Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 23 November 2022

Council

23 November 2022

Sumner Lifeboat Institution- Transfer of Buildings and Granting of Ground Lease
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	20/1301742
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Felix Dawson Leasing Consultant, felix.r.dawson@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 clarify the ownership and tenure of the two buildings used by the Sumner Lifeboat Institution at Scarborough Beach.

1.2 The origin of the report is that the Agreement to Lease dated 2004 between the Council and the Sumner Lifeboat Institution (SLI) has never been finalised as a lease and the parties wish to clarify the respective rights and responsibilities.

1.3 This report recommends a transfer by way of gift of the buildings to the Sumner Lifeboat Institution with the parties entering into a long term ground lease. The Council have first option to purchase the buildings for nominal value in the event that the SLI no longer require the buildings for the purpose of a lifeboat service.

1.4 The proposal to transfer the buildings to the SLI effectively confirms the current arrangement where all interior and exterior maintenance obligations rest with the SLI and clarifies that all other outgoings and expenses are to be met by them. Asset ownership gives the SLI the opportunity to reduce the cost of outgoings and opens up additional funding opportunities.

1.5 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the level of people affected by the decision which in terms of public impact is effectively a continuation of the status quo. The financial impact of the decision is relatively low.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Recommend that the Council agree to transfer by way of gift to the Sumner Lifeboat Institution, the Lifeboat Shed and Jet Rescue Garage located on Lots 2 and 3 DP 429460 at 2 Scarborough Road as shown A &B on the plan described as Attachment F in the agenda to this report.

2. Recommend that the Council authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude the transfer negotiations and documentation.

3. Subject to the above recommendation being approved by the Council the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

a. Approve the surrender of the Agreement to Lease between the Sumner Lifeboat Institution and the Council dated 21 April 2004.

b. Approve the granting of a ground lease to the Sumner Lifeboat Institution for a period of 33 years pursuant to s61 of the Reserves Act 1977 over that part of the land being approximately 240sqm being described as lot 2 and 3 DP 429460 as shown on the plan described as Attachment F in the agenda to this report.

c. Authorise the Property Manager Consultancy to conclude the lease negotiations and documentation.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The preferred option is to transfer by way of gift the buildings to the Sumner Lifeboat Institution (SLI) with ground lease. The advantages of this option are:

· Clarifies responsibility for costs of building maintenance and outgoings for both parties

· On-going costs to Council for building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) and Insurance are discharged

· Reduced Council costs of lease administration

· Advantages to SLI are that it provides an opportunity to reduce insurance and BWOF costs and provides a stronger basis to attract funding

Refer Attachment D for detailed options analysis

3.2 The disadvantages of the option are loss of Council control of the buildings and ownership of an asset. These disadvantages are minimised by the terms the ground lease restricting use and development of the buildings and the right of first option to re-purchase the buildings at nominal value if no longer required for SLI purpose.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The option of formalising the Agreement to Lease the land and buildings was considered and discounted. The Agreement to Lease was on the basis that all maintenance obligations and outgoings are paid by the SLI. This is ownership in all but name but without the opportunity for SLI to reduce costs or the benefit of all funding opportunities.

4.2 The option of sale of the buildings to SLI was considered and discounted as the SLI have no capacity to provide a purchase price. Requiring sale of buildings for value would not take account of volunteer time and resources already put into the building by the SLI over time.

4.3 Do nothing was considered and discounted as it leaves maintenance obligations uncertain, ongoing costs are not properly funded currently and the existing tenure does not provide a basis for SLI to undertake investment.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Sumner Lifeboat Institution- History

5.1 Maritime search and rescue from Sumner dates back to 1867 with the appointment of Joseph Day as signal man and then pilot. On occasion he used his pilot boat with volunteers to undertake rescues. In 1898 a purpose built lifeboat was imported from England to be based on the current site and used for rescue purposes. It was skippered by Joseph Day and manned by local volunteers. Joseph Day remained involved until retirement in 1912.

5.2 The SLI was incorporated in 1904 and became a member of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (UK). The SLI was a founding member of Coastguard New Zealand established in 1976. The SLI has provided continual rescue services on a volunteer basis from 1904 to the present.

5.3 The SLI continues to provide rescue services. In the last five years there have been an average of 30 crew and eight Board members with an average of 14 callouts per year. The crew undertake regular training six to eight times per month. A part time administration person is employed.

5.4 The SLI has long standing historical links with the local area, provide a valuable community service and remain an important part of the fabric of the Sumner community.

Land and Buildings- Background

5.5 The land and buildings that are the subject of this report were previously owned by the Lyttelton Harbour Board but were transferred to the Council in 1989 pursuant to the 1989 Waterfront Industry Restructuring Act 1989 and the Waterfront Reform Act 1989. It is now administered by the Council under the Reserves Act 1977 and vested as Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve.

5.6 Note that the entrance to the main life boat shed and the slipway are in the marine zone and administered by ECan.

5.7 SLI occupies two buildings as shown below:

A- Lifeboat shed/crew room

B- Jet boat shed/crew room

5.8 The lifeboat shed is on the original site and has been added to from time to time to accommodate new lifeboats and equipment as they have been acquired. It is two story with an office and mess room upstairs. The jet boat shed including upstairs crew room was built in around 1980. There is currently a container behind the jet boat shed. The SLI are proposing minor modifications to the main building to enable storage to accommodate the equipment currently in the container.

5.9 Although the buildings have been technically owned by the Council since 1989 broadly speaking the SLI has regarded the buildings as their own with some maintenance and development work of the buildings undertaken by them for their purpose and at their cost over time.

5.10 Council financial records show total Council expenses in the form of community grants and payment of invoices on the buildings from 2000- 2013 at $398,421.00, (including earthquake repairs). There has been relatively limited expenses of $20,601.00 by the Council since completion of earthquake repairs in 2013. In contrast the SLI has spent 63,446.00 on maintenance since that time.

When renovations were undertaken by the SLI in 2004 the Council provided a $180,000.00 loan which was paid off over a period of 10yrs.

Refer Attachment C for more detail.

5.11 The buildings have a combined depreciation value of $703,000 valuation with replacement value at $1,280,000.

5.12 In summary: The SLI buildings are technically owned by the Council although in practice they have been developed by the SLI with financial assistance from the Council. Since 1989 the Council has contributed community funding grants to assist operational costs. This has sometimes been applied to capital development. Since earthquake repairs were undertaken by the Council in 2013 there has been limited Council expense for reactive maintenance, no cyclical maintenance, and limited community funding directed to the SLI. Insurance has been paid by the Council since 2018.

SLI Tenure-Options

5.13 The SLI has not had formal tenure from the Council since it took over in 1989. An agreement to lease was completed in 2004 but a lease was never formalised. Renewed discussions were undertaken post-earthquake in 2013 and then in 2016-2017 for a building and ground lease. The further option of a gift plus ground lease was considered at that time.

5.14 With ongoing maintenance required, the SLI are again seeking clarification of rights and responsibilities in regard to the buildings so that it can undertake financial and operational planning.

5.15 Given the history of the site staff consider that it is appropriate to deal unilaterally with the SLI for ongoing future tenure. Refer paragraph 6 below.

5.16 The two possible options proposed for future tenure are:

(a) Lease of buildings and land

(b) Transfer by way of gift of buildings with long term ground lease (preferred option)

Lease of buildings and land

5.17 Previous negotiations around lease of land and buildings involved all maintenance and outgoings to be covered by the SLI. This is consistent with the history and essential nature of the SLI relationship with the buildings. Insurance is handled by the asset owner as is Building Warrant of Fitness regulatory obligations and structural maintenance.

There is no current policy for determining rent for Council owned buildings. The current approach is to establish a market rent and then determine a reduced rent based on the nature of the organisation service to the community and ability to pay. A market rent for these buildings has been assessed by a valuer at $37,670. The voluntary nature of the SLI and current income result in limited ability to pay market rent so actual rent would be significantly reduced. Council recovery of Insurance and Building Warrant of Fitness and associated costs as land owner would be a minimum rent starting point.

The most common arrangement for community groups on reserve land is for a ground lease with building ownership and liabilities resting with the group. Although all outgoings would be met by the lessee with the building and land lease option, ultimate liability for the asset rests with the Council. This is not the preferred option and is not consistent the majority of Community group arrangements on Reserve.

Sale of buildings with long term ground lease

5.18 Given the joint nature of contributions to the buildings to date and the parties’ agreement that all ongoing costs are to be handled by the SLI the option of transfer by way of gift of the buildings to SLI has been considered.

5.19 Council finance staff have reviewed the accounts of the SLI with a view to considering their ability to make a cash purchase. They have advised that the SLI operate on the basis of benefactor contributions for operational expenses and that they do not have any financial reserves available for a contribution to the value of the buildings. With this option therefore Council staff are proposing a gift, the rationale being the input of the SLI to the buildings to date together with the fact that the SLI is a not for profit organisation that exists solely to provide service the community.

5.20 The Parks Unit as operational asset owner support the transfer proposal as this structure is consistent with other sports clubs or community groups that own their own buildings located on reserve land.

5.21 In addition to clarifying building management costs and responsibilities the key benefits to the parties with the preferred option would be:

SLI

(a) Better opportunity for both community and bank funding.

(b) Opportunity to reduce some management costs (Insurance BWOF)

(c) Ability to undertake building maintenance and development work without the administration costs of landlord approval.

Council

(a) Removal of administration of Insurance and BWOF

(b) Less lease administration costs

5.22 On the basis of the above staff are recommending a transfer by way of gift of the buildings and ground lease as the preferred option. For a detailed options assessment refer Attachment D

5.23 Proposed Gift Agreement

· Includes only the existing buildings –there is no impact on current public access.

· Use of building only for permitted use - activities of SLI as per constitution

· Council buy back option for $1.00 if buildings no longer required for permitted use

· Taken on an as is basis

· SLI obligation for full insurance, cost of maintenance and all outgoings

Council finance staff have assessed the capacity of the SLI to take on the additional cost of owning the building and advised that bulk of additional cost would be on paper depreciation. Some additional operational and capital costs would be required. Owning the building would open up additional avenues for community funding for that purpose.

5.24 Key Terms of Proposed Ground Lease

· Property to be only used for permitted purpose which is the provision of a Coastguard service.

· Building footprint only - Area 239sqm approx

· Rent: determined by formula applied to sports clubs and community groups-$247.37/annum at 2022 rate

· 11 year term with two rights of renewal

Consideration of Public Views

5.25 Public engagement involved:

· A public notification in the Press of a proposed transfer and ground lease with opportunity for submissions - July 2019. No submissions were received.

· A further public notification in the Press January 2021 with no submissions received.

· Correspondence with the Sumner Residents Association 15 January 2021 and Sumner Boating Club- 18 January 2021. No were concerns raised.

Staff consider this sufficient consideration of views taking into account the significance of the decision.

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

5.26.1 Waikura/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: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.1.1 Support the development of strong, connected and resilient communities by supporting the provision of a sustainable network of community facilities. - 80-84 Facilities

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.2.1 Property - Disposal Policy refer Attachment A.

6.2.2 Property - Leasing Council Property- dealing unilaterally- refer Attachment A

6.2.3 Sports Clubs and Community Groups Charging policy

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3 The decision does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. All matters relating to the foreshore are of importance to the Mana Whenua their culture and traditions.

6.4 The building lies within the takiwā (district) of Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. The proposal was forwarded to Mahānui Kurataio. No concerns were raised and specific advice from the senior advisor of treaty relationships was received to proceed. The proposal was also forwarded to the neighbouring Rūnanga Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke who expressed support for the proposal.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 The proposal to gift the buildings and lease the land does not have an impact on climate change as it does not involve the use of additional resources. In terms of the activity associated with the proposal: SLI provide an emergency service where use of fossil fuels is involved. There are limited alternative options available at this stage.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 The buildings are subject to accessibility compliance requirements

7. Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to implement – approximately $1,500 covered in Opex budgets, SLI to contribute to costs.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – lease administration-covered in Opex budgets

7.3 Funding Source – Regional Parks Opex budgets

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no other resource implications

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

Authority to:

8.1 Disposal of buildings: Decision of Council as land owners, Local Government Act 2002

8.2 Ground lease: Delegations Parks (Part D-sub part 1- Community Boards) Authority delegated from Council to Community Boards -s61- “to grant leases of local purpose reserves in accordance with this section”

8.3 Reserves Act 1977- enter into lease pursuant to s61

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4 Other legal implications are:

8.4.1 Local Government Act 2002, dealing unilaterally- s14- refer Attachment B

8.4.2 Local Government Act 2002, Disposal of a strategic asset, s97 refer Attachment B

8.4.3 Local Government Act 2002, Consideration of Community views and significance,- s76-82

9. Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk that SLI will not be able to fund the ongoing management of the property.

9.2 The financial records and current financial position of the SLI has been reviewed by staff who advise that they have a healthy balance sheet with small debt and creditors. When depreciation is removed from costs there is a small operating surplus. The cost required for any significant maintenance/development will be generated through bequests and community funding. The ownership of the building will open up additional community funding sources. The risk is assessed as low to medium

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a	Property Policy Consistency (Under Separate Cover)
b	Statutory Obligations (Under Separate Cover)
c	Financial Summary (Under Separate Cover)
d	Options Analysis (Under Separate Cover)
e	Draft Lease (Under Separate Cover)
f	Lease Plan (Under Separate Cover)
g	Draft Deed of Gift (Under Separate Cover)

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

Document Name	Location / File Link

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Felix Dawson - Leasing Consultant
Approved By	Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

23 November 2022

8. Report of the Electoral Officer - Triennial Elections - 8 October 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1385473
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Jo Daly, Electoral Officer (jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to report the outcome of the 2022 Triennial Local Government Elections for Christchurch City Council.

1.2 A report regarding the voting and participation in these elections will be presented in 2023.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the report.

3. Successful Candidates

The following candidates were declared elected at the Christchurch City Council 2022 Triennial Elections:

Mayor

MAUGER, Phil Let's Get Stuff Done

Councillors

Banks Peninsula Ward FIELDS, Tyrone The People's Choice

Burwood Ward BARBER, Kelly Independent for Burwood

Cashmere Ward SCANDRETT, Tim Truly Independent

Central Ward MCLELLAN, Jake Labour

Coastal Ward DONOVAN, Celeste Independent - Let's Make Waves

Fendalton Ward GOUGH, James Independent Citizens

Harewood Ward KEOWN, Aaron Independent Voice of Harewood

Halswell Ward MOORE, Andrei Independent

Heathcote Ward TEMPLETON, Sara Strong Communities; Sustainable Future

Hornby Ward PETERS, Mark Independent For Hornby

Innes Ward COTTER, Pauline The People's Choice

Linwood Ward JOHANSON, Yani The People's Choice - Labour

Papanui Ward HENSTOCK, Victoria Your Local Independent Community Voice

Riccarton Ward HARRISON-HUNT, Tyla The People's Choice

Spreydon Ward COKER, Melanie The People's Choice - Labour

Waimairi Ward MACDONALD, Sam Independent Citizens

Community Boards

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

Akaroa subdivision of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board (2 vacancies)

· HARRISON, Nigel Independent

· HUSSAIN, Asif

Mt Herbert Subdivision of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board
(2 vacancies)

· NEEDHAM, Howard

· SWINDELLS, Luana The People's Choice

Lyttelton Subdivision of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board (2 vacancies)

· DAVIDSON, Reuben The People's Choice

· LUM-WEBB, Cathy The People's Choice

Wairewa Subdivision of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board (1 vacancy)

· LESLIE, Lyn Independent

Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Burwood Ward of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· MITCHELL, Greg Independent

· BAKER, Tim Labour

Coastal Ward of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· ZERVOS, Jo Independent

· HEWISON, Alex The People's Choice - Labour

Linwood Ward of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· MCMAHON, Paul The People's Choice - Labour

· SIMONS, Jackie The People's Choice - Labour

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Fendalton Ward of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· CARTWRIGHT, David Independent Citizens

· WILLIAMS, Bridget Independent Citizens

Harewood Ward of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· MIDDLEMISS, Jason Independent Citizens

· CHEN, Linda Independent Citizens

Waimairi Ward of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board (2 vacancies)

· MCCORMICK, Nicola Avonhead Community Group

· PARANJAPE, Shirish Independent Citizens

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Hornby Ward of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (2 vacancies)

· BRUNTON, Sarah Independent

· BUUNK, Henk The People's Choice - Labour

Halswell Ward of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (2 vacancies)

· MORA, Debbie Independent

· POLLISCO, Marie The People's Choice

Riccarton Ward of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (2 vacancies)

· BROUGHTON, Helen Independent Citizens

· FOUDA, Gamal The People's Choice

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Papanui Ward of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (2 vacancies)

· BRITTEN, Simon Think Papanui

· NORRISH, Emma Independent

Innes Ward of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (2 vacancies)

· TWADDELL, Emma

· CHHETRI, Shreejana The People's Choice

Central Ward of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (2 vacancies)

· GAUTAM, Sunita Labour

· MILLER, John Labour

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Spreydon Ward of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board (2 vacancies)

· WARD, Callum The People's Choice - Labour

· KENNEALLY, Roy The People's Choice - Labour

Cashmere Ward of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board (2 vacancies)

· LESLIE, Keir The People's Choice - Labour

· SAMPSON, Lee The People's Choice - Labour

Heathcote Ward of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board (2 vacancies)

· HALL, Will Independent Voice For Heathcote

· LINDLEY, Tim For Communities You'll Love To Live In

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch City Council 2022 Triennial Elections Declaration of Result 14 October 2022	22/1434099	67
b ⇩	Christchurch City Council Innes Ward Amended Declaration of Result 8 November 2022	22/1566623	76

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

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

23 November 2022

9. Council Addington Brook Waterway Renewal Masterplan
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1469602
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Grant Stowell, Team Leader 3 Waters Asset Management (grant.stowell@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services (jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the decisions from Council to enable the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project to proceed.

1.2 This report has been prepared by staff to outline the philosophies and provide supporting information for the Addington Brook Enhancement Project with sufficient detail to enable Council to accept the Masterplan and approve the removal of the trees from the waterway corridor within South Hagley Park.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by comparing the recommendations requested below against the Significance and Engagement Criterion A - “Number of people affected and/or with an interest” and Criterion C - “Level of community interest already apparent for the issue, proposal or decision; or the potential to generate community interest”. The requested removal of this number of trees and the proposed works being within Hagley Park, especially the native riparian strip amount the exotic woodland will likely attract interest from “a distinct population group with collective interests” which aligns with a medium significance for the two selected criterion.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Notes that the Hagley Park Master Plan 2007 includes Objectives and Projects that relate to the enhancement of Addington Brook.

2. Notes that Addington Brook is currently in a degraded condition causing sediment mobilisation and deposition into the waterway, causing slumping with damage to the surrounding land. In some parts of the waterway there is a health and safety risk due to steep incised banks.

3. Approve Option 2 of the proposed Addington Brook Masterplan to address the issues with the waterway through a major enhancement project that accords with the Hagley Park Master Plan 2007 noting that the Addington Brook Masterplan will require the removal of some trees.

4. Approve the removal of 45 existing trees (including 2 groups of poplars) and transplant of approximately 20 other trees.

5. Provides delegated authority to the Head of Parks to authorise the removal of additional trees if required to meet the project outcomes.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The 1.1 kilometre long section of Addington Brook, which flows within South Hagley Park from Deans Avenue to Riccarton Avenue, is one of the most polluted waterways in Christchurch. The catchment of Addington Brook upstream of Hagley Park passes through an old established industrial area with a large amount of hardstand area and piped waterways network.

3.2 A set of documents – the Hagley Park Management Plan and the Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan were prepared, publically consulted on and adopted by Christchurch City Council on 16 August 2007 as an operative plan. These documents provide the uses and management issues for the Park and actions (aligning with Goals, Objectives and Management Policy) to be taken in the management of the Park.

3.3 The Management Plan discusses Addington Brook, being a tributary of the Avon River, making comments such as:

Along Addington Brook banks little actual retaining work has occurred, although some unstable areas are apparent. A more sensitive approach to the management of the vegetation along the banks of Addington Brook would enhance the stability of this area and may be all that is required to stabilise this under-rated water body.

And

Appropriate native riparian vegetation shall be planted along the banks of Addington Brook for stabilising purposes.

3.4 Within the Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 is Project 36 (Waterway Enhancement) – Investigate further costs/benefits/implications for enhancement of waterway corridors, in particular Addington Brook and Riccarton Stream, passing through Hagley Park. The proposed Addington Brook Masterplan will meet the objectives of Project 36 (Waterway Enhancement). The details of the enhancement are set out below.

4. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

4.1 The current alignment of the open waterway through Hagley Park has maintained much of a natural meander apart from the introduction of some sharp bends to construct the netball courts and club rooms. Only the alignment of the section upstream of the netball courts is “original” and classified as a pre-1900 drain.

4.2 Historically, the lower banks of much of Addington Brook were timber lined to a height of 300-400mm which would have provided some protection to undercutting. There are some remnants of the timber in the invert, but the majority has rotted away.

4.3 The report from Instream Consultants Limited describes the current state: The banks and bed of Addington Brook within Hagley Park are primarily composed of natural earth and stones… Although Addington Brook has a mix of stony and fine sediments (<2mm diameter), its steep banks are associated with numerous undercuts and bank collapses, which contribute fine sediment to the channel, smothering bed sediments and reducing habitat quality.

4.4 The proposed Addington Brook Master Plan and associated works are focused on mitigating the erosive effects of flood flows and the sediment mobilisation from ongoing bank erosion. There is another project, in the planning phase, which will treat the first flush water from the contributing catchment.

4.5 The undercutting and slumping of the banks is generally caused by the steep sides and unstable soils, generally held together with only shallow rooted grass. There are a number of trees growing on the top of bank, and even instream, that have exacerbated the erosion damage to the waterway by deflecting flood flow paths against the opposite bank, and creating eddies downstream of root balls. This damage is evident when comparing images before and after the recent July rain events.

Comparison photographs of damage to stream banks following July 2022 rain events

4.6 The Three Waters project team has worked with the Manager of Hagley Park to scope and plan the proposed works and request advice. There is a health and safety risk with both Addington Brook and Riccarton Main Drain, within South Hagley Park, with previous fatalities having occurred. Riccarton Main Drain has been fenced to mitigate the risk. For Addington Brook it is proposed that the renewal works will provide suitable mitigation measures due to altering the form and treatment of the waterway and its margins. This risk will be reassessed following the works to ensure that it is suitably mitigated. The project is proposed to be fast tracked to mitigate the risk as soon as practicable.

4.7 The form of, and the activities permissible within Hagley Park are well documented with two key documents, being Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 and the Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007. These documents, along with the Improving the Health of Urban Waterways, Addington Brook ‘Living’ Catchment Management Plan June 2019, prepared by the Christchurch West Melton Water Zone Committee, have informed the proposed enhancement of Addington Brook. As per the Hagley Park Masterplan Waterways in the park have largely been treated as utilities to date – the development and management approach should be about enhancing the natural environment and aesthetic landscape values of these assets.

4.8 The proposal for the works is relatively straightforward, and accords with key Council guidance documents such as the Waterways and Wetlands Natural Asset Management Strategy 1999 and the Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guideline 2003.

4.9 In general terms, we are proposing to batter the banks back at a grade of 1:3-4, maintain a low flow channel and plant a riparian margin generally 5-8 metres wide; this may include locating new native trees outside of the riparian margin. There will be modifications to this general approach given the number of existing mature exotic trees along the margins of the waterway.

4.10 The intention is not to “clear-fell” a corridor to create the “model” waterway cross-section, rather it is our approach to minimise the number of trees that will need to be removed to facilitate the works. Our works are intended to blend harmoniously with the existing trees, adding variation into the stream bank profiles to work around as many trees as possible, including providing hard engineered retaining around trees of good health to ensure that they remain.

4.11 The current width of the waterway base is generous. We intend to create some meander, pools and riffles by forming a more contained low flow channel in some locations, as well as forming fresh plains to create further instream habitat for invertebrates and aquatic species. Other instream habitat such as placed rock or logs will also be used along the length of the waterway to create variety.

4.12 A Detailed Site Investigation has been carried out along project length of Addington Brook and returned samples that contained heavy metals, E. Coli, and hydrocarbons. With the embankment works, a large amount of contaminated soil will be removed from site, with the benefits of improving instream water quality.

4.13 There are two options proposed for the enhancement:

· Option 1 – enhancement along the current alignment

· Option 2 – carry out realignment by the netball courts and the cricket oval buildings.

Option 2 is recommended to restore the waterway to an alignment more representative of the original route, reduce the number of trees to be removed (by 7 relative to Option 1), and move Addington Brook further away from the netball courts and buildings.

4.14 The proposed planted riparian strips will use a mix of native shading plants directly by the water’s edge as well as significant planting of native trees to further improve shading, reduce the amount of leaf fall into the waterway and fill any gaps left in the existing canopy cover due to the project works. It is expected that the provision of some native canopy will lead to improvements in avian species in the park through favoured habitat and food provision.

4.15 The proposed planting of native trees and underplanting along the Brook corridor follows specific guidelines and recommendations in the following documents: Hagley Park Management Plan 2007; the Hagley Park Masterplan 2007, and the Improving the Health of Urban Waterways, Addington Brook ‘Living’ Catchment Management Plan June 2019 prepared by the Christchurch West Melton Water Zone Committee.

Specifically the following relevant clauses from the Master Plan are noted:

· The Park is secondarily managed to enhance wildlife values and provide habitat for biodiversity

· Enhancement of the environmental quality of the drains flowing through Hagley Park is also a matter needing attention. The drains can be re-contoured to become a feature of the Park and used to enhance biodiversity and aesthetic interest.

· The Park acting as an arboretum for significant indigenous and exotic tree species alongside the traditional mainly exotic trees currently growing there

· Planting of the grassed banks with, for example, native shrubs, ferns and trees to provide shade for the waterway in order to improve conditions for in-stream life, including the provision of areas for fish spawning, stabilisation of the waterway’s banks and generally
improving visual and ecological connectivity along its length

· In order to especially improve the ecological connectivity along the waterway, planting at least a twenty metre margin on either side with indigenous, ecotypic plants. This would create a self-sustaining plant cover and therefore reduce maintenance costs in the long run.

· Under-planting the deciduous woodlands, through which the waterway passes, with native plants, including replacement of deciduous trees near the waterway, in order to reduce the current high levels of leaf litter input to the waterway, which is detrimental to its ecology

4.16 A detailed tree survey assessing tree health and structure within a corridor 40 metres offset from the waterway centreline was carried out by Craig Taylor, Consultant Arborist, SimplyArb Tree Consultants Limited. This survey was used to assist with alignment decisions and indicate where hard engineered structures will be required – further definition of this will be required in detailed design. Throughout this survey process, we have engaged with Toby Chapman, City Arborist. Toby has reviewed and is satisfied with the method that Craig Taylor used for the assessment, his results and recommendations.

4.17 To carry out the works as detailed above, it is proposed to remove 17 trees of Good Health, 9 Fair Health, 13 Poor Health, 5 Very Poor Health and 1 self-propagated tree not on any council record. It should be noted that there are two stands of poplar trees by the Hagley Oval that have been identified by the Parks team as needing removal, regardless of the Addington Brook Enhancement project. It is proposed to transplant 20 trees out to other locations as agreed with the Parks Team.

4.18 While the number of trees proposed for removal may appear high, within the context of the length of the waterway, the number of the existing trees being retained, the overall health of the trees being removed, the damage to the waterway caused by some of the trees, we consider that there is likely to be less than minor visual impact when members of the public are looking into Hagley Park from the boundary, or looking out from within the park.

4.19 The Christchurch City Council Tree Policy 1.7 states: For every tree removed a minimum of 2 new trees will be planted with the projected canopy cover replacing that which is lost within 20 years (additional planting may be required). The project will plant in excess of that required under the Tree Policy to create new tree canopy within the park.

4.20 As part of the works, we will carry out restorative arboreal works to a number of Fair/Poor rated trees to increase the longevity of the existing canopy until the new planted trees are mature by which time the existing trees will be nearing the end of their life.

4.21 Other works that are proposed:

· Some areas where the public can safely access the water’s edge

· The inclusion of storyboards.

Artist’s Impression – all proposed planting is shown at maturity

Mana whenua and Stakeholder Engagement

4.22 Engagement with mana whenua and key external stakeholders has been carried out.

4.23 The project team met with representatives from the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee^{^[1]} on 11 August 2022 detailing the draft Masterplan, and suppling the committee facilitator with a selection of slides from the Masterplan. The proposal was discussed at a full meeting of the Zone Committee on 25 August 2022 after which a letter endorsing the works was given to Council. The letter states:

The Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee supports the proposed master plan for the restoration of Addington Brook within Hagley Park, The Committee also encourages the Council to use this as an opportunity to build community awareness and education about healthy waterways, The Committee also believes it will be valuable as an example of best practice in restoring waterways, as the techniques used will build on what has been learnt from other projects in the city.

The Zone Committee commends the proposed master plan for restoring Addington Brook to Christchurch City Council as a worthwhile investment in the future of our waterways and community.

4.24 The project team met with Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) to provide them with the detail, reasons and objectives of the masterplan and also provided them with a selection of slides from the Masterplan. MKT then presented the information with Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga at a hui on 8 September 2022 for feedback and recommendations. The Cultural Advice Report received by Council following the hui states:

The feedback from the kaitiaki is as follows:

- Kaitiaki are supportive of the proposed works

- Kaitiaki are supportive of the proposed storyboards/panels

- Kaitiaki wish to be re-engaged regarding the content of the storyboard.

- There were no concerns raised nor recommendations/modifications indicated for the proposed works.

4.25 The project team met with the Hagley Park Reference Group on 30 September 2022. The Masterplan was presented to the group and was fully discussed. As requested during the meeting, a selection of slides from the Masterplan was supplied to the attendees to provide to the wider interest groups that they represent. The Chair of the group has emailed staff to confirm their support, stating:

I can confirm that at the Hagley Park Reference Group meeting on 30 September, a full briefing on the improvement plans for Addington Brook was presented to the group, and those present at the meeting, representing the three groups most concerned about protecting Hagley Park, endorsed the plan, and indeed were supportive of it.

Their only advice from the group to CCC was to be careful about how the plan is communicated to the public.

I will also note that staff presenting to the group did a superb job of showing how the plan will be executed and will result in significant enhancements to Hagley Park, Addington Brook, and the quality of water in the Avon River.

4.26 It is proposed that the next stage of stakeholder works will focus on public notification. The project team is working closely with Council’s Communications and Engagement teams to ensure that good communication and engagement with the public.

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

Central Ward

5. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

5.1 Do nothing.

· Advantages – No disturbance of existing trees.

· Disadvantages – Ongoing sediment mobilisation through further bank slumping and risk to undermining of trees on the top of bank. Some of the advantage of the wider catchment water quality treatment will be lost due to ongoing sediment mobilisation. The ideas and guidance for the improvements as detailed in the Hagley Park Management and Masterplan would not be realised. The waterway would need to be fenced to mitigate the health and safety risk.

5.2 Timber line the waterway either to part height or full height.

· Advantages – Resolve the issues with sediment mobilisations and bank undercutting/slumping. The number of trees that would need to be removed would be greatly reduced. There would be less impact on the park. Lining would be a lower capital cost.

· Disadvantages – All existing aquatic habitat i.e. behind exposed root balls or undercut banks would be removed by the timbering. There would be no instream or avian habitat improvements. Flood flow rates will potentially increase due to the “smoother” timber panelling. The timber lining would not be aesthetically pleasing in the park context. The timber linings only have an asset life of approximately 40 years before requiring renewal. The ideas and guidance for the improvements as detailed in the Hagley Park Management and Masterplan would not be realised. The waterway would need to be fenced to mitigate the health and safety risk.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Te Wai Ora o Tāne Integrated Water Strategy - April 2019 Council’s integrated water strategy includes consideration of stormwater and waterways. The strategy includes objectives on the use and health of waterbodies that directly apply to this project namely:

· Objective 1 - Awareness and engagement

· Objective 2 – Efficient and resilient infrastructure

· Objective 3 - Enhancement of ecological, cultural and natural values

· Objective 4 - Water quality improvement

6.2 Within the Hagley Park Masterplan, there are a number of sections that support this project. This includes statements in various sections:

· Vision for Hagley Park – The park is secondarily managed to enhance wildlife values and provide habitat for biodiversity.

· A Snapshot of Issues – Now and Into the Future - Enhancement of the environmental quality of the drains flowing through Hagley Park is also a matter needing attention. The drains can be re-contoured to become a feature of the Park and used to enhance biodiversity and aesthetic interest.

· Specific Issues to Consider – Waterways in the Park have largely been treated as utilities to date – the development and management approach should be about enhancing the natural environment and aesthetic landscape values of these assets.

· Project 28 – Waterway Enhancement – Proposals for restoration include:

· Reducing sediment input/contamination in the waterway that arises
from storm water discharge. A concept for a multipurpose storm
water treatment/wetland facility adjacent to Addington Brook near the
Christchurch Netball Centre has been proposed in another project in
this master plan (see 27. South Hagley Park Multipurpose Storm Water
Treatment/Wetland Concept (Page 70)).

· Planting of the grassed banks with, for example, native shrubs, ferns
and trees to provide shade for the waterway in order to improve
conditions for in-stream life, including the provision of areas for fish
spawning, stabilisation of the waterway’s banks and generally
improving visual and ecological connectivity along its length.

· In order to especially improve the ecological connectivity along the
waterway, planting at least a twenty metre margin on either side with
indigenous, ecotypic plants. This would create a self-sustaining plant
cover and therefore reduce maintenance costs in the long run.

· Under-planting the deciduous woodlands, through which the
waterway passes, with native plants, including replacement of
deciduous trees near the waterway, in order to reduce the current high
levels of leaf litter input to the waterway, which is detrimental to its
ecology.

6.3 This project supports the following Community Outcomes under the Healthy Environment heading:

· Healthy water bodies

· Unique landscapes and indigenous biodiversity are valued and stewardship exercised.

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

6.4.1 Activity: Stormwater Drainage

· Level of Service: 14.0.4.1 Council maintains waterway channels and margins to a high standard: Minimum length of 500m of bank naturalised per year (based on a single side of the waterway) - >=95%

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. This is in accord with The Integrated Water Strategy, the Hagley Park Masterplan, Councils Tree Policy, and aligns with Councils “Healthy Environment” Community Outcomes.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 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.

6.7 Mana Whenua have a strong interest in stormwater management. The preferred approach is consistent with plans and policies that have had Mana Whenua engagement.

6.8 Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga are supportive of the proposed works and would like to be involved regarding the content of the storyboards.

6.9 Further engagement with Mana Whenua discussing the details of the Addington Brook Enhancement Masterplan will be undertaken prior to the finalising of the Masterplan and before any detailed design is carried out.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 This project will assist with the mitigation of climate change by providing an increase in flood capacity within Addington Brook due to the battering of the banks.

6.11 Additionally, the plantings will increase shading of the water reducing the effects of any resulting temperature increase on water quality i.e. macrophyte growth.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.12 Apart from the possible inclusion of further pathways along the waterway alignment being provided for resident interaction with the waterway, no further accessibility considerations have been made.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – An initial rough order cost estimate prepared at project initiation estimated that renewal works to be in the order of $6.2 million.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – ongoing operational costs are expected to be about the same; a little less for watercourse maintenance and a little more for landscaping and plant maintenance.

7.3 Funding Source – This project has been funded through the Councils Long Term Plan (2021-2031) process. In the event that there is insufficient budget due to scope changes as detailed design progresses, a change request can be made from the Waterways Lining Renewal Programme level funding

Other / He mea anō

7.4 Not applicable

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.2 The key concepts of the waterway renewal masterplan wholly align with various publicly notified documents specific to Hagley Park such as Council authored and endorsed The Hagley Park Management Plan 2007, The Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007, the Otakaro/Avon River Catchment Vision and Values Document, and the Improving the Health of Urban Waterways, Addington Brook “Living “catchment Management Plan June 2019 prepared by the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee.

8.3 Hagley Park South is a recreation reserve subject to Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977. The publically consulted Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 and the Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007 provide the vehicles for the management of the Park to be in alignment with the requirements of the Reserves Act. Additionally the Christchurch City Reserves Empowering Act 1971, states what activities can or can’t occur in the Park, but only in relation to new car parks and public works. With the Addington Brook Masterplan according with the Hagley Park Plans and the Reserves, further public consultation is not required.

8.4 The philosophy of tree removal and replacement accords with the Christchurch City Council Tree Policy.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.5 Council has an obligation under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 to maintain and clear / clean watercourses, drains and sewers (including the stormwater network) so that they are not a nuisance or damaging to health. The continued erosion and slumping of the banks during rain events causes damage to public assets and ongoing sediment mobilisation. Council has a role to provide for watercourses that are safe and in a suitable condition within the drainage district under the Act.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Risks associated to Councils reputation with the removal of 45 mixed health trees from South Hagley park will be effectively mitigated by the proposed 5-8 metre riparian strip on the banks, and the provision of replacement trees at a ratio of at least 3 times that proposed to be removed that will eventually backfill any holes in the canopy.

9.2 Risks associated with injury being caused members of the public falling into the steeply incised waterway will be mitigated by battering the banks and planting out the banks more densely to provide a demarcation to the watercourse.

9.3 Risks associated with the construction activities in South Hagley Park to members of the public will be managed by employing a suitable contractor with proven experience.

9.4 Risk associated with insufficient funding is mitigated by being able to carry out a change request from programme level funding approved in Council’s Long Term Plan (2021-2031).

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Addington LA Masterplan V4 FINAL optimized	22/1565805	91

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

Grant Stowell - Team Leader Asset Management

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

23 November 2022

10. Canterbury Museum Easements over Botanic Gardens
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1411798
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Russel Wedge, Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory, (russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 To approve seven permanent easements and one temporary easement (up to 5 years) over the Botanic Gardens in favour of Canterbury Museum.

1.2 The report is staff generated for Council approval as a requirement of the Delegations Register for easements over reserve land subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Although the Botanic Gardens is considered a metropolitan asset, the easements in the long term will not affect the public enjoyment or access around the Botanic Gardens. The public may be excluded from the temporary easement area during the construction phase of the Museum but this will not be permanent.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of the following easements to Canterbury Museum over that part of the Local Purpose (Botanic Gardens) Reserve known as Botanic Gardens (Part Reserve 25 contained in Record of Title 668229) as is approximately shown on the plans below at paragraphs 5.3 and 5.8, and subject to resolutions 2 and 3 below:

a. Permanent Right to Convey Water Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

b. Permanent Right to Convey and Drain Sewerage Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

c. Permanent Right to Drain Stormwater Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

d. Permanent Right to Convey Electricity and Telecommunications from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

e. Permanent Right to Convey and Store Water Easement on the eastern side of the Canterbury Museum on Botanic Gardens Reserve

f. Permanent Right of Support Easement for base isolation over the Botanic Gardens Reserve for the Robert McDougall Gallery and the Roger Duff Wing

g. Permanent Right of Support Easement for an existing overhang of the Roger Duff building in the Botanic Gardens airspace

h. Temporary Right of Way Easement (up to 5 years) for truck access from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Robert McDougall Gallery for construction work including the front of the Canterbury Museum along Rolleston Avenue

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

3. Canterbury Museum meeting its own costs associated with the creation and execution of these easements.

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The easements will ensure the infrastructure services from Rolleston Avenue to the Museum across the Botanic Gardens are protected from future developments in the Botanic Gardens.

3.2 The easements will enable the demolition and rebuild of the Museum, including the base isolation for the Robert McDougal Gallery (RMG) to proceed and:

3.2.1 Protect the base isolation work that encroach into the Botanic Gardens from the Roger Duff Wing and the RMG,

3.2.2 Protect the underground services that run from Rolleston Avenue down the southern side of the Museum to the Roger Duff Wing over the Botanic Gardens and the underground water storage tank on Rolleston Avenue that is in front of the Museum on the Botanic Gardens reserve,

3.2.3 Legalise the existing overhang of the Roger Duff Wing in the Botanic Gardens airspace, and

3.2.4 Allow for a temporary right of way easement (up to 5 years) for truck access from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the RMG for construction work, including the reserve in front of the Museum along Rolleston Avenue.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Easements are not approved – Not Recommended.

4.1.1 Advantages – the Botanic Gardens would remain undisturbed.

4.1.2 Disadvantages – the base isolation for the RMG and the Roger Duff Wing would not be able to proceed.

4.1.3 There would be no protection to the existing infrastructure services in the Botanic Gardens from future work or for additional services, such as the underground water storage tank. The Museum would not meet its FENZ fire emergency conditions if the underground water storage tank could not be installed.

4.1.4 The Museum would not have access down the side of the building across the Botanic Gardens for the construction of the Museum or access to the RMG for base isolation work.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1 The Museum is commencing a redevelopment programme to strengthen and protect the Category 1 heritage listed buildings including the RMG. The Museum will also upgrade the facilities to provide more space and to meet current international standards for museums. The Mountfort and Roger Duff Wing will be retained and the remaining museum buildings will be demolished. The rebuild of the buildings will provide more space and comply with international exhibition standards for museums.

The Easements

5.2 There are eight easements proposed, seven easements are permanent and one is a temporary easement for up to five years.

5.3 Figure 1. Permanent easements proposed over the Botanic Gardens.

The eight easement can be considered in four groups:

5.4 Group One - Easements associated with the infrastructure and servicing of the Museum, running underground in and through the Botanic Gardens reserve (refer yellow above):

5.4.1 Permanent Right to Convey Water Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

5.4.2 Permanent Right to Convey and Drain Sewerage Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

5.4.3 Permanent Right to Drain Stormwater Easement from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

5.4.4 Permanent Right to Convey Electricity and Telecommunications from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Roger Duff Wing

5.4.5 Permanent Right to Convey and Store Water Easement on the eastern side of the Canterbury Museum on Botanic Gardens Reserve

5.5 Group Two – Easements associated with the base isolation of the buildings where the completed works will encroach upon the Botanic Gardens reserve (refer orange above):

5.5.1 Permanent Right of Support Easement for base isolation over the Botanic Gardens Reserve for the Robert McDougall Gallery and the Roger Duff Wing

5.6 Group Three – legalising an existing easement over Botanic Gardens air space (refer blue above):

5.6.1 Permanent Right of Support Easement for an existing overhang of the Roger Duff building in the Botanic Gardens airspace

5.7 Group Four – A temporary easement allowing vehicles to move over the Botanic Gardens for the development of the Museum and construction work on the RMG (refer purple below):

5.7.1 Temporary Right of Way Easement (up to 5 years) for truck access from Rolleston Avenue over the Botanic Gardens Reserve to the Robert McDougall Gallery for construction work including the front of the Canterbury Museum along Rolleston Avenue (refer plan below).

5.8 Figure 2. Plan showing the temporary easement area (for up to 5 years). A fence will close off the easement area to the public when construction work is underway.

Statutory Processes – Reserves Act 1977

5.9 The Botanic Gardens is classified as a Local Purpose (Botanic Garden) Reserve under section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

5.10 The easements are pursuant to section 48(1) (a) (d) (e) and (f) of the Reserves Act 1977.

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

5.12 Some of the proposed easements will result in the reserve being material altered or permanently damaged such as the base isolation work, the underground water storage tank and the existing overhang of the Roger Duff Wing in the Botanic Gardens. It was for these reasons and the number of easements proposed the decision was made to publicly consult on all the proposed easements.

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

Decision Making Authority

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

5.15 The Botanic Gardens is situated in the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.1 Consultation was open from 2 September to 3 October 2022.

6.2 An email was sent to 173 stakeholder groups, including residents’ associations across the city and Banks Peninsula and the Hagley Park Reference Group.

6.3 The Museum project team and Council staff briefed the Hagley Park Reference Group on the proposed easements in July 2022 before public consultation commenced in September. The Hagley Park Reference Group understood the reasons for the easements and were supportive of the strengthening project for the RMG and the Museum. The Hagley Park Reference Group were notified of the public consultation and links to make a submission, no submissions were received from the Hagley Park Reference Group.

6.4 A Newsline story inviting people to have their say was published on 2 September and shared on the Council Facebook page.

6.5 In accordance with section 48(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 a public notice was published in The Press on 3 and 17 September 2022, requesting any objections or submissions to be received by 3 October 2022.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.6 We received 42 submissions from individuals residing predominately in Christchurch (41). All submissions are attached (Attachment A) and available on the have your say webpage.

6.7 The majority of submitters indicated they were in support of Council granting Canterbury Museum’s application for easements over the Botanic Gardens (38 submitters, 90%). The primary reason given for their support was that the museum is a benefit/asset to our city (14 submitters).

6.8 Two submitters (5%) indicated they were opposed to granting the application for easements. Those opposed were concerned about the damage that could be caused to the Botanic Gardens and that the museum hadn’t secured all the funding needed for the redevelopment. Two submitters (5%) made no clear indication of whether they supported the application or not.

6.9 Other issues raised by multiple submitters included:

· Support for the transport pilot on Rolleston Avenue (6 submitters)

· Base isolating the museum buildings is important (4 submitters)

· Concerns about possible damage to the gardens (4 submitters)

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

7.1 The easements will enable the base isolation of the RMG and the redevelopment of the gardens around the RMG. This work is in line with the approved Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

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

7.2.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.4 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.

7.5 The decision is not a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

7.6 At the start of this process the Council’s Treaty Relationship Team reviewed this proposal and stated that the area is not of ancestral significance and did not believe Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) would need to be consulted.

7.7 The location of the proposed (and some existing) easements in the Botanic Gardens, has been readily used as an access way to the Botanic Gardens for many years by the public, staff and the Museum.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.8 The easements will not impact on climate change.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.9 An alternative entry and exist point into the Botanic Gardens will be operational when the access way down the side of the Museum is closed for the demolition and construction work.

7.10 The Museum is working with the Transport Unit to ensure there is a safe passage for pedestrian and cyclists in front of the Museum and vehicles along Rolleston Avenue during the demolition and construction work.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

8.3 Funding Source – Parks Unit Planning Operational budget.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9.1 The easements are pursuant to section 48(1) (a) (d) (e) and (f) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

9.2 The report has been reviewed by the legal team.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 There is minimal if any risk to the Council in the approval of the easements. The proposed easements have been consulted with the public and there were only two out of 43 submissions received who opposed the easements. The two submitters were against any damage to the Botanic Gardens and one opposed the Museum using the RMG, which has already been leased to the Museum. The easements will enable the Museum to strengthen the RMG and to demolish and redevelop the Museum buildings for the betterment of the public.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Submissions table - Canterbury Museum's application for easements over the Botanic Gardens	22/1480808	149

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

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

23 November 2022

11. Plan Change 5 Correction to recommendations by Hearings Panel
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1498180
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Marie Pollisco, Policy Planner (maire.pollisco@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services (jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel's supplementary report with a correction to their earlier recommendations, following the Council's decision (CNCL/2022/00063) on Plan Change 5 Grouped Changes.

1.2 The Council, as the final decision-maker, resolved to accept the Hearing Panel's recommendation without amendment. Subsequently information was brought to the attention of the Hearings Panel during the appeal period that an error was made, specifically on its recommendation on a submission by Foodstuffs (South Island) Properties Limited. This only affects one aspect of Plan Change 5, being 5F Planning Maps.

1.3 The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation has considered the written and oral submissions received on Plan Change 5 and made its recommendations to the Council, which were considered at the Council meeting on 28 July 2022.

1.4 The Hearings Panel has the ability to amend its recommendation to the Council if the recommendation was made in error. The Council has the ability, under s46 of the Legislation Act 2019, to amend its decision on Plan Change 5F Planning Maps to correct an error.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the supplementary report and recommendation of the Hearings Panel on Plan Change 5F Planning Maps – Submission by Foodstuffs for rezoning their Head Office at 165 Main North Road, including 159 Main North Road (submission point s29.16);

2. Adopts, as the decision of the Council, the amended recommendation of the Hearings Panel that submission point s29.16 be approved as per the Hearing Panel’s supplementary report in Attachment C, under s46 of the Legislation Act 2019.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The plan change (PC5) consists of a group of changes to the District Plan, some of which have important interrelationships, and some are wholly independent of others. However, in all cases the changes aim to improve the clarity of the District Plan provisions and to “better reflect what was intended – achieving better outcomes for communities and to align with national direction”. PC5 is comprised of the following 9 topics: PC 5A Strategic Commercial Objective; PC 5B Commercial; PC 5C Industrial; PC 5D Home occupations; PC 5E Noise-sensitive activities near roads and rail corridors; PC 5F Planning Maps; PC 5G Consequential changes arising from removal of car parking requirements; PC 5H Antenna; and PC 5I Election signage.

3.2 On Plan Change 5F Planning Maps, Foodstuffs (South Island) Properties Limited requested, in its submission S29.16, to rezone their Head Office site at 165 Main North Road from part Residential Suburban to Industrial General (see Attachment A for their submission).

3.3 Ms Pollisco made recommendations to the Hearings Panel on the submissions for Plan Change 5F Planning Maps in a report known as a s42A report. In paragraph 8.4.12 of her s42A Report, she noted that “the adjoining property at 159 Main North Road zoned residential, which sits between the two areas requested for rezoning … is also owned by Foodstuffs but is not part of this submission.” The location of 159 Main North Road is shown in the image below. The statement in Ms Pollisco’s s42A Report was not refuted by Foodstuffs at the time of the hearing.

3.4 Based on the S42A and s32AA reports, the Hearings Panel considered that the rezoning of 159 Main North Road and concluded as follows:

“31. The s42A report notes that there is an additional small strip of land between the two areas at 165 which is numbered as 159 Main North Road and is also zoned Residential Suburban. The submission did not expressly seek a change to the zoning of this small strip so unfortunately this is not within our scope of jurisdiction and cannot be addressed.

…

35. We agree that a change to the zoning as sought will reflect the consented use and development of the site and is appropriate. We also consider that it would be appropriate to tidy up the zoning of the land at 159 Main North Road in a future Plan Change.”

3.5 However, during the appeal period, Council received communication from Ms Alex Booker of Foodstuffs that there was an error in regards to the Hearing Panel’s recommendation on submission S29.16 and their conclusion that it was out of scope was not correct. Ms Booker pointed out that 159 Main North Road is actually part of the submission because its legal description is listed in the footnote describing the lots comprising the Foodstuffs Head Office at 165 Main North Road.

3.6 Council staff can confirm that even if 159 Main North Road was not specifically mentioned in the submission, the legal description of Lot 2 DP 14400 for 159 Main North Road was indeed listed in the footnote describing the area requested to be rezoned (footnote 2 on page 3 of Attachment A for the Foodstuffs submission). In regards to its merit, Council staff agree that a change to the zoning sought will reflect the consented use and development of the site and is appropriate. It also avoids a single property being zoned residential that is otherwise surrounded by industrial zoning.

3.7 Council staff subsequently requested the Hearings Panel to review its recommendation to Council regarding the rezoning of 159 Main North Road (on pages 180-182, Attachment B Hearings Panel’s recommendations) as part of Foodstuffs submission (S29.16), on the basis that there was a factual error in that process.

3.8 The Hearings Panel subsequently reviewed its recommendation to Council and has now provided the supplementary report in Attachment C amending its recommendation to Council regarding that part of submission point S29.16 to include 159 Main North Road in the rezoning of its head Office to Industrial General.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The alternative option is to not make the correction. Then, Foodstuffs would appeal and the Council, acting reasonably, would have to agree to the relief sought in the appeal. Going through an appeal process will be a waste of time and money compared to just making the correction.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Plan Change 5 was publicly notified on 22^nd October 2020, following pre-notification consultation in July-August 2020. A summary of submissions was notified for further submissions on 28 January 2021, closing on 12 February 2021.

5.2 Council appointed a hearings panel to hear the submissions. The hearing was held from 13-17 December 2021, while noting that the Panel did not consider all the parts of PC5.

5.3 For Plan Change 5F, the Council received 15 submissions requesting 28 separate decisions. These attracted 12 further submissions from seven (7) submitters, opposing or supporting the decisions requested in the first round of submissions. There were no further submitters on the submission (S29.16) subject of this report.

5.4 The decision affects the Papanui ward, which is within the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act and is consistent with s46 of the Legislation Act 2019.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.4 Consultation was undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao in the preparation of Plan Change 5 and on the draft plan change. The matter subject to this report is not deemed to impact on Manawhenua values

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

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

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Adopting the Panel’s amended recommendation will not result in additional costs to Council beyond what has been budgeted for.

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

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Sections 74 and 75 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) set out the Council’s obligations when preparing a change to its District Plan. The Panel’s report on PC5 (Appendix B) and the supplementary report (Appendix C) applied the appropriate considerations under the RMA.

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

8.3 The Hearings Panel has the ability to amend its recommendation to the Council if the recommendation was made in error.

8.4 The Council has the ability, under s46 of the Legislation Act 2019, to amend its decision on Plan Change 5F Planning Maps to correct an error.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Council is statutorily required to have an operative District Plan at all times. Issues have been identified with the District Plan which are addressed through Plan Change 5. Therefore, the risk of not acting is considered greater than the risk of acting.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	PC 5F Planning Maps - Foodstuffs Submission (S29) (Under Separate Cover)	22/1454383
b	Hearings Panel Recommendation, Volume 1 (Under Separate Cover)	22/672482
c	Hearings Panel Supplementary Report re 159 Main North Road (Under Separate Cover)	22/1494478

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

Marie Pollisco - Policy Planner

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] Water zone committees develop actions and tactics to deliver on the targets of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

5. Council Minutes - 25 October 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1572688
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Samantha.Kelly@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

6. Council Minutes - 2 November 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1533502
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support, Samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

7. Sumner Lifeboat Institution- Transfer of Buildings and Granting of Ground Lease
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1404413
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Felix Dawson, Leasing Consultant Property Team (Felix.R.Dawson@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Sumner Lifeboat Institution- Transfer of Buildings and Granting of Ground Lease		25