Agenda of Council - Thursday, 15 September 2022

Council

15 September 2022

Report from Banks Peninsula Community Board – 12 September 2022

6. Godley Quay Traffic & Roading Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1206653
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Kristine Bouw, Project Manager, Kristine.Bouw@ccc.govt.nz Andrew Hensley, Traffic Engineer, Andrew.Hensley@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1. Approves the scheme design for Godley Quay Traffic & Roading Improvement Project, including kerb lines, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, signage and non-regulatory markings, as shown on Attachment A of this report (Plan TP360601 Issue 1 dated 29 August 2022).

2. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with the access road adjacent to Te Ana Marina and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44 metres to its intersection with the access road adjacent to Lyttelton Engineering.

3. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of the access road adjacent to Lyttelton Engineering commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

4. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of the access road adjacent to Lyttelton Engineering commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

5. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with the access road adjacent to Lyttelton Engineering and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 171 metres to its northern intersection with Cyrus Williams Quay.

6. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Cyrus Williams Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

7. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Cyrus Williams Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

8. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with Cyrus Williams Quay and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 85 metres to its northern intersection with George Seymour Quay.

9. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of George Seymour Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

10. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of George Seymour Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

11. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with George Seymour Quay and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 85 metres to its northern intersection with Charlotte Jane Quay.

12. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Charlotte Jane Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

13. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Charlotte Jane Quay commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

14. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with Charlotte Jane Quay and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 220 metres.

15. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Godley Quay commencing at its southern intersection with Marina Access road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 220 metres.

16. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Marina Access road commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

17. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Marina Access road commencing at its intersection with Godley Quay and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

18. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Godley Quay commencing at its northern intersection with Marina Access road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

19. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Godley Quay commencing at a point 67 metres north of its northern intersection with Marina Access road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 46 metres.

20. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Godley Quay commencing at a point 172 metres north of its northern intersection with Marina Access road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 285 metres.

21. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against the access road adjacent to Lyttelton Engineering at its intersection with Godley Quay, as shown in Attachment A to this report, Plan TP360601 dated 25/08/2022.

22. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Cyrus Williams Quay at its intersection with Godley Quay, as shown in Attachment A to this report, Plan TP360601 dated 25/08/2022.

23. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against George Seymour Quay at its intersection with Godley Quay, as shown in Attachment A to this report, Plan TP360601 dated 25/08/2022.

24. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Charlotte Jane Quay at its intersection with Godley Quay, as shown in Attachment A to this report, Plan TP360601 dated 25/08/2022.

25. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Marina Access road at its intersection with Godley Quay, as shown in Attachment A to this report, Plan TP360601 dated 25/08/2022.

26. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in resolutions 1 to 25 above.

27. Approves that these parking restrictions take effect when there is evidence that the signage and/ or road marking restrictions described in this staff report are in place following the road upgrade works.

Godley Quay – Shared Path

28. Recommends to Council that a bi-directional shared pedestrian / bicycle path be established on the western side of Godley Quay commencing at a point 21 metres south of its intersection with the access road adjacent to Te Ana Marina and extending in a southerly direction generally for a distance of 421 metres, as detailed in Attachment A (Plan TP360601 Issue 1 dated 29 August 2022), in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 and Clause 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Note 1 applies.

2. Recommendation to Council

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board will consider this item at its meeting on 12 September 2022. Due to the timing of the meeting, the Community Board’s recommendations to Council will be separately circulated.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Banks Peninsula Community Board Godley Quay Traffic & Roading Improvements 12 September 2022 Report	34
b ⇩	Godley Quay_Scheme Plan for Community Board_12Sept2022	44
c	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

Audit recommendation	Staff comments
No evidence of independent review of the HR Masterfile change report Ensure the HR Masterfile change report is signed and dated by reviewer as evidence of independent review.	An increase in volume of work for the HR Administration Team, staff changes, as well as supporting the Covid response, has meant that the team has fallen behind in reviewing HR Masterfile data changes. Additional resources and trainings have been put in place to ensure appropriate checking is place going forward.
IT Change Management practices Priority is given to closing the changes logged in the system that have been completed to ensure Council’s change management policy is complied with.	Both changes in staff and Incident/Change managements systems have had an impact on the existing change management process over the reported period. Council will put an action plan in place to address all recommendations.
Network password strengths could be improved Council considers moving to NZ Information Security Manual (NZISM) standards for network password strength, including a minimum of 10 characters with complexity or 16 characters without complexity.	Council’s network password requirements has been designed against both Microsoft and NIST requirements. Having all network passwords change to the recommendation would have significant impact to all Council users. Council has been heavily focused on improving and investing in its cyber security posture over the last few years. Council IT have implemented and continue to implement multiple tools and practices. Password policy will continue to be reviewed.
Update and test Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Council review and update all its Business Continuity plans and IT Disaster Recovery plans, and establish annual tests to ensure that all business units are aware of what alternative arrangements may need to be put in place should a major event occur.	The IT Business Continuity Plans were provided to audit for review. The Council has an approved Business Continuity Management Framework in place and clearly states that all Teams need to have prepared and tested emergency response plans. IT are investigating disaster recovery frameworks which would suit the needs of the Council.

Council

15 September 2022

11. Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Recovery Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1223777
Presenter(s) Te Kaipāhō :	Michael Croucher, Senior Programme Manager, michael.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

1. Brief Summary

1.1 This update outlines the full history of the treatment plant fire and response up to 31 August 2022. It will be the last update on this matter in this term of Council.

1.2 Since the Finance & Performance Committee meeting of 28 April 2022, in which it was resolved that fortnightly updates would be provided to either the Finance and Performance Committee or Council, regular updates have been presented.

2. Background

2.1 Information about the fire and the Council’s response and recovery activities have been regularly reported. Since 1 November 2021 the following formal reporting has occurred:

· Three Waters Infrastructure and Environment meeting with presentation 8 December 2021

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

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

· Insurance Subcommittee meeting (with morning site visit to the plant) 10 May.

· Finance and Performance Committee meeting with project briefing, community support package and deputations held 26 May.

· Joint Community Board presentation 30 May.

· Council meeting with project briefing and deputations held 9 June.

· Adaptive Recovery Action Plan presented to Council meeting 30 June.

· Audit and Risk presentation 15 June.

· Insurance Subcommittee presentation 16 June.

· Afternoon and evening public meetings held at Bromley Community Centre Tuesday 28 June.

· Presentation to Finance and Performance Committee Thursday 30 June.

· Presentation to Insurance Subcommittee Wednesday 6 July.

· South New Brighton community meeting Thursday 7 July.

· Public webinar on recovery progress Wednesday 13 July.

· Council meeting with project briefing and deputations 3 August.

· Insurance Subcommittee presentation 10 August.

· Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board presentation 10 August.

· Coastal Burwood Community Board presentation 15 August.

· Council meeting with project briefing 25 August.

3. Overview of fire response and recovery activities

The fire

3.1 On the afternoon of 1 November 2021 there was a major fire at the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) that destroyed the plant’s two trickling filters. The fire began on the roof of one of the trickling filters and, when that roof collapsed, spread to the second trickling filter. The treatment performance of the plant was significantly impacted as a result.

3.2 Fire and Emergency NZ responded immediately and the fire was officially declared extinguished on 25 November, twenty four days after the fire started. The length of time between the fire starting and it being declared out was due to difficulty extinguishing hotspots in the burning plastic filter media deep within the trickling filter structures.

3.3 The loss of functionality in the trickling filters affected the quality of the wastewater treatment process, necessitating immediate interim operational changes. The tricking filters were a major component of the treatment process, responsible for 60% of the organic load removal through biological treatment and a key element for the effective management of odour. Immediate changes included diverting the primary treated waste flow to the oxidation ponds to ensure continuation of the critical waste water plant activity.

3.4 An independent “cause and origin” fire investigator was appointed immediately on 1 November. Due to the complex nature of the investigation, this process is still ongoing. Other parties involved have engaged their own fire investigators and these investigations are also ongoing.

3.5 Worksafe New Zealand was formally notified of the event on 2 November and Council initiated its own health and safety investigation into the fire at the same time. Council completed a complex investigation report and provided this to Worksafe New Zealand in February. Worksafe formally notified Council on 4 March 2022 that they were not going to investigate Christchurch City Council in relation to the fire.

3.6 At the time of the fire Community and Public Health provided health advice to the community directly affected by the smoke, including advising people to close windows and stay inside.

Immediate operational response

3.7 Following the fire staff moved immediately to address the loss of the trickling filters and to optimise the treatment efficiency of the primary treatment processes and of the oxidation ponds at the wastewater treatment plant. Specialists were called in to work with staff to undertake several immediate remediation and mitigation projects. This involved multiple projects during November and December focused on keeping the plant operating and designing engineering solutions to bypass the trickling filters and related systems.

3.8 Specific interventions included;

Poly dosing

3.8.1 The day following the fire a poly dosing plant was installed, to add a flocculating agent (poly aluminium chloride, an odourless white powder that dissolves in water) to the primary sedimentation tanks. This agent improves the settlement of organic matter, reducing the load on the remainder of the treatment plant process.

Hydrogen peroxide

3.8.2 Within two weeks a hydrogen peroxide dosing unit was installed on the inlet to the oxidation ponds to increase the level of oxygen in the ponds, enabling them to better handle the increased organic load they were receiving. Hydrogen peroxide naturally breaks down into water and oxygen.

Screen room air handling system

3.8.3 Within six weeks the damaged air-handling systems that serviced the screening rooms and grit tanks had been replaced. This reduced the raw sewage odours escaping this part of the treatment process.

Interim operation and adaptive management plan

3.9 Staff formulated a concept interim recovery treatment process, which was subsequently validated and designed in detail by external wastewater specialists, including advice from international specialists. The interim process was designed to use as much of the plant’s existing infrastructure as possible to enable rapid implementation.

3.10 Elected members approved the interim recovery plan in December 2021.

3.11 The plan involved converting two of the plant’s four clarifier tanks into temporary aeration basins to create an activated sludge plant. The secondary treatment provided by the activated sludge plant was designed to deliver most of the treatment previously provided by the trickling filters.

3.12 An adaptive management approach was adopted to constantly review effectiveness and makes changes to the interim operation of the treatment plant. This is to ensure the best outcome with respect to the quality of the effluent discharge and odour management within the practical constraints of the plant.

3.13 The interim treatment process has been designed to last for up to 5 years and is intended as a medium term solution to replace the trickling filters until a long term solution is adopted.

3.14 The interim recovery plan involved several pieces of work, including:

Bypass pipeline

3.14.1 Following the fire the trickling filters were isolated from the treatment process by putting in place an overland temporary bypass pipeline.

3.14.2 To fully isolate the trickling filters from the treatment process a permanent bypass pipeline needed to be installed. Work on the permanent bypass started in March and was operational by mid-August.

Activated sludge plant

3.14.3 The activated sludge plant involved converting two of the plant’s four clarifier tanks into temporary aeration basins and installing new pumps and pipelines to allow over pumping from the aeration basins to the two remaining clarifiers.

3.14.4 Work on the activated sludge plant started in December. It was mechanically commissioned 28 July and the biology of the plant achieved maturity on 23 August.

3.14.5 The secondary treatment provided by the activated sludge plant has recovered most of the treatment efficiency previously provided by the trickling filters. The quality of the wastewater now being discharged to the oxidation ponds is much improved (lower biomass and high oxygen saturation).

Plant resilience and risk mitigation

3.14.6 The interim treatment plant has a design life of up to five years. While the activated sludge plant has recovered most of the treatment capacity previously supplied by the trickling filters there is very little redundancy in the plant compared to the pre-fire configuration.

3.14.7 To mitigate the impact of equipment failure, further critical spares have been purchased and stored on site to minimise repair times. An increased maintenance schedule has also been implemented to reduce the risk of equipment failure.

3.14.8 Staff have been trained in the process changes so that all steps have been documented and approved to professional standards.

Oxidation pond surface aerators

3.14.9 A two-stage approach has been taken to improve the health of the oxidation ponds.

3.14.10 The first stage involved enhancing the quality of the wastewater being discharged to the oxidation ponds. To achieve this the activated sludge plant was commissioned.

3.14.11 While the new activated sludge plant doesn’t fully compensate for the trickling filters, it does significantly improve the quality of the wastewater being discharged into the oxidation ponds, which will lead to an overall improvement in pond health and a significant reduction in the odour coming from them.

3.14.12 Stage two involves installing additional surface aerators on the oxidation ponds to further improve the water quality. Aerators would also provide back-up treatment in the event of equipment failure and a sustained outage of the activated sludge plant.

3.14.13 Work is currently under way to source the aerators, and bring in additional power, with the intention of having these installed by April 2023. The timeline will ensure this additional treatment is in place to provide augmented treatment within the ponds during winter weather conditions.

3.15 Every change made to the treatment process has been closely monitored for effectiveness with adjustments made as required. The adaptive management approach will continue, with further enhancements and improvements planned to be implemented over the coming months. These include:

· Optimising the treatment effectiveness of the activated sludge plant

· Increasing the capacity of activated sludge system

· Automated flow balancing of wastewater discharge to the oxidation ponds to distribute the organic load

· Maintain chemical dosing equipment on stand-by.

Trickling filter damage assessment and media removal

Damage assessment

3.16 Initial visual damage assessments were carried out immediately after the fire by structural engineers to ensure the safety of the concrete structures. No issues were identified that would cause a hazard to the ongoing operation of the treatment plant.

3.17 In mid-November engineers were appointed by both Council and our insurer to carry out detailed investigations and damage assessments. These assessments included identification of damage caused from the fire, options for repair or replacement, and the estimated costs.

3.18 Following discussions between engineers acting for Council and those acting for our insurer a scope of work was agreed. This outlined the specific tasks to be carried out in order to determine the damage and reinstatement options. These tasks have included visual inspections, 3D drone surveys, review of existing documentation and removal of concrete samples to check for heat damage.

3.19 Four locations on each trickling filter structure had concrete samples removed over the height of the structures walls. Two core samples were taken side by side – one for Council's engineers and one for our insurer's engineers. These samples have been tested to determine the extent of any damage to the concrete as a result of the fire.

3.20 The damage assessment reports are due in September 2022.

Trickling filter media removal

3.21 Planning for removal of the burnt material from the trickling filters started in November, with options dependent on the results from the assessment of the concrete structures. Until the integrity of the structures was known, options including demolishing the entire structures through to leaving the concrete walls in place and taking out the filter material, were still live. It was anticipated the results from the concrete testing would be known mid-2022, at which time final methodology would be agreed with the insurers.

3.22 In mid-March the material in the trickling filters unexpectedly started emitting foul odours, resulting from a combination of wet and warm weather conditions causing the biomass remaining within the trickling filters to rot.

3.23 There was approximately 26,000m3 of filter material housed within the two filter structures, which is equivalent in volume to more than 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

3.24 Staff talked to potential contractors and investigated options for rapid removal of the plastic filter material.

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

3.26 Procurement options were considered between 25 March and 5 April to ensure requirements under Council’s procurement policy and Office of the Auditor General best practice guidance were being met. The Executive Leadership Team were briefed on 6 April and a decision on procurement options was made 11 April. The Executive Leadership Team was advised, and accepted, the quickest procurement option was direct appointment of a contractor.

3.27 A meeting with the preferred contractor was held on 13 April to confirm requirements.

3.28 The contractor secured sub-contractors and suppliers between 14 April and 28 April. At the same time Council staff were preparing contract documentation.

3.29 A proposal to remove the burnt filter media was received from the preferred contractor on 28 April, with staff review completed 2 May. General terms and conditions of contract were finalised 3 May.

3.30 Southern Demolition & Salvage Limited were awarded the contract to remove the media from the Trickling Filter structures on 11 May 2022. Machinery began arriving on site 12 May 2022 and media removal commenced 3 June 2022.

3.31 The first of the two structures was completely emptied by the end of June. The removal of media material from the second structure was completed 9 August, four weeks ahead of schedule.

3.32 Filter material removed from the trickling filters was chipped, compacted and transported to Kate Valley Landfill, in sealed capsules, for disposal.

Odour management

3.33 The odours from the plant have been many and varied since the fire.

3.33.1 Smoke, then burnt plastic odours, were prevalent over the first three to four weeks – these reduced quickly once the fire was out and the hotspots within the plastic media had cooled.

3.33.2 Raw sewage odour from the screening process occurred through November and December – this was resolved by the installation of the new air-handling system and biofilters.

3.33.3 Putrid odours from decaying organic material from within the trickling filters through March and April – these were intermittent following periods of wet weather and very warm temperatures. The last of the material causing this odour was removed 9 August.

3.33.4 “Rotten egg” odours due to reduced sulphur compounds, particularly hydrogen sulphide, emitting from the ponds started in May - the ponds had performed well over the summer months, but performed less well in cooler weather and have been the primary source of odour coming from the plant since May.

3.34 The last of the interim operations plan projects, the establishment of the biomass in the activated sludge plant, is now completed, which will result in the oxidation ponds recovering. Once levels of dissolved oxygen increase the emission of hydrogen sulphides will significantly reduce with the offensive odour diminish by late-September. Weekly updates on pond health are published on our website with a graphical display indicating the health of the ponds.

Environmental and health

Odour monitoring

3.35 In response to elevated odour levels from the oxidation ponds and the very putrid odours from the trickling filters an independent specialist firm was engaged to determine the composition and nature of the odours. This work began with air quality grab sampling on 28 April 2022. Grab samples were taken weekly over a six week period. Results from the study showed that there were reduced sulphur compounds present, which have very unpleasant odours and can be smelt at extremely low concentrations.

3.36 Methyl mercaptan is one of those gases and it has only been detected close to the ponds. However, this gas, which smells like rotten cabbage, can be smelt at levels much lower than our sampling and testing methods could measure.

3.37 The other gas present in significant concentrations is hydrogen sulphide. Some of the concentrations measured in the ambient air downwind of the treatment plant exceed international air quality criteria for causing headache, nausea, and physiological responses to odour for some people (above 0.03 ppm approximately 80% of people can detect the gas and approximately 40% will have symptoms). However, the measured concentrations are much lower than the OEHHA acute exposure guideline levels for notable irritation and discomfort (which is 0.75 ppm) or more serious health effects (above 41 ppm).

3.38 The concentrations of hydrogen sulphide typically decrease as you move further away from the treatment plant.

3.39 Once it was established that reduced sulphur compounds were the primary cause of the odour issues, a number of hydrogen sulphide monitors were purchased to enable continuous monitoring within the residential areas close to the plant.

3.40 There are six continuous hydrogen sulphide monitors now placed within residential environments around the plant and two additional monitors for taking roving readings when required.

3.41 The air sampling results have been published weekly on the Council’s website with commentary about the results. Copies of all the results are forwarded to Community and Public Health and Environment Canterbury, and discussed at meetings with those agencies.

3.42 The meetings that have occurred with the Medical Officer of Health, Environment Canterbury and Council staff were held weekly from mid-April. The location of odour monitors, the monitoring results and the likely impact on resident’s health have been the key discussion points at these meetings.

3.43 The Medical Officer of Health has presented to Council and provided comment that, while exposure to hydrogen sulphide at the concentrations being detected is unpleasant and may result in health effects, it doesn’t accumulate in the body. These symptoms include nausea, headaches, eye and throat irritation, skin irritation, sleep disturbance and worsening asthma symptoms. The symptoms are expected to stop when the hydrogen sulphide levels reduce.

3.44 Hydrogen sulphide monitoring will continue until the long term trickling filter replacement option is in place.

Paint discolouration

3.45 Since May the Council has been made aware of paint discoloration on a number of houses in the vicinity of the treatment plant. An independent specialist firm was engaged to investigate the possible causes. The first round of testing, with samples taken on 2 June, confirmed the discoloration was not due to the presence of mould, which was considered to be a possible cause. While sampling did detect the presence of various mould types there were no spores or types outside of common moulds that typically grow on the exterior of Canterbury houses.

3.46 Further investigations to determine the cause of the discolouration were undertaken. The results established a link between the presence of lead in paint on the houses and discoloration. The advice received is that the observed effect is due to a “reduction” reaction (between the lead and the hydrogen sulphide) and that when the level of hydrogen sulphide is reduced (i.e. the ponds recover) the reaction can be expected to reverse due to oxidation.

3.47 A database of all those who have reported discolouration is being held and staff are staying in touch with affected property owners including making site visits. To date 56 residents have reported instances of paint discolouration and staff have visited a number of these properties to discuss remedies with the home owners.

3.48 Property owners have been provided with advice on the discoloration, which includes waiting until the odour levels (and the hydrogen sulphide) have reduced before cleaning their houses.

3.49 Work is currently underway to try to capture as many affected properties as we can on the database so that further targeted advice can be shared and assistance for property owners arranged, should this be necessary.

Oxidation pond health and bird numbers

3.50 The increased organic load has resulted in low oxygen content in the ponds. This has spoiled the habitat for midges, which were the primary source of food for most of the birdlife that normally live on the ponds.

3.51 The loss of midges has meant that most bird species have left the ponds. Only Canada geese, which graze on nearby grass, remain. When pond conditions improve, the midges will return and be available as a food source again. This, in turn, will bring the birds back to the ponds.

Social and business response

3.52 As outlined above, throughout the recovery of the treatment plant operations a number of odours, some quite putrid, have been experienced. The odours became especially intense and offensive in April when the material in the trickling filters began breaking down, following a combination of very warm weather and rainfall.

3.53 The odours have caused significant discomfort for many in the vicinity of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. People within a much wider radius have also experienced varying levels of discomfort and annoyance from the odour.

3.54 In response to strong feedback from the community, social response planning was initiated. This included setting up partnership arrangements with agencies such as Pegasus Health, Community and Public Health, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Social Development along with a number of community-based organisations, to coordinate support.

3.55 Actions, aimed at ensuring affected people were provided with clear, timely information, and access to health information and support that helps them manage related disruption and uncertainty have included:

3.55.1 Frequent communications using a variety of channels including household letter box drops.

3.55.2 Financial support (up to $1,180,000.00) made up of:

· Up to $200 per household which was made available widely for affected residents in a zone identified as being most affected by the intense odour under the early winter weather conditions, and extended when the predominant wind conditions changed and residential areas to the east became more impacted. The funds were anticipated to assist with additional household costs, such as power, as people addressed the odour issues at their properties.

· Allocation of funding to more than 30 schools and early learning centres to support wellbeing in the learning environment, and related science enquiry learning projects.

· Allocation of discretionary funding of up to $20,000 to each of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards for local, targeted support.

· Allocation of funding to cover administration costs to key community-based organisations providing support to communities and individuals.

3.56 Council sent targeted information in August to 239 business in areas likely to have been impacted by the ongoing odours. In response to this communication we received one contact, from a business that had not been included in the original list and information was sent. No other contacts have been received to date.

3.57 Consideration was given to the possibility of an event as a means to increase footfall for businesses in the affected areas. Due to the diverse range of business types in the area, this option was not considered to be a feasible way of providing support.

Communications and engagement

Community meetings

3.58 Four community meetings have been held since the odour became significant over the winter. An initial meeting was held at Bromley Community Centre on 13 May, which was organised and run by members of the community.

3.59 A series of three follow-up community meetings were held, two at the Bromley Centre on 28 June and one at the South Brighton Community Centre on 7 July, with support from Environment Canterbury.

3.60 An online webinar update for residents was held on 8 July.

Communications

3.61 Shortly after the fire was extinguished, a dedicated page within the Council website was established (wastewater@ccc.govt.nz) and an email address set up (wastewater@ccc.govt.nz), so people could access all of the information and contact the Council with concerns.

3.62 Between November 1 and August 30, 28 Newsline stories were written and published about the fire, the recovery programme, the social support programme, health concerns and Q&As. All stories were shared on the Council’s social media channels, as well as targeted community Facebook pages such as sewercrisis.nz, Bromley residents, and other neighbouring pages as required.

3.63 We published a rolling blog on Newsline from 19 May until 12 August when the community support package concluded. This blog was updated at least two or three times a day with information such as weather forecasts, on-site progress photos, links to Newsline stories, Q&As, air and water quality testing results, health information and other information as it came to hand.

3.64 We began an e-newsletter on 3 December and this continues to be sent out weekly to more than 350 subscribers. It contains the latest information, an infographic dashboard and links to Council presentations, videos, air-quality results and useful updates on the website. Physical copies of the e-newsletter are also created and made available at the four main community providers in the area.

3.65 To coincide with the launch of the Community Support Package in May, we created, printed and distributed an eight-page information booklet to 3,300 in-zone households. 1.8m high Information plinths were also printed and set up at the four community providers (the Loft, Bromley Community Centre, Nga Ho E Wha and He Waka Tapu).

3.66 In mid-June we produced a video to show the damage caused by the wastewater treatment plant and to explain the measures the Council had put in place to ensure the plant could continue to treat wastewater and try to minimise the odours.

3.67 Three different media tours of the treatment plant, to give the media an opportunity to see the extent and scale of the damage and to capture footage of the trickling filters being emptied out, have been conducted.

3.68 Six flyers and mailouts have been delivered to residents since the fire. Most went to the 3,300 households within the defined area that was determined to be the most affected, although a double-sided A4 update with information about house discolouration was delivered to 15,000 homes between Southshore, New Brighton, Phillipstown and Woolston. A smaller, more targeted flyer was sent to 700 households in the Shortland Street area on 29 August to inform them of higher recorded hydrogen sulphide readings coming from the oxidation ponds, with some specific health messaging attached.

Community Communications Advisory Group

3.69 In mid-June an advisory group was established to assist the response and recovery team with communications and initiatives to support the community and respond to environmental issues while the odours continue. The group consists of:

· Six community members

· Two Councillors

· Four Community Board members.

3.70 The group has met weekly with staff and has been invaluable in steering the work of the response team. It will continue to meet until the group itself determines it no longer needs to do so.

Regulatory compliance

3.71 Immediately following the fire Environment Canterbury was formally notified that during the recovery from this incident there would be an increased risk of non-compliance with conditions of two of our consents:

· CRC051724 discharge of wastewater to Pegasus Bay, where we advised them that we may exceed the limits for discharge quality; specifically in relation to bacteria, biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and ammoniacal nitrogen.

Testing has shown that wastewater discharge to the outfall is currently exceeding standard values for Faecal Coliforms and Enterococci. We notify Environment Canterbury and the Medical Officer of Health whenever we record an exceedance event.

· CRC1644262 discharge of contaminants to air and the condition to not cause any odour that is offensive and objectionable beyond the boundary of the property.

Odour is a significant issue that we are working hard to minimise. We expect the activated sludge plant will result in a noticeable reduction in odour emission from the ponds by late-September.

3.72 Environment Canterbury have been assured that every effort to comply with the conditions of these consents is being made and we have regularly liaised with their compliance monitoring officers during the recovery effort.

3.73 Environment Canterbury has taken a pragmatic approach to date, recognising that we are required to continue to provide wastewater treatment and disposal services and all practicable steps are being taken to improve our treatment processes and comply with the conditions of our consent.

Insurance

3.74 The treatment plant was insured at the time of the fire, and continues to be insured. Council’s discussions with its insurer (which began on 1 November) are on-going, but remain confidential due to commercial sensitivity (which also extends to third parties).

3.75 Detailed information is reported to the Council’s Insurance Subcommittee in accordance with the Subcommittee's Terms of Reference. The next update to the Subcommittee is 19 September.

Health and safety

3.76 On 1 November 2021, the day of the fire, the Health, Safety and Wellbeing team launched an internal Health and Safety investigation into the Fire which was completed in January 2022.

3.77 The results of this investigation were passed to WorkSafe New Zealand. In March 2022, WorkSafe confirmed they would not be investigating Christchurch City Council.

3.78 During the emptying of the trickling filters and construction of the interim activated sludge plant, the Health, Safety and Wellbeing team increased their visits to the plant, monitoring the health and safety performance of the contractors.

3.79 The contractors working on the removal of the media from the damaged trickling filters had all of their safe work procedures evaluated by the Health, Safety and Wellbeing team who provided feedback and approval of the procedures.

3.80 The Health, Safety and Wellbeing team remained engaged with WorkSafe during this period to provide assurance to WorkSafe that safe work practices were being observed during the recovery.

3.81 Site audits and inspections were carried out to provide Council assurance of the Health and Safety practices of the contractors. During this time, all minor incidents were investigated and there were zero serious harm events.

3.82 The Health Safety and Wellbeing team continue to conduct regular site visits at the plant and monitor progress on improvements to health and safety processes.

Options assessment for permanent treatment previously provided by trickling filter

3.83 Council engaged a specialist firm at the end of April to provide a process options assessment for the permanent recovery of the trickling filter treatment capacity. This work will allow Council to investigate options to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption, noting that the CWTP is responsible for 49 per cent of Council's total annual GHG emissions.

3.84 The work will be delivered in the following Packages:

· Package A - Treatment plant capacity baseline memo: to quantify and record the hydraulic and biological treatment capacity of the trickling filters.

· Package B - Options Assessment for the permanent recovery of the trickling filter treatment capacity: to identify and develop concept designs for up to three secondary treatment process options.

· Package C - Options Assessment for the reduction of nitrous oxide and methane emissions: to confirm and develop implementation actions to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions for CWTP as based on the selected secondary treatment process from Package B.

· Package D - Options Assessment for increased treatment plant capacity: to identify and quantify the requirements to secure additional wastewater treatment capacity for up to 250,000 additional people above the current design capacity.

3.85 Package A was delivered in June. Work is underway on Package B and output is programmed for September 2022. Package C work started in parallel with Package B, and is expected to be completed in November 2022. Once Package C has been concluded, staff will be in a position to make a recommendation to Council concerning the preferred way forward for recovering the full treatment capacity that was supplied by the trickling filters.

3.86 The findings of Package D will inform future Long Term Plans.

4. Next Steps

4.1 The interim operation of the plant will continue to be improved, with the next project being the procurement and installation of surface aerators and the associated power supply. This additional treatment system will be in place before next winter, when the ponds would be susceptible to poor performance should there be any issues with the plant.

4.2 The interim operations will continue to be monitored and the adaptive management plan reviewed to ensure the plant operates as effectively as possible.

4.3 The paint staining issues are expected to significantly reduce over the coming months and staff will continue to work with property owners to monitor recovery and assist as required. Communications will be ongoing.

4.4 The investigation of options for a permanent solution to replace the treatment previously provided by the trickling filters will be concluded in November, with a decision expected to be made by the Council by the end of the year.

4.5 Monitoring hydrogen sulphides across the residential areas will continue and be reported. Staff will continue to meet with Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) and Environment Canterbury as required.

4.6 The investigations into the cause of the fire will be completed, although the timing of this is not known as there are other parties involved. As soon as information can be released publically it will be.

4.7 Insurance matters will also progress and the project team will continue to manage risks.

4.8 Formal reporting to elected members will continue post the election, with the details of how this will be done to be decided by the incoming elected members.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this presentation.

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Michael Croucher - Senior Programme Manager
Approved By	Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

15 September 2022

13. Major Cycleway Rapanui Shagrock, Section 3, Speed reduction and detailed traffic resolutions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/616745
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Adrian Thein, Project Manager, adrian.thein@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, GM 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 the Council approval for detail traffic resolutions as per:

1.1.1 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, 30 March 2017, reference ITEC/2017/00013

1.1.2 Urban Development and Transport Committee, 9 December 2020, reference UDATC/2020/00030 and 00031

1.2 At the above mentioned meeting the committee members requested staff to investigate speed reduction along Humphreys Drive between Tidal View and Dyers Road and also along Tidal View.

1.2.1 This report recommends the reduction of the speed limit along Humphreys Drive between Tidal View and Dyers Road from 70km/h to 60km/h, as supported by the consultation process and the project team.

1.2.2 This report recommends the speed reduction of the speed limit from 50km/h to 30km/h on Tidal View, as supported by the consultation process and the project team.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

2. For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) An intersection of roadways is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway ; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) If the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Committee meeting of 9 December 2020 and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Committee resolutions on the Rapanui (Shag Rock) Cycleway report at the Committee meeting of 9 December 2020.

3. Drawing reference as attached in Appendix A.

4. Linwood Avenue (Dyers Road to Charlesworth Reserve Bridge) - Existing Traffic Controls

a. Approve that all traffic controls on Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 110 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 404 metres be revoked. Note 1 applies.

5. Linwood Avenue (Dyers Road to Charlesworth Reserve Bridge) - Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Linwood Avenue, commencing 110 metres southeast from its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 404 metres be revoked. Note 1 applies.

6. Linwood Avenue (Dyers Road to Charlesworth Reserve Bridge) - New Traffic Controls

a. Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Linwood Avenue from a point 110 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road to a point 404 metres southeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Linwood Avenue cyclists travelling on the on-road cycle lane, and that this Give Way control be located at a point 110 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to require the northwest bound cyclists to give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the shared path. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

c. Approve that the pathway on the south side of Linwood Avenue commencing at a point 110 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a southeast direction for a distance of 410 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian / cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

d. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against pedestrians/cyclists crossing the Linwood Canal, and that this Give Way control be located at a point 395 metres southeast of the intersection of Dyers Road and Linwood Avenue to require the northeast bound cyclists to give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the shared path. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

e. Approve that the pathway on the south side of Linwood Avenue commencing at a point 17m metres northeast of its crossing over the Linwood Canal and extending in a southwest direction for a distance of 17 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian /cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

7. Linwood Avenue (Dyers Road to Charlesworth Reserve Bridge) - New Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Linwood Avenue commencing at 110 metres southeast from its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a southeast direction for a distance of 404 metres. Note 2 applies.

8. Linwood Avenue (Charlesworth Reserve Bridge to Humphreys Drive) – Existing Traffic Controls

a. Approve that all existing traffic controls on Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly to Humphreys Drive be revoked. Note 1 applies.

9. Linwood Avenue (Charlesworth Reserve Bridge to Humphreys Drive) – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive be revoked. Note 1 applies.

10. Linwood Avenue (Charlesworth Reserve Bridge to Humphreys Drive) – New Traffic Controls

a. Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that a signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing be installed on Linwood Avenue at a point 542 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

c. Approve that the pathway on the northeast side of Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 542 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 80 metres be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian / cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

d. Approve that the pathway on the northeast side of Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 622 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending for a distance of 43 metres to the Windsurfers Reserve access, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian / cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

e. Approve that the pathway on the southwest side of Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres to the southeast side of the signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/ cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

f. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Linwood Avenue cyclists travelling in the southeast bound cycle lane, and that Give Way control be located at a point 539 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for cyclists and pedestrians using the signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

g. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Linwood Avenue cyclists travelling from the northwest bound cycle lane, and that Give Way control be located at a point 549 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for cyclists and pedestrians using the signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

h. Approve that a No Entry control be placed against pedestrians and cyclists on the shared path on the northeast side of Linwood Avenue, and that the No Entry control be located at a point 539 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This No Entry control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

i. Approve that a No Entry control be placed against pedestrians and cyclists on the shared path on the southwest side of Linwood Avenue, and that the No Entry control be located at a point 549 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This No Entry control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

j. Approve that a Stop control be placed against vehicles entering Linwood Avenue from the Windsurfers Reserve, at a point 669 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This Stop control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

k. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Linwood Avenue cyclists and pedestrians travelling in the southeast bound direction, and that Give Way control be located at a point 665 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles accessing Windsurfers Reserve. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

l. Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southeast-bound cycles only, be established on the northeast side of Linwood Avenue against the kerb, commencing at a point 622 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Note 2 applies.

m. Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northwest-bound cycles only, be established on the southwest side of Linwood Avenue against the kerb, commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Note 2 applies.

11. Linwood Avenue (Charlesworth Reserve Bridge to Humphreys Drive) – New Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Linwood Avenue commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Linwood Avenue commencing at a point 514 metres southeast of its intersection with Dyers Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

12. Humphreys Drive (Linwood Avenue to Tidal View) – Existing Traffic Controls

a. Approve that all existing traffic controls on Humphreys Drive, commencing at Linwood Avenue, being a point 690 metres southeast of Dyers Road, and extending in a southerly direction to the intersection with Tidal View be revoked. Note 1 applies.

13. Humphreys Drive (Linwood Avenue to Tidal View) – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Humphreys Drive, commencing at Linwood Avenue, being a point 690 metres southeast of Dyers Road, and extending in a southerly direction to the intersection with Tidal View be revoked. Note 1 applies.

14. Humphreys Drive (Linwood Avenue to Tidal View) – New Traffic Controls

a. Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Humphreys Drive, commencing at Linwood Avenue, being a point 690 metres southeast of Dyers Road, and extending in a southerly direction to the intersection with Tidal View as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that a Stop control be placed against vehicles entering Humphreys Drive from the carpark access south of Linwood Avenue at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 834 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This Stop control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

c. Approve that the pathway on the west side of Humphreys Drive commencing at a point 15 metres north of its intersection with Tidal View and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 268 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian / cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

d. Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the east side of Humphreys Drive against the kerb, commencing at Linwood Avenue and extending in a southerly direction to Tidal View, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Note 2 applies.

e. Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side of Humphreys Drive against the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Tidal View and extending in a northerly direction to Linwood Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Note 2 applies.

f. Approve that a signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing be installed on Humphreys Drive at a point 15 metres north of its intersection with Tidal View in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

g. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against cyclists travelling northbound along Humphreys Drive and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1213 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for cyclists travelling northbound along the cycle lane. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A, where the shared path on Humphreys Drive connects with the Charlesworth Reserve shared path. Note 2 applies.

h. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against pedestrians / cyclists travelling southbound along the shared path at the access road and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1303 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles on the access road. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

i. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the vehicles exiting from the access road onto Humphreys Drive and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1310 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles travelling in both directions along Humphreys Drive. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

j. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against pedestrians / cyclists travelling northbound along the Humphreys Drive shared path at the access road and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1331 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles accessing the (access road). This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

k. Approve that a right turn ban control be placed against vehicles exiting from the access road onto Humphreys Drive and that right turn ban control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1311 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This right turn ban control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

l. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against pedestrians/ cyclists travelling southbound along the Humphreys Drive shared path at Kite Lane and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1407 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles accessing Kite Lane. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

m. Approve that a right turn ban control be placed against the vehicles exiting from Kite Lane onto Humphreys Drive and that right turn ban control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1418 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road. This right turn ban control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

n. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the vehicles exiting from Kite Lane onto Humphreys Drive and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1421 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for vehicles travelling in both directions along Humphreys Drive. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

o. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against pedestrians / cyclists travelling northbound along the shared path on Humphreys Drive at Kite Lane and that Give Way control be located at a point, following the kerb line of Linwood Avenue and Humphreys Drive, 1426 metres southeast of the intersection with Dyers Road to create priority for cyclists travelling northbound in the cycle lane on Humphreys Drive. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

p. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against cyclists travelling southbound from the cycle lane on Humphreys Drive onto the shared pedestrian / cycle path on Tidal View, and that Give Way control be located at a point 26 metres north of the intersection with Tidal View to create priority for pedestrians and cyclists travelling in both directions across the signalised pedestrian/ cycle crossing. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

15. Humphreys Drive (Linwood Avenue to Tidal View) – New Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Humphreys Drive commencing at Linwood Avenue and extending to Tidal View as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Humphreys Drive commencing at Linwood Avenue and extending to Tidal View as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

16. Tidal View (Humphreys Drive to Ferry Road) – Existing Traffic Controls

a. Approve that all existing traffic controls on Tidal View, commencing at the intersection with Humphreys Drive and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Ferry Road be revoked. Note 1 applies.

b. Approve that all existing traffic controls at the intersection of Tidal View and Humphreys Drive be revoked.

17. Tidal View (Humphreys Drive to Ferry Road) – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Tidal View, commencing at the intersection with Humphreys Drive and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 278 metres to its intersection with Ferry Road be revoked. Note 1 applies.

18. Tidal View (Humphreys Drive to Ferry Road) – New Traffic Controls

a. Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Tidal View, commencing at the intersection with Humphreys Drive and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 278 metres as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that the pathway on the north side of Tidal View commencing at the signalised crossing on Humphreys Drive 15 metres north of Tidal View and extending along the full length of Tidal View to Ferry Road, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian / cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

c. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the vehicles exiting Tidal View at Humphreys Drive to provide priority to vehicles travelling along Humphreys Drive. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

d. Approve that a Give Way control be placed against vehicles exiting Tidal View at Ferry Road to provide priority to vehicles travelling along Ferry Road. This Give Way control is detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

e. Approve that turning movements for vehicles exiting from Tidal View onto Ferry Road be restricted to left turns only. Note 2 applies.

19. Tidal View (Humphreys Drive to Ferry Road) – New Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Tidal View commencing at its intersection with Humphreys Drive and extending to its intersection with Ferry Road as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

b. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Tidal View commencing at its intersection with Humphreys Drive and extending to its intersection with Ferry Road as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

20. Speed Limits

a. Note: Under Clause 12.9 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2022, if a road controlling authority has, before 19 May 2022 (commencement of the Rule), called for submissions on a proposal to set a speed limit under the previous Rule, the road controlling authority may in the interim period set the speed limit under the previous Rule under an existing Bylaw.

b. Approve that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be set as below in clause 27 and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

c. Approve that the existing 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 80 metres northwest of Dyers Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive be revoked.

d. Approve that the existing 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Linwood Avenue, commencing at a point 50 metres southeast of Chelsea Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction to a point 80 metres northwest of Dyers Road be revoked.

e. Approve that the speed limit of Linwood Avenue be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 50 metres southeast of Chelsea Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction to Humphreys Drive.

f. Approve that the existing 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Humphreys Drive from a point measured 450 metres north westerly, generally, from Ferry Road to Linwood Avenue be revoked.

g. Approve that the speed limit of Humphreys Drive be set at 60 kilometres per hour speed limit, commencing at Linwood Avenue, and extending in a south-easterly direction to a point measured, generally, 450 metres northwest of Ferry Road.

h. Approve that the speed limit on Tidal View be set at 30 kilometres per hour for its entire length.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Delivery of a connected cycleway from the city to Sumner is realised. The MCR Rapanui Shagrock Section 3 forms part of the 13 major cycleway routes planned across the city.

Detailed Traffic Resolutions

3.2 The scheme design for MCR Rapanui Shag Rock was approved at the following meetings:

3.2.1 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, 30 March 2017, reference ITEC /2017/00013

3.2.2 Urban Development and Transport Committee, 9 December 2020, reference UDATC/2020/00030 and 00031

3.3 There are no fundamental changes to the scheme design that was approved by the Committee.

Speed Review

3.4 The recommendations proposed are supported by the community’s feedback from the consultation process through our ‘Have your say page’. Feedback shows that majority of the people voted to reduce the speed in the area to ensure the safety of the cyclist, pedestrian and drivers.

3.5 Support community views of safer streets and by encouraging alterative travel options.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The status quo or ‘do nothing’ option was investigated but discounted as;

4.1.1 it does not meet the aspirations of safer streets and encouraging alternative modes of transport

4.1.2 does not reflect communities’ views and aspirations

4.1.3 the benefits of a connected cycleway from the city to Sumner are not realised.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Detailed Traffic Resolutions

5.1 The Major Cycle Way Rapanui Shagrock Section 3 scheme was approved on the 09 December 2020. The report presented at that meeting detailed the community views and preferences of the engagement process that took place in 2021.

5.2 As the detailed design has had no fundamental changes to the approved scheme design, the community views and preferences remain the same.

Speed Review

5.3 The speed review of both Humphreys Drive and Tidal View was consulted on from 27 July to 24 August 2021.

5.4 The consultation process includes:

5.4.1 https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/431

5.4.2 Hard copies delivered to residents and business on Humphreys Drive and Tidal View.

5.4.3 Local Facebook pages, including Redcliffs, Mt Pleasant, Sumner and Heathcote. Also Bay Harbour News (of 4 August 2021).

5.5 Detail consultation analysis as per Appendix B.

5.6 There were 264 page views on our “Have your say” page.

5.7 112 submission received with 101 commented on Tidal View and 112 comments on Humphreys Drive.

5.8 Feedback analysis for Tidal View consists of:

5.8.1 71% support the speed reduction to 30km/h, with a general consensus of, “slower speeds in the area will encourage people to stop and enjoy the views”

5.9 Feedback analysis for Humphreys Drive consists of:

5.9.1 56% support the speed reduction to 60km/h, with a general consensus of, “ the speed reduction will make it more consistent with surrounding streets”, “new speed limit of 60km/h would make it safer for all road users”

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

5.10.1 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: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - ≥17% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 The proposed recommendation supports the reduction of carbon emissions and Climate change goals by providing and encouraging active travel options and alternative means of transport.

6.5 The reduced speed limits promotes safer cycling and walking options along Humphrey Drive and Tidal View.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 All of the signalised crossing are accessible compliant and reflects current accessibility standards. Tactile pavers, widened footpaths, improved street lighting form part of the improvements. A Safety in Design workshop is complete and issues raised have been addressed in the design.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to implement is detailed in the 20 December 2020 report.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – is detailed in the 20 December 2020 report.

7.3 Funding Source – CPMS 23079 MCR Rapanui Shagrock Section 3, budget of $8,955,636 and is funded from the ‘Shovel Ready’ projects from the Crown. The project is expected to be delivered within the project budget.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

8.2 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 If these resolutions are not approved the legalities relating to the uses of the road space including no-stopping, parking and cycle lanes will not be able to be enforced.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Appendix A - MCR Rapanui Shagrock Section 3, Detail Traffic Resolution Plan	146
b	Appendix B - Consulation analysis feedback (Under Separate Cover)

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

Adrian Thein - Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

15 September 2022

14. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Mount Cavendish Reserve - Proposed new lease to the Christchurch Gondola Ltd
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1146287
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Sara Templeton Hearings Panel Chairperson
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community

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 proposal for a new ground lease to The Christchurch Gondola Limited over part of Mount Cavendish Reserve.

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. The following link to the Hearings Panel agenda contains the complete set of written submissions should you want to review them.

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/07/RAHPC_20220715_AGN_8108_AT.PDF

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Receive and consider the information in the report, the submissions, and all other relevant information received on the proposed new ground lease to The Christchurch Gondola Limited for their existing top terminal building.

2. Approve the granting of a ground lease, subject to section 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, and Part 3B (sections 17R and 17SC) of the Conservation Act 1987, to The Christchurch Gondola Limited over approximately 1177 square metres of Lot 1 Deposited Plan 61966 (held in Certificate of Title 37C/1204), part of Mount Cavendish Scenic Reserve, (lease plan shown in Attachment A) for the purpose of an existing upper terminal building for an aerial gondola, for a period of 30 years (including all rights of renewal).

3. Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the new lease.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Christchurch City Council administers Mount Cavendish Reserve by way of an appointment from the Department of Conservation to control and manage the reserve. The reserve is considered to be an asset of metropolitan significance.

3.2 The Christchurch Gondola Limited holds a lease with the Department of Conservation (DOC) authorising a top terminal building on Mount Cavendish Reserve for an aerial gondola operation. (Refer to Figures 1 for a location map: The area marked in yellow is the general geographical extent of the lease. The lease plan in Attachment A provides greater detail.)

3.3 The lease was granted in 1991 pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 and is due to expire on 1 November 2023. The lease had a right of renewal for a further 30 years which the lessee had expected to be able to exercise.

Figure 1: Aerial photo location map of Christchurch Gondola showing upper gondola station outlined in yellow

3.4 The Department of Conservation has advised that based on a High Court ruling in 2011 and changes to delegations in 2013:

3.4.1 The right of renewal in the current lease can no longer be exercised.

3.4.2 It is now the responsibility of the Council to grant a new lease under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 to authorise the continuation of the Christchurch Gondola Limited activity in Mount Cavendish Reserve.

3.5 Staff advised the Panel that the proposed new lease will be on equivalent terms to the existing lease, updated to the Council’s latest lease form to reflect changes in legislation since the original lease was executed, for example, the Health and Safety at Work Act (2015) and the Land Transfer Act (2017). The new lease will also be updated to include new Council policy. For example, waste minimisation under the Christchurch City Council Resource Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Policy and the Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

3.6 There will be no change in the new lease to the footprint of the building.

3.7 Owned by Christchurch Attractions and established in the 1990s, Christchurch Gondola is a key local and visitor attraction. The top terminal building includes a café for public use, function spaces for private events, and a museum experience. It also hosts radio and data gear for a range of national and local emergency, weather and electronic signalling suppliers and businesses.

3.8 The top terminal building is privately owned. It is situated above the Summit Road and does not have a vehicle access road (other than an unformed track for emergency type access) or car-parking. The only access to the building other than by the aerial gondola (which is also owned by the lessee) is on foot or mountain bike over the adjoining reserves or the Summit Road.

3.9 The top terminal building is a long standing occupation with substantial expenditure outlaid for the facility and its associated infrastructure. Staff have identified only one issue with the operation, management or activities of the lessee which is the presence of additional aerials on the building. The current aerial arrangements will be put forward for approval to sub-lease if the proposed new lease is approved. There is no identified need for this area of reserve land to be used for any other purpose in the public interest.

3.10 The Panel received advice from staff that there are minimal risks to the Council, if any, as the lessee is long established on this site. This includes financial risk to the Council.

3.11 However, staff also advised (as set out in their report) that there is a very significant financial risk to The Christchurch Gondola Company Limited if the proposed new lease is declined, as under the terms of the current lease, the lessee would be required to vacate Mount Cavendish Reserve, and:

a. The gondola experience would not be able to operate, and the aerial cableway and lower terminal building would be rendered inoperative.

b. The Council may require the lessee to remove its improvements at their own cost and with no compensation payable.

c. The lessee may otherwise have to forfeit its improvements to the Council with no compensation payable.

4. Consultation Process Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

4.1 Staff advised the Panel that the proposed new lease was advertised in accordance with the process required in section 49 of the Conservation Act 1987. The proposed new lease was advertised in the public notices of four regional newspapers (Christchurch Press, Auckland Herald, Wellington Dominion Post, and Otago Daily Times) on Saturday 19th February 2022. The period of time for the making submissions was the required 40 working days with a closing date of 27 April 2022.

4.2 The staff report noted that:

· Consultation was open on the Council Have Your Say website from 21 February 2022 to 27 April 2022;

· Information was sent to approximately 30 stakeholder groups and individuals and three adjacent property owners; and

· Signage advertised the consultation at the start of the Bridle Path near the lower gondola terminal, and in three key locations including track access and the Summit Road at the top. Posters were put up inside both terminal buildings.

5. Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

5.1 In briefing the Panel staff provided a summary of the submissions received. The Panel heard that:

5.1.1 Of the sixteen submissions received, eleven indicated support for the proposed new lease, while five did not support this. Fourteen provided additional comments in support of their submission.

5.1.2 Of the four submitters who originally indicated that they wished to be heard by the Panel, only one reconfirmed their wish to speak in support of their submission.

5.1.3 Several of those supporting the new lease highlighted the gondola’s role as a key Christchurch attraction, and three others commented in appreciation of the annual passes and local value in exercise options from the top terminal down. Another requested associated mountain bike track development.

5.1.4 There were a number of comments about the use of the facility from submitters both in support and in opposition to the new lease, four highlighting its current under-use with suggestions for a range of additional activities to attract more custom and provide better value for money. Three suggested cheaper rates for locals.

5.1.5 Another two considered the terminal and surrounding area should be available for other community and educational activities, one also highlighting environmental outcomes and community partnership opportunities.

5.1.6 There were two opposing submitter requests for themselves or others to use the terminal facility and surrounding area for a range of community activities and wider use, including a request from the Port Hills Foundation Charitable Trust to occupy the site.

5.1.7 Two commented with strong concerns that the museum display is out of scope and inappropriate, believing that it is not inclusive and does not recognise tangata whenua.

5.1.8 Other comments and suggestions from those in opposition to the proposal include an assertion that a 30 year lease period is too long. Another provided conditional support while asking that no precedent should be set for further development on Crown Land.

5.1.9 Two others indicating opposition think dogs should be allowed on the gondola to use the tracks, while another two would like to see mountain bikes taken up as a condition of the lease.

5.1.10 Several submitters gave a range of suggestions for improvements to access and facilities such as the café and restaurant with a view, longer hours, children’s and social activities. One submitter opposing the new lease identified the use of plastic cutlery as demonstrating no concern for reducing plastic waste in Christchurch.

5.2 The following key points were made by the five submitters in opposition to the proposed new ground lease:

5.2.1 The new lease should be available to other community groups.

5.2.2 There should be an opportunity for new people to compete with the current operators.

5.2.3 The proposed 30 year lease term is too long.

5.2.4 Single use plastic cutlery not showing concern for reducing plastic waste.

5.2.5 The gondola and use of the top building has a lot of room for improvements – new operators with new ideas, lower prices, transporting dogs and bikes, additional facilities, services and hours.

5.2.6 The museum experience is Eurocentric.

5.2.7 No real changes to the experience, and the company should be encouraged to keep up with new knowledge and consult with local stakeholders on their proposals.

5.3 Many of the suggestions and concerns raised in the feedback were considered by Council staff to relate to the operation of the gondola experience, rather than directly to the proposed granting of a new ground lease for the gondola top terminal building.

5.4 However, where possible, staff have responded to the comments, or sought further advice, and this is detailed in the tables on pages 10-13 of the Hearings Panel Agenda (link provided below).

6. The Hearing Te Hui

6.1 The Hearings Panel consisted of the Chairperson Councillor Sara Templeton, Councillor James Gough and Councillor Melanie Coker. The Hearings Panel convened on Friday 15 July 2022 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

6.2 Prior to hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposal and presented the Hearings Panel with further information in relation to the proposed new ground lease to The Christchurch Gondola Limited over part of Mount Cavendish Reserve.

6.3 Following the hearing of the sole verbal submission, staff were invited back to the table to answer questions.

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

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

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

The alignment between the proposed new lease and current Council policy

7.2.1 The Panel noted the length of time that has passed since the original lease commenced, and whether the proposed new lease has been updated to reflect current Council policy. The Panel used the example of Council’s waste minimisation policy. Staff confirmed that this is the case and gave two examples in relation to waste minimisation requirements. Firstly, the tenant being required to separate waste generated into different streams to reduce landfill (i.e. recycling, organic waste and rubbish). Secondly,

The tenant considering the use of renewable energy (e.g. electricity) over non-renewable energy (gas).

The scope of the lease

7.2.2 The Panel noted the staff advice that many of the comments made by submitters relate to the operation of the general gondola experience, rather than directly to the proposed granting of a new ground lease for the gondola top terminal building. For example, the comments made about the operation of gondola (e.g. carrying dogs and bikes) and the restaurant (hours of operation and dining experience). Staff noted that these are matters which will fall outside the lease conditions and were a commercial decision for the operator to make.

7.2.3 The Panel confirmed with staff that there was nothing in the proposed lease that would prevent The Christchurch Gondola Ltd from operating a restaurant.

Risks arising from the granting of the new lease

7.2.4 The Panel received advice from staff that there are minimal risks to the Council, if any, as the lessee is long established on this site. This includes financial risk to the Council.

7.2.5 However, staff also advised (as set out in their report) that there is a very significant risk to The Christchurch Gondola Company Limited if the proposed new lease is declined, as under the terms of the current lease, the lessee would be required to vacate Mount Cavendish Reserve, and:

a. The gondola experience would not be able to operate, and the aerial cableway and lower terminal building would be rendered inoperative.

b. The Council may require the lessee to remove its improvements at their own cost and with no compensation payable.

c. The lessee may otherwise have to forfeit its improvements to the Council with no compensation payable.

Engagement and collaboration with mana whenua

7.2.6 The Hearings Panel noted the importance of the Council’s relationship with mana whenua. In response to questions from the Panel around engagement with mana whenua staff noted that Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd were provided with information prior to the public consultation opening date, and that they sought confirmation from Council staff that the lease renewal was with the Council, with The Christchurch Gondola Limited being the lessee. Upon confirmation, Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd subsequently advised that no further consultation with mana whenua would be required at that time. A copy of the correspondence was tabled by staff and is attached to the minutes (refer to the link below).

7.2.7 The Hearings Panel requested that staff keep Councillors up to date with any collaboration between the Council, mana whenua, and The Christchurch Gondola Ltd. This includes the engagement that The Christchurch Gondola Ltd is currently undertaking with Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke on the redevelopment of the museum experience within the top terminal building.

8. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/07/RAHPC_20220715_AGN_8108_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/07/RAHPC_20220715_MIN_8108_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/07/RAHPC_20220715_AGN_8108_AT.PDF
Have Your Say Webpage	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/485

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author David Corlett – Committee and Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Sara Templeton - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - RPS4324-01- The Christchurch Gondola Limited - Lease Plan - Mount Cavendish Reserve	168

Council

15 September 2022

16. Emissions offsetting - ETS application
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1110486
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Sophie Meares, Senior Legal Counsel, sophie.meares@ccc.govt.nz Carey Graydon, Senior Policy Analyst, carey.graydon@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance, lynn.mclelland@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision to enter eligible land at Te Oka Reserve in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

1.2 On 2 November 2017 the Council adopted a target for Council to have net-zero operational emissions by 2030 (2030 Net-Zero Target). The Council’s approach is to first prioritise reducing greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible (e.g. through the Resource Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction programme and initiatives in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan) before considering offsetting.

1.3 Approximately 23,000 tonnes of emissions will likely still need to be offset at 2030 and every year thereafter (noting half of the Council’s emissions currently arise from wastewater treatment which is currently difficult to reduce, and which may sit with the new entity). Consequently, staff have been investigating opportunities to offset the Council’s unavoidable emissions.

1.4 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, given that it gives effect to the 2030 Net‑Zero Target and requires no change to the existing Te Oka Reserve Management Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Confirm registration of eligible land at Te Oka Reserve in the Emissions Trading Scheme.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Regenerating native forest has been identified as a good way to offset greenhouse gas emissions while supporting multiple outcomes such as carbon removal, biodiversity protection, erosion control, recreation and amenity. One of the most robust ways to offset emissions is using the official route provided by the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as questions of quality and verifiability still exist with the New Zealand voluntary carbon market.

3.2 Te Oka Reserve was identified as an area of Council land with regenerating native forest that is potentially eligible for ETS registration. Upon receiving updated advice on the eligibility and application requirements (discussed below), Council staff submitted an application to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) who administers the ETS to register 304.7ha of eligible land in Te Oka ahead of the 30June 2022 deadline. Submitting the application by June 2022 enables the Council to potentially gain carbon credits for the last five years of growth due to MPI’s reporting period deadlines.

3.3 A Council decision is now required to confirm the registration. If the Council does not approve of the registering the land, the application awaiting MPI processing can be withdrawn.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do not register land in ETS:b

4.1.1 This would likely result in the Council failing to meet the 2030 Net‑Zero Target due to residual emissions that are too hard to reduce or remove;

4.1.2 This would also represent a missed opportunity – the native regeneration at Te Oka is eligible for the ETS and therefore if it is not registered, the Council will miss the opportunity to accrue these credits.

4.2 Buy credits either now or in 2030 when required:

4.2.1 This is not recommended when we have the current opportunity available at low cost to Council.

4.2.2 There is significant uncertainty about the forecast carbon price in 2030.

4.2.3 No co-benefits associated with this option.

4.3 Buy credits from a voluntary scheme (likely less costly than the ETS):

4.3.1 Voluntary schemes can be difficult to verify for authenticity of the offsets.

4.3.2 The ETS is the preferred scheme as it is the recognised offsetting scheme for New Zealand.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Council powers to register land in the ETS

5.1 The Council is the registered owner of Te Oka Reserve, and it is also the “administering body” for the purposes of the Reserves Act.

5.2 The power to register Council’s land is set out in section 57 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (emphasis added):

57 Applicant to be registered as participant in respect of activities listed in Schedule 4

(1) A person who carries out an activity listed in Schedule 4, or who will do so at the time that the person’s registration takes effect, may apply to be registered as a participant in respect of the activity by application to the EPA in accordance with subsection (2).

5.3 Regenerating native forest on Council land is a “Schedule 4” activity:

Part 1

Forestry removal activities

…

Owning post-1989 forest land, other than post-1989 forest land that is subject to a forest sink covenant registered under section 67ZD of the Forests Act 1949.

5.4 This decision would come under the terms of reference of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee,^{^[1]} however, given that there are no further meetings for this Committee prior to the election, and a decision is required before the election, the Council should make the decision.

Delegations

5.5 There are no existing delegations that would enable the decision to enter Council land to occur at a level lower than Council.

5.6 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board is delegated all relevant administration/lease/licence powers for Te Oka. However, the Delegations Policy provides that “a question may arise about whether an issue is inherently local or has implications beyond the boundaries of a Community Board” and that the decision-making should be allocated to Council if:

the nature of the activity is such that decision-making on a district-wide basis will better promote the interests of all communities, having regard to the following factors –

· the impact of the decision (will it extend beyond the Community Board area); and/or

· effective decision-making (will the decision require alignment or integration with other decisions that are the responsibility of the Council); and/or

· the benefits of a consistent or co-ordinated approach in the Council’s district (will these outweigh the benefits of reflecting the particular needs and preferences of the communities within the Community Board area); and/or

· the significance of the activity (as assessed in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

If the allocation of decision-making responsibilities becomes an issue to be dealt with by application of the principles referred to above, it must first be raised with the General Manager responsible for the activity proposed. Any recommendations to be made will be approved by the Executive Leadership Team before being considered by the Council, which will decide whether or not a matter should be dealt with by the Council as a whole, rather than a Community Board.

5.7 The decision to enter land into the ETS to earn credits for the purpose of offsetting Council operational emissions “extends beyond the Community Board area”, requires “alignment with other decisions” (namely the 2030 Net-Zero Target), and would benefit from a co‑ordinated approach so that it can be applied to Council land other than Te Oka.

5.8 Therefore in line with the Delegations Register, Lynn McClelland (as the GM responsible for the Climate Resilience Strategy), and ELT, approved the issue being considered by the Council, rather than the Community Board.

5.9 Given that Te Oka Reserve is in the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board rohe, the Board has been notified of the intention to seek a Council decision for entry of the land.

Eligible land

5.10 The eligible land comprises 304.7 hectares, as shown by the green highlighted area in the map below. Orion staff assisted Council to prepare this mapping.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This decision helps to implement Kia tūroa te Ao – Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy by progressing work to achieve the 2030 Net-Zero Target.

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: 17.0.23.2 Support and advice for organizations on resource efficiency and greenhouse gas emission measurement or reduction. - Deliver a greenhouse gas emission report for Council's activities for each financial year.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including the Te Oka Reserve Management Plan and the Delegations Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 Impact on mana whenua is positive given the co-benefits of reinforcing native forest regeneration.

6.5 Papatipu Rūnanga input was sought on the Council’s Kia tūroa te Ao – Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy. This decision implements that Strategy.

6.6 The relevant rūnanga for the Te Oka takiwā is Wairewa Rūnanga. Registration of Te Oka with the ETS and regenerating native forest in Te Oka is consistent with the Te Oka Reserve Management Plan 2019, on which input was sought from Wairewa Rūnanga through Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 This decision helps implement the Council’s Kia tūroa te Ao – Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 Access to Te Oka Reserve will not be affected by this decision. Access will continue to be managed in line with the Te Oka Reserve Management Plan.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $562.22 application fee.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Ongoing management of the ETS register will be dealt with by staff. Specialist assistance, and/or resources may be necessary for the mapping required for ongoing ETS voluntary returns in order to qualify for credits.

7.3 Funding Source – Registration costs met through operational funding.

Other

7.4 Credits generated can be retired to offset emissions to meet the 2030 Net-Zero Target, in lieu of purchasing ETS credits, or purchasing other credits in voluntary offsetting schemes.

7.5 If additional credits are earned that are not required (if Council’s operational emissions are reduced through other means), these credits can be sold, with the potential to use the funds for biodiversity initiatives or other uses.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Delegations issue explained in the body of this Report.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 Ongoing legal advice will be provided to ensure compliance with ETS requirements.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 N/A

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
Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy, Goal 1	https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/Climate-Change/Otautahi-Christchurch-Climate-Resilience-Strategy.pdf
Te Oka Reserve Management Plan 2019	https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/park-management-plans/te-oka-reserve/
MPI factsheet: “About forest land in the ETS”	https://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/forestry-in-the-emissions-trading-scheme/about-forest-land-in-the-ets/

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

Sophie Meares - Senior Legal Counsel

Carey Graydon - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Kay Holder - Manager Regional Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 September 2022

17. Application for remission of Development Contributions - The Canterbury Brain Collective and The Cancer Society
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/786991
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katrina Mansell, Team Leader, Development Support, Planning and Consents, katrina.mansell@ccc.govt.nz Gavin Thomas, Principal Advisor Economic Policy, gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with information to assist in making a decision on whether to approve or decline requests for Development Contributions remissions from two separate Charitable Trusts. These are:

· The Canterbury Brain Collective which has been levied development contributions of $57,608.10 including GST, and;

· The Cancer Society Of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Incorporated which has been levied development contributions of $250,860.13.

1.2 Both organisations are asking Council to remit development contributions under clause 6.3.2 of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy 2021 which provides for the remission of development contributions in “unique and compelling circumstances”.

1.3 The decisions sought in this report are considered to be of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by consideration of the financial impact of foregoing development contribution revenue for the two developments against the Council’s overall development contribution revenue and the impact on rates this would entail.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Postpone a decision on the request for a remission for the Canterbury Brain Collective and the Cancer Society Of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Incorporated pending the outcome of resolutions 2 and 3 below.

2. Agree to staff progressing a postponement of payment of development contributions for the Canterbury Brain Collective and the Cancer Society Of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Incorporated for up to six months (being 15^th March 2023).

3. Request staff to urgently prepare a rebate policy for consideration by the Council to provide for community organisations which provide a community service and are charitable/not for profit to be eligible for development contribution rebates.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The report recommendation is staff’s interpretation of clause 6.3.2 of the Development Contributions Policy.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Approve the request for a remission of development contributions.

Advantages	Disadvantages
It would reduce development costs for both organisations	May set a precedent regarding the use of the remission provision of the Development Contributions Policy for other charitable organisations.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

BrainTree Wellness Centre

5.1 The Canterbury Brain Collective Limited’s BrainTree Wellness Centre is a facility that will provide tailored space to a range of organisations to promote lifestyle changes to clients to reduce the risk of being diagnosed with a neurological condition, help people post diagnosis to live well, and to provide support for carers, partners and whanau.

5.2 The facility has two parts; offices from which Dementia Canterbury, Multiple Sclerosis / Parkinsons Canterbury, Stroke Foundation and other similar organisations will provide specialised services; and secondly, the majority of the space being ‘community space’ including meeting rooms, studios for physical activity and art/craft, plus a social area including a café.

5.3 The offices will be rented to neuro-related charitable organisations at a heavily subsidised rate ($250/m2). There will be no charge for the use of the community spaces by these groups. The community spaces will also be available to the local community at a nominal charge.

5.4 The Canterbury Brain Collective Limited’s request for remission of development contributions points out that the Council’s existing community spaces don’t cater for the special needs of those who will use the facility. Likewise, the Canterbury District Health Board (now Health New Zealand) does not provide any such facilities, with provision being left to the community to support this group.

5.5 The number of people diagnosed with neuro conditions in the Canterbury region is expected to double to 30,000 over the next 20 years. Recent research points to 1:2 women and 1:3 men being diagnosed with a neuro condition in their lifetime. There is growing evidence that lifestyle changes can reduce the risk dramatically. The Canterbury Brain Collective believes the model of care provided by its Wellness Centre will be a NZ first, if not world first.

5.6 The project has not received any Government funding. The Directors have given thousands of hours to drive the project and help make the land acquisition, fundraising and building project come to a successful conclusion. Suppliers, contractors and consultants to the project have given significant donations in-kind, exceeding $1m, and the total funds raised is approaching $6m.

5.7 The Council has previously provided this project with a grant of $100,000 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund.

Cancer Society

5.8 Prior to 2011, the Cancer Society delivered services from a multi-purpose Community Centre in Manchester Street and purpose-built accommodation facility (Davidson House) on Cambridge Terrace. The 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes had a massive impact on both facilities. The accommodation facility was acquired by the Crown as part of the Eastern Frame and the Community Centre was damaged beyond feasible repair.

5.9 Since 2011, the Cancer Society has provided patient accommodation services in Christchurch from two older style motels (Riccarton Rd and Papanui Rd) and is currently delivering community and regional administration services from a rented building in Fitzgerald Ave.

5.10 The Cancer Society Project will provide a purpose-built facility, bringing all services under one roof. The accommodation facility will offer a home away from home for cancer patients receiving cancer treatment at Christchurch Hospital. This facility has been designed to meet the specific needs of those receiving treatment and will cater to the increasing demand for the foreseeable future. The facility has 50 individual accommodation units and a wide range of shared amenities.

5.11 The administration centre will house the function centre and Cancer Society administrative office. The function centre will help the Cancer Society deliver their community outreach/support programmes to cancer patients, their family and whānau.

5.12 The Cancer Society provides accommodation and free support services to anyone who is planning or receiving treatment for cancer. The Cancer Society also offers a range of free health promotion and cancer prevention programmes to schools, workplaces and the general public. In addition, financial and practical support with a wide range of cancer research, locally and nationally, is offered.

5.13 The Cancer Society of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Inc. does not receive any direct government funding year on year. The majority of their funding comes from bequests, donations, Daffodil Day and other fundraising activities.

5.14 The facility (and services delivered from it) will be able to be used by any resident in need of those services, thereby providing a potentially significant wellbeing benefit to those in need. The facility will enhance Christchurch’s position as the main healthcare and wellness centre for the South Island.

6. Development Contributions Policy

6.1 The Council requires development contributions in accordance with Sections 197, 198(2) and 199 of the Local Government Act and in accordance with its Development Contributions Policy. Development contributions enable the Council to require developers to make a fair contribution towards the provision of growth infrastructure. Without this revenue stream these costs would fall entirely on ratepayers.

6.2 The Council’s Development Contributions Policy does not provide for specific remissions from the requirements to pay Development Contributions. However clause 3.6.2 states “This DCP does provide for the Council, at its sole discretion, to consider and grant remission and/or reductions in unique and compelling circumstances.”

6.3 The Council has in the past received requests for the remission of development contributions from a range of developers for a variety of development types. In the last seven years only one application has been approved. This was to adapt and reuse Spreydon Lodge as a café/restaurant as part of Halswell Commons.

6.4 The Council should, however, treat each request on its own merits but should be clear, if agreeing to a remission, why a particular development is regarded as constituting “unique and compelling circumstances”

7. Comment

7.1 While both these organisations provide a great community service, applications for remissions are required to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Contributions Policy.

7.2 The Development Contributions Policy states that the Council can only remit payment of development contributions in unique and compelling circumstances. The term ‘unique and compelling’ is not defined in the Development Contributions Policy. However, a dictionary definition describes ‘unique’ as ‘having no like or equal’ ‘remarkable’ or ‘unusual and ‘compelling’ as ‘not able to be refuted’ convincing’ or ‘persuasive’. The decision for the Council is largely based on whether it considers a specific situation to be unique and compelling in the sense that it is such a remarkable case that it justifies a remission to be granted. Staff consider that while both of these applications are compelling, they are not unique, and other charitable trusts and community organisations have been levied development contributions in the past.

7.3 While staff consider these proposals not to meet the criteria for a remission, Council have previously discussed a rebate being applied to community organisations. The Council’s Strategic Policy Team do have preparation of this rebate on their work programme, but it is yet to be brought to Council to consider. This work can be fast tracked with a report likely to be brought to Council before the end of calendar year 2022. A rebate can be applied retrospectively, but that would need to be specified in the rebate policy.

7.4 The Development Contributions Policy also provides express provision to postpone payment with approval of two members of the Executive Leadership Team. The payment of the development contribution could be postponed pending Council’s consideration of the rebate policy.

8. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

8.1.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Development Contributions Policy 2021 allows the Council to postpone development contribution payments.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.4 Not applicable.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.5 Both facilities have been designed specifically to cater for all requirements of those who will use the facilities, including access considerations.

9. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga RauemiCapex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1 Cost to Implement – Nil.

9.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs –If the development contributions are remitted the amount remitted will need to be funded from rates. As development contributions revenue is largely used to repay debt incurred to fund infrastructure to service growth the cost of the remission will be funded over time as though it is debt.

9.3 Funding Source – rates levied for activities for which development contributions are normally charged.

Other / He mea anō

9.4 N/A

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

10.1 The Development Contributions Policy 2021 provides the Council with the ability to remit development contribution charges. There are no further statutory powers required for the Council to make the decisions sought.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1 Approving a remission may set a precedent and set an expectation that other similar applications be accepted.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	BCN/2021/1019 - Development Contributions - Canterbury Brain Collective, email seeking remission from paying DCs	193
b ⇩	BCN/2021/6947 - Development Contributions - Cancer Society, Development Contributions Remission application	194

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
Development Contributions Policy 2021	https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Policies/Development-contributions/Development-Contributions-Policy-2021.pdf

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Katrina Mansell - Team Leader Development Support

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

15 September 2022

18. Ōtautahi Housing Guild - Community Loan
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1128750
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 & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is seek Council to forgive the repayment of a community loan in favour of the Ōtautahi Housing Guild to the value of $183,600.

1.2 This report has been written following a request by the Ōtautahi Housing Guild.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance primarily to the value of the amount owed to Council, the known risks with granting community loans and the fact that the provision of community loans is a level of service in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan. As a result this has been discussed with community, legal and finance staff as well as with Ōtautahi Housing Guild.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Agree to forgive the entire outstanding balance, being principal and interest, of the community loan granted in favour of the Ōtautahi Housing Guild on 28 November 2019 to the value of 183,600. This is conditional upon:

a. The Ōtautahi Housing Guild agreeing to give the Council its Intellectual Property related to the proposed community housing development on Madras Square.

2. Delegate to the Head of Community Support & Partnerships the authority to make the necessary arrangements to implement this resolution noting that Council’s Legal Services Team will prepare any necessary documentation.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 A review of the balance sheet provided by Ōtautahi Housing Guild confirms they have no means of repayment, they have no cash or assets suitable for funding repayment. Their Balance Sheet dated 31 March 2022 confirms this (Attachment A).

3.2 Ōtautahi Housing Guild have offered to hand over over the Intellectual Property and design assets of the Guild (listed below) in exchange for the loan's forgiveness. These could include:

· Jasmax bulk and location design

· Jasmax design renderings

· Community consultation materials

· Prospective resident co-design materials

· Workshop summary notes

· Development finance summary report

· Project management schedules

· Project Execution Plan

· Company constitution, incorporation documents

· Comms and PR collateral

· Media Strategy

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Council does not forgive the loan. The disadvantage is that the loan would remain on Councils books as a bad debt and a liability, as the Ōtautahi Housing Guild has no means of repayment.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 On 28 November 2019 the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee approved a loan of up to $450,000 for five years at an interest rate of 4.5% pa to assist in the design and other pre-consent costs toward building community housing development on Maras Square. (SARC/2019/00002), below.

5.2 As of 30 June 2022 Ōtautahi Housing Guild has drawn down $180,000 and incurred $3,600 interest, a total of $183,600.

5.3 The loan was used for the approved purpose namely the design and other pre-consent costs toward building community housing development. It was not used for brand development and marketing collateral.

5.4 The ability of Ōtautahi Housing Guild to repay the loan depended on generating sufficient community interest and up-front commitment in the project to purchase the land, or a portion of the land, and subsequently confirm development finance for the build project.

5.5 Ōtautahi Housing Guild were not able to generate sufficient funds to fulfil the conditions of their sale and purchase agreement over the land. The land owners were unable to extend the agreement. The land has now been sold to another party. Accordingly Ōtautahi Housing Guild no longer have a project and have no means of repayment. Their Balance Sheet dated 31 March 2022 confirms this (attachment A).

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

5.6.1 Waikura Linwood Heathcote Central Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together

6.1.1 Te Pou Tuarua: Place

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

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies see sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this report.

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. This is primarily as the decision sought from Council is to forgive a community loan.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 There are no climate change considerations as the decision sought from Council is to forgive a community loan.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 There are no accessibility considerations as the decision sought from Council is to forgive a community loan.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $183,600

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - None

7.3 Funding Source – The recommendation is not directly funded. While forgiving the debt is a non-cash transaction it does result in an equivalent reduction in the community loan reserve available for loans to others in the future.

7.3.1 The Community Loan Reserve is $3,232,403.46. Issued loans total $1,110.575.64. Loans awaiting drawdown total a maximum of $1,150,000, (noting that this may be considerable less as organisations draw down on loan funding when all other third-party funding sources fail). This leaves a minimum of $971,827.82 available as of 25 August 2022.

7.3.2 If Council adopt the recommendation there will be $788,227.82 available in the Community Loan Reserve.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The statutory power to undertake the proposal derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is a legal context in the preparation and execution of documents necessary to forgive the loan and fulfil Council’s resolution. These will be prepared by Councils Legal and democratic Services Unit.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk that Council will incur reputational damage by forgiving a community loan for what, in the view of some commentators, is a central city property development.

9.1.1 This risk is mitigated by the fact that:

· Council was made fully aware of the project risks and choose to take them due to the community-centric nature of what was considered, a particularly innovative project.

· Council structured the loan around the achievement of milestones which resulted in only $180,000 of a $450,000 loan drawn down.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ōtautahi Housing Guild Balance Sheet 2022	204

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 September 2022

19. Heritage Incentive Grants
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1118897
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner, Victoria.Bliss@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 for the Council to consider applications for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the organisations listed below, noting that the recommendations can be accommodated within the funds available.

Applicant	Project Name	Total eligible costs	Amount Recommended
Tug Lyttelton Preservation Society	Conservation, repairs, maintenance and upgrade project	$116,126	$58,063 (50%)
Anglican Parish of Lyttelton	St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity stonework conservation and repair project	$47,838	$25,169 (50%)
Medbury School	Ballantyne House chimney reinstatement and upgrade works	$770,350	$14,999 (requested sum)
10 Brittan Street	Exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project	$35,598	$10,679 (30%)
45 Ranfurly Street	Conservation, repair, upgrade and maintenance project	$322,398	$32,239 (10%)
Baptist Union of New Zealand	98-100 Chester Street East exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project	$90,200	$27,060 (30%)
Totals		$1,382,510	$168,209

1.2 This report is staff generated in response to applications received for Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

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 is determined by the heritage significance of the items, the cultural wellbeing outcomes of the projects, the amount of funding requested, and the fact that Council has approved Heritage Incentive Grant funds for allocation in the 2022/23 financial year. There are no engagement requirements in the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020 for this grant scheme.

1.4 Approval of these grants would support the Community Outcomes: “Resilient Communities”, “Liveable City” and “Prosperous Economy”.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a grant of up to $58,063 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade works to the tugboat ‘Lyttelton’ located in Lyttelton Harbour, Christchurch.

2. Note that the applicants have previously entered into a 10 year limited conservation covenant with the Council, which does not expire until 2029.

3. Approve a grant of up to $25,169 for stonework conservation and repairs for St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity, 17 Winchester Street, Lyttelton.

4. Note that the applicants have previously entered into a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the Council, which does not expire until 2034.

5. Approve a grant of up to $14,999 for reinstatement chimneys and upgrade works at Ballantyne House, 109 Clyde Road, Fendalton, Christchurch.

6. Approve a grant of up to $10,679 for exterior conservation, repair and maintenance works to 10 Brittan Street, Linwood, Christchurch.

7. Approve a grant of up to $32,239 for conservation, repair, upgrade and maintenance works to 45 Ranfurly Street, St Albans, Christchurch.

8. Note that payment of the 45 Ranfurly Street grant is subject to the applicant entering a 10 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

9. Approve a grant of up to $27,060 for exterior conservation, repair and maintenance works at 98-100 Chester Street East, Christchurch.

10. Note that the applicants have previously entered into a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the Council, which does not expire until 2034.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 In summary staff recommend the following grants (see section 5 of this report for a full project description and rationale):

3.1.1 Tug Lyttelton conservation, repairs, maintenance and upgrade project - $58,063 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation and maintenance of the historic vessel and ensures its ongoing public accessibility and use. The upgrade to an electric boiler will reduce carbon emissions from the tug and ensure it remains viable for future generations.

3.1.2 St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity stonework conservation and repair project - $25,169 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation and repair of the last remaining stonework elements of the former Holy Trinity Anglican Church setting, after the highly significant church building was lost during the 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. These elements will be preserved for parishioners, local residents and visitors to the community as part of a larger project to landscape the church and vicarage settings.

3.1.3 Medbury School Ballantyne House chimney reinstatement project - $14,999 (sum requested). This level of funding supports the reinstatement of the two historic chimneys lost in the Canterbury earthquakes, as part of a programme of works to upgrade and reconfigure the scheduled heritage building.

3.1.4 10 Brittan Street exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project - $10,679 (30% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and maintenance of a landmark dwelling in the local streetscape. The dwelling has heritage significance, and the current owners have undertaken extensive works to repair and upgrade the building to ensure it is retained for future generations.

3.1.5 45 Ranfurly Street conservation, repair, upgrade and maintenance project - $32,239 (10% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation, upgrade and repair of a badly damaged scheduled heritage dwelling, which would otherwise have been lost. The current owners have committed a significant investment to undertake the extensive works required to repair and upgrade the building.

3.1.6 98-100 Chester Street East exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project - $27,060 (30% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and maintenance of a landmark dwelling in the central city streetscape. The dwelling has heritage significance, and the current owners are committed to retaining it for future generations.

3.2 Supporting these six applications will enable the diverse heritage of the city and its unique history to be protected, conserved and shared. The projects contribute to the development of a collection of heritage places across Ōtautahi Christchurch which are identified by the community as having heritage significance and meaning to them. This contributes to a distinctive identity, character and sense of place for the city and its communities.

3.3 Approving the recommended grants will enable the Council to support communities to protect our heritage, meet the vision of “Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019 -2029” and achieve the purpose of heritage incentive grants “… to incentivise owners and kaitiaki to undertake works to protect, maintain, repair and upgrade heritage buildings, places structures and objects.” (17 December 2020, SACRC/2020/00046).

3.4 These projects will have a wide and diverse reach: they include engagement with multiple communities and groups across the city, and are accessible for people of all ages and abilities. Approving grant contributions for the eligible components of works to conserve these heritage buildings, items and structures will contribute to the Council’s aim to maintain and protect built, cultural, natural, and significant moveable heritage items, areas, and values.

3.5 The recommended grants align with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020) and can be accommodated within the available budget.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Tug Lyttelton conservation, maintenance and upgrade project

Option 1: Grant funding of $29,031 (25% eligible works): this level of funding would support the maintenance and conservation works necessary to ensure the Tug is able to operate. However, it would not support the upgrade to an electric boiler, which staff support as it will reduce the Tug’s carbon emissions and maintain the health of Whakaraupō harbour.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the Society to retro fit and adapt the vessel to improve its carbon rating and reduce emissions.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a highly significant heritage item; would not align with the Heritage Strategy, and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020).

4.2 St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity stonework conservation and repair project

Option 1: Grant funding of $13,835 (25% of eligible works): staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed, or achieve its outcomes with a reduced level of funding. The total project costs are estimated at $93,000 and includes landscaping, re-creation of the former vicarage cottage gardens, re-use of stonework from the lost church and drainage works to the driveway to improve access.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants. Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the parish to complete the larger project, which has community social, economic and cultural wellbeing outcomes.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support a project to preserve elements of a lost community landmark; would not align with the Heritage Strategy, and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020).

4.3 Medbury School Ballantyne House chimney reinstatement and upgrade works project

Option 1: A larger grant award for the eligible works: the applicants have explicitly stated that they do not wish to exceed a grant of $14,999, as a larger sum would trigger the requirement for a Heritage Conservation Covenant, which would apply to their entire site. The only way to avoid this would be to commission a relatively expensive survey to identify a limited part of the site for the covenant to apply to.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

4.4 10 Brittan Street exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project

Option 1: Grant funding of $17,799 (50% eligible works): the building has heritage significance and is a highly visible local landmark, however staff consider this level of funding to be high in terms of the total grant funding available.

Advantages: this level of funding would provide greater support to the preservation and conservation of a significant heritage item.

Disadvantages: a large investment in this project results in less funding being available for allocation to other applicants. This reduces the funding available to provide support for a broad range and diversity of heritage projects.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a significant heritage item; would not align with the Heritage Strategy, and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund - Guidelines (2020).

4.5 45 Ranfurly Street conservation, repair, upgrade and maintenance project

Option 1: Grant funding of $80,599 (25% eligible works): the building has heritage significance, and high craftsmanship significance, however staff consider this level of funding to be high in terms of the total grant funding available.

Advantages: this level of funding would provide greater support to the preservation and conservation of a significant heritage item.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

4.6 98-100 Chester Street East exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project - $27,060 (30%)

Option 1: Grant funding of $45,100 (50% eligible works): the building has heritage significance and is a highly visible local landmark, however staff consider this level of funding to be high in terms of the total grant funding available.

Advantages: this level of funding would provide greater support to the preservation and conservation of a significant heritage item.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Tug Lyttelton conservation, maintenance and upgrade project

5.1 The applicant for the grant is the ‘Tug Lyttelton Preservation Society’.

The Project

5.2 The Tug ‘Lyttelton’ is a 112 year old tug boat built in 1907 for the Lyttelton Harbour Board. It has operated in Lyttelton since this time and was in use as a functioning tug until 1971. The tug is not scheduled in the District Plan as it does not have a fixed address and/or a property title. See the attached Draft Historical Statement (Attachment A).

5.3 The Tug Preservation Trust was formed to save the Tug in 1971. They initially hired the Tug from the Harbour Board, an arrangement which lasted for 15 years. The Society converted the Tug to be able to carry passengers and gained a New Zealand Marine Department Passenger Survey Certificate. The Tug operated successfully as a visitor attraction from 1973 onwards, making regular trips to Akaroa, out to sea along the coast to New Brighton, and cruising the Lyttelton Harbour. The vessel was gifted to the Society formally on 2 June 1989.

5.4 The ‘Lyttelton’ is one of only three fully-operational steam powered ships in New Zealand, and is a visitor attraction to the area. The vessel is a notable feature in the harbour scene and a frequent backdrop to the townscape of Lyttelton.

5.5 As a passenger boat, the Tug has been largely a self-funded operation, relying on enthusiastic volunteers for maintenance and revenue from passenger services and event hire. The Tug has been maintained to a high standard by the Society and its volunteers. However, the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic has greatly reduced the ability of the Society to operate. The 35 sailings a year they require to be viable has for the past two years been reduced to only 8 per season. As a result their income has been significantly reduced.

‘Lyttelton’ on passenger service. Photo Nick Tolerton, Tug Lyttelton Preservation Society.

(B. Smyth, 2020)

The Grant Application

5.6 The Tug requires repairs, conservation and maintenance works to ensure she is able to meet the certification process for operating as a passenger vessel. The Society are also seeking funding to upgrade the Tug with the fitting of an electrical heating system. The eligible costs for the project total $116,126 and include:

o replacement of the smoke box and smoke box doors

o servicing

o hull plate repairs

o air stack repairs

o gallery overboard penetration replacement

o electrical heating system

o dry dock expenses

5.7 The Society are seeking to upgrade the Tug with the fitting of an electrical heating system. They estimate that the electric boiler will reduce their use of coal by approximately 60%, by maintaining the engine temperature between sailings. Upgrade works and essential services are provided for in the grant Guidelines, although these usually relate to structural or code compliance upgrades. Staff note that this is an exceptional case and that the engine and boiler are unique to this form of moveable heritage, and are recommending funding of these upgrades.

5.8 A Heritage Incentive Grant of $41,620 was awarded to the ‘Lyttelton’ for conservation and maintenance works in September 2019 (SOC/2019/00058). The Guidelines for the grant scheme allow for additional grants to be awarded within a five year period where ‘essential unforeseen maintenance or repairs are identified’, or ‘essential works are necessitated by natural events’. In the case of the ‘Lyttelton’, the harsh marine environment combined with reduced use and inability of the volunteers to undertake maintenance during the pandemic has resulted in these additional repair works becoming necessary. Staff are supporting the grant funding for the upgrade works while the vessel is out of operation for the essential repairs, as there are long term environmental benefits.

5.9 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020, see: https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Heritage/Heritage-Incentive-Grant-Fund-Guidelines-2020.pdf The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.10.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

5.10.2 It is noted that Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area in which the tug is located.

St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity stonework conservation and repair project

5.11 The applicant for the grant is the Anglican Parish of Lyttelton.

The Project

5.12 The relocation of Saviour’s Church to 17 Winchester Street, Lyttelton, incorporating salvaged architectural elements of the quake-demolished Holy Trinity Church that was formerly at this site, tells a remarkable story of ecclesiastical heritage survival and improvisation following the total loss of Lyttelton’s historic churches in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes. See the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment B).

5.13 There still remain in the setting the original stone walls which date from the construction of the now lost Holy Trinity Church – these include the walls along Winchester Street and around the corner onto Canterbury Street. One of the two original stone columns requires repair; the second needs to be rebuilt, and the entrance gates require replication and reinstatement. Further smaller stone walls between the church and the vicarage, also require repair and conservation if they are to be retained. These items represent the landmark street frontage of the lost church, and evoke and retain memories of the former building on the site

5.14 The stonework repairs are part of a larger project to reinstate the once well-known vicarage cottage garden, and to develop appropriate landscaping around the setting of the relocated St Saviour’s Church building. Other works include improving drainage on the site, improving accessibility with paving upgrades and accessible parking, and a new driveway and turning circle for funeral vehicles. This is the final phase of the post-earthquake works to reinstate an Anglican church to the site.

5.15 The total costs for the project are in excess of $93,000 and once completed will provide visitors to the church with landscaped garden areas for use by the community, for public events, and for peaceful contemplation.

Holy Trinity Church before its collapse in 2011 The relocated St Saviour’s Church on the Holy Trinity site

The Grant Application

5.16 The application is seeking funding to repair and conserve the remaining stonework of the original Holy trinity Church. The eligible costs for the project total $47,838 and include:

o stonework repairs

o reinstatement of the lost gates

o rebuilding of the collapsed column

o site preparation, set up and security

o resource consent fee

Images of the failing and damaged stonework requiring repair and conservation

5.17 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.18.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

5.18.2 It is noted that Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

5.19 A letter of support has been provided by Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

Medbury School Ballantyne House chimney reinstatement project

5.20 The applicant for the grant is Medbury School, the owners of Ballantyne House.

The Project

5.21 Located at 109 Clyde Road, Fendalton, Ballantyne House is a Significant Heritage item. Formerly the home of the Ballantyne family, it has been the core of Medbury School since 1923. Originally constructed in 1900, it was designed by the architect RA Ballantyne for his mother, Mary. It was purchased for use as a school 23 years later, where it housed the first nine pupils and the founder’s family.

5.22 The dwelling has architectural and aesthetic significance, and contextual significance within the school complex, as well as being a focal point on a prominent corner site. See the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment C).

5.23 The school are currently undertaking a major programme of works to upgrade, alter and repair the building to make it more suitable for its current use as the administration block, and to meet modern needs and code requirements. This includes fire compliance upgrades and a sprinkler system, accessibility upgrades, structural upgrades, roofing repairs and repairs to the exterior windows and joinery. During these works, they are intending to reinstate two of the large feature chimneys which were lost in the 2010-11 earthquakes.

5.24 The chimneys were a highly decorative architectural element of the dwelling’s design, and staff support the reinstatement of these lost heritage elements. A Resource consent for the works has been approved.

(M. Vair-Piova, 2015)

The Grant Application

5.25 The application is seeking funding to reinstate two of the lost chimneys.

5.26 The total eligible costs for the project, including the upgrades and chimney reinstatement are in excess of $770,000. However, the applicants have requested a grant of $14,999 as the sum they require to enable them to undertake the chimney reinstatement works.

NE elevation Medbury 3 Screenshot 2022-07-17 164735

Details showing the lost chimneys, and of the proposed replacements (CCC TRIM files)

5.27 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.28.1 Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

5.28.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

10 Brittan Street exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project

5.29 The applicant for the grant is the dwelling’s owner.

The Project

5.30 The dwelling at 10 Brittan Street sits prominently raised above the street level, on top of a sandbank. These sandbanks are a characteristic feature of Linwood. Due to its location and prominence, the villa and garden are a visible landmark in the area.

5.31 Constructed around 1902, it is of historical and social significance for its association with the Bickerton and Kennedy families, the Linwood Orchestra, and mountaineer and teacher William Kennedy who made an important contribution to Christchurch and Canterbury mountaineering. The lounge room is of particular note: it was specifically designed for good acoustic qualities to provide for music appreciation, with tanned sheepskins tacked between the lathe and plaster walls to improve the acoustics. See the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment D).

5.32 The current owners and applicants for the grant purchased the property in 2020, and have made a significant investment to repair and restore the dwelling to ensure it’s structural integrity. Throughout the works they have taken a conservation approach, to retain the maximum possible heritage fabric and values. They are now seeking a grant to assist with maintenance works, to ensure the exterior of the dwelling and the retaining walls which support it remain weather proof and to protect and retain original heritage fabric.

Image supplied by applicant

5.33 Letters of support for the project, and evidence of the heritage significance of the dwelling have been provided by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and the Christchurch Heritage Trust.

5.34 The owner has recently been awarded the 2022 Community Pride in recognition of their efforts to contribute to the visual and amenity value of the neighbourhood.

The Grant Application

5.35 The application is seeking funding for exterior conservation, repair and maintenance works. The eligible costs for the project total $35,598 and include:

o exterior repainting

o repairs to and strengthening of the retaining walls

o site preparation, set up and security

5.36 These works will contribute to the retention of the dwelling as a prominent and visually distinct local landmark in Linwood. The works will also ensure its architectural, craftsmanship, historical and social values are retained for the community.

5.37 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.38.1 Waikura/Linwood – Central – Heathcote.

5.38.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

45 Ranfurly Street conservation, repair, upgrade and maintenance project

5.39 The applicants for the grant are the dwelling’s owners.

The Project

5.40 The dwelling at 45 Ranfurly Street is scheduled as a Significant Heritage Item and registered as a Category 1 Historic Place with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Located in a residential street, the house is publically visible from the street, and is a heritage landmark in the local neighbourhood. Constructed in 1899, it has high craftsmanship significance for the quality of its construction, especially the moulded brickwork details, corbelled eaves, decorative cast iron veranda frieze and brackets. See the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment E).

5.41 The dwelling was severely damaged in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes, and has been at risk of loss since that time. It was recently auctioned, and staff received a number of enquiries from developers about the demolition process for the site and redevelopment opportunities.

5.42 The current owners purchased the property at auction, with the intention to repair, conserve and restore the historic dwelling as a family home.

5.43 They are committing a significant investment to repair the badly damaged dwelling, which could otherwise have been lost. The extensive works required to repair and upgrade the building are in excess of $1,200,000. They are seeking grant funding to support some elements of the heritage related works, which total $370,358. These are works which are required in addition to the structural upgrades and earthquake repairs, to retain, conserve and restore the heritage fabric and values of the building.

5.44 Once completed, the works will ensure the retention of the heritage dwelling, and it’s ongoing contribution to the visual and amenity value of the neighbourhood.

Image from HNZPT showing 45 Ranfurly Street before the earthquake damage occurred.

The dwelling in 2019 (F. Wykes)

The Grant Application

5.45 The application is seeking funding to support the repair and conservation of elements of the original heritage fabric which are noted as contributing to the high craftsmanship significance of the dwelling, and which are most visually prominent from the street. These eligible costs for the project total $370,358 and include:

· retention, repair and repointing of the original exterior brickwork façade

· reinstatement of the lost chimney

· repairs to and strengthening of the original veranda

· professional fees

5.46 These works will contribute to the retention of the dwelling as a prominent and visually accessible local landmark in St Albans. The supported works will also ensure its architectural, craftsmanship, historical and social values are retained for the community.

5.47 Other works are being funded privately by the owners of the dwelling (the applicants).

5.48 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

5.49 Support for the project has been provided by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

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

5.50.1 Waipapa/Papanui-Innes.

5.50.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

98-11 Chester Street East exterior conservation, repair and maintenance project

5.51 The applicants for the grant are the dwelling’s owners, the Baptist Union of New Zealand on trust for Oxford terrace Baptist Church.

The Project

5.52 The dwellings at 98-100 Chester Street East are scheduled as a Significant Heritage Items, and registered as a Category II Historic Places with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Located in a residential street, the houses are publically visible from the street, and are a heritage landmark in the local neighbourhood with considerable townscape significance.

5.53 The semi-detached townhouses, constructed as part of a residential development in the 1890s, have ornate detailing including leadlight fanlights and eaves corbelling. They are in proximity to other heritage items including the Edmond’s Clock tower, the avenue of Poplars and the telephone kiosk, so form part of a collection of heritage items in this area of the central city. See the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment F).

5.54 The dwellings underwent significant repair, upgrade and conservation works following the damage they sustained in the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010-11. They now require maintenance works and repainting to maintain the weather tightness of the timber weatherboard exteriors, and timber joinery.

5.55 Once completed, the works will ensure the retention of the heritage dwellings, and their ongoing contribution to the visual and amenity value of the neighbourhood.

Kete, CCC libraries, 2009)

(B. Smyth, 2015 following repairs)

The Grant Application

5.56 The application is seeking funding for exterior conservation, repair and maintenance works. The eligible costs for the project total $90,200 and include:

o exterior repainting

o scaffolding

o site preparation, set up and security

5.57 These works will contribute to the ongoing protection and retention of the dwellings, and their viable use. They will ensure the heritage items are conserved as prominent and visually distinct local landmarks in the central city, for residents and visitors to appreciate.

5.58 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.59.1 Waikura/Linwood – Central – Heathcote.

5.59.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme aligns to the Community Outcome “Resilient Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation’ and ‘strong sense of community’. It also supports “Liveable City” – ‘21st century garden city we are proud to live in’ and “Prosperous Economy” – ‘great place for people, business and investment’.

6.2 The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme supports delivery of the overarching strategic principle of “Taking an intergenerational approach to sustainable development, prioritising the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future.” This is because heritage is an intergenerational equity. It contributes to our personal and community sense of identity and belonging, and enhances high levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

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

6.3.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 1.4.2 Effectively administer grants within this Activity (including Heritage Incentive Grants, Enliven Places, Innovation and Sustainability) - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for grants

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3.2 The decision is with Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.3.3 Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

6.3.4 Heritage Incentive Grants Policy –Guidelines 2020

6.3.5 International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 The staff recommendations involve significant decisions in relation to ancestral land and other elements of intrinsic value both for Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions, as well as being relevant to local European history.

6.5 The six papatipu rūnanga hold the mana whenua rights and interests over the district and are partners in the Our Heritage, Our Taonga - Heritage Strategy 2019-2029. Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Wairewa Rūnanga, Ōnuku Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga are primary kaitiaki for the taonga tuku iho of the district. They are guardians for elements of mātauranga Māori reaching back through many generations and are a significant partner in the strategy implementation.

6.6 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga are the Tangata Whenua in the locations of four grant applications, and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area of two applications.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The grants will support the retention of heritage buildings and the embodied energy within them. Retention and reuse of heritage buildings can contribute to emissions reduction and mitigate the effects of climate change. Retaining and reusing existing built stock reduces our carbon footprint and extends the economic life of buildings.

6.8 Grant support for the tug Lyttelton’s electric boiler will reduce its use of coal significantly, and consequently have a positive impact by reducing emissions from the vessel.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 Works eligible for grant funding include accessibility upgrades, in line with the Heritage Strategy’s principle of ‘Accessibility’.

6.10 Three of the grants will support buildings/items which are publically accessible. Three of the grants, although to private residences, support heritage places which are fully visible to the community from the public street.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to implement - the recommendations are for grants of Tug Lyttelton - $58,063; St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity - $25,169; Medbury School Ballantyne House - $14,999; 10 Brittan Street - $10,679; 45 Ranfurly Street - $32,239, and 98-100 Chester Street East - $27,060.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

7.3 Funding Source - Funding Source - The Heritage Incentive Grant fund was an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. Council approved funding to be diverted into this fund from the now closed Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund in 2020. The carry forward of the remaining funds was approved for inclusion in the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan, with the resolution to spread these funds over three financial years, two of which now remain.

7.4 The impact of these grants are as follows:

Total funds for Heritage Incentive Grants (HIG) for the next 2 financial years	$774,130
Total funds for Heritage Incentive Grants for FY23	$387,065
Proposed grant to Tug Lyttelton (50%)	$58,063
Proposed grant to St Saviour’s at Holy Trinity (50%)	$25,169
Proposed grant to Medbury School (Requested sum)	$14,999
Proposed grant to 10 Brittan Street (30%)	$10,679
Proposed grant to 45 Ranfurly Street (10%)	$32,239
Proposed grant to 98 & 100 Chester Street East (30%)	$27,060
Total Remaining HIG Funds for FY22	$218,856
Total Remaining HIG Funds FY22 –FY24	$605,921

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The delegated authority for Heritage Incentive Grants decisions was with the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee but as this committee is no longer sitting, this report is being submitted to Council.

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 grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works; certification by Council staff that the works have been undertaken in alignment with the ICOMOS NZ Charter 2010; presentation of receipts and confirmation of the conservation covenant (if required) having been registered against the property title or on the Personal Properties Securities Register. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Tug 'Lyttelton' Draft Historical statement	222
b ⇩	Attachment B St Saviour's at Holy Trinity Statement of Significance	224
c ⇩	Attachment C Ballantyne House Statement of Significance	228
d ⇩	Attachment D 10 Brittan Street Statement of Significance	232
e ⇩	Attachment E 45 Ranfurly Street Statement of Significance	236
f ⇩	Attachment F 98-100 Chester Street East Statement of Significance	240

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

15 September 2022

20. Intangible Heritage Grants
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/278097
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner, victoria.bliss@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 for the Council to consider applications for funding from the 2022/23 Intangible Heritage Grant Fund (IHG) from the organisations listed below, noting that the recommendations can be accommodated within the funds available.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora	Extending Cultural Competence, Narrative and Communication: the stories of mana whenua and their connection with the site pre-European settlement.	$86,225	$45,000 (50%)
Ferrymead Heritage Park on behalf of the Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated	Archive curation, conservation and digitisation project.	$20,000	$20,000
Totals		$106,225	$65,000

1.2 This report is staff generated in response to applications received for Intangible Heritage Grant funding.

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 is determined by the heritage and cultural wellbeing outcomes of the projects, the amount of funding requested, and the Council having approved Intangible Heritage Grant funds for allocation in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. There are no engagement requirements in the ‘Intangible Heritage Grant Fund - Guidelines 2020’ for this grant scheme.

1.4 Approval of these grants would support the Community Outcomes: “Resilient Communities”, “Liveable City” and “Prosperous Economy”.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a grant of $45,000 from the 2022/23 Intangible Heritage Grant Fund to The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora to support their project ‘Extending Cultural Competence, Narrative and Communication: the stories of mana whenua and their connection with the site pre-European settlement.’

2. Approve a grant of $20,000 from the 2022/23 Intangible Heritage Grant Fund to Ferrymead Heritage Park on behalf of Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated to support their archive curation, conservation and digitisation project.

3. Delegate to the Heritage Team Leader the authority to determine and carry out the administration requirements for these two grants, and to enter into or vary the funding agreements within the limits of the approved grant amount.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 In summary staff recommend the following grants (see section 5 of this report for full project descriptions and rationale):

3.1.1 The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora - $45,000 (c.50% of the requested grant and c.50% of the total project costs). This level of grant funding supports a project to share the pre-European history of the Arts Centre site, and the promotion and celebration of mana whenua and their connection with the site.

3.1.2 Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated - $20,000 (100% of the requested grant and 100% of the total project costs). This level of grant funding supports the preservation of a unique and largely unseen collection of films, glass plates and negatives which document the history and memories of the city. The collection will be made accessible and available online, and preserved for future generations.

3.2 Supporting these two applications will enable the diverse stories of the city and its unique history to be recorded and shared in innovative ways. The projects contribute to the development of a collection of stories and memories relating to heritage places across Ōtautahi Christchurch. These will be accessible through a variety of sources, including the Christchurch Libraries’ ‘Canterbury Stories’. The projects will provide free and accessible resources to celebrate and promote heritage, connecting people to the places they visit and to each other. This contributes to a distinctive identity, character and sense of place for the city and its communities.

3.3 Approving the recommended grants will enable the Council to support communities to protect and celebrate their taonga. It will meet the vision of “Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019 -2029”, and achieve the purpose of intangible heritage grants: “… to support communities, groups and individuals to practice the principles of Kaitiakitanga and Manaakitanga and to share their own stories and histories…” (17^th December 2020, SACRC/2020/00047).

3.4 These projects will have a wide and diverse reach: they include engagement with youth, locals and visitors, and are accessible for people of all ages and abilities.

3.5 The recommended grants align with the Intangible Heritage Grant Fund (IHG) Guidelines 2020 and can be accommodated within the available budget.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora

Option 1: Grant funding of $86,225 (100% of the total project costs): staff consider this project vital to address the issue of a mono-cultural perspective with regards to published histories of the site, and to implement the partnership of the Heritage Strategy. However, this level of funding is high in terms of the total grant funding available. It is hoped that, given the clear benefits of the project, the balance of funding required can be supported via other funding providers.

Advantages: this level of funding would enable the development of a necessary, worthwhile and impactful project to re-address and reinterpret the history of the site, integrating mana whenua stories, values, histories and narratives into the interpretive displays, education programmes, exhibitions and website content of the Arts Centre.

Options 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: this would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Intangible Heritage Grant Fund - Guidelines 2020. It would jeopardise the project and does not reflect the partnership values and commitments of the Heritage Strategy.

4.2 Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated

Option 1: Grant funding of $10,000 (50% of the project costs): staff considered the project would be unlikely to proceed, or achieve its outcomes with a reduced level of funding. The collection includes many unique and unseen items donated over 25 years to the museum, which need to be made accessible and preserved for future generations.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the scope and scale of the project, or else prevent it from being undertaken. Many of the archives are fragile and at risk of loss, and are the only remaining copies left.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Intangible Heritage Grant Fund - Guidelines 2020. A unique and diverse collection would be lost to future generations.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora

5.1 The applicant for the grant is The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora, a charitable trust who are organising the project.

The Project

5.2 The project seeks to address the issue of a mono-cultural perspective with regards to published histories of the Arts Centre by communicating the stories of mana whenua and their connection with the site.

5.3 The Arts Centre was gifted a cultural narrative written by Puamiria Parata-Goodall in 2019. This narrative relates the stories of Māori living in the environment of Otautahi, Christchurch and Waitaha, and contextualises them for Te Matitiki Toi Ora. The narrative weaves together the cultural values, traditions and history of Ngāi Tūāhuriri in whose takiwā Te Matatiki stands. It recognises the rights and guarantees provided under the Treaty of Waitangi and respects the mana of the local hapū, iwi and all peoples now resident in this land.

5.4 Being able to tell the stories of Pūari Pā, Ōtautahi, Ōtākaro, Waipapa and Waiwhetū as well as formal recognition of the history of the land, traditions and knowledge of its indigenous people will create a more balanced understanding of the history of Te Matatiki Toi Ora The Arts Centre.

5.5 The narrative centres around Mātauranga Māori – this term taking many forms, such as language (te reo), education (mātauranga), traditional environmental knowledge (taonga tuku iho, mātauranga o te taiao), traditional knowledge of cultural practice, such as healing and medicines (rongoā), fishing (hī ika) and cultivation (mahinga kai) and the arts (ngā toi).

5.6 The project seeks to integrate the cultural narrative across all areas of education, display, history and exhibition undertaken by or at The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora, now and in the future.

(Images supplied by the applicant)

The Grant Application

5.7 The applicant is seeking funding to support the research, development and integration of the cultural narrative and to share and highlight mana whenua taonga. The project is being led by the newly appointed Māori Advisory komiti, and will be inclusive of all matters of Kaupapa Māori within Te Matatiki Toi Ora The Arts Centre, and between Te Matatiki Toi Ora The Arts Centre and iwi Māori. The anticipated costs for the project over three years are $86,225, and include:

· programme development to deliver inclusive Mātauranga Māori educational experiences that examine traditional science, environmental and ecological knowledge using the arts (ngā toi).

· educational activities and pedagogical approaches for tamariki to assist their understanding of Mātauranga Māori and the world we live in based around the stories and histories of the site, including wānanga for teachers led by local Māori experts.

· interpretation and displays to showcase the site’s heritage (pre- and post-colonial) and its importance as a site of Puari Pa, as a mihinga kai gathering and trading site and as a place sited close to a natural springs that was important to Māori.

· interpretation and displays to acknowledge and communicate Māori astronomical knowledge - tātai arorangi. Early Māori relied on tātai arorangi to navigate the ocean, plant crops, harvest kaimoana, tell the time and conduct life around the seasons. This includes displays within Rutherford’s den and the Observatory.

· update of the website content to reflect mana whenua heritage and incorporate the cultural narrative.

(Image supplied by the applicant)

5.8 A grant for the proposed project is in alignment with the Intangible Heritage Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020, see: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Heritage/Intangible-Heritage-Grant-Fund-Guidelines-2020.pdf The project is within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.9.1 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote.

5.9.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated

5.10 The applicant for the grant is Ferrymead Heritage Park on behalf of Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated.

The Project

5.11 The project seeks to preserve and share a unique and largely unseen collection of film, glass plates and negatives which document the history and memories of the city. The collection will be made accessible and available online, and preserved for future generations.

5.12 The Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated (CCHPF) is a museum run by volunteers, which has been collecting and gathering images of the history of the district through the medium of film and photography for over 25 years. Their collection includes glass plates, films, negatives and photographs which have been collected, donated or given as bequests to the museum. The collection is a unique record of stories, events, people and places which give a very special insight into the heritage narrative of Christchurch.

5.13 CCHPF are located within Ferrymead Heritage Park. Their new photographic museum is currently under construction and due to be opened in October. It will have facilities for display areas, dark room, storage for cameras and related equipment, images, slides, movies, post cards and a library. The collection also includes the historic Kinsey Studio in the Park. The museum also accepts donations of all types of photographic equipment for preservation as part of our photographic heritage.

5.14 The collection is very diverse, with components and content that will be of interest and relevance to people of different ages, genders, nationalities and cultural backgrounds.

Examples of some of the thousands of images held in the collection (supplied by applicants)

The Grant Application

5.15 The application is seeking funding to support the preservation of the unique collection held by the museum. The collection has reached a stage where it needs to be appropriately curated and conserved if it is to remain available for future generations, and not be damaged or lost. It also requires cataloguing so as to be appropriately documented and recorded, and digitised to be made accessible. Professional archivist and conservator skills are required to assist with the project. The anticipated cost of the project is $20,000 and includes:

· cataloguing, referencing and archiving of the collection

· digitisation of plates, negatives, images and films

· conservation and appropriate storage of the collection

· development of an online archive of the museum’s collection, to make it publically accessible

5.16 The project itself will be documented and shared through social media, to develop interest in the museum and its collection. The aim is to reach a wider and more diverse audience, especially seeking to engage with younger people and interest them in the collection as well as the process of conservation and curation. Once digitisation has been completed, the online collection will be launched, and made publically accessible through appropriate portals, subject to the necessary copyright and licensing agreements.

5.17 A grant for the proposed project is in alignment with the Intangible Heritage Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The project is within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.18.1 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote.

5.18.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The Intangible Heritage Grant Scheme aligns to the Community Outcome “Resilient Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation’ and ‘strong sense of community’. It also supports “Liveable City” – ‘21st century garden city we are proud to live in’ and “Prosperous Economy” – ‘great place for people, business and investment’.

6.2 The Intangible Heritage Grant Scheme supports delivery of the overarching strategic principle of “Taking an intergenerational approach to sustainable development, prioritising the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future.” This is because heritage is an intergenerational equity. It contributes to our personal and community sense of identity and belonging, and enhances high levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

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

6.3.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.4.1 Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

6.4.2 Intangible Heritage Grant Fund –Guidelines 2020

6.4.3 International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010

6.4.4 Our Future Together Multi Cultural Strategy

6.4.5 Toi Ō Tautahi - Arts and Creativity Strategy

6.4.6 Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The staff recommendations involve significant decisions in relation to ancestral land and other elements of intrinsic value both for Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions, as well as being relevant to local European history.

6.6 The six papatipu rūnanga hold the mana whenua rights and interests over the district and are partners in the Our Heritage, Our Taonga - Heritage Strategy 2019-2029. Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Wairewa Rūnanga, Ōnuku Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga are primary kaitiaki for the taonga tuku iho of the district. They are guardians for elements of mātauranga Māori reaching back through many generations and are a significant partner in the strategy implementation.

6.7 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga are the Tangata Whenua in the locations of both grant applications.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 Not appliable

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 In accordance with the Heritage Strategy’s principle of ‘Accessibility’, both grants are supporting projects which make heritage stories and taonga accessible to people of all ages and abilities.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - the recommendations are for grants of $45,000 to The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora and $20,000 to Ferrymead Heritage Park on behalf of Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Incorporated.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

7.3 Funding Source - the Intangible Heritage Grant budget is a fund provided for in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. Funding decisions on applications of over $5,000 have been delegated to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee. This funding sits within Strategic Planning and Policy (Heritage Incentive Grants) budgets.

7.4 The impact of these grants are as follows:

Intangible Heritage Grants (IHG) and Heritage Festival (HF) Grants
Approved funding for HF Grants FY 21/22 ($7,578 to be carried forward)	$20,922
Grants approved by SACR Committee 6^th October 2021	$61,000
21/22 IHG Grant to Multiple Sclerosis & Parkinson’s Disease Society	$4,999
21/22 IHG Grant to Speak Up Korerotia	$4,848
Total approved IHG 2021/2022	$91,769
Approved carry forward from FY 2021-2022	$243,152
FY23 Budget for the Intangible Heritage Grant (IHG & HF) fund	$199,500
Total available 2022-23 IHG & HF Funds	$442,652
Ngaio Marsh House Trust – website and content development	$5,000
Asturlab – website and content development	$5,000
Margaret Lovell Smith - Peace Movement Book	$5,000
Heritage Festival Grants ($28,500 plus $7,578 carry forward from 21/22)	$36,078
No Productions Theatre - Haunted by History film project	$4,640
Jane Robertson - ‘Between Land and Sea’ book	$5,000
Free Theatre – poster collection archive digitisation project	$4,330
Okains Bay Museum - website and interpretation project	$5,000
Proposed Grant to The Arts Centre Te Matatiki Toi Ora	$45,000
Proposed Grant to Canterbury Centre of Historic Photography and Film Inc	$20,000
Total remaining 2021-22 IHG funds	$307,604

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The delegated authority for Intangible Heritage Grants decision over $5,000 was with the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee but as this committee is no longer sitting, this report is being submitted to Council.

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 Upon being awarded a grant, applicants are bound by the Terms and Conditions of the fund. The Terms and Conditions were reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit of Council before they were endorsed by the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee (17th December 2020, SACRC/2020/00047).

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name	Location / File Link
Not appliable

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

15 September 2022

21. Environmental Partnerships Fund Distributions FY23
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1056778
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Andrew Rutledge, Head of Parks, andrew.rutledge@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Elected Members on the use of funds distributed in FY22 from the Environmental Partnerships fund (see Attachment A for reports from recipients) and the intended distribution of funds for FY23 and FY24 from the Environment Partnership Fund to support community groups involved in environmental projects that have collaboration and partnership as a focus.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Environmental Partnerships Fund Distributions FY23 report, including the outcomes reports from groups funded in year one, in Attachment A.

2. Supports distributing funds to groups as set out below for financial years ending June 2022 and June 2024.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation saw requests from several groups and individuals for the Council to continue and in some cases, increase, financial contribution towards biodiversity and conservation, specifically in the context of climate change and ecological emergency. Council made the decision to allocate $350k per annum from the capital endowment fund for 3 years to support environmental partnerships, as recorded in resolution M5iii below.

3.2 This fund is separate, but complementary to, the Biodiversity Fund which also received an increase in the LTP consultation to $400,000. The Biodiversity Fund exists to protect ecological values and indigenous biodiversity on private land, through cost-sharing on fencing, pest control and native planting.

3.3 It was noted that there is the desire that the funds for environmental partnerships are provided efficiently and in a straightforward manner.

3.4 Recommending allocation of the remaining two years of funds is the response recognise Council’s stated desire to allocate the funds efficiently.

3.5 Thus it is proposed that Council distribute the funds as a grant on receipt of an invoice from the group. Parks staff have established relationships with these groups and work in partnership for environmental and community benefit. There are several partnership agreements or MOUs in place with these groups which include reporting back on how the funds were utilised.

3.6 The LTP included a 5% cut to grants, which included to environmental groups Parks have supported in the past.

3.7 The groups that have been given financial support from Parks in the past, have all reported significant biodiversity and climate change response outcomes from the funding, are well-respected organisations with robust governance in place and stated purposes in alignment with the climate change objectives of Council. In many cases, the groups named below have long-standing partnerships with Council and other agencies, in place and producing valuable outcomes.

3.8 The recommendations for funding for the FY23 and FY24 years, are based on a thorough analysis of the outcomes attained from the groups named, from end of year reports furnished to the Parks Unit and documentation relating to established partnerships already in place between the groups and Council. The recommendation includes holding back a modest amount to provide the ability for discretionary response to opportunity that arises during the second and third years.

3.9 Staff recommend that the outcomes/ impact reporting template created in Year one, form part of the conditions of the grant, to be furnished at the end of the financial year.

3.10 The receipt of these funds does not preclude the groups from applying for other funds from Council or other providers.

3.11 The following table contains the proposed distribution of these funds in year two and three of the three-year programme. A table that lists total funding granted to recipients, including these proposed grants is attached as Table 1.

Note: Staff are not recommending ongoing funding for the Avon Otakaro Forest Park due to low value outcomes achieved from year one funding.

Group	Funding received FY22 $350K	Year 2 and 3 Recommendation $ 350k per Yr	Total x 3 years $1050K
Otamahua/Quail Island Ecological Restoration Trust	10	10	30
BP Conservation Trust (BPCT)	30	30	90
Port Hills Trust Board	10	10	30
Summit Road Society	20	20	60
Orton Bradley Park Board	15	15	45
Avon Heathcote ihutai Estuary Trust	5	5	15
Whaka- Ora, Healthy Harbour	50	50	150
Te Kahu Kahakura	30	30	90
Pest Free Banks Peninsula	50	50	150
Styx River restoration	20	20	60
BP Goat/ungulate eradication programme	40	40	120
Avon Ōtākaro Forest Park	10	0	10
Conservation Volunteers NZ	0	30	60
Discretionary grants for Community environmental projects (Held back )	60	40	140
Avon Ōtākaro Forest Park	10	0	10

3.12 One addition has been made to the list of recipients from FY22. Conservation Volunteers NZ (CVNZ) is recommended to receive $30,000 in FY23/ 24 to assist with the costs of implementing a pest control programme in Whakaraupo Lyttelton Harbour.

3.13 The Whaka-Ora Pest Project (WOPP) is a succession plan that supports CVNZ’s Kaimahi for Nature programme.The Whaka-Ora Pest Project will coordinate and deliver predator control and invasive pest plant management in various parks, reserves and private lands that are currently being neglected within Whakaraupō. CVNZ will also work closely with CCC rangers for pest plant advice. With the funding CVNZ plan to establish pest control in the following CCC sites

· Urumau Reserve

· Naval Point - Pony Point

· Steadfast Stream

· Scotts Reserve

· Governors Bay/ Allandale foreshore

· Diamond Harbour foreshore

· Stan Helms/ Whakaraupō Reserve

3.14 CVNZ seeks funding to employ a 1.0 FTE in a long term role. This person will manage the day to day running of Whaka-Ora Pest Project. They will help to establish pest control with initial support from CCC technical staff, facilitate community trapping and weed workshops and gatherings, recruit, train and liaise with volunteers, manage rosters, H&S, enter data in Trap NZ, be responsible for promoting Whaka-Ora Pest Project via social media, organise incentives, and importantly work with the four schools in the harbour on educational material about pests.

3.15 For nine years CVNZ has managed a pest control programme in Tāmaki makaurau supporting Auckland City Council. With this experience and knowledge they have a very strong framework to manage a successful Community-focused programme in the harbour.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Distribute the funds in a different manner. The proposed distribution is based primarily on LTP submissions and analysis of outcomes/ impact for the groups mentioned.

4.2 Distribute all the funds on a discretionary application based on an application system, noting the administrative burden this provides for both applying groups and Council.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 As a minimum the groups who Council has been partnering with, would prefer a similar level of funding.

5.2 Funding these groups is low risk and high gain, supporting groups with a good track record of achievement in the environmental partnerships and climate change space, whilst retaining a small discretionary response fund will allow staff to respond positively to opportunity throughout the remainder of the year.

5.3 Given the benefits and expanded work these groups are doing, an increase to their funding is a sound investment in environmental outcomes for Christchurch.

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

5.4.1 All Board areas.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Funding these groups supports Enabling active and connected communities to own their future and Meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available

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

6.2.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.3.9 Support conservation groups to achieve the city's biodiversity outcomes. - 100% of funded conservation group project agreed outcomes met.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Including Biodiversity Strategy and Climate Change Strategy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 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.

6.5 Funding these groups assists protection and restoration of the natural environment, strongly aligning with ‘the desire to protect key cultural values such as mauri and mahinga kai that are critical to identity, sense of place and cultural well-being’ Wahi Tuawha, Ngai Tahu and Resource Management, 2013’

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 Funding these groups will support action under the Climate Resilience Strategy and assist with Climate change mitigation through various actions they are involved in from tree planting to pest control.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 Some of the groups are involved with providing access to publically accessible land, increasing recreation and access

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $350,000 per annum for FY 22/ 23/24. Currently within the Parks Opex budget.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - NIL

7.3 Funding Source – Capital Endowment Fund

Other / He mea anō

7.4 Nil.

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 Nil.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environmental Partnerships Fund_Recipient Reports FY22	260
b ⇩	Table 1 Climate Change funding	267

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kate Russell - Manager Parks Programmes & Partnerships

Kay Holder - Manager Regional Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 September 2022

22. Community Board Delegations for New Triennium
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1053224
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Vivienne Wilson, Senior Legal Counsel, vivienne.wilson@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend updating the community board delegations for the 2021-2024 triennium changed as a result of the determinations made in the Local Government Commission’s Representation Review for Christchurch City Council for 2022.

1.2 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by taking into account the fact that this reflects administrative changes primarily covering changed community board names and not changes to existing delegations.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

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

a. Revoke and amend the delegations set out in Part D of the Delegations Register (as shown and highlighted in Attachment A); and

b. Accordingly, delegate the responsibilities, duties and powers to the community boards as set out in Attachment A (as so shown and highlighted);

2. Notes that these delegation changes take effect from 8 October 2022, and that Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Under section 19R of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Commission made a determination of the representation arrangements for the general election of the Christchurch City Council to be held on 8 October 2022.

3.2 This determination changed some of the arrangements for community boards.

3.3 In order for the existing delegations to be in place when the community boards first meet, it is desirable for the Council to amend the delegations to the community boards so that board names match up with the determination.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Council staff have considered whether no changes should be made to delegations until after the triennial general elections have been conducted and the boards hold their first meeting.

4.2 However, this will be confusing for the community boards. Their delegations will not necessarily match up with their board names and it will require a report to the first meeting of the Council undertaking ordinary business. It is more efficient and effective to have these matters clarified before the election.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In November 2021, the Local Government Commission determined that for Christchurch City for the 2022 elections there will be six communities as follows:

5.1.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board, comprising the area of the Banks Peninsula Ward.

5.1.2 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board, comprising the area of the Spreydon Ward, Cashmere Ward and Heathcote Ward.

5.1.3 Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board, comprising the area of the Fendalton Ward, Waimairi Ward and Harewood Ward.

5.1.4 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board, comprising the area of the Papanui Ward, Innes Ward and Central Ward.

5.1.5 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, comprising the area of the Halswell Ward, Hornby Ward, and Riccarton Ward.

5.1.6 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board, comprising the area of the Coastal Ward, Burwood Ward, and Linwood Ward.

5.2 The Council has made a substantial number of delegations to community boards. Some of these delegations refer to specifically named boards. It is desirable to have these delegations and board names amended for the new triennium.

5.3 There is also a delegation to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the rebuild of the Woolston Volunteer Library and Community Centre. That project is now completed, and the delegation should be revoked.

5.4 The changes to the delegations are summarised as follows:

5.4.1 Including the full name of each Board where specified so that the correct names are stated.

5.4.2 Revoking the delegation in for the rebuilding of the Woolston Volunteer Library and Community Centre as this delegation is now spent.

5.4.3 Changing the reference to the restrictions on making certain decisions in the Central City Area on the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

5.5 The Head of Community Support & Partnerships has advised the Board chairs of the terms of this report.

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: Governance and decision-making

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

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. Changes include the Te Reo name for each Board now forming part of the legal name but otherwise are administrative in nature.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 The decision in this report does not have climate change implications. This is because changes are administrative in nature.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5 The decision in this report does not have accessibility implications.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no ongoing costs from making these changes to delegations.

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

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

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

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

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

(g) [Repealed]

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

8.2 The proposed changes to the delegations also do not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002.

8.3 This report has been drafted by Legal Services.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no identified risks caused by the proposed changes in delegations.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Administrative Amendments for Community Board Delegations for New Triennium	273

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

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 September 2022

23. Governance matters
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/989547
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Maryem Al Samer, Legal Counsel and Vivienne Wilson, Senior Legal Counsel, Maryem.AlSamer@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy& Performance, Lynn.McClelland@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to allow for a number of governance matters to be attended to before the end of the current Council term.

1.2 These include the continuation of several committees, subcommittees, subordinate decision-making bodies and joint committees, and the arrangements for the period between the declaration of election results and elected members being sworn into office.

1.3 The report also provides for one change in delegations under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

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

1.5 The level of significance was determined by the fact that it relates to administrative matters.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council resolves:

1. To amend the wording of the delegation in Part B, Sub-part 1 of the Delegations Register under section 54 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 so that it provides “The amount limit is $20 (including GST) per annum, except for the excess water supply targeted rate where the amount is limit is $25 (including GST) per invoice.”;

2. To authorise the Chief Executive, subject to the limitations set out in clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, to make decisions on behalf of the Council and community boards during the period between the declaration of election results and elected members being sworn into office, in respect of urgent matters and, where the Mayor-elect is known, in consultation with the Mayor-elect; and

3. That under clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 the committees, sub-committees, subordinate decision-making bodies, and joint committees set out in Attachment A are not discharged on the coming into office of the members of the Council elected or appointed at, or following, the October 2022 triennial general elections, and they continue to exercise the delegations made to them.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 If the Council wishes to continue certain committees, sub-committees, other subordinate decision-making bodies, and joint committees after the election, it is necessary to resolve that continuation.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The only other reasonably practicable option would be to not resolve to continue the specified committees, sub-committees, other subordinate decision-making bodies, and joint committees. This option would hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council following the triennial general elections, and Council staff do not recommend this approach.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The power to appoint committees, sub-committees, other subordinate decision-making bodies, and joint committees is contained in clause 30 schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

5.2 Clause 30(7) provides that unless the Council resolves otherwise, these entities are deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the Council elected or appointed at, or following, the triennial general election of members next after the entities were appointed.

5.3 The standing committees of the current Council will be deemed to be discharged following the October 2022 elections. New committees will be appointed by the incoming Council.

5.4 Staff have endeavoured to establish whether or not there are any other committees, sub-committees, subordinate decision-making bodies and joint committees that should not be discharged. There are a number that should not be discharged and these are set out in Attachment A. Therefore staff are recommending that the Council resolves that the committees, sub-committees, subordinate decision-making bodies and joint committees on the attached schedule are not deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the Council elected or appointed at, or following, the October 2022 triennial general elections.

5.5 Current elected members will vacate office when the members elected at the upcoming elections come into office (section 116(1) Local Electoral Act 2001).

5.6 Candidates who are elected come into office on the day after the day on which the official result of the election is declared by public notice (section 115(1) Local Electoral Act 2001). The Electoral Officer advises that the notice should be published sometime after 13 October 2022.

5.7 However the Local Government Act 2002 (cl.14 Schedule 7) provides that a person may not act as a member of the Council until he or she has made an oral declaration, and signed a written declaration. The form of the declaration is set out in clause 14(3). The declaration must be made at a Council meeting following the elections, and is ordinarily made at the first meeting of the Council following the elections.

5.8 At this stage, subject to when the results are declared and published, the first ‘working’ meeting of the new Council will be held in late October 2022. If for example the public notice is published on 15 October 2022 then may be a period of at least one week in which decisions of the Council are unable to be made.

5.9 There is a need to provide for the possibility that urgent decisions might be required during that time. It is suggested the Chief Executive be delegated the authority to make such decisions and that she consults with the Mayor-elect, should the Mayor-elect be known at the time. This delegation will be subject to the general limits on delegations in clause 32(1) of Schedule 7.

5.10 The Council has previously resolved that the Water Management Committees (CNC/2016/00479), Christchurch Urban Design Panel (CNCL/2017/00078), Infrastructure Design Standards Steering Group (CNCL/2016/00483), Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee and the Whakawhanake Kāinga Committee (CNCL/2022/00026) are not discharged following triennial general elections. These committees and bodies will continue after the elections.

5.11 Staff are also proposing one small change to the delegation under section 54 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Section 54(1) provides that if the rates payable on a rating unit or separate rating area in a financial year are, in the opinion of a local authority, uneconomic to collect, it may decide not to collect them. The Council has delegated to staff the power to not collect rates that are uneconomic to collect, and the current amount limit is $20 (including GST) per annum. The proposal is to provide that for invoices for the excess water supply targeted rate that the amount limit is $25 (including GST). This change will assist with the roll-out of the invoicing for this new rate.

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: Governance and decision-making

· Level of Service: 4.1.2 Provide and maintain robust processes that ensure all local elections, polls and representation reviews are held with full statutory compliance. - 100% compliance, no complaints regarding statutory compliance are upheld by the ombudsman or the Courts.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including the Council’s Delegation Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 This decision does not have climate change impacts.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5 This decision does not have accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – There is no cost to implement this decision.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no ongoing costs from making this decision.

7.3 Funding Source – not applicable

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that a committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body is, unless the local authority resolves otherwise, deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the local authority elected or appointed at, or following, the triennial general election of members next after the appointment of the committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body.

8.2 Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

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

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

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

(g) [Repealed]

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

8.3 Section 132 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 provides that a local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to its Chief Executive officer; or any other specified officer of the local authority. However, the section also expressly prohibits sub-delegations. This means that the Council must delegate the functions, powers and duties to the correct position in the Council. The Act also prohibits sub-delegations of a function, power, or duty conferred by Sub-part 2 of Part 1 or Sub-part 1 of Part 5.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4 The proposed delegation to the Chief Executive does not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002.

8.5 The proposed amendment to the rating delegation does not infringe the restriction in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

8.6 This report has been drafted by Legal Services.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Staff have recommended that it is desirable to carry over the committees, sub-committees, other subordinate decision-making bodies, and joint committees as set out in Attachment A after the triennial election to mitigate any risk to the Council’s effectiveness.

9.2 Delegating the Council’s decision making powers to the Chief Executive during the period following the election ensures that any urgent decisions can still be made in conjunction with the Mayor-elect should this be required.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of Committees, Subcommittees, Other Sub-ordinate Decision making bodies to continue after the triennial elections 2022	282

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

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

Council

15 September 2022

24. Appointment of Proxy and Alternate to vote at the ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd Annual General Meeting 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1073232
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources Group (linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz).
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager/CFO, Resources Group (leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz).

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s agreement to appoint the Council’s Chief Executive and the General Manager/CFO of the Resources Group as alternate to vote at ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s (CNZHL’s) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and to issue voting instructions.

1.2 The AGM is to be held at the CNZHL offices at 4.30pm on 25 November.

1.3 This report has been written as a result of receiving CNZHL’s request on 29 August 2022. The Notice of Meeting is at Attachment A.

1.4 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by assessing the extent to which the proposal might impact the community.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Appoints the Council’s Chief Executive as proxy, and the General Manager/CFO of the Resources Group as alternate to vote at ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Annual General Meeting on 25 November 2022; and

2. Agrees to vote in favour of all Annual General Meeting agenda items.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 To meet the administrative requirements as they relate to AGMs in the most efficient way possible.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The only alternative option is for the Council not to vote at the AGM.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

AGM

5.1 Section 67(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the board of a Council-controlled organisation to, within three months after the end of each financial year deliver the annual report on its operations during the year to its shareholders.

5.2 Section 120 of the Companies Act 1993 requires the board of a company to hold an annual meeting of shareholders no later than six months after balance date and not later than 15 months after the previous annual meeting. CNZHL’s balance date is 30 June.

5.3 Ordinarily the Notice of AGM and the Annual Report (including audited financial statements) are provided to the Council together in October. This year, due to the triennial election and uncertainty as to the timing of council meetings in October and November, the AGM documentation has been forwarded early. The Annual Report is not due until 30 September and will be forwarded to the Council at the earliest available meeting following this date.

5.4 The items of business that the Council, as shareholder of CNZHL is asked to vote on are:

· to receive the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2022, including the financial statements and the Auditors’ Report therein for both CNZHL and its subsidiary, ChristchurchNZ Ltd;

· to record the appointment of the auditors for the purpose of completing the audit for the year ended 30 June 2023 and authorise the CNZHL board to set the remuneration for the audit engagement;

· to record the re-appointment of Dr Therese Arseneau to the CNZHL board for a term of one year; and

· to approve CNZHL board remuneration being set at the same level as in 2021/22 of $288,000 for the 2022/23 financial year.

5.5 Dr Arseneau has been the Chair of the CNZHL board since its inception in 2016.

5.6 For continuity reasons, Dr Arseneau has accepted a one year re-appointment period, to facilitate the transition of the board which is expected to include two new members to fill vacancies currently being carried.

5.7 The Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations provides at clause 8.20 that the CCHL board may approve a recommendation to re-appoint directors to those organisations it is responsible for making appointments to. CNZHL falls into this category.

5.8 Although the 2019 remuneration review for the CNZHL board recommended minor fee increases in each of the ensuing three years (including $8,000 in 2022/23), the CNZHL board has elected not to increase fees for 2022/23. This is due to the need for a full review of its board fees to reflect the increased complexity and risk that CNZHL’s directors face as a result of the company’s expansion into urban development.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This report is consistent with the Council’s commitment to good governance of its Council-controlled organisations.

6.2 This report is not relevant to the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with good governance that is inherent in the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 Not relevant.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 Not relevant.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The incremental cost of this proposal is $8,000 per annum, funded from the Council’s annual grant to CNZHL.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 Section 120 of the Companies Act 1993 - board of a company is required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders no later than six months after balance date and not later than 15 months after the previous annual meeting.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Not relevant.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Annual General Meeting 2022 by written resolution	287

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

N/A.

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

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

Council

15 September 2022

25. Appointment of Proxy and Alternate to vote at the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd 2022 Annual General Meeting
Reference Te Tohutoro:	21/1784661
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources Group (linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz).
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager/CFO, Resources Group (leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz).

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s agreement to appoint the Chief Executive as proxy and the General Manager/CFO of the Resources Group as alternate to vote at Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s (CCHL’s) 2022 Annual General Meeting (AGM) and to issue voting instructions.

1.2 The AGM is to be held at the Avon Room, Christchurch Town Hall, 86 Kilmore Street, Christchurch at 4.30pm on 16 November.

1.3 The report has been written following receipt of CCHL’s Notice of Meeting on 19 August 2022, at Attachment A. The minutes of last year’s AGM are at Attachment B.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Appoints the Council’s Chief Executive as proxy, and the General Manager/CFO of the Resources Group as alternate to vote at Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s 2022 Annual General Meeting on 16 November 2022;

2. Agrees to vote in favour of all Annual General Meeting agenda items; and

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 To enable the Council, in its capacity as shareholder of CCHL to vote on agenda items at the company’s AGM on 16 November 2022.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The only alternative option is to not vote.

Detail Te Whakamahuki CCHL AGM

5.1 Section 67(b) of the LGA and rule 3.6 of the NZX listing rules requires the board of a Council-controlled organisation to, within three months after the end of each financial year deliver the annual report on its operations during the year to its shareholders and the market. CCHL’s annual report (including audited financial statements) will be published by 30 September.

5.3 Ordinarily the Notice of AGM and the Annual Report (including audited financial statements) are provided to the Council together in October ahead of a November AGM. This year, due to the triennial election and uncertainty as to the timing of council meetings in October and November, the AGM documentation has been forwarded early, prior to the Annual Report being available.

Proxy and voting instructions

5.4 The Council generally appoints elected members as its proxy and alternate. However, as the outcome of the election will not be known at the time the Council considers this report, staff propose that the Chief Executive is the proxy, and the General Manager/CFO of the Resources Group is the alternate for this year’s AGM.

5.5 Voting instructions are required for the following items of business:

· receive, consider and discuss the Annual Report, the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2022 and the Auditor’s Report therein;

· record the reappointment of Audit New Zealand as auditor and authorise the CCHL board to fix the auditor’s remuneration;

· record the re-appointment of Mr Alex Skinner as a director of CCHL in accordance with the Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors of Council Organisations (the Appointments’ Policy), for a third term of three years; and

· discuss any general business that may be properly brought before the meeting.

5.6 The re-appointment of Mr Skinner to the CCHL board is consistent with the Appointments’ Policy as follows:

· clause 7.6 - all retiring directors are deemed to be re-appointed, unless the Council has given notice that re-appointment is not to be assumed, another person has been appointed to the vacated office, or that the vacated office is not to be filled for the time being; and

· clause 7.7 CCHL directors will not generally be appointed for more than three terms of three years each.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This report is consistent with the Council’s commitment to good governance of its commercial entities.

6.2 This report is aligned to the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with good governance that is inherent in the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 Not relevant.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 Not relevant.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 There are no incremental costs associated with the recommendations in this report.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 Section 120 of the Companies Act 1993 - requirement to hold an annual meeting.

8.3 NZX Listing Rule 3.5 - announcement of annual results and delivery of annual report to the market.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Not relevant.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual General Meeting Agenda	295
b ⇩	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Minutes of 2021 AGM	296

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name	Location / File Link
N/A	N/A

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

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

[1] The terms of reference provide that the Committee is delegated the oversight and decision-making powers to “implement[] the Council’s climate change initiatives and strategies”

5. Council Minutes - 25 August 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1153307
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	David Corlett, Committee and Hearings Advisor
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive

8. Te Tira Kāhikuhiku - August and September 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1083419
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Chrissie Williams, Te Tira Kāhikuhiku Chairperson
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting	License to	For
16 August 2022	Eden Project New Zealand	A license to continue to plan for the Eden Project being established in the Avonside Loop area north of Cowlishaw Street in the Residential Red Zone.
16 August 2022	Mels Berg	A license for Extravaganza Fair from 7 to 10 October at the site on the corner of New Brighton Road and Locksley Avenue.
16 August 2022	Avon Loop Planning Association	A variation on the duration of the transitional land use license to be amended to until the land transfers to Council.
16 August 2022	Life in Vacant Spaces	A variation on the duration of the transitional land use license to be amended to until the land transfers to Council.
16 August 2022	CCC Empowerment Project	A variation on the duration of the transitional land use license to be amended to until the land transfers to Council.

9. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 1 September 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1198292
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources/CFO, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

10. External Reporting and Audit Programme for 2022 Update including Valuations
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1210950
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources/CFO, leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz

7. 52 Westholme Street, Strowan - Control and Manage Reserve
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1209773
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Derek Roozen, Senior Network Planner Parks, derek.roozen@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

No.	Report Title	Page
1	External Reporting and Audit Programme for 2022 Update including Valuations	79

External Reporting and Audit Programme for 2022 Update including Valuations
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1013381
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Daisy Yu, Financial Team Leader
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources / CFO

12. Water Management Zone Committees Minutes
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1216687
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistance Chief Executive Strategic Policy & Performance lynn.mccelland.ccc.govt.nz

Author	Luke Smeele - Committee & Hearings Advisor
Approved By	Luke Smeele - Committee & Hearings Advisor

15. Engagement Working Group Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1077531
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katy McRae, Head of Communications & Engagement, katy.mcrae@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy & Performance, lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

Author	Katy McRae - Head of Communications & Engagement
Approved By	Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

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
27.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 25 August 2022			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
28.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 1 September 2022			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
29.	Public Excluded Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 22 August 2022			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
30.	Christchurch Civic Awards 2022	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	Protection of Privacy	Only names of successful candidates will be released after Council confirmation. No personal information will be released.
31.	Infrastructure Acceleration Fund- approval to contract	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	To enable advice on contract negotiations.	Once government decisions on the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund are released.
32.	CN4600001379 Supplementary Plant Hire for the Burwood Resource Recovery Park	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Extension of active contract for Council approval, contains sensitive commercial information	30 November 2022 On review and approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts