Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 1 March 2023

Council

01 March 2023

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 31 Leander Street Papanui
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1414719
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant, stuart.mcleod@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 Under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 a Council Resolution is required to vest Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road.

1.2 This report is in response to a conditional resource consent RMA/2022/1230 that requires Local Purpose (Road) Reserve to be dedicated as road to give Lot 3 on the plan of subdivision legal road access.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the positive benefits of dedicating this land as road to allow development to the north and to provide additional housing and rating income.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends to Council that it:

1. Resolves pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve containing 1473m² being Part Lot 3 DP 13330, Part Lot 4 DP 17321 and Lot 8 DP 13050 and now shown as Section 4 SO 586272 as road and

2. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to conclude the dedication of the land as road.

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

3.1 This in an enabling decision that gives Lot 3 on the adjoining subdivision access to the road network. Resource consent has been granted conditional upon the Council to completing this road dedication prior to the issue of titles.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do nothing

4.1.1 Advantages

· There are no advantages with this option.

4.1.2 Disadvantages

· Creates reputational risk because Council has already issued a conditional resource consent.

· Would not allow access from the adjoining development and therefore

· Would effectively thwart the adjoining subdivision from progressing.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Christchurch City Council acquired various parcels of land in the Leander Street area in the 1940’s and 1950’s as Local Purpose (Road) Reserve.

5.2 The reason to hold it as road reserve was to provide for future roads when subdivision of adjoining land was proposed. It also gave a degree of control over recovery of road formation costs when adjoining land was developed or subdivided.

5.3 The adjoining owner at 45 Vagues Road has now initiated a subdivision where they are creating 2 additional allotments. One of them (Lot 3) requires alternative legal road access and the only way to achieve this is to dedicate the parcels of land identified in this report as road.

5.4 Section 4 shown on the below plan (also shown on the attached Survey Office Plan) is the land parcel to be dedicated as road. Sections 5 and 6 are to remain Local Purpose (Road) Reserve until such time as the adjoining land on the southern boundary is subdivided or developed.

5.5 Because the land is a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve it is held and administered under the Reserves Act 1977. Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the Council to pass a resolution dedicating road reserves as road.

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

5.6.1 Papanui Electoral Ward – Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This scheme aligns with the Councils Transport Strategy in the draft Christchurch Transport Plan by providing consistent and safe street design and connecting communities through the road network.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 16.0.2 Improve roadway condition, to an appropriate national standard, measured by smooth travel exposure (STE) - >=75% of the sealed local road network meets the appropriate national standard

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s draft Christchurch Transport Plan and Policies by enabling safe streets and growth.

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.

6.5 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

6.6 There is no impact on Mana Whenua. Any impact on Mana Whenua was considered in the resource consent application and addressed. This was accepted and the resource consent subsequently granted.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report do not impact on climate change. Environmental effects were considered as part of the resource consent and where found to be less than minor. The development is not contrary to the relevant provisions set out in the District Plan or the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 Accessibility will be considered as part of the design standards for road corridors and footpaths.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – None, the applicant is meeting all Councils costs including staff time, survey and formation of the road.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Minimal as the road will be newly formed

7.3 Funding Source – Transport – Growth

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no other considerations.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises local authorities to dedicate Local Purpose (Road) Reserves as Road.

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 There are no significant risks associated with the decisions in this report. There is reputational risk if a decision is not made in accordance with, and as anticipated by the resource consent granted by the Councils Resource Consent Unit.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	304/6592 Leander Street Location Map	22/1417781
b	304/6592 SO 586272 draft Title Plan	23/62130

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Milne - Team Leader of Asset Planning

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Council

01 March 2023

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 12 Ramore Place, Papanui
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1418094
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant, stuart.mcleod@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 Under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 a Council Resolution is required to vest Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road.

1.2 This report is in response to resource consent RMA92030866 that anticipated a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve being dedicated as road.

1.3 This is a procedural matter and 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 considering the benefits to road users and rate payers of dedicating this land as road to ensure the road corridor can remain open.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends to Council that it:

1. Resolves pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve containing 596m² described as Lot 22 DP 27176 as road and

2. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to conclude the dedication of the land as road.

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

3.1 This in an enabling decision that gives nearby properties in the Sarabande Avenue area an alternative route to access Winters Road and Main North Road.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do nothing

4.1.1 Advantages

· There are no advantages with this option.

4.1.2 Disadvantages

· Creates reputational risk because it is contrary to the intended outcome of the resource consent.

· The road has been formed and is in use, to do nothing would create a nonsense.

· Does not resolve an outstanding road legalisation issue.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In 2015 Council received resource consent application RMA92030866 that created 9 new residential lots and anticipated that Council would form the road over the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve identified as Lot 22 DP 27176 (Lot 22) and dedicate it as road to provide continuity of the road corridor.

5.2 Under the Counties Amendment Act 1961 Lot 22 vested in Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown) in 1969 as a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve and in accordance with the practice at the time no title was issued.

5.3 Staff only became aware the land was owned by the Crown when the process to dedicate Lot 22 as road was considered. It has taken in excess of 3 years of discussions with Land Information New Zealand to resolve the ownership and agree to have the land vested in Council by using the provisions in the Counties Amendment Act 1972.

5.4 Title for Lot 22 has now issued in the name of the Christchurch City Council, the land is held as a Local Purpose (Road) Reserve and is administered under the Reserves Act 1977.

5.5 Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the Council to pass a resolution dedicating road reserves as road, the process to dedicate Lot 22 as road can now be completed.

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

5.6.1 Papanui Electoral Ward – Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Aligns with the Councils Transport Strategy in the draft Christchurch Transport Plan by providing consistent and safe street design and connecting communities through the road network.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s draft Christchurch Transport Plan and Policies by enabling safe streets and growth.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

6.6 There is no impact on Mana Whenua. Any impact on Mana Whenua would have been considered in the resource consent application and addressed. That application has been approved and the resource consent granted.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report do not impact on climate change. Environmental effects were considered as part of the resource consent and where found to be less than minor. The development has already occurred and was not contrary to the relevant provisions set out in the District Plan or the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 Accessibility was considered as part of the design standards for road corridors and footpaths.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Minor, costs are limited to staff time.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Minimal as the road is newly formed

7.3 Funding Source – Transport – Growth

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no other considerations.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises local authorities to dedicate Local Purpose (Road) Reserves as Road.

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 There are no significant risks associated with the decisions in this report. On the contrary there is reputational risk if a decision is not made in accordance with and as anticipated by the resource consent granted by the Councils Resource Consent Unit.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	304/5825 Location map 12 Ramore Place	22/1423747

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Milne - Team Leader of Asset Planning

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

01 March 2023

11. Art by the River Commission - Brett Graham, Erratic
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/903492
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Maria Adamski, Asset Engineer - Buildings & Heritage, Maria.Adamski@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 seek approval for the permanent installation of an artwork, Erratic, by Brett Graham, on the west side of the Avon River Bank Central City between Worcester and Hereford Streets.

1.2 The artwork is being delivered by SCAPE Public Art Trust (SCAPE) and is partly funded by Ōtākaro Ltd as part of the Avon River Precinct Art Trail. The funding includes the commissioning and installation of the artwork plus 12 months maintenance costs. This is the second of two artworks. The first artwork was Natalie Guy's The Pool that is located on the Avon River Bank Central City opposite the Antigua Boatsheds.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people impacted by the proposed artwork and location.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Accept the artwork Erratic by Brett Graham as a permanent artwork installation.

2. Approve the artwork location of Erratic on the Avon Riverbank Central City Reserve at 110 Cambridge Terrace, Central City, subject to the following:

a. SCAPE obtain and comply with all the necessary consents and approvals required to locate and install the artwork,

b. SCAPE confirms that all funding is in place to purchase and install the artwork,

c. SCAPE maintain the artwork for a 12 months maintenance period,

d. SCAPE provide a condition report of the artwork, long-term maintenance and engineering plans at handover,

e. The Council’s requirements be addressed in a 3-way contract agreement between SCAPE, the Artist and the Council.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Ōtākaro Ltd provided funding of $200,000 to the Council for the installation of two public art pieces in the Ōtākaro /Avon River Precinct and negotiated an agreement with SCAPE to be responsible for the delivery of the artworks.

3.2 The Council engaged SCAPE to deliver the two pieces of artwork.

3.3 The art work Erratic, by Brett Graham, was commissioned by SCAPE as the second (and final) piece of artwork. The first piece of art was The Pool, by Natalie Guy, located on the southern side of the Avon Riverbank Central City reserve opposite the Antigua Boatsheds in 2020.

3.4 A number of sites were investigated by SCAPE and Council staff and presented to the artist for the placement of the artwork. The nature of the work, current use of the space, and on-going maintenance were considered in determining a location.

3.5 The artwork was specifically designed for the selected location (true left Avon River bank between Worcester and Hereford Street) and references Scott Statue on the opposite river bank.

3.6 The artwork is to be installed in the last week of February. An opening is to be held on the 11th March 2023.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do nothing - not recommended

4.1.1 Advantages

· There is no risk to the surrounding trees

· The area of lawn remains open space.

4.1.2 Disadvantages

· The Council would lose the opportunity to acquire a new artwork as the funding may be withdrawn.

· The opportunity to represent history and connections through the arts is lost.

· The Council would not be fulfilling its obligations with Ōtākaro Ltd and SCAPE for the installation of two public art pieces in the Ōtākaro /Avon River Precinct.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Artist

5.1.1 Brett Graham (Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, Tainui, b. 1967) is a much lauded sculptor who creates large scale artworks and installations that explore indigenous histories, politics and philosophies. Graham lives and works in Waiuku on the southern shore of Manukau Harbour, though has been a constant traveller through his career, undertaking residences through Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa (the Pacific), North America and Europe.

5.1.2 He conceives his Māori whakapapa (ancestry) as a Pasifika/Moana identity and affiliated with a global network of indigenous and non-Western peoples. It is from this basis that Graham's work engages with histories of imperialism and global indigenous issues.

5.1.3 Graham has a Doctor of Fine Arts from the University of Auckland, received his Master of Fine Arts from the University of Hawai'i, United States in 1990 and completed his Bachelor of Fine Arts at the University of Auckland in 1988.

5.1.4 Graham has presented work at the Honolulu Biennial in 2017, the Sydney Biennale in 2010 and 2006, and the Venice Biennale 2007 in collaboration with Rachael Rakena. Graham has exhibited widely.

5.2 The Artwork

5.2.1 The artwork titled Erratic is a direct commission artwork and, being site specific, was the only concept presented.

5.2.2 The artwork is in proximity to and contrasts with the Robert Falcon Scott Memorial as an acknowledgement to Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who was the first person to reach the South Pole.

5.2.3 The granite stone that forms the artwork has been sourced from Norway.

5.2.4 The title ‘Erratic’ is a reference to the name given to rocks that have been carried vast distances by glaciers, sometimes hundreds of miles from their point of origin. It refers to Amundsen as a Norwegian venturing forth from the Arctic Circle to Antarctica, the stone itself, and as a play on words, the way the British Empire, including the Commonwealth, have chosen to remember history. In the Scott sculpture the pathos of defeat has been immortalised as an example of ‘self-sacrifice' for the greater cause, while the Empire remained largely unsympathetic to the defeated cultures and peoples who stood in its pathway.

5.2.5 The art work Erratic originated as a block of Norwegian granite from Norway and refers to a previous piece of work by the artist called ‘Shield for Antarctica’ where lines converge to a central point on the South Pole (90.000 S by 45.000 E). The ninety-nine small mounds on Erratic unfurl in a spiral from a point in the centre, a reference to the ninety-nine day journey of Amundsen and his four men’s expedition to the South Pole and back.

5.2.6 The design draws from indigenous calendars and the Inuit tradition of building stone mounds to mark territories.

Erratic, detail

Erratic, Brett Graham proposed location in reserve

Location - Cambridge Terrace side of Avon River Central City riverbank

5.3 Site selection

5.3.1 The artist and Council staff considered three sites along the Avon River Central City for this commission:

· In front of former Tiffany's restaurant (Jimmy's Smokehouse)

· Cambridge Terrace side of riverbank (opposite Scott Statue), artist preferred and selected site

· Oxford Terrace side of riverbank in front of Former Midland Club (Miro)

5.3.2 The preferred location on Cambridge Terrace was chosen as the artwork was designed in response to the Scott Statue and has proximity to the statue.

5.3.3 The preferred section of the river bank is subject to the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1971, Schedule 3: Reserves for the purpose of lawns, ornamental gardens and ornamental buildings. Erratic complies as a component of ornamental gardens.

5.3.4 There are two trees at this location. SCAPE have had a Tree Management Plan completed and tree protection is to be provided by:

· A supervising arborist overseeing the excavations for the foundation,

· Moving the artwork to place it on the edge of the Tree Protection Zone 300mm in from the footpath edge.

5.3.5 Artworks are permitted in the central city where they are exempt from a building consent.

5.3.6 The artwork has been positioned to allow for mower movement and is protected by a concrete pad. Access to maintain the artwork is not restricted.

5.4 Art Selection

5.4.1 The engagement for the artwork was by direct commission and no alternative artist or artwork was considered.

5.4.2 The artwork was directly commissioned with a brief outlining the context for the artwork, site details, artwork parameters and artist requirements.

5.4.3 The artist was briefed to create an artwork that;

· Has popular appeal to all ages, with a focus on families and children, and with a focus on being interactive and tactile,

· Addresses aspects of the history, culture or society of the city with the artwork story identifiable/accessible to local Cantabrians and visitors,

· Is site specific,

· Is accessible, easy to install and low maintenance with a minimum 50 year life.

5.5 Assessments

5.5.1 The installation of this artwork was discussed and endorsed by the Council’s Public Arts Advisory Group (PAAG) at their meeting of 23 November 2021.

5.5.2 PAAG resolved "that approval in principle be given for a grant of up to $61,800 subject to successful consultation with Ngai Tūāhuriri, to allow the granite to be ordered, and that this decision be shared with Ōtākaro Ltd."

5.5.3 A staff working party assessment has been carried out. The staff assessment reviews design and construction issues, maintenance requirements and finance implications and ensures all affected internal Council Units are consulted.

5.5.4 A Tree Management Plan has been completed and recommendations implemented.

5.5.5 The artwork is proposed to be lit with an additional fitting attached to an existing light pole with the assistance of the Streets Lighting network team.

5.5.6 The existing bench seat will be removed as it interrupts the view of the artwork. It will be reused in another park. There are a number of alternative seating options in the vicinity.

5.6 Issues

5.6.1 Engineering details and a condition assessment are to be supplied at handover.

5.6.2 As there is no water supply on site, water will be brought to site for wash down purposes.

5.6.3 A draft maintenance plan has been submitted and will be finalised at handover.

5.6.4 A three way commissioning agreement between the Council, SCAPE and the artist has been drafted.

5.7 The Council will own the artwork outright including:

· The Council will have the freedom to move, reposition, and maintain the artwork as required in consultation with SCAPE and the artist,

· Copyright of the artwork,

· The Council is free to use images of the artwork in promotional materials or for related commercial purposes, or to provide such images to members of the public.

5.8 SCAPE is a charitable trust that installs public art in Christchurch. The Trust organises and supports the installation of a number of permanent artworks throughout Christchurch, as well as a variety of temporary pieces during the annual SCAPE Season.

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

5.9.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1 Activity: Parks Heritage Management

· Level of Service: 6.9.1.5 To manage and maintain Public Artworks, Monuments and Artefacts - Resident satisfaction with presentation and maintenance of Public Artworks, Monuments, & Artefacts >= 65%

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Artworks in Public Places 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, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4 SCAPE have consulted with mana whenua throughout the process. Matapopore have considered the proposal and support the installation of Erratic as part of the Ōtākaro Art Trail.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 The location of the artwork is in the flood management area of the Avon River. The artwork will be secured to the ground to withstand flooding. Once water recedes debris would be removed and the artwork washed.

6.6 The stone was transported from Norway creating a carbon footprint.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 The artwork in the proposed location is fully accessible and can be viewed from the footpath.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to purchase and implement – The artwork is a gift to the Council and is funded by SCAPE Public Art through their grant from Ōtākaro Ltd. The cost of the artwork and installation is $161,800.

7.2 The artwork is funded by Ōtākaro Ltd for $100,000 and a grant of $61,800 from the Public Art Advisory Group (PAAG).

7.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The first 12 months maintenance costs are funded by SCAPE. Future years are currently unbudgeted and to be included in the draft 2024/34 Long Term Plan for consideration.

7.4 Maintenance has been estimated at $500 per year for cleaning the artwork and inspection.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has the authority to make decisions on arts and culture including the Art Gallery, and on parks (such as the central city which are not delegated to the Community Board).

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The legal consideration is:

8.2.1 Commissioned artworks are to be covered by a commissioning agreement to ensure that the Council is granted the following rights in respect of the artwork:

· Copyright in the artwork to be vested in the Council,

· The Council to retain the right to relocate an artwork at its discretion.

8.3 This area of the Avon River Bank is subject to Section 7(1) Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1971, which states the “Purpose: Lawns, Ornamental Gardens and Ornamental Buildings”. The location of the artwork Erratic complies with this Act.

8.4 The Christchurch District Plan identifies 110 Cambridge Terrace as in the Avon River Precinct (ARP) (Te Papa Ōtākaro) and has scheduled this area as a Heritage Setting and under Appendix 9.1.6.1 Schedule A, the artwork is a Permitted Activity.

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk the artwork will be vandalised or receive graffiti. Damage to the artwork is to be reported to the artist and a method of repair agreed. The graffiti removal methodology is addressed in the draft maintenance plan.

9.2 The artwork has been located in an open space that is visible from buildings on Cambridge Terrace and pedestrians and cyclists going past, surveillance will aid to discourage vandalism and graffiti.

9.3 The artwork is sealed to assist with cleaning and minimise damage from graffiti.

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
<enter document name>	<enter location/hyperlink>
<enter document name>	<enter location/hyperlink>

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

Maria Adamski - Asset Engineer - Buildings and Heritage

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Approved By

Wolfgang Bopp - Director Botanic Gardens & Garden Parks

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

01 March 2023

12. Approval to notify Housing and Business Choice (PC14) and Heritage (PC13) plan changes
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1753255
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning, mark.stevenson@ccc.govt.nz Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor Planning, Ike.klenynbos@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 The purpose of this report is to recommend public notification of the Housing and Business Choice (Plan Change 14 or PC14) and Heritage (Plan Change 13 or PC13) plan changes to the Christchurch District Plan (District Plan) to perform statutory obligations directed through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 to enable increased housing supply.

1.2 The Council is required to implement Medium Density Residential Standards and the direction in Policy 3 of the NPS-UD to enable higher densities and height of development in and around commercial centres. It has limited ability to constrain that intensification, by identifying qualifying matters that necessitate a lesser extent of development.

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

1.4 This report recommends significant changes to the MDRS and qualifying matter framework from those recommended by staff in the September 2022 report. Those changes are described here at parts 6.6 and 6.16.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

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

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

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council has a statutory obligation to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RM Amendment Act), by permitting development in accordance with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and enabling intensification in and around commercial areas in the District Plan, unless a qualifying matter necessitates limiting that development.

3.2 MDRS has the effect, in most residential areas of Christchurch, of enabling up to three residential units, up to 12 metres high, on a property without resource consent, if development complies with the relevant standards. The legislation has not given the Council the option under the Resource Management Act (RMA) of declining to introduce the MDRS. Council’s discretion is limited to introducing more lenient standards than the MDRS, or to propose “qualifying matters” that warrant restriction on the intensification enabled by the MDRS and NPS-UD.

3.3 The legislation’s direction requires greater building development to be allowed within and around the central city, suburban commercial centres and existing and planned rapid transit stops. PC14 therefore proposes that height limits are increased within and around the central city and suburban commercial centres. Additionally, the plan change includes the rezoning of some industrial areas within walking distance of the central city, and enabling housing and mixed-use development in industrial areas within walking distance of larger suburban centres.

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

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

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

3.7 The Council resolved, at the 8 September 2022 meeting, to approve Plan Change 13 for notification but to not notify Plan Change 14. As the Heritage plan change is heavily interdependent with Plan Change 14, staff deferred its notification until they could be notified together. Amendments made to Plan Change 13 since September 2022 have been greater than consequential. For this reason, it is now recommended that the Council revoke its previous resolution to notify Plan Change 13 and, instead, approve the revised Plan Change 13 for notification.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

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

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

Plan Change 14 – Alternative options

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

4.3 The Council is legally obliged to change its District Plan to implement the NPS-UD and the RMA Amendment Act, to give effect to the Act’s policy direction on urban form and legislative changes to increase housing supply and improve affordability – most notably to introduce the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS).

4.4 At the meeting on 8 September 2022, the Council made the decision not to notify the staff recommended Plan Change 14. As a result, the Council has been in breach of its statutory obligations since that time.

4.5 If the Council refuses to perform its statutory obligations at this time, then:

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

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

Option to do more than statutorily required

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

Option for Council to decide on changes to what staff recommend

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.10 Following the decision not to notify Plan Change 14 as originally recommended by staff at the 8 September 2022 meeting, an alternative proposal has been developed that seeks to balance the concerns expressed by elected members with the need for proposed changes to be appropriately supported by evidence.

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

Plan Change 13 – Alternative options

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

To seek changes to the plan change for notification

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

To not approve/ defer the plan change for notification

4.14 Under s86B of the RMA, when the Council notifies proposed rules to protect heritage, those rules take immediate legal effect, which means that resource consent is required for any activity in breach of the proposed new rules.

4.15 If the Council does not approve notifying the plan change, or defers the plan change, then development in accordance with the current permitted activity standards in the District Plan could be undertaken. This would not give immediate protection to Residential Heritage Areas and heritage items as prescribed under section 86B of the RMA and could result in the loss of or effects on the heritage values of these areas and sites.

5. Background to the Plan Changes

Context – Plan Change 14

5.1 The Council has a statutory obligation to make changes to the Christchurch District Plan, to implement the NPS-UD and 2021 amendment to the RMA, including the MDRS.

5.2 Although the Council’s submission on the RM Amendment Act and its letter to the Minister for the Environment following the decision not to notify the plan change in September 2022, raised concerns about the process, and the limitations of a broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach, it agreed that we need to concentrate growth within our city’s current footprint, rather than continuing to grow outward over highly productive land on our suburban fringe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context – Plan Change 13

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

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

Feedback – Plan Change 13 and 14

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

5.10 Engagement ran for four weeks. Topics attracting most comments were: building heights above 12 metres; qualifying matters to restrict intensified development; the Medium Density Residential zone - the majority of comments opposed this zoning; business intensification; and financial contributions for tree canopy cover- 70 percent of commenters on this supported the approach or wanted it increased as people value the tree canopy. Following the pre-notification feedback staff made a number of changes to the initial proposals (These were detailed in the report to Council, included in the agenda for the 8 September 2022 Council Meeting).

5.11 Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited have been consulted on Plan Changes 13 and 14, from preliminary stages through development of initial and revised proposals. Discussions began in late 2021 to help frame overall thinking for the development of Plan Change 14. Following the release of the full draft proposal in April 2022, Council staff met with representatives from Mahaanui to further discuss the plan changes. These discussions included the extent of qualifying matters. Maahanui expressed support for the approach taken and reiterated the importance of capturing adequate qualifying matters in the proposal.

5.12 Following the Council decision in September 2022 not to notify Plan Change 14, officers responded further to feedback from Councillors and the community in preparing an alternative proposal. Mahaanui were approached in February 2023 for feedback on the alternative proposal and expressed broad support, particularly for land use that better supports efficient public transport and the further reduction of carbon emissions.

6. Detail Te Whakamahuki

PC14 ‘Housing and Business Choice’ Intensification Plan Change

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

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

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

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

City Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Within and adjacent to suburban centres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other changes

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

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

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

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

Changes and additions to provisions since September 2022

6.6 The staff recommendation on PC14 now includes the following provisions in response to the previous councils’ feedback (Refer to Plan Change for a full description):

6.6.1 Commercial and Industrial Controls: Changes are proposed to the height limit within the Commercial Central City Mixed Use Zone, reducing the extent of the area enabled up to 10 storeys. An area between Moorhouse Ave, Madras, Montreal and Tuam Streets would be enabled to 6 storeys. It aligns with the six storey response in Sydenham and aids in transition to the central city.

6.6.2 The Milton Street Industrial site is proposed to be rezoned Mixed Use, which will also align with the high density response in Sydenham and enables both industrial and residential activities.

6.6.3 Residential controls: These have been updated including changes to rules in relation to setbacks, glazing, site coverage, minimum height and unit sizes, building form and fire-fighting, recession planes, and tree controls.

6.6.4 Future Urban Zone Rationalisation: Developed greenfield areas are zoned medium density as per suburban areas. Undeveloped areas will retain development plan controls. The North Halswell greenfield area within the commercial centre walking catchment will be zoned high density.

6.6.5 Specific Purpose Schools & Hospitals: The plan change must enable at least six storeys within a walkable distance of the City Centre zone unless a QM applies. All hospital zones are enabled to six storeys, with the former Christchurch Women’s Hospital enabled up to 10 storeys. About 30 current and former school sites are being enabled to six or 10 storeys. Some schools, for example Hagley Community College, Cathedral Grammar School and St Michael’s have QM heritage layers.

6.6.6 Character and heritage: three new character areas have been investigated and validated. The Lyttelton Heritage area has been reduced by about 100 sites. All of the Lyttelton area would be now be covered by a QM.

6.6.7 Zone/Overlay changes: Changes are made to the High density zone around centres, greenfield areas, Central City Mixed-use Zone, Mixed-use Zone and Lyttelton Heritage Area. There are also many new QM overlays.

6.6.8 Tree Canopy Cover: A financial contribution was proposed in September 2022 to address adverse effects of development (intensification) on the tree canopy cover in the urban environment. Christchurch’s tree canopy survey shows that the cover is falling with the most significant drop on private land. In the alternative proposal for notification, this financial contribution is being applied as a land use control across all permitted residential development in addition to subdivision. The recommended percentage of tree canopy cover per site has not been changed in this proposal although Council resolved at the 8 September 2022 meeting to request that staff increase the cover from 20% to 25%. An increase to 25% cannot be supported by staff because it would necessitate more and/or larger trees, going beyond the landscaped area required by MDRS. This could have implications for service areas and outdoor space, while also reducing sunlight and intruding on neighbouring properties.

Qualifying Matters

6.7 The plan change also includes a number of Qualifying Matters. The RMA allows for these to be proposed to limit intensification, if they pass a statutory test and appraisal through this plan change process.

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

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

6.10 The staff recommendation on PC14 still proposes that the following Qualifying Matters are applied, including matters of national importance (RMA s6), generally unchanged from those that staff recommended to Council in September 2022 (newly recommended qualifying matters are described in paragraph 6.16 below):

6.10.1 Natural and cultural features, and hazards:

· Outstanding and Significant Natural Features and Landscapes;

· Sites of Ecological Significance;

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

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

· High Flood Hazard Management Areas;

· Flood Ponding Management Areas;

· Heritage items and settings;

· Heritage, Significant and Other Trees;

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

· Riccarton Bush interface; and

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

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

6.12 Other qualifying matters proposed are:

· Residential Character Areas;

· Electricity Transmission corridors and structures;

· Airport Noise Influence Area;

· Lyttelton Port Influences Overlay;

· Sites adjoining the railway network;

· Designations

· Coastal Hazard Management Areas;

· Radio Communication Pathways;

· Vacuum Sewer Wastewater Constraint Areas; and

· Reduced height limits along Victoria Street.

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

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

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

Newly recommended qualifying matters

6.16 The staff recommendation on PC14 now includes the following additional qualifying matters:

6.16.1 Sunlight access: Climatic characteristics in Christchurch mean each hour of sunlight has a greater benefit. Reporting has shown that applying MDRS would, when compared to the Auckland baseline, reduce sunlight access for about 2 months of the year and second storeys would get little to no sun over winter. The proposed approach is to reduce the height from which the recession plane is measured from 4 metres to 3 metres. It will apply an orientation-based approach, rather than a static angle for all boundaries, to reduce the east/west boundary angle from 60° to 55°, and reduce the southern boundary angle from 60° to 50°. NIWA’s Atmospheric Science department has provided evidence to validate the qualifying matter.

6.16.2 Public Transport Access: This qualifying matter aligns with the investment strategy for public transport and increasing investment efficiency. The qualifying matter covers areas beyond a 10 minutes walking distance from core bus routes and restricts development to a level consistent with the suburban zoning in the operative district plan. It results in intensification being focussed in areas with the highest propensity to use public transport and greatest accessibility, reducing reliance on private vehicle use. It retains existing areas zoned for medium density and retains the higher density areas in line with NPS-UD. Staff consider this qualifying matter achieves the outcomes of the NPS-UD.

6.16.3 Transport corridors: NPS-UD / MDRS enablement risks compromising future transport outcomes. A setback of buildings from the road is proposed for Riccarton and Papanui Rd corridors, being strategic routes that provide a ‘City Spine’. It presents an opportunity to achieve improvements including environmental enhancement of the space either side of the road.

6.16.4 Open space / Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor: All Open Spaces, Specific Purpose Cemeteries and the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor zones will be protected except for land at the corner of Fitzgerald Ave and Harvey Terrace, where three storeys will be enabled as medium density.

6.16.5 Riccarton Bush Area: A review of the values and impact of development on the bush has resulted in increased restriction on intensification from 40 to 250 sites. Cascading heights are proposed in the Riccarton Bush interface.

6.16.6 Residential-Industrial interface: The qualifying matter is to require three storey development to be set back up to 120m from any industrial zone to avoid reverse sensitivity effects and impacts on amenity of future residents. This has been informed by acoustic reporting on the effects associated with noise from industrial zones. It is limited by the scope of the plan change to the residential zones with a review of controls for industrial areas to be considered as part of a future potential plan change.

Heritage Plan Change (Plan Change 13)

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

6.18 The Council decided, at the 8 September 2022 meeting, to approve Plan Change 13 for notification. As the plan change is heavily interdependent with plan change 14, a decision was made to defer its notification until such time as they could be notified together. Amendments made since September 2022 have been greater than consequential. For this reason, it is now recommended that the Council approve the revised plan change 13 for notification.

6.19 This Plan Change incorporates:

· An overall revision of the historic heritage rules.

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

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

· The scheduling of around 26 additional heritage interiors for protection.

· The introduction of 11 residential heritage areas.

6.20 The Heritage Plan Change will be subject to the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

6.21 Some of the content of PC13 is outside the scope of PC14 – e.g. heritage protections in zones that are not subject to MDRS and policy 3, or (arguably) rules concerning the interiors of heritage features. However, many proposed changes are duplicated in PC13 and PC14.

Residential Heritage Areas

6.22 Residential Heritage Areas are proposed to be included in the District Plan. There is some overlap between Residential Heritage Areas and Character Areas – for example emphasis on streetscape. However, Residential Heritage Areas have additional heritage values, and may be more diverse in appearance. Heritage is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the RMA. At a high level, they include buildings and features which collectively, rather than individually, are of significance to the city’s heritage and identity, and are required to be sufficiently intact.

6.23 Since September 2022 the proposed Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area has had a site by site assessment in line with the methodology used for the other proposed Residential Heritage Areas. Some parts of the township developed more recently have now being excluded from the proposed area

Process

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

Public Notification of Plan Change 14	17 March 2023
Submissions can be made by anyone (closing date)	3 May 2023
Summary of submissions and submissions published Further submissions invited from certain persons*	June/July 2023
Preparation of evidence/ reports with recommendations on submissions	August/September 2023
Hearings before Independent Hearings Panel (IHP)	October/ November 2023
Recommendations of IHP prepared	February/March 2024
Report to Council for a decision on the IHP’s recommendations (Refer to para. 6.26 below)	April 2024

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

6.25 If the Council accepts all of the IHP’s recommendation, then that is the end of the process. If the Council rejects any part the IHP’s recommendation, the Council must send the rejected part to the Minister for a decision on whether to accept it, reject it or replace it with the Council’s recommendation.

6.26 The Minister for the Environment directed that Council’s decisions on IHP recommendations are made on Plan Change 14 by the 20^th August 2023^{^[1]}. There has not been a subsequent change to that direction and staff will liaise with the Ministry for the Environment to request a change.

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

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

7.1.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.3 The decision involves 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.

7.4 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

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

· Strategic Directions development (Chapter 3);

· Scope of relevant residential zones;

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

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

· Broader strategic outcomes of Plan Change 14.

7.6 Following the release of the full draft proposal in April 2022, Council staff met with representatives from Mahaanui to further discuss the above. Mahaanui expressed support for the approach undertaken, and reiterated the importance of adequate qualifying matters to be captured in the proposal. Draft evaluation reports and draft changes were provided to Mahaanui on 22 July 2022.

7.7 Following the Council decision in September 2022 not to notify Plan Change 14, officers responded further to feedback from Councillors and the community in preparing an alternative proposal. Mahaanui were approached in February 2023 for feedback on the alternative proposal and expressed broad support, particularly for land use that better supports efficient public transport and the further reduction of carbon emissions.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

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

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

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

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

8.2 Plan Change 14 will be subject to a streamlined planning process prescribed in the RMA, which will result in additional costs including the Independent Hearings Panel who will hear submissions. Funding of $1.8 million has been budgeted for in the Annual Plan 2022-23.

Other He mea anō

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

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

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

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

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

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

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

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

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

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

Plan Change 13 Document Names	Plan Change 14 Document Names
Below are the lists of attachments to this report. Due to file sizes the Attachments are available on our website at the links below.
Plan Change 13 Attachments https://ccc.govt.nz/pc13	Plan Change 14 Attachments https://ccc.govt.nz/pc14
S32 Historic Heritage	Chapter 1 - Introduction
S32, Appendices 1-16	Chapter 2 - Abbreviations and Definitions
Rules Package, including plan appendices 9.3.7.1 to 9.3.7.6	Chapter 3 - Strategic Directions
Statements of Significance - New items	Chapter 5 – Natural Hazards
Statements of Significance – updates to existing items	Chapter 6 - General Rules and Procedures
Statements of Significance - New Interiors	Chapter 7 - Transport
Heritage aerial maps for updated existing items and settings	Chapter 8 - Subdivision, Development and Earthworks
Heritage aerial maps for new items	Chapter 9 - Natural and Cultural Heritage
Heritage Area Reports and Site Record Forms	Chapter 10 – Designations and Heritage Orders
Heritage Area Aerial Maps, Appendix 9.3.7.7	Chapter 11 – Utilities and Energy
Heritage Area Site Contributions Maps, Appendix 9.3.7.8	Chapter 12 – Papakāinga/Kāinga Zone
Heritage Area Interface Sites and Character Area Overlap Maps, Appendix 9.3.7.9	Chapter 13 - Specific Purposes Zone
	Chapter 14 - Residential
	Chapter 15 - Commercial
	Chapter 16 - Industrial
	Chapter 18 – Open Space

	Planning Maps
	S32, Part 1 - Overview and High Level District Issues
	S32, Part 2 - Qualifying Matters (District Plan Chapters 8, 9, 13, 14, 18)
	S32, Part 3 - Residential (District Plan Chapter 14)
	S32, Part 4 - Commercial (District Plan Chapter 15 and Industrial Chapter 16)
	S32, Part 5 -Transport (District Plan Chapter 7)
	S32, Part 6 - Subdivision, Development and Earthworks (District Plan Chapter 8)
	S32, Part 7 - Tree Canopy Cover - Financial Contributions (District Plan Chapters 2, 3 and 8)
	S32, Part 8 - Specific Purpose Zone – Schools and Hospitals (District Plan Chapter 13.5 and 13.6)

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sian Daly - Programme Manager Land Use & Growth

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

[1] https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2022-sl1594

5. Council Minutes - 25 January 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/125698
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Committee & Hearings Advisor, katie.matheis@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

6. Council Minutes - 1 February 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/135987
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Committee & Hearings Advisor, katie.matheis@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

7. Council Minutes - 15 February 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/222433
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader and Hearings and Committee Support (samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/161902
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162215	40
b ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162216	47
c ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162217	52
d ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162220	64
e ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162221	79
f ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report February 2023	23/162222	90

9. Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 31 Leander Street Papanui
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/180895
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant (Stuart.McLeod@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services (jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz)

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 31 Leander Street Papanui		98

10. Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 12 Ramore Place, Papanui
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/180905
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant (Stuart.McLeod@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services (jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz)

13. Notice of Motion
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/248999
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Mark Peters, mark.peters@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED
15.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 25 January 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.