Agenda of Council - Thursday, 8 September 2022

Council

08 September 2022

7. Approval to notify Plan Changes 13 and 14
Reference Te Tohutoro:	21/1712831
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Planning Manager, mark.stevenson@ccc.govt.nz Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor Planning, Ike.klenynbos@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 recommend public notification of changes to the Christchurch District Plan (District Plan):

1.1.1 Plan change 13 (PC13) for heritage;

1.1.2 Plan change 14 (PC14), to give effect to government priorities, directed through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and the amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) made last year.

1.2 The Council has no option about some matters in PC14. It must notify some of the changes. That is because they are directed by central government in the NPS-UD and in the amendments to the RMA.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by taking into account the citywide introduction of Medium Density Residential Standards into the District Plan (except where Qualifying Matters exempt their application) and the impact this may have on the urban form of local neighbourhoods, the central city and suburban centres.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve the public notification of Plan Change 13 Heritage and its associated evaluation report (prepared in accordance with section 32 of the RMA) as included in attachments to this report, pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

2. Approve the public notification of Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice and its associated evaluation report (prepared in accordance with sections 32 and 77J-77R of the RMA) as included in attachments to this report, pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

3. Authorise Head of Planning and Consents to make any necessary minor corrections or amendments to the Proposed Plan Changes 13 and 14 or their evaluation reports and appendices, until the date of notification, to improve the clarity, accuracy or consistency of the documents.

4. Authorise Head of Planning and Consents to make other consequential changes to chapters of the District Plan not otherwise affected by Plan Changes 14 and 13 and to approve those documents for notification.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council is required to implement the Government’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RM Amendment Act), by permitting development in accordance with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and enabling intensification around commercial areas and rapid transit routes in the District Plan.

3.2 MDRS has the effect, in most residential areas of Christchurch, of enabling up to three homes, up to 12 metres high, on a property without resource consent, if development complies with the relevant standards. Central government has not given the Council the option under the RMA of declining to introduce the MDRS. Council’s sole discretion is to provide more lenient standards than the MDRS, or to propose “qualifying matters” that warrant restriction on the intensification enabled by the NPS-UD.

3.3 The new government direction requires greater building development to be allowed within and around the central city, suburban commercial centres and planned high frequency and capacity public transport networks. PC14 therefore proposes that height limits are increased to enable development within and around the central city and suburban commercial centres. Additionally, the plan change includes the rezoning of some industrial areas within walking distance of the central city, and enabling housing and mixed-use development in industrial areas within walking distance of larger suburban centres.

3.4 The RM Amendment Act allows for exemptions to where the new MDRS, and intensification around centres, apply if there are special reasons, known as Qualifying Matters, for restricting development – such as an area’s heritage or vulnerability to natural hazards.

3.5 Plan Change 14 also partially implements National Planning Standards introduced in 2018 and which require national consistency in the structure, form, definitions and mapping of District Plans. The NPS-UD uses terms defined in the National Planning Standards and PC14 adopts these, including changes to zone names e.g. City Centre zone.

3.6 As part of a Heritage Plan Change (Plan Change 13), new Residential Heritage Areas are proposed for protection of their heritage values. The plan change also proposes around 70 buildings, items and building interiors are added to the Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage. These are also proposed as qualifying matters in PC14.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Plan changes 14 and 13 are accompanied by detailed evaluation reports prepared under s32 of the RMA, which includes the consideration of reasonably practicable alternatives. Those evaluations assess the efficiency and effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed provisions for the District Plan. They conclude that the plan change provisions as recommended are the most appropriate.

4.2 In relation to the plan change process, the following options for Plan Change 14 have been considered.

Plan Change 14 – Alternative options

To not notify the Plan Change or only notify the MDRS and Qualifying Matters (i.e. breach of statutory obligations)

4.3 This is not an option. The Council is legally obliged to change its District Plan to implement the NPS-UD and the RMA, to give effect to the government’s policy direction on urban form and legislative changes to increase housing supply and improve affordability – most notably to introduce the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS).

4.4 If the Council refuses to perform its statutory duty, then:

4.4.1 The High Court might order it to perform its statutory duties: any person can apply to the High Court for an urgent order directing the Council to do what it is required by law to do.

4.4.2 The Minister might replace the Council with Commissioners or Crown Managers to perform the Council’s functions. That could be either to perform just the duty to notify the plan change or all of the Council’s duties. The elected council will then have no control over the content of the notified plan change. That will be decided by the Commissioner, subject to terms of reference set by the Minister.

Option to do more than statutorily required

4.5 An option could have been to fully implement the National Planning Standards whilst giving effect to the overarching intensification direction in the NPS-UD and RM Amendment Act. This option was not pursued because of the very short timeframe and the significant amount of work required. The Council has until 2026 to implement the National Planning Standards, and Plan Change 14 partially adopts those standards by inclusion of new definitions, zoning, standards, and mapping conventions, as reasonably practicable.

Option for Council to decide on changes to what staff recommend

4.6 The Council could decide to make changes to what staff have recommended, where Council has discretion in the implementation of MDRS and NPS-UD. That discretion includes the:

· Extent and nature of qualifying matters where the level of intensification may be reduced

· Extent of walkable catchments defined from the City Centre and suburban centres

· Height limits (except as prescribed under Policy 3 of the NPS-UD).

4.7 While there is discretion, the plan change recommended for approval to notify is supported by an evaluation that demonstrates the plan change is the most appropriate, drawing on a significant amount of expert assessment. This includes consideration of reasonably practicable alternatives to the proposed provisions, to determine their appropriateness having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness. The costs and benefits (environmental, economic, social, cultural) and the risks of acting or not acting are also assessed.

4.8 In evaluating whether a qualifying matter is appropriate, the evaluation report must also include an assessment of the need for qualifying matters as limitations on intensification and their impact on MDRS and Policy 3 of the NPS-UD. There must be an assessment of the impact on development capacity including the costs of imposing limits.

4.9 Staff recommend against the Council notifying changes to the District Plan that are unsupported by the evaluation that is required by the RMA. The Council might not have evidence in support of the Council’s change.

Plan Change 13 – Alternative options

4.10 As Plan Change 13 on Heritage is going through the standard RMA process for plan changes it is not subject to the same timeframe as Plan Change 14; and while the protection of historic heritage is a matter of national importance under section 6(f) of the RMA, the Council has discretion over the content of the plan change. The options available to Council are therefore as follows:

To seek changes to the plan change for notification

4.11 Council staff recommend against changes to the plan change that are unsupported by the evaluation that is required by the RMA. Given the overlap, it would also necessitate changes to plan change 14.

To not approve/ defer the plan change for notification

4.12 Under s86B of the RMA, when the Council notifies proposed rules to protect heritage, those rules take immediate legal effect, which means that resource consent is required for any activity in breach of the proposed new rules. If the Council does not approve notifying the plan change, or defers the plan change, then development in accordance with the current permitted activity standards in the District Plan could be undertaken. This would not give immediate protection to Residential Heritage Areas and heritage items as prescribed under section 86B of the RMA and could result in the loss of or effects on the heritage values of these areas and sites.

5. Background to the Plan Changes

Context – Plan Change 14

5.1 The Council is required to make changes to the Christchurch District Plan, to give effect to Government direction in the NPS-UD and 2021 amendment to the RMA, including the MDRS.

5.2 Although the Council’s submission on the RM Amendment Act raised concerns about the process, and the limitations of a broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach, it agreed that we need to concentrate growth within our city’s current footprint, rather than continuing to grow outward over highly productive land on our suburban fringe. In addition, the closer people live to work and school, the less travelling people need to do, which can reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions.

5.3 The MDRS enables an increase in minimum residential densities by permitting up to three storeys across most of the city, and up to three houses per section, without requiring a resource consent – effectively re-zoning the city’s urban residential areas to medium density and higher. The RMA requires that the MDRS apply to all relevant residential zones within the ‘urban environment’.

5.4 Policy 3 of the NPS-UD directs that District Plans “enable more people to live in, and more businesses and community services to be located in, areas of an urban environment” in or near a centre or other area with employment, that is well-serviced by existing or planned public transport or where there is a high demand for housing or business land.

5.5 Under policy 3 of the NPS-UD, the Council is to:

5.5.1 In the City Centre, enable building heights and densities to realise as much development capacity as possible to maximise the benefits of intensification (Policy 3(a)).

5.5.2 In Metropolitan centre zones, enable building heights and density of urban form to reflect demand for housing and business use in those locations, and in all cases building heights of at least 6 storeys (Policy 3(b)).

5.5.3 Enable building heights of at least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of existing and planned rapid transit stops, the edge of City Centre zones and Metropolitan centre zones (Policy 3(c)), and

5.5.4 Within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), enable heights and densities that are commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services (Policy 3(d).

5.6 The content of PC14 proposed to implement this direction is explained further in section 6 below.

Context – Plan Change 13

5.7 Under section 6 of the RMA, the Council must “recognise and provide for…the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development” (section 6(f)). The definition of “historic heritage” under the RMA includes “historic sites, structures, places, and areas”, and “surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources” which are dealt with in Chapter 9.3 of the District Plan.

5.8 PC13 is intended to better reflect aspects of the City’s history and communities through adding places including buildings and items to the heritage schedule, adding further building interiors for protection and adding areas as Residential Heritage Areas with regulatory protection for collective values in accordance with section 6.

Feedback – Plan Change 14 and 13

5.9 In April and May 2022 Council invited community feedback on draft plan changes 13 and 14. This was intended to enable early input to the draft proposals ahead of the formal process that begins with notification of the plan change.

5.10 In the preparation of Plan Changes 14 and 13, there has been consultation with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited. Discussions began in late 2021 to help frame overall thinking for the development of Plan Change 14. Following the release of the full draft proposal in April 2022, Council staff met with representatives from Mahaanui to further discuss the plan changes. Discussions with Mahaanui included the extent of qualifying matters. Maahanui expressed support for the approach undertaken thus far, and reiterated the importance of adequate qualifying matters to be captured in the proposal.

6. Detail Te Whakamahuki

PC14 ‘Housing and Business Choice’ Intensification Plan Change

6.1 The Council has a legal obligation to implement the RM Amendment Act and NPS-UD. In doing so, there are matters the Council has no discretion on, including MDRS i.e. prescribed standards e.g. height, recession plane, setbacks, and giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

6.2 The Council proposes to apply MDRS, and in some situations more lenient provisions than the MDRS, across all urban residential areas, including (but not limited to) Lyttelton and residential Port Hill areas. Two new residential zones are proposed, which apply MDRS, to replace a number of existing residential zones in the District Plan. These are the Medium Density Residential Zone (MRZ) and the High Density Residential Zone (HRZ). Within the MRZ, buildings would be permitted up to 12m with resource consent required above this.

6.3 Lyttelton is included as we have assessed it to be part of the same labour and housing market as Ōtautahi Christchurch. Akaroa and Diamond Harbour do not meet the same definition, and are therefore not included in the urban environment.

6.4 In giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD (refer to para. 5.5) PC14 enables the following:

City Centre

6.4.1 Policy 3(a) requires buildings heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible in the City Centre zone, to maximise benefits of intensification.

6.4.2 In response, PC14 enables buildings of up to 90 metres in the core of the central city, zoned City Centre zone. Buildings of 45 metres would be enabled in the Victoria St commercial area and for sites around Cathedral Square to manage shading effects. However, in all these cases, a resource consent would be required where the maximum road wall height is over 21 metres and/or the building base is over 28 metres.

Walkable distance of City Centre (Residential, Mixed use zones)

6.4.3 Policy 3(c) requires the District Plan to enable building heights of at least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the edge of the City Centre zone.

6.4.4 In response, PC14 enables, for the High Density Residential zone (HRZ) around the City Centre zone, buildings of 10 storeys /32 metres in height. Beyond and within walking distance of the City Centre zone, also zoned HRZ, buildings up to 20 metres high/ six storeys would be enabled. However, in all of these cases, resource consent would be required for any building 14m or greater in height, with a broader range of matters assessed for buildings exceeding 32m in height.

6.4.5 Building heights in the Central City Mixed Use Zone would be enabled to 32 metres but a resource consent would be required where the building base is over 17 metres.

6.4.6 The plan change also proposes rezoning of industrial zoned land south of the Central City to Mixed Use, with changes to associated policies and rules to provide for comprehensive residential development.

Within and adjacent to suburban centres

6.4.7 Policy 3(d) requires that within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and density of urban form are commensurate with the level of commercial activities and community services.

6.4.8 In response, PC14 rezones District Centres, for example Riccarton, Shirley/ The Palms, to Town Centre Zone. A height limit of 22 metres is proposed for Riccarton, Hornby, and Papanui while a height limit of 20 metres is proposed for Belfast, Shirley, Linwood, and North Halswell.

6.4.9 Neighbourhood Centres, for example, Merivale, Barrington, and New Brighton would be rezoned to Local Centre Zone. The heights enabled within these centres would be differentiated based on the range and scale of commercial activity and community services anticipated with graduating height limits as follows:

· Small (12 metres) e.g. Addington, Avonhead

· Medium (14 metres) e.g. Barrington, New Brighton

· Large (20m) e.g. e.g. Church Corner/ Bush Inn, Merivale

6.4.10 Local Centres, for example a parade of shops would be rezoned to Neighbourhood Centre zone and have a height limit of 12 metres consistent with the height limit in surrounding residential zones.

6.4.11 Areas around these centres will also enable increased building heights for housing (14-20 metres). However, in all cases, resource consent will be required for any building over 14m with a broader range of matters assessed for buildings over 20m.

6.4.12 PC14 also proposes that a brownfield overlay be introduced for some industrial areas within walking distance of large commercial centres. This is to enable redevelopment for housing and mixed-use activities if certain criteria are met.

Other changes

6.5 Other changes proposed through PC14 are described below (Refer to Plan Change for a full description):

6.5.1 Changes and additions are proposed to rules within commercial zones to ensure that they achieve high quality urban environments and to permit small buildings that meet certain criteria to be established without the need for resource consent in some zones;

6.5.2 A financial contribution is proposed to address adverse effects of development (intensification) on the tree canopy cover in the urban environment. Christchurch’s tree canopy survey shows that the cover is falling with the most significant drop on private land; and

6.5.3 Changed objectives, policies and other provisions throughout the District Plan that support or are consequential to the above changes.

Qualifying Matters

6.6 The plan change also sets out Qualifying Matters. The RMA allows for these to be proposed as a limit on intensification, if they pass a tight statutory test and appraisal through this process. Staff set out a proposed approach and a draft list of proposed Qualifying Matters in the report to the 2 December 2021 UD&T meeting, which was endorsed by the Committee (Refer: UDATC/2021/00030).

6.7 There is a strong evidence base required and additional evaluation requirements to address for qualifying matters, including an assessment of the impact of a qualifying matter on development capacity and a site specific analysis that demonstrates the levels of intensification otherwise enabled are inappropriate. As part of carrying existing District Plan development constraints through as Qualifying Matters, staff have reviewed them and revisited the evidence relied on for the District Plan Review. As a result, there have been changes made through this process.

6.8 Development in accordance with the MDRS is not barred in areas where Qualifying Matters apply. Applicants might still be granted resource consent. Also, there are some features in the District Plan, which could be considered Qualifying Matters but which will not limit height/density (e.g. some specific hazard constraints like low-risk flooding, liquefaction management).

6.9 PC14 proposes that Qualifying Matters are applied, including matters of national importance (RMA s6), as follows:

6.9.1 Natural and cultural features, and hazards:

· Outstanding and Significant Natural Features and Landscapes;

· Areas of Significant Ecological Value;

· Sites of Wāhi Tapu; Wāhi Taonga, Silent Files, Ngā Tūranga Tūpuna; Ngā Wai;

· Areas at risk of rockfall, cliff collapse and mass movement (Slope Hazard Areas);

· High Flood Hazard Management Areas;

· Flood Ponding Management Areas;

· Heritage items and settings;

· Heritage, Significant and Other Trees;

· Heritage Areas and areas that interface with heritage areas and significant public open space including surrounding Cathedral Square, New Regent Street, Arts Centre;

· Riccarton Bush interface; and

· Waterbody Setbacks and limits on building height near the Styx River.

6.10 The qualifying matter proposed in the surrounds of Cathedral Square, New Regent Street and the Arts Centre has the effect of reducing the height limit to manage shading effects and to minimise building dominance on the heritage values of these buildings and spaces.

6.11 The other qualifying matters proposed are:

· Residential Character Areas;

· Electricity Transmission corridors and structures;

· Airport Noise Influence Area;

· Lyttelton Port Influences Overlay;

· Sites adjoining the railway network;

· Designations

· Coastal Hazard Management Areas;

· Radio Communication Pathways;

· Vacuum Sewer Wastewater Constraint Areas; and

· Reduced height limits along Victoria Street.

6.12 The Airport Noise Influence area is proposed over areas affected by the 50dBA Ldn noise contour, based on the outer-most of two possible contour lines in the most up to date modelling by Christchurch International Airport Limited. This is currently subject to Independent Peer Review with the possibility of changes following this review. Evidence of that peer review and the Airport’s response to it will be available before the IHP hearing of PC14. By including the larger extent of the revised contour at this time, the risk of medium or high density housing being established in areas affected by greater levels of noise can be reduced until such time that the revised contour is confirmed.

6.13 The Coastal Hazard Management Areas represent where there is a High or Medium risk of inundation and/or erosion. To give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, strong policy direction is introduced that seeks to avoid increased risk of harm associated with intensification. Council staff and consultants will be advising on the merits of that in a plan change to be notified in 2023 on coastal hazards.

6.14 The Radio Communication pathways from the Justice Precinct to maintain communication for emergency services was initially propose to be introduced by way of a separate plan change. However, it is now proposed as part of Plan Change 14.

Feedback from consultation on draft plan changes

6.15 Engagement on the Housing and Business Choice and Heritage plan changes ran for four weeks. Online forums to discuss the planned changes were well-subscribed. Although the Council communications were clear about which proposals were already a ‘given’ under the Government’s MDRS, there were still many comments on these elements.

6.16 Themes within the comments included meeting the needs of a growing population while protecting privacy, sunlight, trees, heritage buildings and character areas. Those who provided feedback considered retaining the ‘feel’ of local neighbourhoods to be important.

6.17 Topics attracting most comments were: building heights above 12 metres; qualifying matters to restrict intensified development; the Medium Density Residential zone - the majority of comments opposed this zoning; business intensification; and financial contributions for tree canopy cover- 70 percent of commenters on this supported the approach or wanted it increased as people value the tree canopy.

6.18 Following the pre-notification feedback staff have made a number of changes to the initial proposals.

· Central city: Instead of being limitless, central city building heights are now proposed to be limited to 90 metres in the core, which is the City Centre zone, with a transition to lower heights further out from the core. Changes have also been made to matters considered for an urban design assessment and the process for certification. Ten storey residential areas are to be concentrated in areas adjacent to the core.

· Character and heritage; Three new character areas have been identified, being Roker/ Penrith; Ryan Street and Bewdley/ Evesham and changes have been made to increase the extent of the Lyttelton Character Area. Buffers have been introduced to protect the edges of heritage areas, and new heritage features have been added.

· Residential; Urban design requirements have been simplified and streamlined across zones. Assessment matters, objectives and policies have all been refined and simplified. The High density area around Shirley has been adjusted to reflect the wastewater constraint associated with the vacuum sewer system. With respect to trees, the setback extent has been updated to provide better protection.

· Commercial; A two metre increase in height has been allowed around the commercial centres of Riccarton, Papanui and Hornby

Heritage Plan Change (Plan Change 13)

6.19 The Heritage Plan Change is being progressed at the same time as the Housing and Business Choice Plan Change due to the potential impact of intensification – particularly for the as-yet unscheduled Residential Heritage Areas. Intensification could result in loss of heritage value e.g. where heritage value is associated with degree of openness or style of houses.

6.20 This Plan Change incorporates:

· An overall revision of the historic heritage rules.

· Corrections to the Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage (Appendix 9.3.7.2).

· The scheduling of around 44 additional buildings or items for protection.

· The scheduling of around 29 additional heritage interiors for protection.

· The introduction of 11 residential heritage areas.

6.21 The Heritage Plan Change will be processed under the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

6.22 Some of the content of PC13 is outside the scope of PC14 – eg heritage protections in zones that are not subject to MDRS and policy 3, or (arguably) rules concerning the interiors of heritage features. However, many proposed changes are duplicated in PC13 and PC14. That is a precautionary approach in case there are issues with either of those processes. This could be of particular benefit in relation to the new heritage and character features identified in these plan changes as PC13 rules taking immediate legal effect means that development currently permitted in the District Plan will require resource consent.

Residential Heritage Areas

6.23 Residential Heritage Areas are proposed to be included in the District Plan. There is some overlap between Residential Heritage Areas and Character Areas – for example emphasis on streetscape. However, Residential Heritage Areas have additional heritage values, and may be more diverse in character. Heritage is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the RMA.

6.24 At a high level, they include buildings and features which collectively, rather than individually, are of significance to the city’s heritage and identity, and are required to be sufficiently intact. The number of areas assessed and subsequently discounted illustrate the high threshold: of the original 2010 longlist of 89 areas, 7 have been taken forward. A further 4 additional areas have been included – making 11 in total for this proposed Plan Change.

Process

6.25 The Council is required to use an Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP) for PC14 to introduce the MDRS and amend the objectives, policies and rules within the District Plan.The process for PC14 is described in the table below:

Public Notification of Plan Change 14	23^rd September 2022
Submissions can be made by anyone	31^st October 2022
Summary of submissions and submissions published Further submissions invited from certain persons*	November/ December 2022
Preparation of evidence/ reports with recommendations on submissions	January/ February 2023
Hearings before Independent Hearings Panel (IHP)	March/ April 2023
Recommendations of IHP prepared	May/ June 2023
Report to Council for a decision on the IHP’s recommendations (Refer to para. 6.26 below)	August 2023
Minister decision on IHP recommendations rejected by Council
Appeals to the High Court on points of law

* any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; any person who has an interest in the proposal greater than the general public has; and the local authority itself.

6.26 If the Council accepts all of the IHP recommendation, then that is the end unless there are point of law appeals to the High Court. If the Council rejects any part the IHP recommendation, the Council must send rejected part to the Minister for the Minister to decide whether to accept it, reject it or replace it with the Council’s recommendation.

6.27 The Minister for the Environment has directed that Council’s decisions on IHP recommendations are made on Plan Change 14 by the 20^th August 2023.

6.28 The Heritage Plan Change (PC13) will follow a ‘standard’ Schedule 1 Process under the RMA. Unlike the streamlined process for PC14, Council’s decision on the IHP’s recommendations can be appealed to the Environment Court. The Minister has no role in deciding on IHP recommendations rejected by the Council.

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

7.1.1 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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.3 In preparation of Plan Change 14, consultation has been undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (Mahaanui). Discussions began in late 2021 to help frame overall thinking for the development of Plan Change 14 and involved discussing:

· Strategic Directions development (Chapter 3);

· Scope of relevant residential zones;

· Scope of considerations for papakāinga / kāinga nohoanga development as part of MDRS;

· Types of cultural significance features that should be considered as qualifying matters; and

· Broader strategic outcomes of Plan Change 14.

7.4 Following the release of the full draft proposal in April 2022, Council staff met with representatives from Mahaanui to further discuss the above. Mahaanui expressed support for the approach undertaken, and reiterated the importance of adequate qualifying matters to be captured in the proposal.

7.5 Draft evaluation reports and draft changes were provided to Mahaanui on 22 July 2022.

7.6 The hearing of submissions will be before an independent panel that includes Karen Coutts, nominated by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.7 This report and the Plan Change is consistent with the Kia tūroa te Ao | Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy. It is also consistent with the Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019.

7.8 Objective 8 of the NPS-UD requires that New Zealand’s urban environments support reductions in greenhouse gases; and are resilient to the current and future effects of climate change.

7.9 The proposed plan changes provides for increased density in the city and for growing within the city’s existing footprint rather than spreading - ‘growing up and in, rather than out’. This approach will have the longer term benefits of protecting soils in the city’s hinterland and will help to limit the distances people have to travel between work, school, and home. This will in turn help to reduce emissions.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.10 The NPS-UD requires the District Plan to enable more people to live in and more businesses and community services to be located in, areas of the urban environment that are in or near a centre or other area with employment and/or well serviced by existing and planned public transport (Objective 3). The plan change supports this by enabling greater densities of housing and business development in proximity to employment and services, which improves accessibility.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 The costs of preparation of the plan changes for notification have been budgeted for as part of the programme of work of the Planning and Strategic Transport Unit.

8.2 Plan Change 14 will be subject to a streamlined planning process prescribed in the RMA, which will result in additional costs including the Independent Hearings Panel who will hear submissions. An estimate of costs has previously been prepared, which estimated a cost of $1.8 million, which has been budgeted for in the Annual Plan 2022-23. Costs may exceed this, depending on the number and extent of issues raised in submissions and any additional costs will be covered through other sources.

Other

8.3 The proposed provision for financial contributions for tree canopy cover will require administration of the plan, including the taking of monies. This will need to be budgeted for if the plan change is approved.

8.4 If the Council resolves to not notify PC14, with or without variation to it – that is, refuses to perform its statutory duty – then the Council will be liable for the costs of others if they seek orders from the High Court that the Council perform its duties, or costs to central government in appointing a commissioner or commissioners to perform the Council’s role.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9.1 With regard to PC14, the changes that the RM Amendment Act made to the RMA, and the NPS-UD, require the Council to make changes to the District Plan as described in this report and dictate the required content of evaluation reports to support any proposed plan change.

9.2 With regard to PC13, the RMA enables the Council to prepare a change to its District Plan at any time, subject to a consultation process set out in Schedule 1 of the Act.

9.3 The RMA requirements and assessment matters relevant to deciding whether to propose a plan change are described in the evaluation reports that are attached to this report.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

9.4 As set out in detail above, the RMA and the NPS-UD provide directions from central government to local government. They direct the Council to include the MDRS and the implementation of the NPS-UD in the District Plan. The Minister has by Notice in the Gazette set the date of 20 August 2023 by which the Council must issue a decision following an IHP recommendation.

9.5 The Council must act in accordance with the directions to it from central government. That is its statutory duty.

9.6 If the Council fails to perform its statutory duties under the RMA, then the Ministers can appoint people to take over the Council’s functions. That includes the ability to notify a plan change that does not include some of the qualifying matters being recommended by staff in this report, or that provides for more enabled development, in more places, than is recommended by staff in this report.

9.7 That central government intervention arising from a Council failure to perform its duties could be either:

9.7.1 Under section 25 of the RMA the Minister for the Environment can appoint someone else to make a decision on the content and notification of PC14, and the Council must pay the costs of that; and

9.7.2 Under sections 258D-258L of the Local Government Act 2002, the Minister for Local Government can appoint a Crown Manager or Commission to perform this function, or to perform all of the Council’s functions, and the Council must pay the costs of that.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 There are evidential risks and possible cost implications for the Council if it was to notify proposed District Plan provisions that are not supported in the evaluation reports. There may not be evidence available to support such changes. There is therefore a much greater risk that the changes sought by Council are not accepted by the IHP. The alternative to making changes unsupported by evaluation reports is for Council to resolve to request staff to investigate making a submission to change the notified proposal, enabling additional time for staff to consider the merits of what is sought.

10.2 Even if Council were to not seek changes to what is recommended by staff, it is always possible in these plan change processes that the provisions do not stand up to scrutiny and evidence is presented by other parties that the IHP favours. This has been mitigated by the extensive evidence and reporting on alternatives to the plan change as proposed, which has been prepared in accordance with sections 32 and 77J – R of the RMA.

10.3 Given the impacts of illness and tight timeframes to prepare the plan change, there is also the risk of errors, which can be mitigated by the ability to make minor corrections following Council’s decision on the plan change.

10.4 The Independent Hearings Panel are not bound by the Council’s notified plan change, nor what is sought by submissions and could reach a position that recommends significant changes. In this regard, the process quite correctly has the inherent “risk” that the plan change that the IHP recommends to Council differs from what Council has notified. Council staff and consultants presenting evidence to the IHP are also not bound by the Council’s decision at notification, noting that those giving evidence must be objective and give their professional opinion to assist the Panel.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Plan Change 13 Document Names	Plan Change 14 Document Names
Below are the lists of attachments to this report. Due to file sizes the Attachments are available on our website at the links below.
Plan Change 13 Attachments https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/506	Plan Change 14 Attachments https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/505
Plan Change 13: S32 Historic Heritage Note this document has been split into 3 sections	S32, Part 1 Overview and High Level District Issues
Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Items - rules package excluding Appendix 9.3.7.2	S32, Part 2 Qualifying Matters (District Plan Chapters 8, 9, 14) Note this document has been split into 5 sections
Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Items	Part 3 Residential (District Plan Chapter 14) Note this document has been split into 2 sections
Heritage Aerial Maps - Updated Existing Items and Settings	S32, Part 4 Commercial (District Plan Chapter 15 and Industrial Chapter 16)
Heritage Aerial Maps - New Items	S32, Part 5 Transport (District Plan Chapter 7)
Residential Heritage Areas - Aerial Maps	S32, Part 6 Subdivision, Development and Earthworks (District Plan Chapter 8)
Residential Heritage Areas - Contributions Maps	S32, Part 7 Tree Canopy Cover - Financial Contributions (District Plan Chapters 2, 3 and 8)
Residential Heritage Areas – Heritage Reports	Chapter 1 - Introduction
Statements of Significance - New Items	Chapter 2 - Abbreviations and Definitions
Statements of Significance – Updates to Existing Items	Chapter 3 - Strategic Directions
Statements of Significance - New Interiors	Chapter 5 - Natural Hazards
Plan Change 13 and 14: Qualifying Matters: Residential Heritage and Character Area Maps	Chapter 6 - General Rules and Procedures
	Chapter 7 - Transport
	Chapter 8 - Subdivision, Development and Earthworks
	Chapter 9 - Natural and Cultural Heritage
	Chapter 13 - Specific Purposes Zone
	Chapter 14 - Residential
	Chapter 15 - Commercial
	Chapter 16 - Industrial
	Planning Maps Note this document has been split into 2 sections
	Plan Change 13 and 14: Qualifying Matters: Residential Heritage and Character Area Maps

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

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Sian Daly - Programme Manager Land Use & Growth

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

08 September 2022

8. Draft Smart Christchurch Strategy
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1054726
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Michael Healy, Smart Christchurch Programme Manager Michael.healy@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources/CFO Leah.Scales@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to share the outcome of the public consultation of the draft Smart Christchurch Strategy and to present the final version to Council for adoption.

1.2 This report has been written to provide information on the feedback received during the public consultation period and to note that the Strategy has not changed as a result of it.

1.3 The report also acknowledges the feedback received at the Council briefing in April.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the attached Smart Christchurch Strategy and this report.

2. Adopt the Smart Christchurch Strategy.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Smart Christchurch programme was established in 2016 to deliver rapid proof of concepts that support the Council’s goals for the city. Through trials, we have provided a de-risked environment to test innovative approaches, to fail fast when needed, and then to hand over the successful trial to our Council business partners. Smart Christchurch explores new technology and innovative trials that help make our city a smarter, safer place to live, work and play.

3.2 The Smart Christchurch programme provided a briefing to Council in April on the draft Smart Christchurch Strategy prior to going out for public consultation.

3.3 The draft Strategy was out for public consultation in June and July 2022. The draft Strategy received 15 submissions from the public. The Strategy will not change as a result of the consultation as the core function of the Smart Christchurch Programme is to continue to explore new technologies and innovative approaches. This means that some of the ideas and suggestions that our community have told us will be investigated further. In collaboration with a selection of the submitters, we will look at examining the ideas under the explore phase of our initiative lifecycle. The programme will connect with these submitters by the end of September 2022 with the aim of understanding their idea further.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Options considered included; not undertaking the development of the Smart Christchurch Strategy. The Strategy was deemed essential to ensure the Smart Christchurch programme is aligned to Council’s key strategies and objectives moving forward, as well as reflecting the global shift in the Smart Cities movement to a more community centric focus.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The report reflects the feedback we have received during initial stakeholder engagement and public consultation.

5.2 The following engagement has been undertaken:

5.1.1 Workshops held with the Councils Executive Leadership Team, Heads of, Managers and Specialists.

5.1.2 Workshops held with the wider Innovation Community which included ChristchurchNZ, CCHL Group, technology sector, and academia.

5.3 Public Consultation started on 23 June and ran until 14 July 2022. An email was sent to 140 key stakeholders. The consultation was posted on the Council Facebook page inviting submissions on the Have Your Say webpage.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

5.4 In total, three recognised organisations, and 12 residents made submissions. All submissions are available at the Have Your Say webpage.

5.5 There were no clear themes throughout the feedback. Submissions received covered a wide range of suggestions including Artificial Intelligence on our traffic light system, city-wide environmental sensors and encouraging us to be digitally inclusive. Submissions can be read in full on the Council Have Your Say webpage.

5.6 Below are questions and topics raised by submitters which we will explore more within the Smart Christchurch Programme.

Issues raised by submitters	Staff response
Focus more on digital accessibility and digital inclusion	The Smart Christchurch programme reports regularly to the Accessibility Regulatory working group to identify new initiatives that support accessibility. The programme has been a strong supporter of the roll out of Christchurch Free Wi-Fi and we continue to work with our partners on other free Wi-Fi opportunities. As noted on page 13, we also believe that digital inclusion is important to Christchurch and we will continue to look at opportunities to support this. We have recently conducted an accessibility review of our SmartView web app and are in the process of making the recommended changes. As accessibility datasets become available we regularly update these on SmartView. E.g. accessible community parks and we also recently added some business accessibility information from the Hapai foundation. We continue to enhance the site and are currently looking at feedback loops on the site to help us improve SmartView further.
Install more air quality sensors and make the information publicly available	The impacts of Climate change is one of the programmes key focus areas. We connect regularly to our Council business partners to see how we can assist and are one of the work stream leads for the Climate Resiliency Strategy work. Air quality sensors are currently being trialled as part of another solution we are trialling in Bottle Lake forest.
People do not know about SmartView or how to use it	We agree that we need to increase the visibility of SmartView and this is one of our priorities over the next 12 months. We believe it is a great site and full of really relevant information for our community.
Sensors and AI should be controlling our traffic flow, not pre-set timers and legacy software	We are actively looking at ways to use technology and innovation to improve our transport network. We will be updating the Smart Christchurch page on the Council website soon which will list new ideas that we are exploring.
Focus on Community safety as a key area	We are exploring an idea in trialling a safety function on SmartView where people can through crowd sourcing let us know when and where they are feeling safe and not so safe in our district.
Share initiatives and provide updates on programme of work	We do publish as much as we can on the Councils Newsline website, our Facebook page and have had traditional media also pick up our stories a number of times. We are also in the process of updating our page on the Council website and so this will be another good place to check once it is updated. The programme also runs an Innovation Expo most years, the next one we are planning is for September 2023. This is a great way for our community to see the innovation that is happening around our city in both the public and private sectors.

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

5.7.1 The Smart Christchurch programme regularly engages with Councillors, Community Boards, working groups and various community groups. The Smart Christchurch Strategy also acknowledges community engagement as one of the key pillars of the programme moving forward. We understand that community engagement should underpin all areas of the programme, so our commitment is to further engage with our citizens to ensure we are delivering against the Council’s Community Outcomes.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The attached document shares some of the key initiatives that the Smart Christchurch programme has been involved in and shows how they contribute to the Council’s Strategic priorities and Community outcomes.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 17.0.40 Trial technologies and approaches that enhance and stimulate innovation for improved community outcomes. - 87% of Smart Christchurch projects meet the agreed success criteria defined in project brief.

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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.5 The Smart Christchurch programme sought feedback throughout the development of the strategy from the Council’s Treaty Relationship Manager to ensure the strategy and the decision to adopt does not negatively impact Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The Ōtāutahi-Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy states that climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. It is already affecting our climate, native ecosystems, customary practices, mahinga kai, food production, health, biosecurity, infrastructure, trade and tourism.

6.6.1 Smart Christchurch will play an increasingly active role in support of the Ōtāutahi-Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy and are the Workstream lead on the Strategy’s Programme 6: Economic transformation and innovation.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 The programme works closely with the Accessibility Regulatory Working Group and has developed a number of initiatives that support the Council’s accessibility related goals and objectives.

6.7.1 The programme has recently undertaken an accessibility review of the SmartView web app and are in the processing of implementing their suggestions.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Funding for the Smart Christchurch programme was approved last year for the duration of the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

7.2 No additional funding will be required as a result of the adoption of the Smart Christchurch Strategy.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Not applicable.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The draft Smart Christchurch Strategy was undertaken to remove any risk of the programme not remaining relevant by ensuring we reflect the latest trends of global Smart City programmes and how those trends apply locally. We also want to illustrate to our communities and stakeholders how the investment into the Smart Christchurch programme delivers against the Community Outcomes and our Council’s Strategic Priorities in order to give greater visibility of that investment and the benefits that result from it.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Smart Christchurch Draft Strategy Council Meeting 08092022	84

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Julianne Hughey - City Initiatives Lead

Approved By

Michael Healy - Manager Smart Christchurch

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

Council

08 September 2022

9. Council's relationship with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1162045
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Mayor Lianne Dalziel
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mayor Lianne Dalziel

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to affirm the Council’s commitment to an enduring collaborative relationship with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

1.2 The report notes that a constructive partnership between the Council and mana whenua is essential to effective delivery of the services the Council provides, addressing significant issues, and achieving our community outcomes. The decision to sign the Communities 4 Local Democracy (C4LD) Memorandum of Understanding has strained our relationship with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

2. Mayor’s Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Acknowledges our statutory obligations to facilitate participation by Māori in Council’s decision-making processes and reconfirms that Council will engage with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga in accordance with our established partnership arrangements.

2. Confirms its commitment to an enduring collaborative relationship with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

3. Notes that the Chief Executive will amend the Council’s report template to ensure Council considers all the issues that have significance to mana whenua before any decision.

4. Notes the Council is opposed to the model proposed in the Government’s Three Waters reform.

5. Agrees that the Council will continue to work collaboratively across the sector to improve the outcomes of the Three Waters Reforms in a manner consistent with our stated position, while ensuring that every opportunity is taken to respect and extend our Treaty partnership with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga and the participation of Māori in decision-making.

6. Notes that the process followed in making the decision to join Communities 4 Local Democracy (C4LD) was inconsistent with our commitments to Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga and formally apologises.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

Council’s statutory obligations to Maori and mana whenua

3.1 The Council’s statutory obligations, engagement commitments and relationships with Māori are founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are required to ensure that the views, values and wellbeing of Māori are considered across Council activities.

3.2 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) recognises the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi by requiring local authorities to facilitate participation by Māori in decision-making processes. The LGA states that councils must:

· establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes;

· foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to decision-making processes;

· provide relevant information to Māori;

· take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

3.3 Under the LGA, Council also has a clear responsibility to be informed about how our decision-making could impact on Maori well-being.

3.4 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) also contains specific provisions for consulting and working with mana whenua. Consultation is a means of ensuring that councils are properly informed to enable them to act consistently with the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga are representatives of mana whenua

3.5 The Christchurch City district falls within the takiwā of Ngāi Tahu. Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga are recognised in legislative and other key documents as the representatives of mana whenua, for example:

3.5.1 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996 identifies Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as the legal representative of Ngāi Tahu whānui, and iwi authority for all resource management matters requiring consultation under the RMA. The Act also gives recognition to the status of Papatipu Rūnanga as kaitiaki and mana whenua of the natural resources within their takiwā boundaries.

3.5.2 The Crown Apology included in the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1998 explicitly recognises Ngāi Tahu as the tāngata whenua of, and as holding rangatiratanga within, the Takiwā of Ngāi Tahu Whānui.

3.5.3 Te Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013 as a mana whenua planning document is an important tool to realise Papatipu Rūnanga objectives. It reflects a commitment to a true partnership with local government, including involvement in planning and decision- making processes.

Relationship and governance agreements with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

3.6 In addition to our statutory obligations, Council has entered into a range of co-governance and partnership arrangements to advance our mutual interests. These reflect Council’s commitment to engage and consult with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, as the representatives of mana whenua, about issues that are important to them. For example:

3.6.1 The Council entered into a Relationship Agreement with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga in 2016 and established a Standing Committee: Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee. Te Hononga comprises the Chairs of the Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, along with the Chair of the Multicultural Committee and the Councillor for Banks Peninsula.

3.6.2 Te Hononga was designed to lead the development of an enduring collaborative relationship between the Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, as well as building a shared understanding and strong coordinated leadership on matters of mutual interest. In addition, the Committee has oversight of and provides advice and assistance to the Council on matters of significance or priority to Māori, to inform Council decision-making.

3.6.3 The Council has also entered into a range of co-governance arrangements with mana whenua, including Whakaora Te Waihora and Whakaora Healthy Harbour. Recently, Council has established co-governance of Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

3.6.4 It is also important to note the significance of the engagement with mana whenua for the granting of Council’s Comprehensive Global Stormwater Consent in 2019 which will apply for 25 years. This encompasses seven sub-catchments, all of which require engagement with mana whenua.^{^[1]}

Consequences of not including mana whenua in decision-making

3.7 Without mana whenua involved in decision-making we will not fully understand the issues, appreciate the possible solutions nor address previous mistakes.

3.8 A cogent example for this Council is the history of decision-making on the Ihutai Reserve’s use. Granted to Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga by the Native Land Court in 1868 to recognise and preserve the mahinga kai (food-gathering areas) of Ngāi Tahu, it was then compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act in 1956 by the Christchurch Drainage Board for the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant. Te Kura Taka Pini (the Ngāi Tahu freshwater group) issued a statement about this earlier this year, with Te Maire Tau stating:

“Whether it’s Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury or the Auckland beaches in the Ngāti Whātua takiwā, mahinga kai sites across the country are externality sinks for poor design, infrastructure and regulations. The environment and our traditions bear the cost. Sewerage and stormwater run through our reserves into our creeks, streams and lakes and we definitely don’t have good drinking water.”

4. The Council’s decision to join C4LD

4.1 On 9 December 2021, the Council considered the proposal to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to join a group of councils to campaign against the proposed Three Waters reform.^{^[2]} Campaign partners committed “to engage with their communities and the Government to reach an agreement on a reform package that could appropriately meet all parties’ objectives”

4.2 The Council resolved (12-3 with 2 abstentions) to join this campaign group (known as C4LD), primarily to signal its concerns about the Three Waters reforms.^{^[3]}

4.3 The Council did not fully consider its commitments to consider mana whenua views prior to making the decision:

4.3.1 The advice in the report stated “the decision does not directly 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 in itself specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions”.

4.3.2 Councillors questioned the potential implications of signing the MOU on our relationships with mana whenua, and were advised that the decision was a matter for elected members.

4.4 It became clear, soon after the decision was made, that this was an issue that should have been discussed with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga prior to any decision being made. The Mayor has apologised to the Te Hononga co-chair for this omission.

4.4 Council has now had the opportunity to meet with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, who collectively expressed disappointment in the Council decision to join C4LD without prior discussion.

4.5 Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga support the Council’s right to oppose the Government’s Three Waters reform programme. However, they are concerned that the Council did not discuss the proposal to joining a group which they believe did not have the relationship with mana whenua or have a model that provides a meaningful way for iwi to participate in Three Waters governance. Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga also believe that as the second largest Council in the country, our mana is such that we should provide local leadership and advocate in our own right.

4.6 The Council supports the need for safe drinking water, environmental protection, efficient service provisions and improved Māori participation in decision-making about three waters. The Council remains opposed to the model for three-water reform chosen by the Government and the mandating of the proposed Entity-based model. Irrespective of C4LD membership, the Council will continue to express its stated position on the reforms to the Government.

5. The way forward

5.1 We need to ensure we take a consistent approach to our role as decision-makers that reflects our enduring collaborative relationship with mana whenua, partnership arrangements we have established together and our statutory obligations.

5.2 A constructive and honest partnership between the Council and mana whenua is essential to ensuring effective delivery of the services the Council provides, addressing significant issues and achieving our community outcomes. The decision to join C4LD has strained our relationship with the mana whenua.

5.3 It is through enduring and collaborative partnership that we can best address issues such as infrastructure deficit and historic damage; the restoration of Te Mana o Te Wai; the lack of equity in the provision of infrastructure, and the challenges that climate change will bring.

5.4 We do not agree with the model being proposed in the Government’s Three Waters reform - as stated in our recent submission on the Water Services Entities Bill. We want to work constructively with central government and our partners to improve the model for our communities and ultimately to achieve the desired outcomes of the reform. We need to focus on its fundamental drivers – safe drinking water with local needs at the forefront of the decisions being made, and separate consideration of stormwater management.

5.5 A change will be made to the Council report template to ensure Council considers all the issues that have significance to mana whenua before any decision.

5.6 The Council will continue to work collaboratively across the sector to improve the outcomes of the Three Waters Reforms in a manner consistent with its stated position, whilst ensuring that every opportunity is taken to extend and support the improvement of the Treaty partnership and participation of Māori in decision-making.

6. 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

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

Council

08 September 2022

10. Canterbury Museum Temporary Access Easement Through the Botanic Gardens
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1059942
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 & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the granting of a temporary unregistered right of way easement over Council reserve in the Botanic Gardens for a period of up to eight months. The temporary easement will enable Canterbury Museum (the Museum) to remove artefacts and plant from the Museum in preparation for the demolition of their buildings.

1.2 This report has been written in response to a request from the Museum, in consultation with Council staff, to provide access to the side doors in the Museum building from the Botanic Gardens driveway and from the Roger Duff wing to remove large artefacts and plant.

1.3 The Museum is intending to commence removing artefacts in September 2022 and will continue until at least April 2023. Artefacts will be loaded out of the north and west sides of the Museum. The artefacts loaded out to the south of the Museum onto the Botanic Gardens will be loaded into a truck that will be parked on the Botanic Gardens driveway and it will have safety fencing around the vehicle (refer to Plan in paragraph 5.5 below). The public will be able to walk around the safety fencing during the loading. There will be an estimated average of up to four truck loads per day or eight truck movements.

1.4 The entrance to the Botanic Gardens from Rolleston Avenue will remain open to the public through the whole period. The entrance will be managed by security for public safety when trucks are entering or exiting the Botanic Gardens.

1.5 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Although the Botanic Gardens is considered a metropolitan asset, the easement agreement is temporary and the public will be able to continue using the Rolleston Avenue entrance and for the majority of the day the driveway down the side of the Botanic Gardens.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) and (f) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of a temporary unregistered right of way easement to Canterbury Museum over that part of the Local Purpose (Botanic Garden) Reserve known as Botanic Gardens (Part Reserve 25 contained in Record of Title 668229) shown as the shaded area on the plan below at paragraph 5.3, subject to:

a. Consent from the Minister of Conservation for the easement (delegated to the Council and sub-delegated to the Council’s Chief Executive) being obtained.

b. All necessary statutory consents under, but not limited to, the Resource Management Act and Building Act being obtained by Canterbury Museum.

c. Canterbury Museum meeting its own costs associated with the creation and execution of this easement.

d. Canterbury Museum liaising with the Council’s Parks Unit regarding access, programming, health & safety, and any remediation activities associated with the temporary right of way and access over the Botanic Gardens.

2. Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager, should the temporary easement be granted, to conclude negotiations to finalise the terms of a temporary easement agreement with Canterbury Museum including the signing of any associated documentation to implement the temporary easement proposed by this report and to protect the Council’s interests.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The temporary easement in favour of the Museum will allow the Museum contents to be removed before demolition works can commence. The Museum is intending to start the removal of the artefacts and plant in September 2022 and continue until April 2023.

3.2 The artefacts will be removed through a side door on the Museum that opens out onto the asphalt driveway in the Botanic Gardens from Rolleston Avenue. A crane may be required to remove larger artefacts and these will be via the Roger Duff Wing. Artefacts and plant will also be removed via the north and west sides of the Museum.

3.3 This option has been consulted with the Hagley Park Reference Group, Council staff and Council’s Parks Botanic Gardens Team (as asset owner).

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Council declines temporary ROW easement through the Botanic Gardens – Not Recommended.

· Advantages – the Botanic Gardens would not be used to remove the Museum’s plant and artefacts. There are no other advantages to declining the temporary ROW easement.

· Disadvantages – The removal of plant and artefacts from the Museum will be delayed if the Botanic Gardens could not be used, this could have contractual and/or financial implications for the Museum.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1 The Museum is commencing a redevelop programme to strengthen and protect the Category 1 heritage listed buildings, including the Robert McDougall Gallery. The Mountfort and Roger Duff wing will be retained and the remaining museum buildings will be demolished. The rebuild of the buildings will provide more space and comply with international standards for museums.

5.2 The Museum will require access across the Botanic Gardens reserve to remove artefacts and plant from their buildings. A crane will be required to remove some of the larger items and it is anticipated these will be removed through the Roger Duff Wing and loaded onto a waiting truck.

5.3 Smaller artefacts and plant will be able to be removed through the side doors of the Museum and loaded onto a waiting truck parked on the asphalt driveway of the Botanic Gardens. A safety fence will be placed around the vehicle and loading area. The public will still be able to walk past the vehicle on the asphalt driveway of the Botanic Gardens.

5.4 The public can continue to enter the Botanic Gardens through the Rolleston Avenue gates, which will have a person controlling the entrance when trucks are entering or exiting.

5.5 The removal of artefacts from the Museum is scheduled to commence in September 2022 and continue until at least April 2023.

5.6 Plan showing full extent of temporary ROW easement area during the 8 month period

Temporary Easement - Statutory Process - Reserves Act 1977

5.7 The Botanic Gardens is classified as a Local Purpose (Botanic Garden) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

5.8 The Council’s legal team has advised that it would be appropriate for the Council to use s48 (1) (a) and (f) of the Act to grant a temporary and unregistered right of way easement.

5.9 Section 48 provides that the Council with the consent of the Minister may grant easements for rights of way and other easements over reserve land. In this case s48(1):

· (a) ‘any public purpose’, and

· (f) ‘providing… access…of any land not forming part of the reserve or for any other purpose connected with any such land’ applies.

5.10 It is normal Council practice that a one-off compensation fee as assessed by an independent valuation is payable to the Council for the privilege of gaining an interest (temporary or otherwise) over Council land. In this instance compensation is not required as the Council contributes to the Museum funding, and the Museum rebuild, once completed, will benefit the citizens and visitors to the city.

Community Views and Preferences

5.11 Under s48(2) of the Act it is necessary for the Council to publically notify its intention to grant an easement except where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected (s48(3)).

5.12 Public access to the park will not be permanently affected and any damage to the land will be fully remediated once the Museum works are completed, thereby not permanently affecting or damaging the reserve or the public’s rights of access. The easement is temporary and time-bound.

5.13 Accordingly, under s48 (3) of the Act public notification of the proposed easement is not required.

5.14 The Council’s Newsline released an article at the end of July 2022 entitled “Easements over Botanic Gardens needed for Museum redevelopment”. The article included “the need to obtain a temporary easement over the public access way into the Gardens, adjacent to Canterbury Museum, so it can get trucks and materials on site”.

5.15 The proposal has been consulted with the Hagley Park Reference Group.

Decision Making Authority

5.16 The Botanic Gardens is a metropolitan asset and the decision to grant an easement is delegated to the Council, instead of the Community Board.

5.17 The issue is of a metropolitan nature but directly affects the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 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: Parks and Foreshore

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consist with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 The granting of the temporary ROW easement is using an existing service vehicle access route into the Botanic Gardens but the park will not be adversely affected.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 There is no impact on climate change due to the temporary nature of the access way and no additional hard surface or permanent disturbances to the Botanic Gardens.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 The public will be able to continue entering the Botanic Gardens through the gate next to the Museum on Rolleston Avenue and using the asphalt driveway alongside the Museum.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The Council is responsible for its own costs incurred in executing the easement agreement. All other project / construction / reinstatement costs are the responsibility of the Museum.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - none

7.3 Funding Source - Parks Unit operational budgets.

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 Temporary right of way easement to be granted pursuant to Section 48(1) (a) and (f) of the Reserves Act 1977.

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a reputational risk to the Council if the approval of the report is delayed. The Museum has a long-term works programme that cannot commence until the Museum has been emptied. The temporary easement enables the Museum to move artefacts and materials out of their buildings to allow demolition work to commence.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Not applicable

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

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Approved By

Wolfgang Bopp - Director Botanic Gardens & Garden Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

08 September 2022

11. Community Applications to the 2022/2023 Capital Endowment Fund
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1069832
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support & Partnerships. john.filsell@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizen and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to consider two community applications for funding from the 2022/2023 Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) from the organisations listed below.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Canterbury Society of Artists Trust (CoCA)	Replace air conditioning in the CoCA gallery	$75,000	$75,000
Santa Parade	The refurbishment of Santa Parade Floats and other essential event infrastructure	$50,000	$50,000

1.2 Based on the Council approved Capital Endowment Fund criteria, the applications listed above are eligible for funding. Attachments B to E contain decision matrices and supporting documents that provide detailed information behind the analysis and recommendations.

1.3 The recommendations can be accommodated within the funds available in the CEF. Attachment A details funds available in the 2022/23 CEF.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves a grant of $75,000 from the 2022/2023 Capital Endowment Fund, released as one instalment to the Canterbury Society of Artists Trust for the renewal of HVAC in the CoCA Gallery building at 66 Gloucester Street. Conditional upon:

a. The Canterbury Society of Artists Trust demonstrating that they have sufficient resources to complete the project and maintain the HVAC system.

b. The Canterbury Society of Artists Trust agreeing to return the Grant in full if the building is disposed of (sold, leased for a purpose other than public access to community arts and culture or cease to be open to the community) within ten (10) years of the Grant being paid.

c. The Council obtaining appropriate security against the (CoCA Gallery) building asset to ensure the repayment of the Grant if necessary.

2. Requires final reporting is to be submitted by the Canterbury Society of Artists Trust 6 months following the drawdown of the Grant.

3. Approves a grant of $50,000 from the 2022/2023 Capital Endowment Fund, to be released as one instalment to the Santa Parade for the refurbishment of floats and other essential Santa Parade event infrastructure. Conditional upon:

a. The Santa Parade demonstrating that they have sufficient resources to complete the project and run the 2022 Santa Parade Event as planned at Canterbury Agricultural Park.

4. Requires final reporting to be submitted 6 months following drawdown of the Grant and includes commentary on the overall sustainability of the Santa Parade Event in general.

5. Notes that there can be no expectation of further Council funding of the Santa Parade Event and Santa Parade Organisation other than through its contestable community funding schemes, namely the Strengthening Communities and Events and Festivals Fund.

6. Delegates to the Head of Community Support and Partnerships the authority to make the necessary arrangements to fulfil resolutions 1 to 5 noting that Council’s Legal Services Unit will prepare the necessary documentation.

7. Resolves that publically excluded Attachments C and D will be released to the public with the exception of the Canterbury Society of Artists Trust financial information by 31 December 2022 or when lease arrangements for the CoCA Gallery are concluded.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 In April 2001, Council set up a Capital Endowment Fund of $75 million. This fund was established using a share of the proceeds from the sale of Orion's investment in a gas company. The Fund provides an ongoing income stream which can be applied to specific projects.

3.2 Current Council resolutions in respect of the fund can be found on Council’s website: www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/investment-and-fundspolicies/capital-endowment-fund-policy/

3.3 On 12 April 2018 the Council resolved to establish criteria for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) (CNCL/2018/00057). On 10 May 2018 Council resolved to utilise all income from the CEF for three years, 2018/2019 to 2020/2021 (i.e. not use part of the income to inflation-protect the fund).

3.4 On 13 December 2018 Council established eligibility and assessment criteria for the CEF and an application process. Assessment criteria are as follows:

3.4.1 Evidence that the proposal is for a specific project or activity projects. Or evidence of economic or environmental benefits.

3.4.2 Evidence that the project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

3.4.3 Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

3.5 The recommendations align to Council’s Strategic Framework; each application’s alignment is detailed in the respective decision matrix attached.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.6 Authority for making grant decisions for the CEF currently sits with the Council.

3.7 Allocations must be consistent with any policies, standards or criteria adopted by the Council

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

3.8 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.9 The level of significance was determined by the limited number of people affected and/or with an interest. It is also due to the fact that the operation of the CEF is a level of service in the 2021/31 LTP and has been fully consulted on.

3.10 Due to the assessment of low significance, community engagement and consultation included the applicant organisations relevant stakeholders and Council staff in the course of assessing the applications.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

3.11 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. This is because the decisions relate to the allocation of a community fund for the purpose of replacing air conditioning in a pre-existing building and refurbishing Santa Parade Floats.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

3.12 The decision does not have significant climate change implications other than the proposed replacement air conditioning in the CoCA Gallery will be more energy efficient.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

3.13 This decision has accessibility considerations in that the replacement air conditioning at the CoCA Gallery will facilitate continued public access to exhibitions and other services in the building. The refurbishment of the Santa parade floats will allow the Santa Parade Event to continue to operate in an accessible manner, free to the community at Canterbury Agricultural Park.

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.14 At 8 September 2022, the available balance of the 2022/2023 CEF is $568,223; an allocation of $565,562 and a carry forward from financial year 2021/2022 of $2,661. A detailed breakdown of the 2022/2023 CEF is attached to this report as Attachment A.

Total Funds Available 2022/2023	Grants Recommended	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$568,223	$125,000	$443,225

3.15 Attachments B to E contain decision matrices and supporting documents which provide detailed information on the applications. This includes project details, financial information, strategic alignment and a succinct rationale behind each recommendation.

3.16 Any remaining balance of the 2022/2023 CEF not allocated at year end will be carried forward to the 2023/24 financial year.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A. Capital Endowment Fund. Funds availiable 2022/23	119
b ⇩	Attachment B. CoCA Decision Matrix	120
c	Attachment C. Additional information CoCA. Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
d	Attachment D. Letter of Support (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
e ⇩	Attachment E. Santa Parade Decision Matrix	122

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Lexie Reuben - Team Leader Community Funding

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

08 September 2022

12. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Duvauchelle Treated Wastewater Options
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/884177
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Mike Davidson, Hearings Panel Chairperson
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davis@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 (the Panel) recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Duvauchelle Treated Wastewater Options.

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

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

· Agenda (Contains the Officers Report, Heard and Not Heard Submissions)

· Agenda Attachments (Contains a Not Heard Submission)

1.4 The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council approves the adoption of Option 1: spray and drip irrigate treated wastewater to the Akaroa Golf Course. The Hearings Panel has also provided additional recommendations to address and acknowledge some of the matters raised during consultation and the Hearing.

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Receives and consider the information in the report, the submissions, and all other relevant information received on the Duvauchelle treated wastewater options.

2. Approves the adoption of Option 1: spray and drip irrigate treated wastewater to the Akaroa Golf Course.

3. Requests Officers incorporate provision for future non-potable reuse.

4. Supports a long term lease for Akaroa Golf Club.

5. Makes provision in the Long Term Plan for increased operational costs for the Akaroa Golf Club associated with the needs of the scheme.

6. Requests that Officers work closely with the Ōnuku Rūnanga, Akaroa Golf Club, Duvauchelle Primary School and Banks Peninsula Early Learning Incorporated and Trust during the design development and resource consent process.

7. Requests as a minimum that the resource consent application is limited notified.

8. Notes other concerns raised by submitters about potential environmental effects will be addressed through the resource consent process.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Council needs a new resource consent for the discharge of treated wastewater from the Duvauchelle wastewater treatment plant. Alternatives have been identified to the current practice of discharging treated wastewater into Akaroa Harbour.

3.2 The Duvauchelle wastewater treatment plant was built in 1988, with minor upgrades completed in 1996 and 2002. It serves a community of about 250 dwellings, many of which are holiday homes.

3.3 The wastewater receives primary and secondary treatment and goes through an ultraviolet disinfection process before being discharged into Akaroa Harbour via a 1760-metre long marine outfall. Sludge is taken to the Christchurch wastewater treatment plant for processing into bio-solids.

3.4 The resource consent for the discharge of treated wastewater to the harbour was granted in 2011 and expires in January 2023. As required by the consent, a community working party was set up and land-based alternatives to the harbour outfall have been thoroughly explored.

3.5 The Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee decided on 6 April 2022 to consult on two options, both of which include the Akaroa Golf Course:

3.5.1 Option 1: Irrigate treated wastewater onto trees, greens and fairways of existing 18-hole golf course during summer. Irrigate planted course margins, including the area uphill of the golf course, in winter.

3.5.2 Option 2: Irrigate planted course margins, including areas uphill of the golf course. Retain an 18-hole course and irrigate trees on a nearby property. The golf course playing areas would not be irrigated with treated wastewater.

3.6 The total budget for the project is $14.4 million. The capital costs for the two options are $13.1 million (Option 1) and $8.2 million (Option 2). The project is budgeted from the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

3.7 Technical information about the options has been prepared by Beca in the Duvauchelle Wastewater Summary of Disposal and Reuse Options 2022. This report and its appendices can be found on the Have Your Say page for this project.

4. Consultation Process Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

4.1 Engagement with the Duvauchelle wastewater working party has occurred over the last 11 years. As required by the consent, members of the working party included representatives from Ōnuku Rūnanga, Wairewa Rūnanga, Taiāpure Management Group, Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society, Friends of Banks Peninsula, Environment Canterbury, Department of Conservation and other interested groups such as the Akaroa Golf Club. Engagement with the working party resulted in two land-based options being shortlisted and approved by the Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment Committee for consultation.

4.2 The staff report noted that:

4.2.1 Consultation was open on the Council Have Your Say page from 6 May 2022 to 7 June 2022.

4.2.2 Consultation documents were sent to recognised stakeholders, absentee owners (living outside the Christchurch City Council boundaries), the Akaroa and Little River Service Centres and the Duvauchelle General Store. The consultation was advertised through a Newsline story and shared to the Council Facebook page. Invitations to submit via the Have Your Say page were posted to local Facebook Community Groups.

4.2.3 Drop-in sessions were held at the Akaroa Golf Club on 17 and 19 May 2022.

5. Summary of Submissions / Ngā Tāpaetanga

5.1 127 submissions were received from six organisations, three businesses, two government agencies, one Community Board and 115 individual residents. All submissions are provided in the Hearings Panel Agenda and Attachment Under Separate Cover.

5.2 115 submitters (90%) were in favour of Option 1 (spray and drip irrigation of Akaroa Golf Course), eight (6%) were in favour of Option 2 (drip irrigation of Akaroa Golf Course and another property), two (2%) actively opposed both options, and two (2%) did not state.

5.3 The majority of submitters prefer Option 1 for the following reasons:

5.3.1 Higher treatment level.

5.3.2 Support of Akaroa Golf Course (in turn helping the Duvauchelle community).

5.3.3 True beneficial reuse that recycles water rather than taking it from the stream.

5.3.4 Superior upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant.

5.4 Those in favour of Option 2 mostly discussed the lower cost compared with Option 1.

6. The Hearing Te Hui

6.1 The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Mike Davidson (Chairperson), Councillor Pauline Cotter and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Chair Tori Peden. The Hearings Panel convened on 4 July 2022 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal, including information provided by Council Officers.

6.2 Prior to hearing verbal submissions Council Officers presented a brief background to the engagement process, information regarding the representation of submitters and key themes from the consultation for the Duvauchelle Wastewater Treatment Options.

7. Verbal Submissions

7.1 The Hearings Panel heard 8 verbal submissions (refer to the Hearings Panel Minutes for a list of presenters).

7.2 The views expressed by the submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words in their original submissions. Most key issues raised in the verbal submissions are similar in content to those presented in the original written submissions and the Council Officers’ responses to those written submissions are detailed in the Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel. Below are some of the key points that were raised during verbal submissions:

7.2.1 Support for Option 1 - Submitters spoke positively on this option, noting the innovation and beneficial re-use of the treated wastewater.

7.2.2 Strong opposition to Option 2 – noting that although the cost is less, wastewater is treated to a lesser degree.

7.2.3 The Akaroa Golf Club incorporating the wastewater irrigation scheme into their future planning and course upgrade.

7.2.4 Climate change implications such as sea level rise and extreme weather events.

7.2.5 The potential effects of irrigation of treated wastewater on nearby residences, businesses and education facilities, as well as mitigating odours and health and safety concerns.

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

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

8.2 The key issues that were addressed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

Akaroa Golf Club’s lease and increased operational costs

8.2.1 In their verbal submission, the Akaroa Golf Club presented their design plans for incorporating the wastewater irrigation system into the golf course. For the club to proceed with these plans, they would need certainty around their lease term and would face increased operational costs.

8.2.2 Officers advised that their operational costs could be incorporated into the next Long Term Plan (LTP) and that Officers would assess an appropriate term of lease to recommend.

Engagement and collaboration with mana whenua

8.2.3 The Panel noted the importance of the Council’s relationship with mana whenua. In their submission, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Ōnuku Rūnanga were supportive of Option 1 but raised concerns around timing of irrigation, odour, and health and safety considerations for Duvauchelle Primary School and neighbouring properties.

8.2.4 Officers advised that odour risks are low given the level of treatment. Officers intend to work with Ngāi Tahu, the Akaroa Golf Club and neighbouring properties on the irrigation and other related matters will be worked through in the resource consent process.

Resource consent for the preferred treatment option

8.2.5 The Panel queried whether the resource consent for the irrigation system should be put out for public notification. Officers advised that resource consent may be limited notified to immediate neighbours only. Additionally, Environment Canterbury will assess effects on the environment, including effects on neighbours, as part of the resource consent process.

Climate change and extreme weather event considerations

8.2.6 In discussions on climate change considerations, the Panel addressed concerns of the resilience of the wastewater treatment plant, and whether the outfall pipe would be retained in case of emergency. The Panel also asked about how many days of storage the storage facility can provide in wet weather and consideration of sea level rise and tsunami risk.

8.2.7 Officers advised the Panel that they did not plan to remove the outfall pipe and removal of the pipe has not been considered in costings. 47 years of rainfall records have been used to determine the required storage volume. Vulnerability to sea level rise and tsunami is not considered an immediate concern and Officers advised the storage facility is unlikely to fail in a storm.

8.3 Following consideration and deliberation of submissions, the Hearings Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to Council to approve the adoption of Option 1: spray and drip irrigate treated wastewater to the Akaroa Golf Course. The Panel agreed to include further recommendations and noting provisions to address and acknowledge matters raised by submitters.

9. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agendas (including all submissions)	· Agenda (Contains Officers Report, Heard and Not Heard Submissions) · Attachments Under Separate Cover (Contains a Not Heard Submission)
Hearings Panel Minutes	· Minutes · Minutes Attachments
Have Your Say Webpage	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/508

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Simone Gordon - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Mike Davidson - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

Council

08 September 2022

13. Flood Management Options for Edgeware Road at Edgeware Village
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/603241
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Kevin McDonnell, Team Leader Asset Planning Stormwater and Waterways, kevin.mcdonnell@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, Jane.Davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from Council on management of on road flooding through Edgeware village.

1.2 This report has been written following engagement with the Waipapa / Papanui-Innes Community Board and also in response to recent flooding.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Although the decision on the local road treatment is low, the level of significance is considered greater given recent flooding and wider public interest in the issue of flooding of the village.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Continue with and extend the engagement with the local community, including business owners, over flooding matters including providing advice to assist property owners in taking their own measures to reduce the impacts of flooding on their properties; and

2. Rely on the District Plan floor level controls to provide the most certain means to reduce flood risk to buildings in Edgeware village over time; and

3. Update the costs of the engineered option in advance of the next Long Term Plan (LTP), giving consideration to other options, levels of service, Council policy and the occurrence of similar flooding in other parts of the city as part of consideration of potential LTP candidates; and

4. Consider construction of a full height kerb as part of the ongoing Edgeware Village Master Plan work.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 There has been repeated flooding of Edgeware village over many decades. Flooding of the village was experienced in the March 2014 flood and in earlier events. Council records show 15 flood or stormwater network related complaints have been received since September 2018. The Peter Timbs Butchery was flooded repeatedly in July of this year – the wettest month ever recorded in Christchurch. There are low lying properties along Canon Street at risk of regular underfloor flooding.

3.2 This is one of a handful of clusters of complaints within the city. Other areas include the Flockton Street area, sections along the Opawaho Heathcote River, Cygnet Street in North New Brighton and Marine Parade in Sumner.

3.3 The owners of the butchery have repeatedly called for work to be done by Council to reduce the impact on their property. The number of flood related complaints in the area indicates a general dissatisfaction with the current level of flooding experienced in the village. Complaints have come from both Edgeware Road business but also property owners on nearby streets. This report sets out options to reduce flood risk in the village.

3.4 Managing flooding is challenging in Christchurch as it is flat and low lying. Pipes, drains and waterways only have limited capacity so the city also relies on overland flow paths and flood ponding to deal with extreme events. We design our networks to direct stormwater and flooding towards parks and roads ahead of properties and homes. However, past practices have left a legacy of risk in some locations and there are still some very low lying buildings at high flood risk. This includes parts of Edgeware village.

3.5 Council has a variety of tools, processes and plans for managing flood risk. One of the key tools is setting floor levels through the District Plan and Building Act controls. Recently district plan controls were extended to commercial buildings. As redevelopment occurs over time, new buildings will be built with higher floor levels and at reduced flood risk. This means flood risk will reduce at little to no direct cost to the wider community. Some costs and inconveniences associated with flooding will remain, for example inability to access properties could stop business from trading or stop people from getting to work.

3.6 A wider engineering scheme to pump water from the catchment to the Ōtākaro Avon River was considered as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, concluding in 2018. This would reduce flood risk across a broader area, however this intervention was not considered viable due to the high cost.

3.6.1 It is proposed to reconsider the benefits and costs of the scheme as part of the next LTP. Considering it at this point allows the benefits and costs to be effectively and coherently weighed against other similar projects in other areas.

3.6.2 This will empower the Council to make well considered decisions in the context of flood risk across the city.

3.6.3 Updating of the cost estimate will be required to inform this process.

3.7 Investigations into options for backflow prevention into the Edgeware village stormwater network, as suggested by the Community Board, could be undertaken in the interim.

3.8 There may be viable measures which the property owners could implement to reduce the impact of flooding on their properties. Some reduction in the flood risk could possibly be achieved through modifications to the building. Building consent for such works may be required.

3.9 Engagement with the owners of flood-affected properties on Edgeware Road and other nearby flood affected businesses and residents is proposed. Staff respond to queries and complaints as they arise. However, a short period of further engagement is proposed.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Council has a broad range of tools available for managing flood risk, including: education and awareness, to civil defence responses, district plan rules, widening and increasing capacity of natural networks, and infrastructure upgrades. Options considered for reducing flood risk within Edgeware village and the surrounds were:

4.1.1 Alternative 1 – replacement of the existing kerb along the south side of Edgeware Road in areas between Sherborne Street and Colombo Street, immediately or as part of the Edgeware Village Masterplan works

4.1.2 Alternative 2 – construction of the new large storm water pump station, rising main and gravity pipe network that would take water to the Ōtākaro Avon River, which is recommended in the consideration of potential candidate projects for the next LTP.

4.1.3 Alternative 3 – widen St Albans Creek downstream of Edgeware Road.

4.2 An investigation into the capacity of stormwater network in Edgeware Road between St Albans Creek and Colombo Street (Attachment A) was undertaken to inform Alternative 1. This was in response to requests from the Community Board for investigation and reporting on the local stormwater drainage network and road drainage elements. This investigation identified that:

4.2.1 Although the existing kerb was not of current standard, the existing system met current design capacity requirements

4.2.2 The flooding of the Edgeware Road outside the butchery was a result of St Albans Creek flood levels

4.2.3 Increasing the height of the kerb would not significantly alter flood risk to the buildings along Edgeware Road.

4.3 An assessment of the feasibility of constructing a full height kerb (Attachment B) identified that:

4.3.1 The butchery floor level was similar to the back of footpath height, preventing raising the footpath and meeting current design standards for footpath cross-fall

4.3.2 Lowering the road would be needed to achieve a full height kerb and this could cost in the order of $1.2 million.

4.4 Alternative 1 was discounted as it was costly and of limited effectiveness. In addition, the masterplan in development for Edgeware village may propose realignment of kerbs and reallocation of road space, and would include stormwater design (although that is not the only goal to be achieved through the streetscape enhancement project). Any work done immediately may need to be reworked to deliver the masterplan outcomes. It would be more efficient to deliver any kerb work in parallel with the masterplan, noting that the masterplan may require additional funding to achieve improved drainage outcomes. Funding for the current masterplan works (without significant drainage improvements) in the Long Term Plan totals $2.206 million with the funding starting in FY26/27.

4.5 Lowering the invert of the kerb along the channel would make it more prone to ponding as it would be closer to the St Albans Creek typical water level. However, it would improve drainage if heavy rain were to fall just on the Edgeware Village catchment and not on the wider St Albans Creek catchment.

4.6 Alternative 2 was investigated as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (Figure 1). This investigation highlighted that the total number of homes at risk of flooding^{^[4]} reduced as a result of the earthquakes from 20 to 16 (Table 1), but of the properties at risk now, 3 were not at risk prior (i.e. there were more homes with reduced risk than increased risk from the earthquakes).

4.7 The works included in Alternative 2 would reduce the number of homes at risk of flooding by 8 and the same number of commercial buildings. The butchery would still be at risk in the 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event. The whole of life cost, including design, consenting, construction and operation was estimated in 2018 to be $23.5 million in 2018 dollars. An economic model identified approximately $13 million in benefit from damages avoided with the scheme. This gives a benefit cost ratio of approximately 0.6. The project is not funded within the current Long Term Plan, although it is signalled in the Infrastructure Strategy beyond the first 10 years.

4.8 Immediate construction of this option is not recommended. Instead, balancing of this option against other projects across the city is recommended as part of the next LTP, as set out in the preferred option.

4.9 Alternative 3 was discounted as part of the earlier investigations for the engineered option, on the basis of likely cost, engineering challenges with working in very close proximity to buildings located near to the creek, likely access challenges and the disruption to property owners.

Figure 1 Alternative Option 2 schematic

Table 1 Change in flood risk within the wider Edgeware Village catchment

*Other includes buildings classified as ‘Education’ and ‘Religious’

4.10 Other options that were identified but were also discounted included:

4.10.1 Local pumping to Sherborne Street from outside the butchery – not recommended due to increasing flood risk downstream of the discharge point

4.10.2 On-property work to the butchery by Council – not recommended due to an absence of policy support and levels of service to direct assistance to commercial property owners.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Infrastructure is one tool for reducing flood risk and this Council has executed a number of significant floodplain management infrastructure projects in response to increased flood risk following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. However infrastructure projects tend to be expensive and disruptive. Often work has to be done away from the area at risk of flooding, placing a burden on the wider community. We cannot practicably build ourselves out of all flood risk, particularly as climate change increases the risk of flooding. There are always events larger than the capacity of the network so some level of risk will remain even when infrastructure is built.

5.2 Council has a level of service associated with managing the risk of flooding to properties and dwellings during extreme rainfall events (14.1.6.1). The specific target being that the annual reduction in the modelled number of properties predicted to be at risk of habitable floor level flooding of the primary dwelling is ≥0. The target is measured per annum on a rolling three-year average. This target has been met this year through work on the Upper Ōpāwaho Heathcote Storage Basins.

5.3 The intention of this level of service is to maintain the current level of flood risk in the near term, broadly, across the city against the impacts of climate change. The target may be revised in the future as the climate changes more rapidly and the findings of the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme become known. The level of service does not require that every single property is maintained at the current level of risk but rather the total risk across the community is the same or better.

5.4 The Peter Timbs Butchery is at a low point in the local catchment. The stormwater pipes along Edgeware Road drain towards St Albans Creek. The banks of the creek are elevated above the level of street outside the butchery. If flood waters rise to approximately half the channel height then the water outside the butchery cannot drain by gravity and ponds in the road, putting the butchery at risk. Local modifications are ineffective as they do not change the flood level of the creek. Pumping water away from outside the butchery to a nearby location could make other local flood ponding worse.

5.5 Given the history of flood complaints in the area it is expected that the butchery, other business owners and residents would be supportive of work being done to reduce flooding, although community consultation has not been undertaken to support a decision.

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

5.6.1 Waipapa / Papanui – Innes: Engagement with the community board has led to a number of questions relating to stormwater management in the catchment. The questions and responses are provided in Attachment C. The community board has offered extensive feedback on the issue (Attachment D), summarising that “a long-term solution is supported by the Board, noting that short term options making a worthwhile difference to the flooding have not being identified or detailed, and urgently need to be.”

5.7 The recommendations include further engagement with the affected community. This is in response to the feedback from the Community Board saying that this should be “front and centre”.

5.8 Staff are also considering the potential for additional flow and monitoring sites on St Albans Creek to aid in flood preparedness and response, and to help build understanding of flood behaviour in the catchment. A potential site has already been identified. The need for additional rain gauges is also under consideration.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Council’s integrated water strategy includes consideration of stormwater. The strategy includes objectives on adaptation, flood risk and flood management. The strategy identifies options to meet these objectives, including:

6.1.1 Continue the current approach for flooding and flood management

6.1.2 Continue to develop a risk-based approach to flood management

6.1.3 Communicate a risk based approach to the community and foster community support

6.1.4 Implement options tailored to address flood management in specific circumstances.

6.2 All of the options identified within this report align with one or more of the options identified within the Integrated Water Strategy.

6.3 Council also has to adhere to the conditions of its comprehensive stormwater network discharge consent (CSNDC, CRC214226). The consent requires Council to provide retrofit water quality and quantity mitigation for existing development where practicable (Condition 25). In this instance the retrofit infrastructure options are not considered practicable, either due to limited effectiveness or high cost.

6.4 This report includes options that supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.4.1 Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

6.5 Some of the options described in this report are not supported by a level of service.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Relying on the district plan to reduce risk with time is aligned with Council’s Long Term Plan and District Plan. This approach is also aligned with the Integrated Water Strategy which calls for continuation of the current approach for flooding and flood management.

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 Mana Whenua have a strong interest in stormwater management. The preferred approach is consistent with plans and policies that have had Mana Whenua engagement. Any alternative option that includes moving water between waterways (e.g. the pumped option Alternative 2) may not be supported by Mana Whenua as it would involve inter-catchment flows.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The recommended option of relying on the district plan has no significant additional climate change impacts beyond construction of the new buildings.

6.10 Floor level setting for new buildings allows for climate change impacts on flood hazard. The existing approach is a climate change adaptation.

6.11 Engineering interventions, like Alternative 1 and 2 will have embedded carbon costs. Alternative 1 will also have operational carbon costs associated with pumping of floodwater and ongoing maintenance of a large new pump station.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.12 Accessibility requirements will be considered as part of the building consent process for replacement buildings.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – There will be no additional direct costs to Council with the recommended approach.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – As per the cost to implement.

7.3 Funding Source – Existing budgets can be used to fund the recommended approach. The alternative options do have significant cost implications and are not currently funded. Investigation into funding options would be needed if these options were to be considered further.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council has the ability to undertake all the work recommended in this work under a raft of legislation, including the Local Government Act 2002, the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 and the Land Drainage Act 1908.

8.2 Section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides that the Council ‘must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under this subpart.’ Water services is defined to include wastewater services, which in turn is defined as ‘sewerage, treatment and disposal of sewage, and stormwater drainage’. This does not mean that Council has to construct new stormwater drainage services or to extend existing stormwater drainage services.

8.3 Council has a discretion as to how it continues to provide existing services and can make changes. However, any changes it wants to make to an existing service are a decision subject to the LGA decision-making principles. That means there should be an assessment of the significance of the change, consideration of options, community views (as provided in this report) and the Council should also consider the current and future needs of the community.

8.4 Council has a function under the Resource Management Act 1991 to control the use of land for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. Setting of floor levels to reduce flood risk is one tool used by Council to meet this purpose.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.5 Council has an obligation under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 (CDDA) to maintain and clear / clean watercourses, drains and sewers (including the stormwater network) so that they are not a nuisance or damaging to health. Council has a role to provide for drainage of the drainage district under the CDDA.

8.6 If Council were to decide to implement an engineering response to managing flood risk in Edgeware Village and surrounds, then this would not set a legal precedent but may increase community expectation that such investment would be applied in other areas. Council makes decisions based upon the specifics of each scenario and these decisions do not bind the decision making of future Councils. However, if Council were to decide to fund large scale infrastructure then property owners in other areas might expect a similar response to their level of flood risk, placing Council in a situation of needing to justify past decisions.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk of further flooding of Edgeware Village and other areas within the city. Making a decision to implement an engineered response to flooding at Edgeware Village in isolation could lead to inequitable outcomes with other areas or advance work before areas at higher risk.

9.2 Cost estimates for some of the alternatives have been provided. These are not budget estimates as they do not include all aspects of the option and should be treated as indicative only. Actual costs associated with these options could be higher, particularly those that involve significant ground works.

9.3 The Community Board and property owners have requested immediate action by Council. Physical works are not recommended immediately, which could pose a risk of dissatisfaction from parts of the Community.

9.4 Even if immediate work were to be undertaken there would still be residual risk of flooding in events larger than that of the design capacity of the system.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Edgeware Rd SW Drainage Assessment Report	138
b ⇩	Edgeware Village Full Height Kerb Assessment Memo	145
c ⇩	Community Board Questions and Answers	163
d ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board Feedback on Edgeware Village Street Drainage and Flood Management	165

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Approved By

Kevin McDonnell - Team Leader Asset Planning

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

08 September 2022

14. Central City Shuttle Update
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1170352
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Kirsty Mahoney, Team Leader Asset Planning Transport kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager, Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is provide the Council with joint advice from both Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council staff in relation to an outline scope of the planning required to inform the funding and delivery of a trial Central City Shuttle service.

1.2 This report has been written following a meeting between the Mayor and Chair of Environment Canterbury to discuss the joint approach to this issue. A similar report is to be presented to Environment Canterbury on 7 September 2022.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined as it relates to the prioritisation of feasibility and planning work within the wider public transport work programme.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Central City Shuttle Update report.

2. Add a Central City Shuttle trial design project to the public transport work programme in the period 2023-24, subject to funding in the 2023/24 Annual Plan, to inform the 2024-34 Long Term Plan for consideration of a permanent shuttle service.

3. Acknowledge that this work will occur without disrupting existing priorities and with the expectation that it is jointly funded with Environment Canterbury.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Feedback from some submitters in the last Long Term Plan and the FY23 Annual Plan requested the reintroduction of the Central City Shuttle to support the revitalisation of the central city.

3.2 Given the level of service in the central city from other routes and the increasing range of other transport choices, provision for a shuttle has not been included in current operating budgets.

3.3 Following a meeting between Environment Canterbury and Council on 6 July 2022, staff agreed to design a trial Central City Shuttle.

3.4 This process will include engagement with key central city stakeholders and will be resourced from both Councils and ChristchurchNZ.

3.5 Key elements for inclusion in the design work will include the following:

· Problem Statement – what is the role of a central city shuttle within the four avenues?

· Existing public transport mode provision, and public transport network gap analysis

· Accessibility analysis across all modes of transport

· Potential route layouts and timetabling

· Infrastructure requirements and costs

· Vehicle requirements and costs, both initial capital cost(s) and ongoing operational costs and resourcing (including driver availability, provision of E-bus charging infrastructure)

· Length of trial period

· Potential funding sources (i.e. fares, rating implications, Waka Kotahi funding assistance, sponsorship opportunities).

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Add the Central City Shuttle trial design to the current work programme and request staff to defer other public transport programme work to the next financial year. This would be contrary to the endorsement of the PT Futures business case and work programme.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Following the considerations of submissions to the 2022/23 Annual Plan, and in a letter dated 2 June 2022 (Attachment A) to the Chair of Environment Canterbury, the Mayor requested a meeting to progress a joint effort to reinstate the Central City Shuttle. This meeting was held on 6 July 2022, between the Mayor, Chair, and staff from both organisations along with Christchurch NZ.

5.2 Following the meeting, the Chair confirmed in a letter, dated 12 July 2022 (Attachment B), that staff will jointly develop a scoping paper for investigation of a trial Central City Shuttle, and report back to the respective Councils in September 2022.

5.3 As noted by the Chair in her letter, should both Councils agree to and endorse the proposal to investigate a trial, this will become a task that both the incoming Councils will need to facilitate and incorporate into their public transport work programmes. Staff note that a re-prioritisation and re-allocation of existing resource will be required to activate any investigation in the current financial year, as the existing public transport work programme is already fully committed in terms of resourcing, including funding.

5.4 Council staff provided advice to the Elected Members in a memo dated 10 December 2021 (Attachment C) regarding the re-instatement of a central city shuttle trial. The advice at that time recommended that the re-introduction of a central city shuttle should be paused until the anchor projects have all been completed, to better assess the demands for inner city transport, and to identify any gaps in transport mode availability for users.

5.5 Since the pre-earthquake shuttle service was in operation, the central city has transformed with the completion of An Accessible City projects, which have improved walking accessibility around the central city; additional transport options, such as shared micro-mobility services (via e-scooters and e-bikes); and, a number of new public transport Metro services have been introduced to supplement existing active, public and private transport mode options. The anchor projects have now largely been completed with the Te Pae Convention Centre opening earlier this year, and the Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre due to open in 2023.

5.6 Staff from Environment Canterbury and Council have been working collaboratively to understand what the existing problem is in terms of transport accessibility and availability for central city users, and whether there is a gap in the market which a central city shuttle service could fill. The central city is well serviced, with 1800 trips per day, and Environment Canterbury is working on improving the frequency, as well as already working on the wayfinding project to educate people as to the options available to travel around the city. In recent LTP and Annual Plan consultation, there have been very few submissions received in relation to the provision of a central city shuttle operation.

5.7 Staff at both Councils are currently fully committed to the delivery of a number of approved work programmes in response to both national and regional initiatives, including but not limited to the following:

5.7.1 Emissions Reduction Plan (VKT sub-regional targets development, Climate Emergency Response Fund (Transport Choices Package) applications)

5.7.2 PT Futures (Detailed Business Case development, accelerated delivery programme development)

5.7.3 Greater Christchurch Transport Plan and Implementation Plan development

5.7.4 Mass Rapid Transit Indicative Business Case development

5.7.5 Lincoln Road Bus Priority Lane

5.7.6 Route 7 – Halswell to Parklands Review

5.7.7 Brougham Street Upgrade project collaboration for detailed design and implementation.

5.8 These work programmes are additional to the business as usual planning and delivery of the public transport operational and infrastructure improvement projects and continuous programmes (i.e. maintenance, operations and renewals), which are also being delivered with existing staff, and within existing available budgets.

5.9 Neither the current PT Futures programme, nor any other currently approved strategies, include provision for a central city shuttle service. The current and planned Metro service provides a public transport connection for central city users, and based on current information, a central city shuttle service would duplicate and overlap with existing and planned public transport services and infrastructure.

5.10 Staff note that a central city shuttle service is unlikely to attract central government funding for capital investment or operational support, and would therefore be fully ratepayer funded. There is no existing budget for the provision of a feasibility report, or any capital or operational funding. Should Council be minded to further investigate the viability of a central city shuttle operation trial, resources and funding would need to be sourced to undertake this work.

5.11 As this work has not been undertaken to date the views and preferences of the community have not been sought at this stage.

5.12 Key elements for inclusion in the design of a trial would need to include the following:

· Problem Statement – what is the role of a central city shuttle within the four avenues?

· Existing public transport mode provision, and public transport network gap analysis

· Accessibility analysis across all modes of transport

· Potential route layouts and timetabling

· Infrastructure requirements and costs

· Vehicle requirements and costs, both initial capital cost(s) and ongoing operational costs and resourcing (including driver availability, provision of E-bus charging infrastructure)

· Length of trial period

· Potential funding sources (i.e. fares, rating implications, Waka Kotahi funding assistance, sponsorship opportunities).

5.13 An external resource will be required to complete a design work and this is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $50,000 - $100,000.

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

5.14.1 Central ward

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: Transport

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Policy 1.5 “Trials and Innovation’ of the 2018-28 Canterbury Regional Public Transport Plan. This notes that Council will:

“Work with partner agencies to explore the potential for trialling the introduction of a central city shuttle or demand responsive transport to either complement the scheduled service network, or in place of scheduled service.”

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. However, it is expected that Mana Whenua views will be sought as part of the scoping paper development.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 These will be considered as part of the trial design. Option assessment will consider climate change impacts.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5 These will be considered as part of the trial design. Option assessment will consider accessibility impacts.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The cost to complete the trial design is expected to be between $50,000 and $100,000. The costs are expected to be jointly funded with Environment Canterbury.

7.2 Funding Source – No current budget allocation. This will need to be addressed as part of the FY24 Annual Plan.

7.3 Financing for operating a separate shuttle route has not been included in the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan. The key output of any investigation would be to identify implementation and on-going operating costs to inform the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council has the statutory power to request staff undertake trial design projects.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Central City Shuttle Letter from Mayor Dalziel 2 Jun 2022	177
b ⇩	Attachment B - Inner City Shuttle Letter from Chair of Environment Canterbury 12 Jul 2022	178
c ⇩	Attachment C - Central City Public Transport Accessibility - Options	180

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kirsty Mahoney - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

John Dore - Principal Advisor Public Transport

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

08 September 2022

16. Regulatory Services - Building Consenting Unit Report - June and July 2022
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1003897
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Robert Wright, Head of Building Consenting, robert.wright@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Brief Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Council with respect to the delivery of Building Act functions performed within the Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services Group for the period June and July 2022

Attachment A provides detailed reporting matrix for financial year ending June 2022, and Attachment B a new format of reporting matrix for the financial year beginning July 2022

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Regulatory Services Building Consenting Update Report – June and July 2022.

3. Key Performance Indicators

Financial Year ending June 2022

Measure:		June 2022	End of FY 2022
Building Consents Granted:	KPI	53.3%	40.1%	95% within 19 working days
	STF	54.7%	42.3%	20 working days
Inspections:	KPI	93.5%	94.3%	98% booked within 3 working days
Code Compliance Certificates:	KPI	96.8%	94.7%	95% within 19 working days
	STF	98.4%	95.0%	20 working days
PIM Only:	KPI	94.3%	95.7%	PIM only 90% within 20 working days
PIM/Devt Check:	STF	100%	95.9%	Within 20 working days
Discretionary Exemptions:	KPI	100%	98.5%	10 working days
Customer Satisfaction:	KPI	81.5%	80.6%	Target is 75%

Financial Year 2022/2023

Measure:		July 2022	YTD
Building Consents Granted:	KPI	54.3%	54.3%	95% within 19 working days
	STF	56.3%	56.3%	20 working days
Inspections:	KPI	98.6%	98.6%	98% booked within 3 working days
Code Compliance Certificates:	KPI	97.3%	97.3%	95% within 19 working days
	STF	97.9%	97.9%	20 working days
PIM Only:	KPI	98.1%	98.1%	PIM only 90% within 20 working days
PIM/Devt Check:	STF	100%	100%	Within 20 working days
Discretionary Exemptions:	KPI	96.1%	96.1%	10 working days
Customer Satisfaction:	KPI	79.0%	79.0%	Target is 75%

KPI = Key Performance Indicator

STF = Statutory Time Frame

Total –Current FY KPI %

3.1 Consenting activity remains high with applications for building consents not showing any real signs of softening as yet, which continues to produce high volumes of consents granted with notably high complexity levels.

3.2 In terms of the key performance indicators, considering the very high workloads across all reporting areas performance remains high, with the exception of granting building consents.

3.3 This area continues to be the greatest challenge and strongest area of focus. Performance is continuing to improve, in terms of both the KPI and Statutory Time Frames showing incremental increases in each of the two months of this report.

4. Earthquake Prone Buildings

4.1 During June and July nine earthquake prone buildings where removed from the Earthquake Prone Building Register. Of the nine, six building received certification of strengthening, two were demolished and one building was reassessed as being above 34% NBS.

5. Significant Building Consents (June and July 2022)

Address	Value of Building Work ($)	Building Consent Details
171 Main North Road	35mn	Construction of supermarket (Pak n’ Save)
220 Madras Street	12.5mn	Construction of multi-use arena (Te Kaha) – Stage 1 of 6

6. New Dwellings, including Community Housing & Residential Sub- division Activity

6.1 As previously requested by the Committee, the tables below provide data on a range of new housing and subdivision activity during the previous year ending 30 June 2022.

6.2 Table (1) Identifies new community housing, housing by Kāinga Ora and all other new housing consented during the period. The 4573 new dwellings in the 2021/22 year is a 44% increase from the 2020/21 year.

Christchurch City New Dwellings Consented – Community Housing: July 2021 – June 2022
	Financial Year		Month
	2020/21	2021/22	*Jul-21*	*Aug-21*	*Sep-21*	*Oct-21*	*Nov-21*	*Dec-21*	*Jan-22*	*Feb-22*	*Mar-22*	*Apr-22*	*May-22*	*Jun-22*
Community Housing	0	8	1	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kāinga Ora	246	209	13	31	0	3	58	12	7	33	10	23	9	10
Other	2922	4356	318	316	427	311	354	369	268	550	431	279	429	304
Total	3168	4573	332	347	427	321	412	381	275	583	441	302	438	314

6.3 Table (2) identifies new residential or mixed use lots created by sub-division also experienced a significant increase of 125% between the respective periods.

Christchurch City New Residential Subdivision Lots Consented - Community Housing
	Financial Year		Month
	2020/21	2021/22	*Jul-21*	*Aug-21*	*Sep-21*	*Oct-21*	*Nov-21*	*Dec-21*	*Jan-22*	*Feb-22*	*Mar-22*	*Apr-22*	*May-22*	*Jun-22*
Kāinga Ora	58	61	0	9	19	0	14	0	0	6	0	0	0	13
Other	1935	4436	150	71	285	675	410	324	172	811	361	329	481	367
Total	1993	4497	150	80	304	675	424	324	172	817	361	329	481	380

* Lot data is all consented lots, including vacant lots as well as those created around existing buildings. There is no way to exclude this data based on how it is currently captured.

* Lots are only Residential or Mixed Use.

7. Eco-Design

7.1 The Eco Design Service (EDS) reached a total of 323 consultations for the year ending 30 June, 2022, which was 23 more than the annual KPI of 300.

7.2 The EDS has had a fantastic start to the new financial year with 38 consultations in July 2022.

The Eco Design Service has been involved in many initiatives and projects in June and July

June 2022:

· Educational training on H1 compliance paths to new EDA and Architects.

· Preparing a submission for the EDA group on the MBIE proposal to extend the deadline

· Training on carbon emissions

· Media article in Stuff with reference to the EDA service.

July 2022:

· Education training for BCO and inspectors at Hamilton via zoom

· BRANZ Transition to Zero Carbon Programme Advisory Group Meeting

· Working with BRANZ on the new calculation method tool to meet the requirements of the new V5

· The service had a big boost in consultation requests after an article was published in Stuff promoting the service. Here is the link; Stuff Article

8. Changes to Building Insulation Requirements

8.1 In November 2021 MBIE issued new Acceptable Solutions & Verification Methods for Clause H1 - Energy Efficiency of the NZ Building Code. These documents outline the compliance pathways to meet minimum insulation requirements for new buildings. These changes apply to all building consent applications made from 3^rd November 2022. These changes to the insulation requirements is the first step in MBIE’s Building for Climate Change programme.

8.2 However, as the building sector is under significant pressure and there are concerns that more time is required to prepare for the change they lobbied MBIE to delay the date when these changes come into effect. After consultation, MBIE has extended the time a further six months to meet the new insulation requirements for housing only. Building consent applications for new housing made up until the 1^st May 2023 can continue to use current insulation requirements for the wall, floor and roof building elements. But for windows and doors, an interim step in minimum insulation requirements has been set to apply for those six months.

8.3 The Building Consenting Unit presented the new insulation requirements to elected members & ELT in a briefing in May.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Consenting & Compliance Group Report - Six months ending June 2022	206
b ⇩	Consenting & Compliance Group Report - July 2022	209

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name	Location / File Link

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting
Approved By	Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] The seven sub catchments are Outer Christchurch; Pūharakekenui/Styx River, Ōtākaro/Avon River, Ihutai/Avon-Heathcote Estuary and Coastal areas, Huritīni/Halswell River, Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River, and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula.

[2] The stated objective of the campaign was: “to convince the Government to alter its intention to proceed with legislation that will compel councils to transfer their 3 Waters assets into the ownership and/or operational control of another legal entity without the agreement of an affected council to that transfer”.

[3] At the time of the Council’s decision to join the campaign group, the Mayor had been appointed to the Working Group on Governance, Representation and Accountability. To ensure there was no conflict of interest, or inability to actively participate in the Working Group, the Mayor abstained from voting on the decision.

[4] ‘At risk of flooding’ is defined as a modelled flood depth within 100mm or less of the floor level of the main dwelling in a 2% Annual Exceedance Probability design storm event.

5. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - August 2022
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1085980
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager, Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

6. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 5 August 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1056784
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Committee and Hearings Advisor, simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

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
11.	Community Applications to the 2022/2023 Capital Endowment Fund
	Attachment c - Attachment C. Additional information CoCA. Public Excluded	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	To allow the applicant to continue comercially sensitive negociations to lease the CoCA Gallery.	20 August 2022 When negociations to lease the CoCA Gallery are complete. Financial information supplied by the applicant remains confidential and will not be released.
	Attachment d - Attachment D. Letter of Support	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	To allow the applicant to continue comercially sensitive negociations to lease the CoCA Gallery	31 December 2022 When negociations to lease the CoCA Gallery are concluded.
18.	Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 5 August 2022			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
19.	CWTP Insurance Update	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(g), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Conduct Negotiations	Insurance discussions and legal advice must remain confidential to protect Council's negotiating position	Following settlement of the insurance claim and when the Chief Executive Officer or GM Resources / CFO determine there are no longer any reasons to withhold the information under the Act.

15. Central City Biannual Report: January to June 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/656444
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Meeker, Principal Urban Regeneration Advisor, john.meeker@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz