were driveway conflicts, signalised crossings and safety for general traffic. Other points of difference identified were the location and type of cycle facility and convenience for residents.

7.13.5 Regarding driveway conflicts, the review concluded that the Council’s preferred design manages driveway conflicts. The review considered that the submitters design, although well intended with no driveway conflicts in the central section, now concentrates all vehicle/cycle conflicts at the entry and exit to the access lane with higher volumes (which includes on-street parking users crossing the cycleway at the start and end of the local access road).

7.13.6 Regarding signalised crossings, the review concluded that the signalised crossings in the Council’s preferred design does not pose major safety issues and would help support the 50km/hour speed compared to the current situation. The review noted that the crossings also improve pedestrian levels of service for people wanting to cross Harewood Road, and bus stop users. The review concluded that the lack of a priority crossing at Harewood School for cycleway users in the submitters design is considered a safety issue.

7.13.7 Regarding general traffic safety, both design teams disagreed on which option is safest. The review found the Council’s preferred design is overall similar to the existing situation for drivers whereas the submitters design makes fundamental changes in the central section (all general traffic moved to the north side and creates a one-way access road on the south side for residents/business owners).

7.13.8 With all general traffic moved to the north side, the review found it introduces a head on crash risk, requires right turns into driveways via a narrow flush median, right turns out requiried to find gaps at peak times and makes reversing out of driveways more difficult (see image below). The review also found other matters, which would need further investigation.

7.13.9 For the entry to the one-way access road on the south side for residents/business access, the review found an increased risk of rear end crashes, blocking of intersection right turn bay while waiting and larger vehicles blocking traffic lane if cyclist is crossing at the time.

7.13.10 For exiting the one-way access road on the south side, the review found there would be right turn gap issues and delays, and could result in risk taking behaviour.

7.13.11 The review concluded that the Council’s preferred design is acceptable noting it is very similar to the existing situation. Also when considering the whole corridor there is a better outcome from a speed management perspective. The review found the submitters design to have some negative impacts such as the right turn movements for driver and conflicts with cyclists at the access lane entries, which was considered a safety issue. Finally transferring all traffic to the north side of the median poses a higher risk to residents making right turns when entering and exiting their driveways.

7.13.12 Regarding location and type of cycle facility the review found the Council’s preferred design to change from two-way to one-way acceptable given the length of the route and the good crossings provided. The review found the submitters design to be good from a continuity perspective but at the expense of safety and convenience for residents.

7.13.13 Regarding convenience, the review concluded that the Council’s preferred design retains the existing level of provisions. For the submitters design, the review found a marginal improvement in convenience for residents travelling in vehicles, depending on the time of day, and a reduced convenience for pedestrians crossing the road and drivers travelling during peak times.

7.13.14 On balance, acknowledging that both options have positives and negatives, the review supported the Council’s preferred design over the submitters design, which was felt to have negative impacts on safety, meaning the design is not feasible from a safety perspective. The review also found that the residents on the north side of the street in the central section would be negatively impacted by the road reallocation.

7.13.15 Following the presentation, the Hearings Panel had the opportunity to ask further questions of clarification of Ms Ward and Mr Durdin. The Hearings Panel also provided the submitter an opportunity to provide a right of reply regarding the review. A right of reply on the draft and then final review was received and considered by the Hearings Panel (refer to Minutes Attachments). Some of the further points raised were relating to issues yet to be addressed and potential safety/capacity issues with the Council’s preferred design referring to the Velos Independent Safety Audit and Network Functionality Review.

7.13.16 Considerations – Based on the information provided, although the Hearings Panel were interested in exploring the Community Concept Design as a potential option, upon further review they felt the option could not be recommended based on the issues identified through the Independent Review and advice provided. They also noted that the impacts the design would have on the north side of the road, noting that the concept had not been consulted wider than with the individuals that the submitters engaged with.

7.13.17 The Hearings Panel would like to acknowledge the effort, communication and participation the submitters undertook during his process. They were appreciative of the innovative options explored and thanked them for their commitment and time.

7.14 Bishopdale Roundabout

7.14.1 Considerations – The roundabout was another area, which the Hearings Panel discussed in depth. Council Officers provided a description and videos of how the roundabout would operate.

7.14.2 At each end of the roundabout, traffic signals control vehicles entering the roundabout from Harewood Road and vehicles in the roundabout circulating lanes. When vehicles entering the roundabout have a green light, vehicles in the circulating lanes will have a red light and pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross the circulating lanes. When vehicles in the circulating lanes have a green light, vehicles approaching the roundabout from Harwood Road will have a red light and pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross the Harewood Road approach lanes. The signals alternate between these two phases, with each being relatively short (approximately 20 seconds), to keep queues from developing in the circulating lanes, keep cycleway users moving and maintain intersection efficiency.

7.14.3 The signals will operate on a timed cycle throughout the day, with the lengths of the phases adjusted to optimise the operation of the roundabout as traffic patterns vary throughout the day. Overnight, the signals will rest on one phase, with an approaching vehicle triggering the operation of the other phase when required.

7.14.4 The pedestrian and cyclist crossings at the roundabout departures on Harewood Road will only operate on demand. When they do operate, they are coordinated with the other signals.

7.14.5 The Highsted Road and Farrington Avenue approaches will remain Give Way controlled.

7.14.6 Recommendations – Based on the predicted modelling of how the roundabout will operate, the Hearings Panel supported the signalisation. They acknowledged the changes would improve the existing situation and would provide easier access for vehicles entering the roundabout from side streets. The Hearings Panel acknowledged the roundabout would provide the same level of service for cars and safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

7.14.7 The Hearings Panel clarified if a manual call button for cyclists would be installed, if crossing times for pedestrians and cyclists would be sufficient and if the roundabout would operate differently in non-peak hours. Officers confirmed these queries.

7.15 Bishopdale Court

7.15.1 Considerations – Regarding Bishopdale Court, the Hearings Panel discussed the advantages and disadvantages of installing traffic lights. Officers advised that adding the signals would remove the pedestrian crossing and would potentially increase traffic. It was further noted that signalisation would benefit vehicles turning right when exiting the mall, but would dis-benefit those turning left. There were also concerns that signalisation would cause ‘rat-running’ through the mall car park.

7.15.2 The central median strip opposite the mall was also discussed by the Hearings Panel. During the site visit, the Hearings Panel observed the difficulty for vehicles turning right out of the mall carpark. Officers advised that changes to the layout could be made to the design to improve vehicle movements.

7.15.3 Recommendations – Based on the advice provided, the Hearings Panel requested for the Bishopdale Court median to be widened to provide space for vehicle movements.

7.15.4 The Hearings Panel did not recommend traffic lights at Bishopdale Court.

7.16 Signalisation of the Harewood Road /Breens Road / Gardiners Road Intersection

7.16.1 Considerations – There was significant pressure from the community to upgrade the Harewood Road /Gardiners Road /Breens Road intersection.

7.16.2 Background of the decision-making:

· Several design options were investigated. As a result of an engagement process in 2019, there was a clear community and Community Board preferred option of signalising the intersection and retaining all movements. However, feedback from Waka Kotahi at the time advised the cost-benefit of signalising the intersection was not high enough to attract subsidy.

· Council Officers were asked to provide Elected Members with potential funding options for the signalisation option. A recommendation was carried at the March 2020 Finance and Performance Committee which recommended incorporating signalising the intersection - included the associated budget increase - in the Wheels to Wings MCR project, as this is a valid solution to be incorporated into the route, and would attract subsidy as part of the overall route costs for the cycleway.

· As the decision to incorporate the intersection upgrade in the Wheels to Wings cycleway has already been made, it is now to be considered as part of the project. There would need to be a specific resolution of Council to revoke this if this is not the case.

7.16.3 Recommendations - The Hearings Panel recognised the continued strong support from residents for the signalised traffic lights at this intersection, and the recommendation was supported by all Hearings Panel Members.

7.17 Trees

7.17.1 Considerations - The Hearings Panel heard from submitters and residents the importance of retaining as many trees as possible.

7.17.2 Recommendations - The Hearings Panel was satisfied that only one tree may need to be removed at the Bishopdale roundabout and asked for Officers to confirm this for the Council decision-making meeting. The Hearings Panel also recommended for Officers to investigate opportunities for replanting trees, depending on services and also noted that with planting, there is a net increase of trees along the corridor.

7.17.3 Information provided after the process -

· A further tree investigation has informed that only one pin oak tree is likely to need to be removed in the Bishopdale Roundabout in the preferred option.

· Trees to be removed on the route: 9, West section: 5, Central section: 4, East section: 0.

· New trees on the route: 39, West section: 23, Central section: 11, East end: 5.

7.18 Charity Hospital

7.18.1 Considerations - The Hearings Panel noted issues raised regarding cyclist speeds close to and outside the Charity Hospital, and the necessity of creating a slow environment around this area.

7.18.2 Recommendations - The Hearings Panel requested for Officers to investigate warning signage and additional markings to address cyclists’ speeds in this location.

7.18.3 Information provided since the completion of the hearing

· Since the completion of the hearing process, Council Officers have been in correspondence with Duncan Cotterill acting on behalf of the Canterbury Charity Hospital. Duncan Cotterill had outlined that the hospital still had concerns with the Council’s preferred option, and requested Council delay the decision meeting to give the hospital time to arrange an independent safety audit of the Community Design Concept. The Chair of the Hearings Panel agreed to delay the Council design by four weeks (to the end of June 2022).

· During the four weeks, Council Officers engaged with the Charity Hospital to discuss their concerns. Attachment E contains a detailed Memo to the Hearings Panel outlining the process and outcome of the discussions.

· In conclusion, the Canterbury Charity Hospital advised that while the hospital remains of the view that the community concept design is preferable, particularly as it removes conflict with parked cars, they are comfortable the changes agreed to between Council and the hospital resolve their issues with the Council’s preferred option. Because of this, the hospital advised they would not peruse an independent safety audit of the community concept design at this stage.

· The Memo to the Hearings Panel (Attachment E) contains the plan showing the agreed changes and clarifications, should the Council approve the design to proceed.

7.19 Cycleway facility option

7.19.1 Considerations – The Hearings Panel explored a number options provided by Officers and submitters. In addition, the Hearings Panel requested advice from Council Officers on other possible options that include additional car parking.

7.19.2 The Hearings Panel also clarified the parking survey data of on-street car parking for businesses in the area. Officers advised there is not a high parking demand overall and most of the parking demand is localised, and used by visitors, customers and business staff.

7.19.3 Recommendations - Based on the extensive information provided, and the number of design changes made by Officers to address submitters concerns, the Hearings Panel was supportive of the Officers preferred design. This was not a unanimous decision for this section of the route. Some reasons for supporting the preferred design in this section were:

7.19.4 Design changes made in relation to Copenhagen Bakery, which include changes to the entry to the on-site carpark. A carpark layout design has been provided to the owner which would create more space for vehicles to manoeuvrer. The Hearings Panel also asked for Officers to work with Copenhagen Bakery to assist with changes to their resource consent to ensure staff can use the car park in the mornings

7.19.5 The Hearings Panel acknowledged the current issues in regards to cyclist and pedestrian safety due to the speed of cars along Harewood Road. The Hearings Panel recommended the lane reduction from four lanes to two, noting this would slow speeds along the route and the preferred design would provide optimal safety for cyclists, children and pedestrians. Benefits of the preferred design to other road users was also noted, such as, improvements at intersections and at Bishopdale roundabout.

7.19.6 Some of the Hearings Panel Members were unable to support this section due to the lack of support from submitters for the design in its current form. It was felt that a better solution could be developed to further address concerns raised by residents and businesses.

Other

7.20 Design changes / other options / route continuity / visual complexity

7.20.1 Considerations - The Hearings Panel acknowledged the 69 changes Officers made to the original design based on feedback. The Hearings Panel also confirmed with Officers that specific and individual issues raised in submissions would be addressed. Officers confirmed that a list of issues has been compiled and will be addressed through the detailed design process.

7.20.2 Throughout the process the Hearings Panel queried other design options and changes provided by submitters. Regarding the “Harewood Boulevard” slow environment proposal, Officers advised the proposal would not work along Harewood Road as it is designated as an over-dimension vehicle route for larger trucks. Some elements that could be included, subject to localised consultation, were provided to the Hearings Panel.

7.20.3 Other examples of design changes queried by the Hearings Panel were; changes in relation to including additional build outs to force slower left turning vehicles and to provide priority to cyclists over turning vehicles and including road humps to slow traffic right turning traffic.

7.20.4 Officers advised that build-outs would not allow a driver a 90-degree observation angle of approaching cyclists and would prevent larger cars from completing U-turns. It was noted that road humps would be used where necessary along the route, for example at Caltex and Mitre 10. Finally, regarding priority for cyclists over turning vehicles, Officers advised that this could not be implemented due to a peculiarity in current road rules. This is why the preferred design requires cyclists to transition to an on-road cycle lane prior to the intersection.

7.20.5 The Hearings Panel queried the issues raised regarding route continuity and visual complexity. An example was the suggestion of a more direct route across the Bishopdale roundabout. Officers advised the alternative option for the Bishopdale roundabout was explored, however, when assessed they found the preferred design to be the most optimal for all users.

7.20.6 Furthermore, Officers noted across the full length of the route, eastbound cyclists would only require crossing once and westbound riders would only require crossing twice.

7.20.7 The map below shows the path that riders would take if cycling the full route.

7.20.8 Another consideration was the visual complexity of the facility. Some submitters had compared the proposal to the St Asaph Street cycleway design. Officers advised that St Asaph Street is a different environment to Harewood Road. St Asaph Street is one-way, has a 30km/h speed limit and is predominately business/commercial. Officers advised the proposal would be more akin to the Strickland Street/Antigua Street facility.

7.20.9 Other suggestions regarding temporary trails were not recommended by Officers. Officers noted that although trials can be beneficial for information gathering, they have high operational costs due to the maintenance and are not meant for long-term use.

7.20.10 Recommendations – Based on the information provided, the Hearings Panel was satisfied that the preferred design provided optimal route continuity and was not visually complex for users.

7.20.11 The Hearings Panel acknowledged the importance of having a fully connected Major Cycleway Route network which would expand desire lines and areas and increase the number of cyclists using the network.

7.20.12 The Hearings Panel also acknowledged that cycleway designs could be reviewed, if rule changes were made referring to the Ministry of Transport’s Accessible Streets Regulatory Package. The Hearings Panel included a recommendation for Officers to review the detailed design to give effect to potential Accessible Streets rule changes, if approved in the future.

7.20.13 The Hearings Panel also noted that Officers would apply lessons learnt from other projects across the city to ensure that solutions address safety concerns. Furthermore, the Hearings Panel included a recommendation for Officers to investigate high friction surfacing requirements and raised safety platforms for all crossings along the route.

7.21 Data

7.21.1 Considerations – The Hearings Panel acknowledged the number of submitters who queried the current number of cyclists along Harewood Road as well as the lack of data available post construction on other completed cycleway routes.

7.21.2 Recommendations – Given submissions received, the Hearings Panel recommended for Officers to gather feedback from residents and local businesses along previously constructed Major Cycleway Routes to provide evidence of the effects of the cycleway. The Hearings Panel requested for the impact of cycleways on businesses overseas to be included in the report:

· Waka Kotahi’s booklet ‘Benefits of investing in cycling in New Zealand communities’ states various studies have shown that cycling infrastructure can lead to an increase in retail sales. People who cycle have been found to be more likely to stop and visit shops more often, and to spend more money at those shops over time, than people who drive. Cycleways that run past shop doors can be a very good thing for retailers.

· Four and a half years after the implementation of bike lanes in a retail area of San Francisco, 66 percent of merchants believed that the bike lanes had had a generally positive impact on their business and/or sales.

· Similarly, when Salt Lake City removed a third of car parks from nine blocks of a main shopping street and improved footpaths and added bike lanes, retail sales increased by 8.8 percent in the first six months.

· An Australian study found that switching one car park to six bike parking spaces could create an increase in retail spend related to that space, from $27 per hour to $97.20 per hour.

NZTA – Benefits of investing in cycling in New Zealand communities

7.22 Transport project improvements

7.22.1 Considerations – The Hearings Panel heard requests from submitters for transport improvements and works within the wider area to align with the construction of the cycleway. Officers noted funding for other projects in the draft Annual Plan are:

· Highsted and Sawyers Arms intersection improvement: FY 28, 29 and 30.

· Greers, Northcote and Sawyers Arms Intersection improvement: FY 23, 24, 25 and 26.

· Greers/Langdons Traffic Lights: FY 23, 24 and 25

· Railway Crossings: FY 22, 23 and 24. Anticipated construction of the Harewood Road crossing FY 23

7.22.2 The Hearings Panel also requested for advice on installing a right-turn arrow from Main North Road into Harewood Road. Officers advised that a review of the need for a right-turn arrow at this location found it was not currently required for efficiency or safety purposes. Furthermore, no current funding is allocated, however the intersection may be considered as part of a separate project investigating bus priority at signalised intersections around the city.

7.22.3 Recommendations – The Hearings Panel has recommended for Officers to ensure that other transport projects within the wider area are aligned through the draft Annual Plan process, particularly noting the following:

· Greers Road/Langdons Road signalisation

· Greers Road/Sawyers Arms Road/Northcote Road intersection upgrade

· Hoani Street/Sails Street intersection

· Highsted Road/Sawyers Arms Road

· Breens Road/ Wairakei Road

7.22.4 The Hearings Panel also recommended for Officers to continue to prioritise advance bus detection and to investigate the installation of a right turn arrow from Main North Road into Harewood Road.

7.23 Speed limits, parking removal, access restrictions, tree removals

7.24 Recommendations – Finally the Hearings Panel recommended approving the associated speed limit extensions, parking removal, access restrictions and tree removals with the preferred design. It was noted that the detailed traffic resolutions would be reported back to the Council or relevant Committee for approval at the end of detailed design and prior to construction.

8. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agendas (including all submissions)	· Agenda (contains the Officers Report) · Supplementary Agenda (contains the Heard submissions) · Attachments Under Separate Cover (contains the Not Heard submissions)
Hearings Panel Minutes	· Minutes · Minutes Attachments
Hearings Panel Briefing October 2021 livestream links	· Project Background, considerations & community engagement · West end section Nunweek Boulevard to west · East end section Greers Road to east · Central section Nunweek Boulevard to Greers Road · Preferred option summary & next steps
Hearings Panel Briefing October 2021 Agenda, Notes and Attachments	· Briefing Agenda · Briefing Notes and Notes Attachments
Joint Community Board Workshop December 2021	· Livestream video · Workshop Agenda · Workshop Notes and Notes Attachments
Project Webpage	https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/improving-our-transport-and-roads/transport-projects/wheels-to-wings-papanui-ki-waiwhetu-major-cycleway/

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Samantha Kelly - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Mayor Lianne Dalziel - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Revised scheme design of the Wheels to Wings - Papanui ki Waiwhetū Major Cycle Route	60
b ⇨	Officer Responses to Hearings Panel questions (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Carbon Emissions Impact Report (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇩	Hearings Panel Site Visit	79
e ⇩	Memo regarding update on Canterbury Charity Hospital	82

Council

28 July 2022

8. Lower Cashmere and Hoon Hay Speed Review
Reference Te Tohutoro:	21/1329011
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Matt Goldring, Project Manager, matthew.goldring@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 recommend that the Council approve a speed limit change within the MCR Nor’west Arc Section 1A Greenway Section - Smartlea Street Bridge to Cashmere Rd area and adjoining residential streets as indicated within the areas shown in Attachment A.

1.2 The decisions in this report are of medium/low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of medium/low significance was determined by the safety and amenity benefits to all road users in reducing speed in this busy residential area.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves, pursuant to Part 4, Clause 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022, that the speed limits on the following roads be revoked and set as identified in Attachment A to the staff report, and detailed in 2-23 below (including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps).

Speed limits to be revoked

2. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Palmside Street (entire length).

3. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Woodbank Street (entire length).

4. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Karaka Place (entire length).

5. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Paikea Place (entire length).

6. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Ferniehurst Street (entire length).

7. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Molesworth Place (entire length).

8. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Greenpark Street (entire length).

9. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Muirson Avenue (entire length).

10. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on McBeath Avenue (entire length).

11. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Smartlea Street (entire length).

12. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Weir Place (entire length).

30 km/hr zone

13. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Palmside Street (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

14. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Woodbank Street (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

15. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Karaka Place (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

16. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Paikea Place (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

17. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Ferniehurst Street (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

18. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Molesworth Place (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

19. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Greenpark Street (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

20. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Muirson Avenue (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

21. Approves that the permanent speed limit on McBeath Avenue (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

22. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Smartlea Street (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

23. Approves that the permanent speed limit on Weir Place (entire length) be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

24. Approves that these resolutions take affect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the speed limits described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations.)

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Changes to the Nor’West Arc Section 1C design during the consultation phase included removing active speed control humps, trees and road narrowing meant the design now requires a 30km/h speed limit and signs installed.

3.2 The speed limit change is required to conform to the Major Cycleway Design Guidelines.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Leave current speed Limit of 50km/h in place – this increases the risk or crashes and deaths in the area given the decisions at consultation stage to remove active speed controls humps, trees and road narrowing in order to build the Major Cycleway Route. This option also does not conform to the Major Cycleway Design Guidelines.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Hoon Hay Speed Limit

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero - Hoon Hay Speed Limit

5.1 Consultation started on 29 June and ran until 20 July 2021. An email was sent to 32 key stakeholders, including community groups. Community organisations were encourage to pass the information on to their networks.

5.2 The consultation was posted on the CCC Facebook page, inviting submissions on the Have Your Say webpage. The post was also shared with the Hillmorton-Spreydon-Hoon Hay Community page and the Hoon Hay Community Association Noticeboard page.

5.3 The Have Your Say webpage generated 177 page views.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga - Hoon Hay Speed Limit

5.4 We received 32 submissions from 28 residents and three organisations (Spreydon School, Spokes, Waka Kotahi). All submissions are provided on our Have Your Say webpage.

5.5 The majority of submitters (including all organisations) supported the speed reduction (22, 69%) for the following reasons:

· Low speeds make roads safer for everyone – pedestrians and cyclists.

· Will address current speeding issues.

· The cycleway is well used and welcome the lower speed to further enhance the experience and make it even safer.

· Mix of young families and older people in this area – will keep everyone safe.

5.6 A minority of submitters did not support the speed reduction (9, 28%) for the following reasons:

· Unnecessary as speeding is not an issue and not all streets have the cycle way on them.

· Wait 12 months to see if necessary.

5.7 One person gave no clear indication of their preference.

5.8 A number of other streets were requested by submitters to also be considered for speed reduction. These have been forwarded to staff working towards safer neighbourhood speeds.

5.9 Submissions can be found at the following link: https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2022/07-July/Hoon-Hay-submissions-for-web.pdf

Lower Cashmere Speed Limit

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero – Lower Cashmere Speed Limit

5.10 Consultation started on 29 June and ran until 20 July 2021. An email was sent to 32 key stakeholders, including community groups. Community organisations were encourage to pass the information on to their networks.

5.11 The consultation was posted on the CCC Facebook page, inviting submissions on the Have Your Say webpage. The post was also shared with the Cashmere Community Group (Christchurch NZL) Facebook page.

5.12 The Have Your Say webpage generated 296 page views.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga – Lower Cashmere Speed Limit

5.13 We received 23 submissions from 20 residents and three organisations (Spokes, Waka Kotahi and NZ Police). All submissions are provided on our Have Your Say webpage.

5.14 The majority of submitters (including all organisations) supported the speed reduction (21, 91%) for the following reasons:

· Low speeds make roads safer for everyone – pedestrians and cyclists

· The cycleway is well used - lower speed is required for ‘greenway’ o work

· Many young people in the area – will keep them safe

5.15 A minority of submitters did not support the speed reduction (2, 9%) for the following reason:

· Over engineering cycleways - waste of money

5.16 A number of other streets were requested by submitters to also be considered for speed reduction. These have been forwarded to staff working towards safer neighbourhood speeds.

5.17 Submissions can be found at the following link: https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2022/07-July/Lower-Cashmere-submissions-for-web.pdf

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The Nor’West Arc project Section 1C is identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2021-2031) and was completed last year.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 The impacts of this proposal upon Climate Change is anticipated to be minor.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 The proposal will result in vehicles travelling at reduced speeds, which, in turn will provide safer opportunities for all pedestrians crossing the named streets.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to implement – $5,000 for Signs, Poles, Road Markings, Installation and Traffic Management costs, included in the Nor’West Arc MCR Budget.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – covered under the existing maintenance budget

7.3 Funding Source – included within the Nor’west Arc MCR project budget.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has the authority to make the decision included in the recommendations of this report in relation to the speed limit change.

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 There are no identified risks associated with lowering the speed limit in these neighbourhoods.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed 30km/hr Speed Zone Sketches	95

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name	Location / File Link
N/A

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

Matt Goldring - Project Manager

Samantha Sharland - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

28 July 2022

11. 5 Worcester Boulevard / Rolleston House - Future Use Update
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/818103
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Angus Smith, Manager Property Consultancy, angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

· Deem satisfied a prior Long Term Plan (LTP) resolution that provided for the disposal of 5 Worcester Boulevard / Rolleston House subject to the outcome of an EOI process and;

· Retain the property by Council for use as a community Arts venue (the Toi Auaha Rolleston House Creative Spaces Initiative), on the basis that this outcome is consistent with the intent and objectives of that original resolution to secure “a heritage sympathetic, adaptive reuse proposal that can be undertaken at no cost to Council”.

1.2 This report has been written in response to the presentation of a sustainable internal Council-led reuse proposal which staff consider precludes the need to initiate an external EOI process.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as the proposed outcome supports the intent and spirit of the original LTP resolution.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council resolves to:

1. Revoke the previous Council resolution relating to the disposal of 5 Worcester Boulevard/Rolleston House resolved on 21 June 2021 as part of the adoption of the Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-31 as noted:

“M19Aii: That the Council undertake an EOI process within six months for 5 Worcester / Rolleston House, calling for heritage sympathetic, adaptive reuse proposals that can be undertaken at no cost to Council (other than through an existing contestable funding scheme or similar), do not require either a capital or ongoing operating subsidy and that ensures ongoing protection of the heritage values of the building. Proposals could be on the basis of sale or long term lease.”

2. Note the intention to use 5 Worcester Boulevard / Rolleston House as a community arts venue (the Toi Auaha Rolleston House Creative Spaces initiative);

3. Note that proposed use is broadly consistent with the Council’s original direction (ie heritage sympathetic, adaptive reuse proposals that can be undertaken at no cost to Council).

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommended option is consistent with the intent of the original resolution. In context:

· The Toi Auaha Rolleston House Creative Spaces Initiative provides a heritage sympathetic, and potentially vibrant, adaptive reuse.

· As required, the initiative is structured to be cost neutral for Council.

· The initiative actively promotes the City’s Arts and Creative Strategy – “Toi Ōtautahi Christchurch Arts and Creativity Strategy 2019-2024”.

· Council activates an iconic heritage building and retains control and protection of its heritage setting and fabric which accords with Council’s “Our Heritage, Our Taonga – Heritage Strategy 2019-2029”.

· Council is seen to actively facilitate affordable partnership opportunities for the creative arts community in the City and wider Banks Peninsula.

· The initiative provides an appropriate and sustainable Council-led reuse option which removes the need to implement an EOI process.

· The recommended option satisfies Council’s criteria for retaining the property.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The implementation of an external EOI process designed to identify a heritage sympathetic reuse was initially considered by staff as a way of ensuring that the currently vacant property was activated, subject to appropriate heritage protocols, moving forward.

4.2 While this option would remove Council’s responsibility for ongoing OPEX and maintenance costs, direct control and protection of this iconic structure would be lost. It also became apparent that the unique heritage characteristics of the building significantly impacts its adaptability for use and restricts its suitability for commercial and other potential external owners / operators.

4.3 Further consideration and development of an EOI process was deferred once it became apparent that the recommended option provided Council with an opportunity to retain the property on a cost neutral basis while actively promoting Council’s Arts and Creative and Heritage strategies.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Prior Council Resolution

5.1 Following public consultation on the 2021-31 LTP Council resolved the following at its meeting on 21 June 2021 (C-LTP/2021/00106 – M19: Disposal of surplus council-owned properties):

5.2 A subsequent update via the Office of the CE to Councillors, the Mayor and the Executive Leadership Team on 30 March 2022 informed them that:

“During the preparation of the EOI, my team became aware of an option which would involve the property being retained by Council for a use linked to the Council’s Arts Strategy. While noting that we are required to action your decisions in a timely manner, we slowed the EOI process to allow this option to be developed further. We have now received additional information and now believe that we have a workable option that should be presented for your consideration.

Key elements of the proposed Creative Spaces Arts initiative include:

· Toi Auaha Rolleston House’ would provide artists’ studios and affordable office space.

· It will focus on individual artists and non-profit / charitable organisations.

· The Council Community Arts Team will have overall management of the space including management of funds and leasing of spaces.

· The delivery of the space and activities will initially be ties to a Ministry of Culture and Heritage grant that Council is responsible for.

· The intention is to ensure affordability to tenants while being cost neutral to Council (ie income received is at least equal to costs).

· During the term of the ‘lease’ the Ministry of Culture and Heritage funding will be allocated to offset the costs of Toi Auaha.

· Projected income scenarios indicate that the facility will earn its future operation costs after the expiration of the grant.

· It is anticipated that the internal spaces can be adapted for use without altering the internal heritage fabric of the building.

· Partnership opportunities designed to provide operational and capital support are currently being explored with Ara Institute of Canterbury, University of Canterbury and community organisations.

· Overall the proposal will help implement Toi Ōtautahi, the City’s arts and creative strategy, contribute to a vibrant City centre, and potentially increase access and participation in the arts and creativity, while being cost neutral to Council.

Staff are now working through the business case and related building compliance, planning and operational issues”.

Toi Auaha: Rolleston House Creative Spaces Initiative

5.3 The business case prepared by the Recreation, Sports and Events (RSE) team is appended as Attachment A.

Staff support this initiative and are working collaboratively to have the building used by the Creative Art Spaces initiative as this achieves the following objectives:

· The initiative is at no cost to Council and therefore has no impact on rates – i.e. fully self-sustaining from casual hire income and grants.

· An initial 3 year ‘term’ will determine whether the initiative is self-sustaining thereafter.

· The heritage status of the property is recognised and preserved through this proposal and those outcomes remain within the council’s control i.e. it is classified as a strategic asset; Highly Significant Building (Heritage Item #566); Scheduled Interior Fabric (Heritage Setting #269).

· The use supports and delivers broad community arts outcomes and associated strategies.

· Public use and control is maintained.

· Delivers on a community need through a collaborative partnership.

· Provides certainty and an excellent readapted use of a heritage building which would be less certain and at risk if put to the market.

Departure from the original LTP Resolution

5.4 It is recognised that the process to arrive at this outcome is in part inconsistent with the original resolution which contemplated the disposal of the property subject to receiving sustainable reuse proposals via an EOI process.

5.5 However, it has been demonstrated that the Toi Auaha Creative Spaces initiative provides a heritage sympathetic, adaptive reuse outcome which balances financial and community good values while meeting, and being consistent with, the spirit of the principle intent and objectives of the original LTP resolution.

5.6 Given this context the purpose of this report is to seek the approval to resolve the previous resolutions satisfied and pass a new resolution which approves the retention of the property by Council for use as a creative spaces community hub for the City and wider region.

Criteria for Retaining the Property

5.7 Staff have engaged in a process which has established that the proposed use has been rationalised, it satisfies a clearly identified need, is supported by a sound and robust case, supports Council strategies and has budget. As such retention of the property is supported and justified.

Community Views and Preferences

5.8 The views of the community were effectively canvassed during the LTP consultation process which precipitated approval for the original resolution to dispose of the building subject to undertaking an EOI process seeking reuse options.

5.9 In contemplating potential reuse options the heritage status of the building, and building fabric, is inherently restrictive and presents some significant planning, consenting and operational challenges for users looking to adapt the use for commercial or other non-Council uses.

5.10 Given the iconic nature of the building, and public support for the retention of heritage properties across the City, it is considered that the proposed retention, reuse and protection by Council would be welcomed by the wider community.

5.11 The decision affects the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Retention of the property is in keeping with Council’s criteria for retaining properties as outlined in paragraph 5.7 above.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and 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 community organisations

6.3 Council’s focus is to ensure that core business is completed while delivering on our strategic priorities and achieving our community outcomes.

6.4 In terms of Council’s strategic framework the recommended option is consistent with, and promotes, Council’s Toi Ōtautahi Christchurch Arts and Creativity Strategy 2019-2024 which is designed to foster partnerships and collaborative projects with the local arts sector, funders and advocates and seeks to elevate the arts and creativity in Christchurch and Banks peninsula by harnessing and building on the energy, passion and innovative spirit of the community.

6.5 The proposal also accords with Council’s “Our Heritage, Our Taonga – Heritage Strategy 2019-2029” a cornerstone of which is the protection and celebration of the City’s built heritage.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in that the criteria for retaining the property is satisfied.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 The decision does 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.

6.8 The original LTP disposal decision was consulted with broadly in accordance with the LTP process and prior to that when developing the list of properties for that process Mana Whenua were also consulted with no feedback received in respect of this property.

6.9 From a practical perspective this retention decision is likely to have no more or less impact than the prior LTP resolved process, which could have led to disposal and a possibility of delivering a privatised and exclusive outcome. Arguably retention for a creative community arts venue is more inclusive and provides opportunities of the broader more general community.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 The decision creates certainty over future use and in effect maintains the status quo ie the building is retained and utilised. The continued use of the building for a Council run community use will have no impact on the environment or resources.

Accessibility Considerations Nga Whai Whakaaro ma te Hunga Haua

6.11 The appropriate building and resource consents will be secured by the RSE Team if any changes to the building trigger compliance requirements.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement:

7.1.1 Set up: internal staff / administrative costs.

7.1.2 Day to Day management: internal staff / administration costs.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs :

7.2.1 Building OPEX and Maintenance costs: Initial Year 1 estimate $53,718.

7.3 Funding Source:

7.3.1 Staff / administration costs – costs covered by existing operational budgets.

7.3.2 OPEX / Maintenance costs: covered by Ministry of Culture and Heritage Innovation Fund (this funding has been secured for the first 3 years).

Other / He mea anō

7.4 N/A.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The first 3 year term will determine whether this initiative is self-sustaining beyond that period. The initiative will be reviewed at that time (although it is noted that funding for the first three years has already been secured).

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Toi Auaha Business Case July 2022	117

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
N.A.

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

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

28 July 2022

13. Plan Change 5 Decision
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/796155
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning, mark.stevenson@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Hearings Panel’s recommendations on Plan Change 5 and to recommend the Council adopts the recommendations as its decision.

1.2 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the large number of affected parties and the nature of the effects anticipated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the report and recommendations of the Hearings Panel on Plan Change 5;

2. Accepts, accepts in part or rejects the submissions on PC5 as recommended by the Hearings Panel and attached to their report for the reasons set out in the Hearing Panel’s report in Attachments 1 and 2.

3. Adopts, as the decision of the Council, the recommendations of the Hearings Panel that Plan Change 5 be approved as per the Hearing Panel’s report as Attachment 1, under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The plan change (PC5) consists of a group of changes to the District Plan, some of which have important interrelationships, and some are wholly independent of the others. However, in all cases the changes aim to improve the clarity of the Plan provisions and to “better reflect what was intended – achieving better outcomes for communities and to align with national direction”.

3.2 PC5 comprised 9 topics as described below:

3.2.1 PC5A (Strategic Commercial Objective): To reinforce direction that offices and shops are to be primarily located in the Central City and commercial centres as well as clarifying the role of these centres as commercial focal points.

3.2.2 PC5B (Commercial): Clarify and better reflect the intent and outcomes sought in the Commercial chapter, including the role of centres and the types and scale of retail, offices and other activities that are anticipated in centres amongst other changes including definitions.

3.2.3 PC 5C (Industrial): Clarify what is sought and/or required in the Industrial chapter, including clearer direction for the redevelopment of former industrial land for residential and mixed uses that support good neighbourhood design amongst other changes including definitions.

3.2.4 PC 5D (Home occupations): Make sure that home-based businesses are of a type and scale appropriate in residential and rural areas through various changes including to definition.

3.2.5 PC 5E (Noise sensitive activities near roads and rail corridors): Simplify a rule for noise insulation near railways and roads.

3.2.6 PC 5F (Planning maps): Changes to zoning and overlays on the planning maps for identified sites, including to reflect what is already happening or anticipated, zone new roads and open spaces for their intended purpose, as well as realigning the zone boundaries between Christchurch and our neighbouring Districts, amongst other changes.

3.2.7 PC 5G (Consequential changes arising from removal of car parking requirements): Make changes from the implementation of new national direction that requires removal of car parking requirements. This includes consequential changes arising such as a landscaping rule for car parking areas, which is based on the number of car parks required.

3.2.8 PC 5H (Antenna): Provide for antenna associated with telecommunications at an appropriate scale.

3.2.9 PC 5I: Enable temporary signs associated with general and local government elections (candidate and party) and referendums.

3.3 The staff recommendation is to adopt the recommendations of Commissioners Paul Thomas, Andrew Henderson and Alan Matheson (Referred to hereafter as ‘Hearings Panel’ or ‘Panel’) on proposed plan change 5. This has regard to the statutory process that the plan change has been through to this point and the Panel’s consideration of the submissions and evidence received by the Hearings Panel.

3.4 The Hearings Panel have determined that the proposed plan change is appropriate with amendments as outlined in their report (Attachment 1).

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

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

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

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

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

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

c. Withdraw the plan change.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The proposed plan change 5 was publicly notified on 22^nd October 2020, following pre-notification consultation in July – August 2020. A summary of submissions was notified for further submissions on 28 January 2020, closing on 12 February 2020.

5.2 Council appointed a hearings panel to hear the submissions. The hearing was held from 13 – 17 December 2021 while noting that the panel did not consider all the parts of PC 5 above. Importantly, there were no submissions on PC 5I (Election and Referenda signage) and this part of PC5 is therefore deemed to be operative. In addition, PC 5E (Noise sensitive activities near roads and rail corridors) was not heard and is proposed for a hearing at a future date.

5.3 Each aspect of the plan change is summarised below with an overview of the key issues and recommendations of the Hearings Panel, noting that it is not a complete summary of all of the issues/ matters considered. Page numbers refer to the Panel’s report (attachment 1)

5.4 Plan Change 5A Strategic Commercial Objectives (pages 14 - 29)

5.4.1 The proposed plan change amends existing objectives to reinforce the centres-based framework in chapter 3 of the District Plan that provides strategic direction of the outcomes sought for the District. The Panel heard evidence from a number of parties opposed to the notified changes including Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL), Lyttelton Port Company (LPC), Foodstuffs, Woolworths and others.

5.4.2 The panel rejected staff’s recommendations for changes to Objectives 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 of referencing the role of centres as ‘commercial’ focal points as it was seen as “narrowing other activities to the detriment of enabling a wide variety of land use activities in the centres”^{^[1]}.

5.4.3 The Panel accepted the proposed addition to Objective 3.3.10 of recognising the critical importance of centres and that primarily directs commercial activity into centres. However, the Panel recommended an addition that enables commercial activities outside centres where it does not give rise to “significant adverse distributional or urban form effects”. This was in response to submissions from CIAL, LPC, Foodstuffs and Ryman and Retirement Villages Association (RVA) that there was a lack of recognition that “commercial activity is focussed both within and outside of centres as set out in the CRPS”^{^[2]} (underlining is my emphasis).

5.5 Plan Change 5B Commercial (pages 30 – 87)

5.5.1 The proposed plan change comprises a range of detailed changes to objectives, policies and rules to address issues including a lack of clarity in the outcomes sought and a number of discrete matters that risk undermining the centres-based framework. The two more contentious changes that were the subject of submissions (amongst others) were as follows:

5.5.2 Policy direction for outward and upward growth of a commercial centre;

5.5.3 The plan change as notified proposed changes to policy 15.2.2.4, which is concerned with accommodating growth by enabling the expansion of centres in appropriate circumstances.

5.5.4 Scentre (owners of Westfield Riccarton) opposed any policy limitation on the upward growth of a centre as proposed by Council. However, the Panel accepted the evidence that upward expansion of commercial activity in a centre, exceeding the height limits, can impact on other centres in a similar manner to the outward expansion of a centre.

5.5.5 In the context of policy 15.2.2.4, the Council’s planner also proposed an addition to the policy to enable expansion of a centre for large format activities within 400m of a centre. This was in response to a submission from Foodstuffs that the further restrictions as proposed were unreasonable and come at the cost of establishing activities in appropriate locations such as supermarkets. The change proposed by Council’s planner is on the basis that the operative District Plan currently defines the extent of a centre as including community facilities within 400m of the commercial zone, which contribute to the function of a centre. It was the opinion of the Council’s planner that the expansion of a centre for other activities may also contribute to a centre’s function. Furthermore, the evidence of the Council’s planner was that there may be insufficient capacity and/or suitable sites of a size to accommodate large format activities within a centre and the need for a release valve to accommodate such activities.

5.5.6 The Panel accepted the provision for large format activities within 400m of a centre subject to meeting criteria that it supports the function of the centre and does not cause adverse effects on its function and viability and that it ensures the centre maintains a coherent form (amongst other criteria). In the Panel’s view, this responds to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

5.5.7 The appropriateness of restricting residential activity at ground floor in commercial centres;

5.5.8 The plan change as notified proposed a new policy that sought to avoid residential activity at ground floor level in commercial centres unless criteria were met. Submissions and evidence was presented to the panel from a number of submitters including Ryman, RVA and Kāinga Ora opposed to the plan change. Subsequent changes were recommended by Council’s planner that narrowed the scope of issues, such that the policy provides for residential activity at ground floor subject to criteria, including that it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient capacity in the catchment to meet demand in the short, medium and long-term. Ryman and RVA opposed reference to long-term, arguing that the National Policy Statement on Urban Development does not require Council to meet its long-term requirements through the District Plan. The Panel agreed with Council’s planner on this point and generally accepted the policy as recommended.

5.6 Plan Change 5C Industrial (pages 88 – 137)

5.6.1 The proposed plan change seeks to reinforce the intent of existing provisions and outcomes in industrial zones, while giving effect to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement with regard to brownfield redevelopment. A range of changes were proposed by Council, with submissions on the appropriateness of the policy framework for enabling the redevelopment of brownfield sites, being under-utilised industrial land for residential, business and mixed-use activities.

5.6.2 Council’s planner recommended a number of changes in response to submissions as well as maintaining the position to support what was notified, which the Panel generally accepted. This included:

- provision for commercial activities in Objective 16.2.2 and policy 16.2.2.2 subject to ensuring commercial activities are primarily directed to centres and there are no significant adverse distributional or urban form effects on centres.

- In the context of policy 16.2.2.1,

o defining what under-utilised may comprise with reference to qualitative factors e.g. the quality of buildings incl. their age;

o the development of brownfeld sites not adversely affecting the supply of land to meet needs over the short, medium and long term;

- In the context of policy 16.2.2.2,

o an addition proposed by Council’s planner to state that industrial activities are the predominant use in the same geographic area zoned industrial to improve implementation;

o removal of a clause requiring the ‘enhancement’ of the strategic role of the Central City and commercial centres, which was not deemed appropriate in giving effect to the CRPS;

o The redevelopment outcome recommended by Council’s planner for good quality design rather than high quality, to give effect to the CRPS while also recognising the level of amenity for brownfield sites will be low relative to other residential zones;

5.7 Plan Change 5D Home occupations (pages 138 – 173)

5.7.1 The plan change sought to provide certainty to interpretation of the rules for home occupations while ensuring residential activities remain the dominant activity in residential zones and a high level of amenity and character is maintained.

5.7.2 The Panel accepted the Council planner’s recommended changes with the addition of an advice note to refer to the Council’s Brothels bylaw in response to a submission from Waimāero/ Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

5.8 Plan Change 5F Planning Maps (pages 174 – 209)

5.8.1 The Council proposed a large number of changes to zoning and overlays as corrections, to remove uncertainty and provide clarity of the outcomes sought for defined sites. A number of submissions were received by Council for the rezoning of sites that it had not notified. There was therefore a question of scope that the Panel had to consider with consideration given to tests defined through case law.

5.8.2 Sites for which the rezoning was sought and evidence was presented on at the hearing included the following:

- 171 Main North Road for which commercial zoning was sought to reflect a consented supermarket. The Panel accepted that the zoning would open up a wide range of opportunities and was not appropriate without further assessment.

- Commercial area at North West Belfast
An extension to the existing commercial zoning was sought to provide for a larger centre. Council’s planner recommended it be rejected on scope but subsequently accepted the rezoning of a smaller area of 0.5 ha, having regard to a resource consent for a Countdown supermarket. Issues with the proposed rezoning of an additional 2.7 ha included the centre not being consistent with its function and/or role and potential effects that it could have on the Belfast/ Northwood KAC.

Council sought the inclusion of an Outline Development Plan and associated rules to achieve good urban design outcomes and avoid car parking dominating the street frontage. The Panel accepted Council’s recommendations and agreed to the partial rezoning of the site to commercial. Notwithstanding this, the Panel recommended a further review on planning for a new Key Activity Centre in the northern part of the City.

- The Tannery
The submitter sought commercial zoning for the Tannery site with Council’s planner recommending rezoning of the northern part of the site to Commercial Mixed use as a better fit on the basis that it would not return to industrial use. The Panel decided it was inappropriate that the site is rezoned given potentially affected parties who have not had an opportunity to participate.

- 1027 Colombo Street

The submitter sought rezoning of a small site at 1027 Colombo to commercial which the Council’s planner and the Panel accepted this, having regard to the historical use of the site and subject to limiting access to Colombo Street. This had regard to the effect that the commercial rezoning may have on the Papanui Parallel major cycle route.

5.9 Plan Change 5F Kate Sheppard House (pages 210 – 217)

5.9.1 The plan change proposed site specific rules to enable a broader range of activities, complementary to its primary purpose, at Kate Sheppard House at 83 Clyde Road. The Panel heard from representatives for the two community boards and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, the principal issues being hours of operation and vehicle access. With regard to the former, a change is recommended by the Panel (supported in the Council’s evidence) to restrict deliveries and visitors before 9am on a Sunday or public holiday.

5.10 Plan Change 5G Consequential changes arising from removal of car parking (pages 218 – 225)

5.10.1 With the removal of minimum requirements for car parking, the plan change sought to make consequential changes to provisions where reference is made to car parking ‘required’. CIAL submitted on a rule requiring landscaping at the airport based on the number of car parks ‘required’. It was recommended by Council’s planner that the requirement for tree planting associated with car parking be tailored according to the activities that generated a greater number of car parks. CIAL accepted this and the Panel agreed.

5.11 Plan Change 5H Antenna size (pages 226 – 233)

5.11.1 The proposed plan change sought to amend rules to provide clarity that the limit on the size of antenna applies to all faces of an antenna, not just the largest face. This was supported by a representative for Spark. While a submission from Safer Technology Aotearoa New Zealand Incorp raised a number of concerns with broader matters including radiation, the Panel accepted the recommendation of the Council’s planner.

5.12 The decision affects all of the Community Board areas, noting the two community boards made submissions on a number of the topics above, being Waimāero/ Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board and Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

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: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan. - Maintain operative District Plan, including monitoring outcomes to inform changes, and giving effect to national and regional policy statements

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.

6.4 Consultation was undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao in the preparation of the Plan Change and on the draft plan change.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 This decision does not have a significant impact on climate change.

6.6 Changes to reinforce the existing direction that retail and office activities are primarily focussed in the Central City and commercial centres has benefits for climate change. Enabling these activities in highly accessible locations encourages the use of public transport, which may reduce reliance on private vehicles. It also facilitates linked trips between different activities by walking/ cycling rather than travel between different locations by private vehicle.

6.7 The provision for home occupations continues to enable working from home, which also minimises vehicle trips.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 This decision does not have a significant impact on accessibility beyond what is described above.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Adopting the proposed plan change will not result in additional costs to Council beyond what has been budgeted for except for additional costs associated with monitoring and enforcement.

7.2 The costs of staff time on Proposed Plan Change 5 have been assumed in the budgets of the Planning and Strategic Transport unit as part of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Sections 74 and 75 of the RMA set out the Council's obligations when preparing a change to its District Plan. The Panel’s report has applied the appropriate considerations under the RMA.

8.2 The legal framework for the Council’s decision on the Panel’s recommendations is set out in Part 4 above.

8.3 Submitters have the right to appeal to the Environment Court against the Council’s decision on PC5.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Council is statutorily required to have an operative District Plan at all times. Issues have been identified with the District Plan which will be addressed through this Plan Change. Therefore, the risk of not acting is considered greater than the risk of acting.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Panel's report and recommendations (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Appendices to Panel's report incl. recommendations on submissions and evaluation (Under Separate Cover)

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Nil	Nil

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

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

28 July 2022

14. Council-controlled organisations - final Statements of Intent 2022/23
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/573887
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources Group, linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager, Resources Group, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

1. Brief Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of the final Statements of Intent (SOIs) for 2022/23 for the following Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) – ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd (CNZ), Venues Ōtautahi (VŌ), Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), Transwaste Canterbury Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Central Plains Water Trust, Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust and Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

1.2 The Finance and Performance Committee reviewed the draft SOIs for these CCOs at its meetings on 24 March 2022 and 28 April 2022. In accordance with clause 2 of part 1, schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) the boards are required to consider any comments on the draft SOIs made by shareholders before 1 May. Clause 3 of part 1, schedule 8 of the LGA requires the boards to deliver completed SOIs to shareholders before the commencement of the financial year to which it relates (i.e. by 30 June).

1.3 This report has been written following receipt of the final SOIs from the CCOs on or before the statutory due date of 30 June 2022.

1.4 The final SOIs for the abovenamed CCOs are all compliant with the content requirements of parts 2, 3 and 4 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002. In accordance with clause x of the LGA the final SOIs are required to be published within one month of being adopted – by 31 July at the latest. Covering letters from the CCO boards, where provided are attached to this report. The SOIs are available on the CCOs’ websites.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the final Statements of Intent for 2022/23 and the following two years for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd, Venues Ōtautahi, Local Government Funding Agency, Transwaste Canterbury Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Central Plains Water Trust, Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust and Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

3. Detail

3.1 Changes made to the final SOIs, from the draft documents are shown for each CCO as follows:

ChristchurchNZ

3.2 CNZ’s draft SOI for 2022/23 was reviewed at the Finance and Performance Committee’s meeting on 28 April along with urban development decisions on capitalisation, a prioritisation framework and a CNZ/Council value sharing agreement (FPCO/2022/00023 refers).

3.3 In its feedback to the CNZ board on the draft SOI, the Council noted its expectation that the final SOI would include information underpinned by a pipeline of urban development projects, together with performance targets and a reporting framework.

3.4 A letter from the Chair of the CNZ board accompanying the final SOI is at Attachment A. The final SOI will be available at Strategies & Publications - ChristchurchNZ.com by 31 July.

Urban development

3.5 CNZ has been developing a draft pipeline of new and existing urban development projects and will be working with Council staff to inform this work further. The pipeline is expected to be discussed with the Council around August.

3.6 Due to the urban development decisions not having been finalised before the start of the new financial year, CNZ’s final SOI reflects the financial position of the organisation without capitalisation at the start of the year. The programmes and performance targets outlined in the SOI have been developed based on amalgamation occurring as planned once the outstanding audit matters are addressed.

3.7 The performance targets in the SOI reflect the planned amalgamation of ChristchurchNZ with Development Christchurch Limited, creating a capitalised urban development function within ChristchurchNZ, and the associated integration of a pipeline of urban development activities to be agreed using the decision making and prioritisation framework already put in place.

3.8 Although the amalgamation has been deferred, CNZ and CCHL have entered into an agreement to continue the urban development activities on the same basis that it has been undertaken since the transition of urban development to CNZ occurred.

Performance targets and reporting framework

3.9 At its meeting on 30 June 2022, the Finance and Performance Committee reviewed CNZ’s Quarter 3 2021/22 performance report and requested that Council staff work with CNZ to refresh the quarterly reporting framework for 2022/23 (FCPO/2022/00042 refers). This, together with the Committee’s comment that it would like the reporting metrics considered will be a programme of work for the year ahead which will include urban development targets and measures based on CNZ’s finalised pipeline of works.

3.10 CNZ has set out (refer page 9 of the SOI) its key performance indicators underpinning how its success will be measured. The metrics all relate to CNZ’s strategic outcomes (refer to page 8 of the SOI). As noted recently, isolating CNZ’s contribution to achieving these targets is challenging, particularly when economic gains accrue from a network of private and public sector activity, and outcomes often lag interventions. Nevertheless, CNZ is committed to working through these performance reporting challenges, in consultation with Council staff.

Financial forecasts

3.11 CNZ’s forecast financial statements for the three SOI years include the following key issues:

· third party income expected mostly from central government of $12.2 million in 2022/23 is attached to contract deliverables (primarily in response to the impact of COVID-19) and is not available to replace Council funding for activities currently contracted for, or to be contracted for as part of the ordinary course of business. The expected benefits from the third party funding is in the magnifying of social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes for Christchurch from leveraging Council funding; and

· total assets are projected at around $15.6 million in 2021/22 reducing to $5.5 million in 2022/23, as CNZ pays out, or returns, government funding for COVID-19 recovery activity. The funding was received partly for distribution to other parts of Canterbury which need to satisfy conditions before the funding can be recognised and forwarded by CNZ. A significant amount of the activity that was deferred in the 2021/22 year due to COVID-19 has rolled over to the 2022/23 year and this leads to a projected deficit of $2.85 million in that year. While this can be funded from CNZ’s balance sheet, any further price pressure or additional activity sought from CNZ will require the organisation to re-prioritise within its portfolio of services and activities it delivers.

Venues Ōtautahi

3.12 A letter from the Chief Executive of VŌ accompanying the final SOI is at Attachment B. The final SOI will be available on Council controlled organisations : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz) by 31 July.

3.13 When the Finance and Performance Committee reviewed VŌ’s draft SOI at its meeting on 28 April 2022, it noted staff advice that VŌ’s climate change undertakings could be amended to provide the following:

· development of GHG emission, energy, solid waste and water management plans through to 2030 (performance target for plans to be developed in 2022/23);

· development of a plan to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2030 (performance target for plan to be developed in 2022/23);

· having its GHG emission inventory verified against ISO 14064 annually; and

· development of procurement requirements for VŌ’s suppliers to have GHG emission, energy, solid waste and water management plans (performance target to develop requirements in 2022/23).

3.14 Performance targets to underpin these requirements have been set and included in the final SOI for the overall objective of “contribute to reducing the City’s carbon footprint” as follows:

3.15 VŌ’s final SOI has several other changes including:

· a note of its intent to raise with the Council in the 2023 Annual Plan the importance of it having dedicated bid incentive funding to attract events to all of its venues;

· a new commitment to accessibility and inclusivity for all members of the community at VŌ’s venues;

· commitment to paying its staff at least the living wage; and

· an increase in the number of events annually receiving the community rate, from 35 to 40 in 2022/23 and from 40 to 45 in each of the two following years.

3.16 VŌ has revised its financial forecasts for each of the three years, based on updated information (since it prepared its draft SOI) about how its events attraction and provision will unfold following the lifting of COVID-19 border and gathering restrictions. The re-forecasts include more events than expected as well as higher prices due to inflation and strong competition for events from other providers both globally and nationally. This has led to the following expected improvements in EBITDA in the final SOI:

EBITDA	2022/23 $000	2023/24 $000	2024/25 $000
Draft SOI	(203)	(28)	23
Final SOI	(177)	96	89
Difference	+26	+124	+66

Local Government Funding Agency

3.17 A letter from the Chief Executive of LGFA accompanying the final SOI is at Attachment C. The final SOI will be available on SOI 2022-2025 FINAL.pdf (lgfa.co.nz) by 31 July.

3.18 The final SOI records LGFA’s expectation of materially reduced operating profit over the SOI timeframe as follows:

Net operating profit	2022/23 $000	2023/24 $000	2024/25 $000
Draft SOI	9,900	11,700	10,000
Final SOI	2,800	8,200	7,100
Difference	-7,100	-3,600	-3,000

3.19 The reduction in profitability in each of the SOI years, compared with the draft SOI is due to the impact of rising interest rates on LGFA’s liquid investments. The LGFA borrows more than it on-lends to Councils in order to maintain a prudent level of available cash; the interest rate earned on much of this cash is based on the official cash rate, whereas the rate LGFA pays on its borrowing is based on the (higher) 90-day bill rate. The gap between these two benchmark interest rates is currently unusually wide, which increases the financial ‘drag’ associated with LGFA’s cash holdings. The difference is quite small in percentage terms, but is significant in LGFA’s bottom line because of the large size of its portfolio.

Transwaste Canterbury Ltd

3.20 A letter from the Chair of the Transwaste board to the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee accompanying the final SOI is at Attachment D. The final SOI will be available on Publications - Transwaste (transwastecanterbury.co.nz) by 31 July.

3.21 Transwaste completed its business planning process after the draft SOI was submitted. This has led to increased profit and dividend forecasts for the SOI period as follows:

EBIT	2022/23 $000	2023/24 $000	2024/25 $000
Draft SOI	19,602	19,873	19,843
Final SOI	23,095	21,930	23,108
Difference	+3,493	+2,057	+3,265

Dividends	2022/23 $000	2023/24 $000	2024/25 $000
Draft SOI	13,400	13,800	18,900
Final SOI	16,100	15,500	20,400
Difference	+2,700	+1,700	+1,500

3.22 The increased forecast profitability and flow on to higher forecast dividends reflects higher expected volumes of waste as a result of the expected economic downturn following COVID-19 lockdowns having not eventuated. Offsetting this is a small reduction in pricing that is largely due to lowering the previously forecast inflation component of the price estimate.

3.23 The letter from the Transwaste board accompanying the final SOI notes that customers should expect increases in emissions trading scheme costs as its forward purchase of units (at lower prices than carbon is currently) is exhausted.

Other CCOs

3.24 The following are the few key changes in each of the other CCO final SOIs, over the drafts:

· Civic Building Ltd (Council controlled organisations : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz) - Notes that the directors will consider a proposal to make a partial repayment of debt and redeem preference shares in the next financial year. Should this be the case, the financial outcomes will differ from the SOI forecasts.

· Central Plains Water Trust (Council controlled organisations : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz) - Environmental performance targets have been reworded from the concept of there being “no breaches” of resource consents and water rights to “ensuring compliance” with same. The amended wording reflects that the Trust is not the party acting under the consents.

· Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd (Council controlled organisations : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)) - The board adopted the draft SOI as its final without change. However, it has advised that depending on the result of the Council’s deliberations on the future of Te Kaha on 14th July the SOI may need to change. If that is the case, the board will adopt a new or amended SOI following consultation with the Council as shareholder.

· Riccarton Bush Trust (Reports | Riccarton House and Bush) - Formal comments made by the Council on the Trust’s draft SOI have been addressed in the final SOI by way of new performance targets that identify the contribution the Trust makes to the Council’s community outcomes through the delivery of its activities and services, commit to meet the goal of becoming net carbon neutral by 2030, and to work with Council staff to identify what is required to enable this outcome and undertake to provide information in its statutory reporting about numbers of participants across the variety of Riccarton Bush and House offerings and providing comparisons over time as that information is compiled.

· Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (Administrative Documents « Rod Donald Trust) - The final SOI notes the Trust will revise its investment policy in 2022/23 to take into account the Council’s capital and operational grant funding provided for in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 from 2023/24.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Letter from Chair with final SOI for 2022/23	150
b ⇩	Venues Otautahi - Letter from Chief Executive with final SOI for 2022/23	151
c ⇩	Local Government Funding Agency - Letter from Chief Executive with final SOI for 2022/23	153
d ⇩	Transwaste Canterbury Ltd - Letter from Chair with final SOI for 2022/23	156

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	Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO
Approved By	Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

5. Te Tira Kāhikuhiku - May - July 2022 Minutes
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/690730
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Chrissie Williams, Te Tira Kāhikuhiku Chairperson
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting	License to	For
17 May 2022	Stuff Limited	A licence for a planting 5000 trees in Burwood on 3 July 2022.
17 May 2022	Ōtautahi Beekeepers Limited	A six month lease to establish beehives and provide education sites in Kingsford Street and Glade Avenue.
17 May 2022	Ōtautahi Beekeepers Limited	A lease transfer from Myles White to Ōtautahi Beekeepers Limited at existing lease sites in Rebecca Ave, Kingsford St, and Ava Place.
17 May 2022	Nōku Te Ao Charitable Trust	A six month lease in an area between Mundys and McBratneys Roads, and a a six month licence in an area between New Brighton and Mundys Roads for investigations to determine the feasibility for establishing Te Pā Rākaihautū.
17 May 2022	Richmond Community Garden Trust	A renewal of a six month lease at sites in River Road, Vogel Street and Swanns Road for continuation of the community garden, food forests, children’s play areas, picnic spots, sustainability features, events and native plantings.
19 July 2022	Avon Loop Planning Association	A six-month extension of the transitional land use license on the land in Avon Loop, to continue to plan for a Peace Park.
19 July 2022	CCC Empowerment Project	A six-month extension of the transitional land use license in Harvey Terrace, Richmond to continue to explore options for the Salam Garden.
19 July 2022	Life in Vacant Spaces - Jordan Wilson	A six-month extension of the transitional land use license in Scoular Place, Avondale to continue with the project for a Community Garden.
19 July 2022	Extravaganza Fair - Mels Berg	Advice to Land Information New Zealand of general support for the formal application to be considered in August, conditional on recommended criteria.

6. Multicultural Committee Minutes - 8 June 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/758385
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Liz Ryley, Committee & Hearings Advisor – liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community – mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

9. Request for drawdown of Contingency funds for Coastal Pathway Moncks Bay
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/738637
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Richard Humm, Project Manager, Richard.humm@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Jane.Davis@ccc.govt.nz

Month	Activity
July 2022	Staff to consult with Hagley Park Reference Group
July	Staff report to the Council requesting approval to appoint an independent commissioner to hear and deliberate on submissions and make recommendations to the Council
August	Public consultation (open for just over one month)
September	Staff collate submissions and prepare a report to the commissioner
October	Commissioner hears and deliberates on submissions
November	Commissioner prepares report to the Council
December	Report presented to the Council for decision on easements over reserves
January – March 2023	If easements approved – easement documents drawn up and registered
April 2023	Museum commences construction

10. Canterbury Museum Easements - Appointment of Independent Commissioner to Hear Submissions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/841548
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Russel Wedge, Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory, russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community

12. Request for Approval of a Second Extension of Time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 141 High Street, Christchurch
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/870104
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Brendan Smyth, Heritage Team Leader Brendan.Smyth@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager, Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services Jane.Davis@ccc.govt.nz

15. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statement of Intent for 2022/23
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/592667
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources Group, linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager/CFO, Resources Group, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

CCHL parent	2022/23 $m	2023/24 $m	2024/25 $m
Draft SOI forecast NPAT	38	71	75
Final SOI forecast NPAT	51	57	76
*Increase/(decrease)*	*+13*	*-14*	+1
Draft and Final SOI forecast dividends	32.4	50.7	57.2

CCHL subsidiaries	2022/23 $m	2023/24 $m	2024/25 $m
Draft SOIs forecast dividends to CCHL	72.0	98.3	109.8
Final SOIs forecast dividends to CCHL	80.1	94.1	110.2
*Increase/(decrease)*	+8.1	-4.28	+0.4

Changes in NPAT forecasts	2022/23 $m	2023/24 $m	2024/25 $m
Total increase in NPAT	+15.8	+11.8	+9.9
*Represented by:* CIAL LPC City Care	+10.6 +3.0 +2.2	+7.9 +3.0 +0.9	+5.3 +3.0 +1.6
Total increase	+15.8	+11.8	+9.9

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED
17.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Re-appointment of director to Christchurch International Airport Ltd	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the reputation of the candidate.	As soon as the candidate has been advised of the Council's decision.
18.	Riccarton Bush Trust - Re-appointment of Trustee	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the reputation of the candidate who is a private individual.	As soon as the candidate is advised of the Council's decision.
19.	PAP - 128 Armagh St Development Site - EOI Process	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The Council needs to consider responses to the EOI and next steps. The details of the EOI are presently confidential and contain commercial aspirations of the submitters.	30 June 2026 If/when the Council resolves a future decision to enter a development agreement with an external party.