Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 5 April 2023

Council

05 April 2023

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 9 February 2023

9. Road Stopping at 11 Humboldt Street, Sydenham
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/248238
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Manager Property Consultancy, Sustainable City Growth & Property (Angus.Smith@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 An application was received from the owner of 11 Humbolt Street, Sydenham, Christchurch to purchase the berm in front of the property which is currently held as legal road comprising an area of approximately 82 square metres. This would be achieved through a road stopping under the Council's policy and the land amalgamated with the applicant's property.

The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Board decided under delegation to decline the proposed road stopping. Refer to the Board consideration below for more detail.

1.2 The Board decided to recommend that the Council review its Road Stopping Policy 2020 in light of the proposed Urban Forest Plan, the impact of increasing intensification on public and private greenspace and the potential impact of changes to public greenspace on the wider area.

1. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

Staff spoke to the report in the agenda of this meeting, and noted that the proposed road stopping at 11 Humboldt Place in Sydenham was assessed and approved by staff in accordance with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020.

Under the Road Stopping Policy, the evaluation criteria for whether the application should proceed or not includes whether the road has current or potential value for amenity or conservation functions, for example protection of vegetation or trees. The Board noted that the parcel of land proposed to be stopped contains a tree, and selling this parcel could result in the loss of a street tree and loss of amenity. Consequently, the Board decided to decline to stop and sell the parcel of land.

The Board noted that the Council’s proposed Urban Forest Plan, which is currently out for consultation, sets out how tree canopy cover can be increased across all urban areas to mitigate climate change, bring multiple benefits to the liveability of neighbourhoods and help better sustain flora and fauna. The Board also noted that increasing intensification is putting more demand on public greenspace and reducing private greenspace, including trees, and reducing public greenspace could impact the wider area.

The Board decided to recommend that the Council review its Road Stopping Policy 2020 in light of its proposed Urban Forest Plan, the impact of increasing intensification on public and private greenspace and the potential impact of changes to public greenspace on the wider area.

2. Officer Comment

Recent feedback from several Community Boards suggest that the current Road Stopping Policy may no longer be fit for purpose. The Policy is primarily written from a transport planning and network perspective. The issues that are now being raised by Community Boards focus more on intensification, amenity, adaptation planning and tree canopy. These matters may not be sufficiently addressed in the policy.

Staff have taken these concerns on board and have initiated discussions to work collaboratively on a policy review with relevant colleagues (Property, Strategic Policy and Transport).

Staff are temporarily halting road stoppings where there is potential for conflict between strategic objectives to allow for this review.

Staff will look to undertake a review of the policy and processes. Initial thinking is that this would involve workshops with Community Boards. As a relatively recent issue, timeframes for this review are still being worked though and will be communicated when finalised.

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Notes that the proposed road stopping has been assessed and approved by staff in accordance with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020.

2. Resolves pursuant to Section 116(1), 117(3)(b) and 120(3) of the Public Works Act 1981 to stop and sell to the adjoining land owner that parcel of land shown as Proposed Section 1 in Attachment A to this report containing 82m2 subject to survey and to amalgamate that parcel of land with the adjoining land contained in the Record of Title CB469/87.

3. Approves that the Manager Property Consultancy is delegated the authority to undertake all actions, negotiate and conclude all the agreements necessary to facilitate the above in general accordance with this report on terms and conditions acceptable to him at his sole discretion, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

4. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Part C

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Note that the proposed road stopping has been assessed and approved by staff in accordance with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020.

2. Decline to stop and sell to the adjoining land owner the parcel of land shown as Proposed Section 1 in Attachment A to this report in the agenda of this meeting.

5. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

Part A

That the Council:

1. Review the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020 in light of the proposed Urban Forest Plan, the impact of increasing intensification on public and private greenspace and the potential impact of changes to public greenspace on the wider area.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Road Stopping at 11 Humboldt Street, Sydenham		88

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	11 Humboldt St- Road Stopping Plan - Section 1	22/1524021	96
b ⇩	Attachment B Examples Photos of Street Scape	22/1581280	97
c	Attachment C Valuation Details (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	22/1581282

Council

05 April 2023

Road Stopping at 11 Humboldt Street, Sydenham
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1480429
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Charly Baik, Property Consultant (Charly.Baik@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 This report seeks a decision of the Community Board under delegated authority from the Council to a road stopping application under the Council's Road Stopping Policy 2020.

1.2 An application has been received from the owner of 11 Humbolt Street, Sydenham, Christchurch to purchase the berm in front of the property which is currently held as legal road comprising an area of approximately 82 square metres. This would be achieved through a road stopping under the Council's policy and the land amalgamated with the applicant's property.

1.3 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:

· The level of significance was determined low as the road stopping affects only the applicant’s property.

· It is currently maintained and used as a berm by the applicant.

· The only affected adjoining owner to this road stopping is the Council-owned property at 15R Humboldt Street. The Council consents to the road stopping as an affected adjoining owner.

· The road stopping will not affect the existing road space or the pedestrian footpath.

· The road stopping will not cause any health and safety or accessibility issues for users of the road and footpath.

· There are yellow lines in front of the property and throughout Humboldt Street prohibiting cars from parking on the road.

1.4 Under the 2020 Council Road Stopping Policy this application is compliant, however, the delegated authority to approve sits with the Community Board by virtue of the fact that there is future potential for a subdivision. This provision is set out in the delegations established by the Council when adopting the Policy.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Notes that the proposed road stopping has been assessed and approved by staff in accordance with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020.

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

3.1 The only adjoining property affected by this road stopping is 15R Humboldt St, which is currently owned by the Council as shown below in the photos:

3.2 The Council has previously surveyed off 15R Humboldt Street at the request of the property owner of 15 Humboldt Street who have yet to finalise the road stopping process with the Council as part of their future subdivision plans. It remains in Council ownership until such time when the owner decides to proceed with their development plans.

3.3 The front boundary line of the applicant property will be pushed out to approximately 4m and stop at the berm edge line.

3.4 18 Humboldt St, a unit title development have gone through the road stopping process where part of road land was amalgamated with their property. The boundaries are out to the same distance the subject site is proposing. This road stopping is therefore consistent with those actions.

3.5 It is noted that there are various properties along Humboldt St which have effectively ‘incorporated’ a portion of the legal road land (berm area) adjoining their front boundary that has been fenced off. Titles would need to be searched and professionally surveyed to determine their legal boundaries. Refer to attached B.

3.6 These are yet to be dealt with as road stopping and disposition.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do not stop the road.

4.2 The alternative option would be inconsistent with previous decisions made by community boards and the council’s previous application of the road-stopping application in accordance with the Council’s road stopping policy 2020.

4.3 There is a risk the applicant could be aggrieved and seek cost recoveries from the Council associated with the application process and any other potential losses that could occur as a result of the application being denied without a good reason or alternatively seek a judicial review of the decision through the court process.

4.4 Therefore it is not recommended to consider an alternative option as that would not be consistent with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020 and all previous decisions relating to road stopping applications.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Staff have approved the application using the criteria outlined in the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2020 under the Public Works Act 1981 subject to the appropriate delegated decision of the Community Board, now sought by this report.

5.2 A Valuation Report commissioned to assess the value of the stopped portion has confirmed the extra 82m2 allows, after amalgamation with the adjoining site, to create development and subdivision potential. That assessment of value which would be sought as compensation is attached at Attachment C.

5.3 The only adjoining owners who are potentially affected by this road stopping are 15R Humboldt Street owned by the Council. If there was an adjoining property that is privately owned, we would generally seek consent as they are potentially an affected party to the road stopping process.

5.4 The views of the community have not been sought as this is not a controversial project and there is no impact on the local community beyond the neighbours. There are no adverse effects on neighbouring properties or the safety of users of the road including the pedestrian footpath.

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

5.5.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The proposed road stopping fits within the Council’s Strategic Framework because it transfers property rights to enable further development.

6.2 This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031).

· Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP-funded projects and activities. - At least 90% of projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.5 The 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 The road stopping area is not identified in the Christchurch District Plan as being culturally sensitive and the post road stopping maintains status-quo.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decision in this report does not have any impact on climate change.

6.8 The status quo is supported by this decision and is merely formalising the occupation of the berm land from road to residential use.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 The decisions in this report will have no impact on public accessibility.

6.10 There is no change to the current situation in regard to public accessibility as the road and footpath access do not change.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Nil. All costs will be borne by the applicant.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Nil.

7.3 Funding Source – Transport and Asset Planning.

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 The Council’s decision-making is in accordance with the general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

8.2 In this instance the road stopping itself is under the Public Works Act 1981. Reasons and decision making are set out in the next section.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 A standard Sale and purchase Agreement will be drafted by the Council’s solicitors for signing by both parties. One of the conditions is obtaining consent by the Council under delegation or by Council resolution, which is the purpose of this report.

8.4 When adopting the Road stopping Policy in 2020 the Council established a set of delegations related to that. The delegation to approve or decline a road stopping of this nature sits with the Community Board as set out below the applicable section being that in the first bullet point – subdivision potential exists.

The Council’s power to accept or decline an application from either a Council Business Unit or from any other person to stop legal road provided that the application meets the following criteria:*

· The area of road to be stopped will not constitute a complying lot under the District Plan on its own account nor will its amalgamation with the adjoining lot create a new potential for the adjoining lot to be subdivided; and

· It will be necessary for the stopped road to be amalgamated with the certificate of title to an adjoining property; and

· The owner of an adjoining property is the logical purchaser of the stopped road; and

· That the proposed road-stopping complies with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy, and

· The area of road to be stopped is not adjoining a reserve or waterway.

*Where the application does not fit within the above criteria, the Council has delegated to the Community Board for the ward within which the legal road proposed to be stopped is situated the power to accept or decline the application. (refer Part D, Sub-part 1, Roads and Traffic Management Controls).

There are two statutory process under which road stoppings can be enacted. The authority “to determine which statutory procedure should be employed to undertake a particular road stopping (either under the Local Government Act 1974 or under the Public Works Act 1981) is delegated to staff”. The Policy establishes:

4.5 The following criteria have been established to ensure that the appropriate statutory procedure is consistently adopted by the Council, and to avoid, as much as is practicable, such decisions being successfully contested by any party.

Local Government Act 1974 process

4.6 The Local Government Act 1974 road-stopping procedure will be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a. Where any public right of access to any public space could be removed or materially limited or extinguished as a result of the road being stopped; or

b. If it is found through the review process that the road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

c. The road stopping is, in the judgment of the Council, likely to be controversial; or

d. If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road; or

e. The Public Works Act 1981 process is not able to be used, or is not used.

Public Works Act 1981 process

4.7 The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted only if all of the following circumstances apply:

a. Where there are no more than two properties, other than the applicant’s property, adjoining the road proposed to be stopped;

b. Where the written consent to the proposed road stopping of all adjoining landowners (other than the applicant) to the proposed road-stopping is obtained;

c. Where no other persons, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;

d. Where the road proposed to be stopped is to be amalgamated with the adjoining property or properties (as appropriate); and

e. Where other reasonable access exists or will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the road proposed to be stopped (i.e. by the construction of a new road); and

f. Where the use of the Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure is approved by the relevant Government department or Minister.

4.8 If any one of the circumstances referred to in clause 4.7 does not apply, then the Local

Government Act 1974 process must be used.

8.5 In this instance staff have determined that the proposed road stopping meets the Public Works act criteria.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Risk and mitigations have been considered by the Transport Unit against the criteria in the Council’s Road Stopping Policy, these criteria consider the City Plan, current level of use, future use, alternative uses, road adjoining any water body, encumbrances, traffic safety and infrastructure. The Transport Unit concluded there is no reason not to stop the road.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	11 Humboldt St- Road Stopping Plan - Section 1	22/1524021
b	Attachment B Examples Photos of Street Scape	22/1581280
c	Attachment C Valuation Details (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	22/1581282

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

Charly Baik - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Council

05 April 2023

Waterloo Road Improvements - Pavement markings
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/99451
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer, Operations (gemma.dioni@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 for the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to recommend to Council the approval of shared path markings and cycle lanes on Waterloo Road.

1.2 This report has been written in response to the Waterloo Road safety improvement project that was approved by the Community Board in September 2022 and is being implemented to address concerns raised by the students at Te Huruhuru Ao o Horomaka Hornby High School.

1.3 This report supports the already approved report to legalise the implementation of the shared paths and cycle lanes within the scope of the original project. This also addresses a key concern raised by the students at Te Huruhuru Ao o Horomaka Hornby High School.

1.4 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends to the Council:

1. That the pathway on the north side of Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with Hei Hei Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 394 metres be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

2. That the pathway on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with Smarts Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 295 metres be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

3. That a special vehicle (cycle) lane be installed on the north side of Waterloo Road for eastbound cyclists only, from the intersection of Carmen Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

4. That a special vehicle (cycle) lane be installed on the south side of Waterloo Road for westbound cyclists only, from the intersection of Carmen Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 177 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The resolutions in Section 2 were missed from the report to the Community Board on 20 September 2022. This report provides the resolutions that require approval in order to legalise the operation of the facilities.

3.2 The scope of the project has not changed from the original Community Board approval.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 No alternatives considered.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

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

5.1.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - <=100 crashes

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The recommendations in this report are consistent with Council’s Policies and Plans.

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 The proposal involves road marking changes on an approved capital project.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 This proposal includes measures to encourage walking/cycling/public transport and therefore will result in positive changes to reduce carbon emissions and the effects of Climate Change.

6.8 This proposal does not have any significant effect upon carbon emissions and Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 This proposal improves accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists, by providing a safer means of crossing Waterloo Road.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – this has not changed from the original Community Board approval.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - To be covered under the area maintenance contract, the effects will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.3 Funding Source - Traffic Operations Road Safety budget.

Other He mea anō

7.4 None identified.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Part 3 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install special vehicle lanes and shared paths by resolution.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

8.3 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in sections 7.1 – 7.3.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 None identified.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Waterloo Road Pavement Markings	23/99505

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

Gemma Dioni - Senior Transportation Engineer

Approved By

Katie Smith - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 April 2023

New Traffic Lights - 171 Main North Road - Pak'n Save access
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/90880
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Andy Milne, Team Leader Asset Planning Transport (andrew.milne@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 seek approval of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (Board) and the Council for the installation of new traffic signals outside 171 Main North Road and associated road changes in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2 This report has been written by Council staff to support the implementation of the consent conditions associated with the construction of the new Signalled access to the consented Pak' n Save Supermarket at 171 Main North Road.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by an assessment of the project against criteria outlined in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Approves the scheme design as shown on Attachment A including all road marking, signage, kerb alignment, central islands and road surface treatments.

2. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Main North Road, at a point commencing 90 metres south of Northcote Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 123 metres as shown on Attachment A.

3. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Main North Road, at a point commencing 97 metres south of the Queen Elizabeth II Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 67 metres as shown on Attachment A.

4. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

A bus stop be relocated on the west side of Main North Road, from location 213 metres south of the Northcote Road to a position located 70 metres south of Northcote Road and extending south for a distance of 14 metres as shown in Attachment A.

5. Approves under Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 (subject to approval of 5 above):

The installation of a bus passenger shelter on the west side of Main North Road commencing at a point 70 metres south of Northcote Road extending in a southerly direction of approximately 3.6 metres as shown in Attachment A.

6. Endorses all kerb alignments, road surface treatments and road markings to the intersection of Northcote Road/Main North Road/Queen Elizabeth II Drive (State Highway 74) as shown in Attachment A.

7. Approves the revocation of any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls and parking and stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report.

8. Approves that these resolutions take effect when there is evidence that the road marking restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

9. Approves the installation of new traffic signals outside 171 Main North Road in accordance with Attachment A.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The give effect to the consent conditions of RMA/2018/2029.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 No alternative options were presented as part of the resource consent.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 As a publicly notified application, all consultation has been undertaken as part of the resource consent Hearings process.

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

5.2.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

6.2 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

6.3 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031)

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The project has demonstrated travel time savings through peer reviewed traffic modelling presented as evidence to the Hearings Commissioner who accepted these findings.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 The project provides a safe means of access to the site and includes dedicated pedestrian crossing of Main North Road as part of the signalled access and provides additional pedestrian safety enhancements to the intersection of Main North Road/Northcote Road/Queen Elizabeth II Drive.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The cost to implement this project is being funded by Foodstuffs South Island Limited - the consent holder.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs –Ongoing costs are typically $5,500 per annum in operational costs for the signalised intersection.

7.3 Funding Source – The capital cost of this project is funded by Foodstuffs South Island Limited and the ongoing maintenance and operational costs will be borne by the Council.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Community Board has the delegated authority to approve the recommendations outlined in section 2 of this report, while the Council has the authority to approve the installation of the traffic signals under the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is no other legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. However please refer to section 9.2.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Non-approval of the infrastructure required under the resource consent conditions would lead to Foodstuffs South Island Limited being unable to open and operate.

9.2 The scheme includes infrastructure changes to the State Highway network, which require NZTA approvals.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	171 Main North Road - Traffic Signals and associated road changes	23/234398
b	Enlarged views of road changes shown in Attachment A	23/284170

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

Andrew Milne - Team Leader of Asset Planning

Lachlan Beban - Senior Transportation Engineer

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

05 April 2023

12. Christchurch City Council draft Strategic Framework
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1787035
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Elizabeth Wilson, Team Leader Strategic Policy
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 This report recommends the draft Strategic Framework for adoption to inform development of the next Long Term Plan, following elected member workshops and consultation with Ngāi Tahu.

1.2 This report has been requested by the Executive Leadership Team.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The role of the Strategic Framework is to have a significant positive impact on the wellbeing of the whole community, laying the foundation for focussing Council investment and resourcing where it really matters. The medium level of significance for this report recognises that specific investment decisions are made after this decision to adopt the Framework, as part of the Long Term Plan process.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Adopt the draft Strategic Framework for the purpose of informing development of the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Strategic Framework lays the foundation for the next Long Term Plan. It provides a one-page, big-picture view of the priorities the Council will focus on this Council term. It also sets out the longer-term community outcomes we aim to achieve for Christchurch.

3.2 The draft Framework has been developed in consultation with elected members, beginning immediately after the election in October last year.

3.3 Development of the draft was informed by consultation with Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga. Te Kahui Kahukura reviewed the draft during February and supported it being presented to the Council for consideration.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Options for the Strategic Framework were workshopped with elected members on 6 December 2022, and a further revision circulated to members for any further feedback on 19 December 2022.

4.2 Elected member feedback suggested the fourth community outcome, focussing on economic wellbeing, could be strengthened. ChristchurchNZ has suggested strengthened wording which reflects the direction of their draft economic development strategy currently under development. This strengthened wording is highlighted by Track Changes in the attachment to this report and was shared with elected members by memo last week.

Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

4.3 The Mayor and Councillors met 20-21 October 2022 to begin discussion of their priorities for the 2022-2025 Council term. Staff then prepared options for a draft Strategic Framework, in consultation with the Executive Leadership Team, and workshopped the draft Framework with elected members on 6 December 2022.

Next steps

4.4 Following adoption of the Framework an action plan for its implementation will be finalised. The action plan will identify what success looks like, key Council actions and proposed measures for assessing progress. Staff plan to workshop options for the Strategic Framework action plan with elected members later this month, and envisage regular reporting back to the Council on progress in implementing the Framework.

4.5 The decision to adopt the draft Framework is relevant to all wards/Community Board areas. The Strategic Framework will help shape pre-engagement and consultation with the community on the 2024 Long Term Plan.

5. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.1 The Strategic Framework is a key direction-setting document for the Council, laying the foundation for the next Long Term Plan (LTP). The development of the 2024-2034 LTP, including its Infrastructure and Financial Strategies, and the template for Activity Plans, will be informed by this Framework.

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

5.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.3 The decision is consistent with Council Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.4 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water, however it does relate to a key direction-setting document which underpins the Long Term Plan, hence it is considered to be a matter of interest to Mana Whenua.

5.5 The draft Strategic Framework aims to reflect our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga and was discussed by Te Kahui Kahukura in February 2023.

5.6 The draft Strategic Framework acknowledges Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga rangitiratanga over its takiwā and sets out the Council’s commitment to working in partnership to achieve meaningful outcomes that benefit the whole community.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.7 The draft Strategic Framework reflects the Council’s commitment to reducing emissions in line with the targets it has set, to investing in adaptation and resilience and to leading a city-wide response to climate change.

5.8 The Framework will underpin LTP investment in reducing emissions and adapting to climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

5.9 The draft Framework highlights the need to prioritise accessibility, alongside wellbeing and connection, in putting people at the centre of city development.

6. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 Cost to Implement – implementation of the Strategic Framework and associated investment decisions are determined through the Long Term Plan process. The cost of developing the Framework itself is met from within the existing Strategic Policy Unit budget.

6.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – to be determined through the Long Term Plan process.

6.3 Funding Source – to be determined through the Long Term Plan process.

Other He mea anō

6.4 Not applicable.

7. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.1 The Local Government Act provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of their communities in the present and for the future. The Strategic Framework is one of the tools we use to articulate what we aim to achieve in promoting community wellbeing and planning for the future.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

8. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

8.1 Any risks associated with implementing the Strategic Framework will be managed within the Long Term Plan process, and identified in the Strategic Framework action plan.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Strategic Framework	23/230382	123

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

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Manaia Cunningham - Principal Advisor Treaty Relationships

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

05 April 2023

13. Letter of Expectation for Long-Term Plan 2024-34
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/444060
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning and Performance
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The Letter of Expectation is essential to provide certainty to both councillors and management about how the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2024-34 process will unfold and what priorities it must address. It is the cornerstone of the LTP project plan. The Letter of Expectation goes alongside the Draft Strategic Framework for the LTP 2024-34, which is being presented to Council for adoption at the same meeting.

1.2 The draft Letter of Expectation has been extensively workshopped at senior management levels and with the Mayor's Office. It is based on the findings of the 2021 LTP Review, which included feedback from councillors and senior staff. It also includes advice from the Office of the Auditor-General following the 2021 LTP. It incorporates a wide variety of best practices set out in Taituara LTP guidelines.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The Letter of Expectation is where the Mayor and Councillors set their expectations, providing the strategic direction and intended process for staff to implement.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Adopt the Letter of Expectation that informs the development of the Long-Term Plan 2024-34.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Mayor and Councillors have considered a draft of the Letter of Expectation at the Council briefing of 28 March 2023.

3.2 The Letter of Expectation had been considered by the LTP Programme Team and the Executive Leadership Team, both of which endorsed to proceed to the Council briefing.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Not applicable.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The decision is one for Council and has no direct affect for any wards/Community Board areas.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1 Activity: Performance Management and Reporting

· Level of Service: 13.1.1 Implement the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan programme plan - Critical path milestone due dates in programme plans are met.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.4 The decision does involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.5 Genuine partnership with mana whenua is the first direction provided within the Letter of Expectation. The Letter commits Council to partnering with mana whenua to achieve meaningful outcomes that benefit the whole community, noting the LTP presents the first key opportunity this Council term to advance the Council partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga and to discuss meaningful outcomes. The Mayor and Councillors expect that the LTP programme will enable authentic partnership and active dialogue with mana whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 Committing to a Climate Resilient City is also a key direction provided for in the Letter of Expectation, stating the Council has a significant role in the district’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions efforts. The Infrastructure Strategy, Asset Management and Activity Plans all need to include meaningful actions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, increase our resilience to more frequent and extreme weather events, and reduce our community’s overall vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 Not applicable.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The cost of implementing the Letter of Expectation is budgeted within the cost of planning and delivering the Long-Term Plan itself.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – as above.

7.3 Funding Source – within existing budgets.

Other He mea anō

7.4 None.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Long-term Plan is a key legislative and fully audited requirement of the Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision above and beyond those considered for the development and adoption of the Long-term Plan itself.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Not applicable.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Letter of Expectation 2024 LTP	23/463470	128

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	Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance
Approved By	Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

05 April 2023

14. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the High Street Improvements
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/290665
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Melanie Coker, Hearings Panel Chairperson
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the High Street Improvements. Changes to the original Officer Recommendations are in italics in the Hearings Panel Recommendations below.

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

1.3 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations. A link to the written submissions is also available should you want to review them. https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/02/BLHP_20230223_AGN_9182_AT.PDF

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Approves the High Street improvements as amended at the Hearings Panel meeting on 23 February 2023, including the following:

a. The scheme design of improvements to High Street: Tuam to St Asaph, as detailed in amended Attachment A to this report.

b. The inclusion of the right turn exiting High Street to the south, onto St Asaph Street, as detailed in Attachment A to this report.

2. Approves the following resolutions required for the implementation of the project, relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

Revocations: Traffic Controls

2. 1 Approves that any previously approved resolutions on High Street from its intersection with Tuam Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street, pertaining to traffic controls (including speed limits), made pursuant to any Bylaw or any Land Transport Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in recommendation 2.3 through 2.29 below, be revoked.

Revocations: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

2. 2 Approves that any previously approved resolutions on High Street from its intersection with Tuam Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street, pertaining to parking and/or stopping restrictions, made pursuant to any bylaw or any Land Transport Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in recommendations 2.3 through 2.29 below, be revoked.

General Traffic Controls

2. 3 Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments and road markings on High Street, commencing at its intersection with Tuam Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street, as detailed on plan TG138401, sheet 1 of 1, and attached to this report as amended Attachment A, including the following amendments:

2.3.1 Addition of texture and colour change at Point B on amended Attachment A where the cycle path and pedestrian path cross.

2.3.2 Addition of tactile pavers adjacent to the cycle path at Points A and B on amended Attachment A.

2.3.3 Addition of tactile pavers adjacent to the shared area at Point C on amended Attachment A along St Asaph and High Streets.

2.3.4 Addition of advisory signs for cyclists that they entering a shared area.

2.3.5 Addition of directional cycle arrow at northern entrance at Point A on amended Attachment A directing cyclists into the sharrow.

2.3.6 Addition of cycle arrows at the northern exit point of the cycle paths.

2.3.7 Install appropriate speed signage to ensure it’s completely enforceable for all road users.

One Way Street (for all classes of vehicles – emergency vehicles exempted)

2.4 Approves, in accordance with Clause 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that High Street, from its intersection with Tuam Street to its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street, be a one-way street, where vehicles must travel in a south-easterly direction only. This restriction does not apply to cycles and emergency vehicles requiring access in an emergency situation.

Speed Limit

2.5 Approves that the speed limit be set at 10 km /h, in accordance with Clause 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 on High Street, commencing at its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street.

Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle Lane)

2.6 Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of cycles travelling in a north-westerly direction, be installed on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 15 metres north-west of its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street, and extending in a north-westerly direction to its intersection with Tuam Street as detailed on plan TG138401, sheet 1 of 1, dated 01/02/2023 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

Stop Control

2.7 Approves that the east approach of High Street at its intersection with Madras Street be controlled by a Stop control, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

No Right Turn

2.8 Approves that the High Street east approach, right turn into Madras Street be prohibited in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

No Left Turn

2.9 Approves that the Madras Street south approach, left turn into High Street be prohibited in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

Stop Control

2.10 Approves that the south approach of High Street at its intersection with St Asaph Street be controlled by a Stop control, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

No Left Turn

2.11 Approves that the High Street south approach, left turn into St Asaph Street be prohibited in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

No Right Turn

2.12 Approves that the St Asaph Street east approach, right turn into High Street be prohibited in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

Cycle Path

2.13 Approves that a path be installed for the use of cycles on High Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and St Asaph Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for both uni-directional and bi-directional cycle movements as detailed on plan TG138401, sheet 1 of 1, dated 01/02/2023 and attached to this report as amended Attachment A.

Paid Parking

2.14 Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and subject to payment using Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment), in accordance with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-east side of High Street, commencing at a point 21 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 37 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Thursday, and 9:00am to 8:30pm Friday to Sunday.

Paid Parking

2.15 Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and subject to payment using Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment), in accordance with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-east side of High Street, commencing at a point 80 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 36.5 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Thursday, and 9:00am to 8:30pm Friday to Sunday.

Paid Parking

2.16 Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and subject to payment using Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment), in accordance with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 19.5 metres (south-east) of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 26 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Thursday, and 9:00am to 8:30pm Friday to Sunday.

Mobility Park

2.17 Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 12.4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 44.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 6.5 metres, as detailed on amended Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

Paid Parking

2.18 Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and subject to payment using Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment), in accordance with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 51 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 5.5 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Thursday, and 9:00am to 8:30pm Friday to Sunday.

Paid Parking

2.19 Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and subject to payment using Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment), in accordance with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 85 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 12 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Thursday, and 9:00am to 8:30pm Friday to Sunday.

Mobility Park

2.20 Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 12.4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 97 metres south-east of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 6.5 metres, as detailed on amended Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

2.20.1 The disability car park in this section to be moved to the northern most parking space, swapping with the 60 minutes car park currently directly behind it.

2.20.2 Council Officers are given the discretion to amend distances in the resolutions prior to Council adoption to ensure compliance is achievable.

Loading Zone (all class of vehicles)

2.21 Approves that a Loading Zone be installed, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 103.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 10.5 metres. This Loading Zone is to be restricted to a maximum loading period of five minutes.

Motorcycle Stand

2.22 Approves that a Motorcycle Stand be installed, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 114 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-east direction for a distance of 2.5 metres. This restriction is to apply at any time.

No Stopping

2.23 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north east side of High Street, commencing at its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a southerly and south-easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

2.24 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north east side of High Street, commencing at a point 58 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

2.25 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north east side of High Street, commencing at a point 116.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-easterly and easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

2.26 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a southerly and south-westerly direction for a distance of 19.5 metres.

2.27 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 56.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 28.5 metres.

2.28 Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of High Street, commencing at a point 116.5 metres south-east of its intersection with Tuam Street and extending in a south-easterly and easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Streetscape Layout Scheme Design

2.29 Approves all streetscape layout which includes, but not limited to, footpath treatments, landscaping and new street trees, subject to detailed design and underground services, as shown on plan TG138401, sheet 1 of 1, dated 01/02/2023 and attached to this report as amended Attachment A.

3. Give consideration to the location of trees in relation to the heritage buildings in order to allow for the visual amenity of the building.

4. Consider the addition of cycle parking in the east side of High Street and at Points A, B, and C on amended Attachment A.

5. Request Officers to investigate increasing the length of the cycle phasing across Madras Street.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 In 2019 the High Street Revitalisation and Tram renewal project looked at the renewal of High Street from Cashel Street to St Asaph Street.

3.2 During the public consultation, a number of concerns were raised by businesses and property owners in the block of High Street between Tuam and St Asaph streets, which resulted in the Hearings Panel deciding not to support the upgrade of the block, at the time. Instead, they requested further consultation, to determine how to make the street fit for its purpose.

3.3 Staff revised the previous plan to address the concerns of businesses, property owners and future users so that this stretch of space can better reflect where the city is heading.

3.4 They identified the main issues with the first draft of the plan being:

3.4.1 Too much emphasis on cars.

3.4.2 More parking required to support businesses.

3.4.3 Concerns surrounding the cycle facilities.

3.4.4 Need to reflect climate change urgency.

3.4.5 Impact of construction on the area and the businesses that were hit by Covid-19 and need to re-establish.

Some areas of opportunity that were found:

3.4.6 Slower speed limit (10kph).

3.4.7 More trees and planting.

3.4.8 Staff took the feedback received from the previous round of consultation and amended the plan so that street improvements are complementary to those on High Street from Cashel to Tuam Street.

These reconsiderations included:

3.4.9 Enhancing the streetscape along the route to complement potential investment along the street e.g. in the SALT District and retail areas.

3.4.10 Providing widened footpaths for improved access to the surrounding businesses, e.g. between the SALT District, Retail areas, Te Kaha and the Ara hairdressing school.

3.4.11 Providing a critical missing safe cycle route between Tuam and St Asaph Streets – linking the central city cycleway networks with the Heathcote Expressway major cycle route.

3.4.12 Providing a simplified intersection at High Street and Tuam Street.

3.4.13 Implementing a 10km/h speed limit along this section of the road.

3.4.14 Making pedestrian access safer and easier between the SALT District and Retail areas.

3.4.15 Proposing two options with the preferred option to include a paved right turning lane onto St. Asaph Street in the design. This will reduce unnecessary traffic on Madras Street and eliminate illegal traffic movements across the footpath and allow cars to access the carpark on St. Asaph Street. However, this lane will require cyclists to give way to traffic.

3.4.16 The alternative option is to remove the right turning lane onto St. Asaph Street. This creates a clearway for cyclists heading north to Tuam Street and provides room for bike parking. Initial discussions with business owners have suggested that this option is less desirable.

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

The staff report noted that:

4.1 Consultation for the whole of High street was held between 14 May 2019 and 10 June 2019 with an Option which included the right hand turn.

4.2 The Scheme Assessment report High Street Cashel - St Asaph July 2018 states that during early consultation “the One-way south option has been taken forward as it allows the access onto St Asaph Street to be reopened which was a strong selling point during the previous round of consultation.

4.3 The Council resolution on 24th September 2019 decided to put this section on hold as it was strongly opposed by local business owners largely due to the reduction in parking and the possibility of not reinstating the right hand turn into St Asaph Street.

4.4 The Mayor, and the Waipapa Papanui Central Innes Community Board were informed of progress on this project by way of a memorandum on 13/12/2022.

4.5 The previous Community Board: Waikura Linwood Central Heathcote, was briefed on the project at a Board meeting on 20th July 2022.

4.6 The preferred option was Safety Audited in October 2022 which highlighted 3 Minor safety items and 1 moderate: none of which affect the Scheme Design. The design team are aware of these issues and all items are to be considered in the Detailed Design stage.

4.7 On 15 December 2016 the Council resolved that the trees outside the Duncan Building could be removed to allow the work to proceed on the construction of the building (ref. Council resolution CNCL/2016/00484). The resolution also noted that a detailed design will come back to Council prior to the trees being replanted in this section of High Street. The developer has agreed to replace the trees, at their cost, in accordance with the Council’s approved design.

Public Consultation

4.8 Prior to public consultation staff met with Peebles Group, KPI Stockman, Ara and Spokes to share an overview of the proposal and gather their initial feedback.

4.9 In response to their feedback, the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board requested a change in the proposed cycleway design, from a contra-flow shared cycle and car lane to a separated cycle lane on the west side of High Street (outside businesses).

4.10 Following the change, businesses on this section of High Street were invited to a drop-in session to view the new proposal and provide feedback and/or raise concerns. Approximately 14 individuals from various businesses attended the session and their feedback fed into the design that went out for public consultation and construction planning.

4.11 Public consultation started on 10 October 2022 and ran until 7 November 2022 to tie in with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets consultation. An email was sent to 29 key stakeholders, including developers on the street, High Street businesses, Ara, Spokes, the Disabled Persons Assembly and Accessible Christchurch, as well as all submitters from the 2019 consultation.

4.12 Businesses that were not able to be reached by email were provided with a consultation booklet which included information about the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets consultation.

4.13 The consultation document was also available in local community spaces: Gap Filler and High Street Black and White Coffee Cartel.

4.14 Documents were also available in local community spaces.

5. Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

5.1 In briefing the Panel, staff provided a summary of the submissions and comprehensive analysis of the submissions including detailed responses to the key themes raised. The Panel heard that:

5.1.1 At the close of the consultation, there were one hundred and thirty two formal submissions and the engagement team had met with seventeen recognised organisations, including nine businesses on High Street, one on Tuam Street, and one hundred and fifteen individuals.

5.1.2 Of the one hundred and thirty submitters received, eight indicated wishing to be heard with one hundred and twenty two submitters not wishing to be heard.

5.1.3 The submission form asked for a preference between:

· Option 1 included a right-hand turning lane from High Street onto St Asaph Street.

· Option 2 maintained a one way exit onto Madras Street with no right-hand turn onto St Asaph Street.

5.2 Option 1 was preferred by forty seven submitters (36%), including nine businesses on High Street and three recognised organisations (Disabled Persons Assembly, Spokes and New Zealand Property Council) for the following reasons:

5.2.1 The right-hand turn increases accessibility to other parts of the central city, allowing commuters to bypass Madras Street and help ease congestion was mentioned by seventeen submitters.

5.2.2 The right-hand turn is convenient and allows business owners and commuters’ easy access to parking on and travel to the SALT district. It also allows greater access to St Asaph Street for visitors who are unfamiliar with the central city was mentioned by seventeen submitters.

5.2.3 While Te Mana Ora: Community and Public Health selected option 2, their comments supported option 1 with modifications.

5.2.4 Option 1 was supported by all High Street building owners who originally opposed the 2019 design.

5.3 Option 2 was preferred by eighty three submitters (64%), which included four recognised organisations (Living Streets Ōtautahi, Urban Intelligence, Ora Taiao: NZ Climate and Health Council and Te Mana Ora) and one business on Tuam Street, for the following reasons:

5.3.1 The inclusion on a right-hand turn was expressed by submitters to be too car focused and was counterproductive to the direction Council has said it was taking towards a carbon neutral environment and making decisions in response to the climate crisis was mentioned by fifty two submitters.

5.3.2 Concerns were expressed by thirty eight submitters that the introduction of a right-hand turn would encourage cars to ‘rat run’ through High Street, damaging the character of the street.

5.3.3 Concerns were expressed by thirty nine submitters for cyclist safety coming across from the Heathcote expressway, as many cyclists would be moving fast and encounter cars waiting to exit at the intersection of Madras and St Asaph streets. There was also a perceived danger for cyclists changing from the protected expressway to a shared pedestrian-cyclist-car space on High Street.

5.3.4 A small number of submitters expressed concerns about the existing bike parking and the bike repair station being permanently removed. However, all existing bike parking and the bike repair station will be stored until work is complete and then reinstalled.

5.4 All submissions were made available to the Hearings Panel in advance of the hearing. All submissions are available at: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/539

6. Oral Submissions

6.1 The Hearings Panel heard six oral submissions (refer to the list of submitters wishing to be heard in the Agenda attachment). The views expressed by the submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words in their original submissions and/or subsequent documents that were tabled at the hearings (refer to Volume of Submissions attachment). Most key issues raised in the oral submissions are similar in content to those presented in the original written submissions and the Council officers’ responses to these issues are detailed in the Council Officers’ report to the Hearings Panel. Below are some of the key points that were raised during oral submissions:

6.1.1 Focus more on pedestrians e.g. foot traffic, to boost business

6.1.2 Develop a shared space to future proof this section of High Street, with the direction the central city is taking

6.1.3 Install more bike parking to support increased cyclist commuting to the central city

6.1.4 Install bollards/obstacles to prevent illegal right hand turns into St Asaph Street

6.1.5 Install raised platform at crossing points

6.1.6 Plant more trees to encourage a slow speed character street

6.1.7 Move the proposed cycle lane to the east side of the street (Ara side of High Street) and remove the parking to make way for this new cycleway

6.1.8 More accessibility is needed, for example: more tactile strips for vision impaired peoples, raised pedestrian crossing, clear signage stating speed limits and give way rules

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

7.1 The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. At this meeting, staff presented a brief overview of the design and made amendments based on the oral feedback received from submitters at the meeting and questions and comments raised by Panel Members.

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

7.2.1 Safety concerns with the design for those with visual impairments.

7.2.2 Unrealistic low speed of 10 kph being difficult for cyclists to maintain.

7.2.3 Footpath levels and pedestrian crossings not being raised enough and paved to enable pedestrians to be clearly seen by traffic and cyclists.

7.2.4 A lack of prominent signage put in place as a reminder that cyclists are entering a shared space particularly at the interface between the cycle path and pedestrian walkways.

7.2.5 Location of trees through the design to give effect to the visual amenity of heritage buildings.

7.2.6 To consider additional cycle parking.

7.2.7 Increase the phasing of lights across Madras Street to allow more time for cycles to safely move through the intersection.

7.2.8 The right hand turn being favoured by submitters conditional on the right of way at the right turn onto St Asaph Street being in favour of cyclists and pedestrians.

7.2.9 Location of accessible car parks and loading zone.

7.3 The Hearings Panel recommended that the High Street Improvements is provided to Councillors for consideration at its meeting in April 2023. .

8. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/02/BLHP_20230223_AGN_9182_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/02/BLHP_20230223_MIN_9182_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/02/BLHP_20230223_MAT_9182.PDF
Have Your Say Webpage	https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/539

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Emily Verhoeven – Committee & Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Melanie Coker – Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	High Street Improvements Hearings Panel - Amended Plan 01 March 2023	23/399192	148

Council

05 April 2023

15. Lichfield Street No Stopping Restriction beside Tram track at Poplar Street
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1402179
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Michael Thomson: Transport Engineer (Michael.Thomson @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 permanently remove parking due to Tramway safety clearance issue.

1.2 Staff generated due to request from Tram operator.

1.3 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 an assessment of contributing factors.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves that pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Lichfield Street, commencing at a point 27 metres east of its intersection with Huanui Lane and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 39 metres.

2. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to parking or stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the stopping restriction described in recommendation 1.

3. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff report, are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

3.1 To address a safety clearance risk beside the Tram line on Lichfield Street and provide safe access for pedestrians and cyclists.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 A ‘do nothing’ option was considered, however as this is a Rail Safety issue the ‘do nothing’ option creates the possibility of a reoccurrence of an ‘incident’ as defined in the Railways Act 2005. Any reoccurring incident could prompt the NZTA Rail Safety division to suspend the operating licence for the Tramway until factors causing the incident are addressed.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Tram line on Lichfield Street was built in 2009/10, prior to the earthquake sequence. Due to the earthquakes the Tramway operation along this section did not commence for another 12 years. Over this time the adjoining land uses changed significantly. In addition to this, a larger Tram has been added to the fleet.

5.2 There have been a number of occasions where larger parked vehicles have encroached further into the roadway when parking. On one occasion, due to the tail swing of the larger tram, a collision occurred between the tram and a parked vehicle when the Tram turned into Poplar Street from Lichfield Street. The larger vehicle was parked slightly out into the roadway from the normal parking position. Fortunately this only caused minor damage, however this could have been more serious had a person attempted to alight from the parked vehicle, as the Tram was turning.

5.3 Pursuant to the Railways Act 2005, this collision is defined as an “incident”, and any incident must be reported to the Waka Kotahi Rail Safety division. The incident report is to describe what happened and what remedial action, if any, can be carried out to prevent a repeat incident occurring. Immediately following this incident, staff temporarily discontinued parking at this site, in accordance with Clause 9 of the Bylaw. This report seeks to permanently remove the four car-parks in question.

5.4 In addition the stopping restriction will provide both site distance and physical access for cyclists and pedestrians using the shared path on the east side of Raurora park.

5.5 Community views: The Christchurch Tramway Company (CTL) support the removal of parking at this conflict point. NZTA Rail safety support the Council (as infrastructure provider) in resolving this safety issue. Council immediately temporarily removed the four carparks following the safety incident, in accordance with the Railways Act requirements, with no feedback from adjacent business community. The CCC Parking compliance Team Leader supports this recommendation. We are now recommending to permanently remove the four carparks.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.1.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.3.1 Provide an optimised balance of Council operated parking spaces in the central city - 60-85% average occupancy

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 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

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 Not applicable

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 Not applicable

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $300.00, noting that the broken yellow lines are already in place. Additional cost for preparation and submission of this report is approximately $1500.00

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – minimal additional costs as it will be included in the programmed re-marking of the City Streets.

7.3 Funding Source – Traffic Operations Sign and Markings budget (2022/23)

Other / He mea anō

7.4 None identified

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.

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

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 There is no other legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision, however the Council as an infrastructure provider for the Christchurch Tramway has an obligation to comply with the Railways Act 2005.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 None identified

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Lichfield street Attachment A to Council Report	22/1605382	153

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

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 April 2023

16. Erosion and Sediment Control
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/347237
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Clive Appleton, Healthy Waterways Programme Lead, Quality & Compliance, Three Waters (Clive.Appleton@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an alternative set of recommendations being put forth by Council Officers in response to the additional Part A recommendations made by the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee at its meeting on 25 August 2022 as these recommendations are unsupported by Council staff and Environment Canterbury.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Recommend that Council and Environment Canterbury staff continue to work together to improve construction industry compliance with erosion and sediment control matters.

2. Continue exploring other best practicable approaches and business practices to gain better environmental outcomes.

3. Note that if erosion and sediment control issues continue to be a problem, a variation may be sought to the Council’s Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent in order to allow Environment Canterbury to exercise its powers under the Resource Management Act to enforce industry compliance.

3. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Recommendations to Council

The Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee recommends to Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury:

1. That an independent audit of the environmental effectiveness of the regulatory instruments, arrangements and capacity building applying to erosion and sediment control and contaminated stormwater management, be conducted.

2. That this audit used to improve the regulatory frameworks, instruments and environmental outcomes for waterways within our Zone.

3. Advocate to central government, the environmental problems associated with erosion and sediment control from developments on highly erodible hillsides and requests that these be subject to tighter requirements or restrictions.

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki

4.1 At its 25 August 2022 meeting, the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee (the Committee) heard from Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Christchurch City Council staff on the matter of erosion and sediment control in Emily Heights, a hillside subdivision. A PowerPoint presentation and memo were provided at the meeting (refer Attachment A.)

4.2 After hearing from Council and ECan staff, the Committee made three additional Part A recommendations in addition to the original Officer recommendation for consideration by the Council. The Part A report, the Original Staff Report and the staff presentation and memo provided as part of this discussion have been collated and attached (refer Attachment A).

4.3 At its 15 September 2022 meeting, the Council received the Committee’s minutes, which reflected the additional Part A recommendations. The Council resolved, in part (CBCL/2022/00131):

6. That the Council defers the following matters to the incoming Council, noting this will be dealt with before the end of the 2022 calendar year:

a. That an independent audit of the environmental effectiveness of the regulatory instruments, arrangements and capacity building applying to erosion and sediment control and contaminated stormwater management be conducted.

b. That this audit used to improve the regulatory frameworks, instruments and environmental outcomes for waterways within our Zone.

7. That the Council notes that the following matter is underway:

a. Advocate to central government the environmental problems associated with erosion and sediment control from developments on highly erodible hillsides and requests that these be subject to tighter requirements or restrictions.

4.4 Council and ECan staff do not support the Part A recommendations requesting that Council and ECan undertake an independent audit as outlined in recommendations 1 and 2 in section 3 above.

4.5 As such, Council staff, in collaboration with ECan, have put forth alternative Officer recommendations (refer section 2 above) for consideration by the Council. The Officer advice pertaining to these alternative recommendations is set forth in Section 5 below.

5. Officer Advice

5.1 The Council’s Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC) was granted in 2019. Under that consent, the Council established and submitted to Environment Canterbury a Sediment Discharge Management Plan (SDMP), which was certified by ECan in 2022. This plan outlines how Council evaluates, certifies, and enforces erosion sediment control plans for building / resource consents.

5.2 The CSNDC requires the Council to oversee construction phase stormwater discharge compliance. Given the CSNDC and its SDMP have only been operative for a relatively short period of time, and for the reasons provided below, staff consider that an external audit is premature.

5.3 Under CSNDC Condition 23, the Council is required to use best practicable options to mitigate the effects of discharges on stormwater. This means the Council is already actively investigating new ways to improve stormwater treatment through facilities or inspection practices (CSNDC Schedules 3 and 4). These approaches include ways to improve erosion and sediment control matters. These technical investigations are often peer reviewed by external experts before being submitted to ECan for evaluation and certification.

5.4 ECan, as the regulator, conducts six-monthly compliance monitoring reviews (audits) of the Council’s delivery against the consent, identifying where conditions are being complied with or not. Monthly, both the Council and ECan compliance and technical staff meet to discuss and work through any CSNDC operational issues, with erosion and sediment control matters being regularly discussed.

5.5 The Council’s Quality and Compliance team recently undertook a sediment survey of residential construction sites and found the level of compliance to be significantly below the standard required by certified erosion sediment control plans. As a result of these findings, Council staff are currently considering ways to work with industry to improve compliance. Discussions will also be had with ECan counterparts regarding best options to take. The biggest issue in relation to enforcing erosion and sediment issues is that Council staff do not have RMA enforcement powers to issue on-the-spot fines for erosion sediment control non-compliance on building sites.

5.6 By July 2024 the CSNDC will be transferred to and managed by a Water Services Entity, created under the Water Services Entities Act 2022.

5.7 Staff note that if an external audit were to be undertaken in the next few months, any recommendations to change the CSNDC conditions, if actioned, would trigger a consent variation process and a subsequent hearing. The timeframe for this process would almost certainly extend beyond July 2024, when this will become managed by the Water Services Entity.

5.8 It is anticipated that the Water Services Entity will wish to review the CSNDC and look to make consent condition changes in line with national approaches, including those pertaining to erosion and sediment control matters.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch West Melton WMZC Part A Report & Attachments - 25 August 2022	23/347693	158

Council

05 April 2023

17. Citywide Surface Water Flooding Update
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1725261
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Kevin McDonnell, Team Leader Asset Planning Stormwater and Waterways (kevin.mcdonnell@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 Christchurch is a low lying, coastal city where past development practices have left a legacy of flood risk. The flat nature of the city makes it challenging to provide an effective stormwater network. Over the decades stormwater ponding and flooding issues have been prevalent across many parts of the city. Many of these were made worse by the earthquakes.

1.2 Council has invested heavily in stormwater and floodplain management infrastructure since the earthquakes. Considerable work has been done as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) and in response to the 2014 Mayoral Flood Taskforce. Council has invested nearly $300 million in reducing flood risk since 2010. The target for the LDRP projects was to restore pre-earthquake levels of flood risk. The pre-quake level of flood risk may no longer be considered acceptable. However, the system performed comparatively well to post-earthquake, as evidenced by the absence of above floor flooding in the July 23 rainfall event.

1.3 The lack of flooded homes in the Flockton Street area and along the Heathcote River in recent years highlights the benefits achieved by Council’s recent investment. But there are still areas across the city where surface water ponding presents a challenge to the community. Occasionally, community complaints have resulted in unprogrammed work to help understand or alleviate surface water issues. These decisions are typically made in absence of a district wide view of surface water. This report intends to present a wider view on stormwater management that will enable more informed decisions to be made on local issues.

1.4 Council has many methods for managing the different components of flood risk, from development controls in extreme risk and ponding areas, floor level and building platform level setting for high risk areas, through to building stormwater network for frequent storms. This approach seeks to minimise damage but still allows for stormwater to be in our streets and on properties in common events. It is not possible to resolve all aspects of flood risk particularly in older areas, however, Council addresses many components of the risk profile through controls on new development. In some areas flood risk is considered practicable to address through new stormwater management projects.

1.5 Funding exists in the current Long Term Plan (LTP) to address issues in some areas prone to ponding and at risk of flooding, mainly in the later years of the LTP period. Funding is also been included within the draft Annual Plan to progress stormwater modelling across the city. This work will be a key input to identifying priority areas and developing mitigation options. Any proposed projects will then be supported by an improved understanding of existing flood risk.

1.6 Prioritisation of potential floodplain management projects needs to be undertaken. More work will be required to develop and prioritise options to address present day and future surface water ponding and flood management issues across the city and district. This work is part of business as usual work to plan the Stormwater Drainage and Flood Protection and Control Works Activities. However, the scale of the task relative to resourcing available limits Council’s ability to address all areas at pace and significant time will be required to complete the prioritisation work.

1.7 Provision of immediate significant additional funding to fast track design and delivery of flood mitigation physical works is not recommended as insufficient information is available to reliably prioritise the individual projects. The prioritisation of projects is best considered as part of the LTP, where financial requirements can be well understood and Councils strategic priorities and community objectives can be balanced. Alternatively, this information will useful to an incoming water entity to help inform their work programme. Either way, the community will be better prepared for the future.

1.8 This report was requested by Council via resolution CNCL/2022/00116. The resolution was to "request staff to prepare a report on surface flooding across urban Christchurch and recommend potential stormwater projects for consideration in the annual plan."

1.9 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 the broad impacts of stormwater ponding and flooding across the district. Severe flooding only impacts a small number of property owners, however, the impacts and community interest are such that a medium significance is justified.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Consider stormwater management infrastructure through the standard Annual Plan and Long Term Plan processes.

2. Continue to investigate stormwater network and river flooding across the city to increase certainty in floodplain management options and develop a prioritised list of works, with these works to initially be drawn from existing projects and programmes within the current LTP.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The existing processes for development and approval of Annual Plans and Long Term Plans (LTP) provides sufficient flexibility to address priority stormwater infrastructure requirements. Past risk assessments have informed the current LTP and earlier LTPs have supported significant infrastructure investment. This can be seen in areas across the city, from the Flockton Street Area and Cranford Basin to the Upper Opawaho Heathcote River and Heathcote Valley. Many areas of the most severe flood risk have already benefited from Council work but more work needs to be done.

3.2 Existing programmes to investigate and reduce flood risk across the city are underway. These will work towards reducing flood risk in some of our most vulnerable areas, however, this will not address flooding and surface water ponding in all areas. Further investigations will be needed to respond to develop a comprehensive list of options to address surface water ponding and floodplain management issues.

3.3 Utilising the existing processes is recommended as this will enable projects to be effectively weighed and prioritised within the wider context of Council’s objectives and desired outcomes.

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki

4.1 Rainfall and flooding is highly variable both in time and across the district. It is not possible to ‘fix flooding’ and some level of flood risk would be present even if investment were significantly increased. There will always be a bigger flood event, or areas that cannot be practicably remedied. As described in the 8 September 2022 report that preceded this report:

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

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

4.4 Through our design principles we integrate land use planning and infrastructure investment to direct stormwater into areas where it is likely to cause the least damage. The intention is to have stormwater on roads and in parks before properties and houses. There is a layered and integrated approach taken to managing flood risk across the city. It is not practicable to engineer our way out of all levels of risk. Council seeks to limit new development in the highest risk areas through district plan zoning. The high flood hazard management areas and flood ponding areas set a very high threshold for new development. The next level of control is the setting of building platform levels and floor levels though building consents and district plan zoning. Engineering of overland flow paths and stormwater networks is typically reserved for managing frequent storm events (Table 1).

Table 1 Simplified Summary of Council’s Typical Stormwater Management Approach

*Size event*	<5 yr event	5-10 yr	10-50 yr	50-200 yr	200-500 yr	>500 yr
*Approach*	Pipe network	Overland flow and ponding in street	On street and property but below building platforms	Control of floor levels in flood management areas	Development controls in high flood areas	No controls – accept risk

4.5 In order to inform the above approach we develop models to help us understand present day and future flood risk. These models highlight that flood risk is highly variable across the city and can be affected by very localised features, such as road crest heights, sump inlet locations, waterway shape and historic public and private structures. Flood risk can also be driven by much broader factors, such as, catchment rainfall, sea level rise, permeability of soils and development intensity. Considerable effort is required to understand and evaluate flood risk at any given location. The models can then be used to test future climate change scenarios with and without infrastructure upgrades. This is fundamental to developing robust project prioritisation but takes time to complete.

4.6 Much work has already been done on investigation and delivery of floodplain management works using past models. There are many areas across the city where frequent ponding of surface water in streets and properties is reported to Council or is predicted by flood modelling. Past assessments have identified areas of modelled and reported ponding, including (by catchment from north to south):

4.6.1 Puharakenui / Styx River Catchment: Earlham Street, low lying areas adjoining the river, Lower Styx Road and Kaianga Road

4.6.2 Ōtākaro / Avon River Catchment: Mairehau Road about Kirlaw Place, the Flockton Street area, Emmett Street area, Edgeware Village, Edgeware Road about Champion Street, Brenchley Avenue, Wayside Avenue, Upper Dudley Creek about Bishopdale Park, New Brighton Road, Burwood Road, Bassett Street, Dudley Creek about Blighs Road, Bradshaw Terrace, Avondale, Jeffreys Road, Strowan Road, Newport Street and Tenby Place, Sabina and Golf Links Road area, Landy Place, Coopers Road, Pages Road, Tovey Street and Union Road, Rowes Road, parts of the Brittans drain catchment in Linwood, Owles Terrace, McBratneys Road at Gayhurst Road and Kyle Street

4.6.3 Opawaho / Heathcote River Catchment: sections along the Opawaho Heathcote River, areas between Buchanans Road and Paparua Stream, Duke Street, Hendersons Road and Sparks Road, Wilderness Drain, Middlepark Road, Greenhurst Street, Marshwood Place, Vickerys Road, Marion Street, Gainsborough Street, Sparks Road, Weir Place, Greenpark Street, Remuera Avenue, Pope’s Stream beside Centaurus Road and Hillsborough Terrace, Curries Road, Bradbourne Street, Opawa Road, Hamlet Lane, Pawaho Place and Stedley Place

4.6.4 Ihutai / Avon-Heathcote Estuary and Coastal Areas: Rockinghorse Road, Caspian Street, parts of the City outfall drain catchment in Linwood, Cygnet Street, Marine Parade, Main Road, Augusta Street and adjoining streets, Beatty Street, Monks Bay roads, McCormacks Bay Road, and Maces Road

4.7 The above is not an exhaustive list. There have been complaints received across much of the city. These typically relate to cleaning and clearing blocked sumps / inlets, however, some indicate broader surface water management issues.

4.8 The presence of surface water on properties and streets does not always meet community expectations. The scale of work required to address property flooding in all the areas listed above is not likely to be practicable, from many perspectives, including cost. Council and the community may have to accept that some surface water ponding and private property flooding cannot be addressed through physical work, particularly as the climate changes. Utilising planning and regulatory tools is a fundamental part of Council’s overall strategy for managing flood risk, now and into the future.

4.9 Responding to flooding on an ad hoc basis can lead to inconsistent decision making and inefficient delivery. This could be perceived as being contrary to a desire for responsiveness and agility in decision making. The challenge is to make decisions at the local level but within the context of similar issues across the city. The existing planning framework allows for identification and prioritisation of projects of different nature and location. This gives the most robust outcome, if the input data is also sufficiently robust.

4.10 The preparation of an LTP enables the balancing of meeting objectives against cost so that projects can be prioritised within a wider programme. The focus of the current Stormwater Drainage and Flood Protection and Control Works Activity Plans as defined in the current LTP is broadly on completion of the Upper Heathcote works, delivery of work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, supporting growth and realising opportunities for flood risk reduction in existing urban areas through growth projects.

4.11 Funding for improving stormwater modelling this has been proposed within the draft Annual Plan. This will fund implementation of new, improved stormwater models to specific areas of focus within the city. The investigations proposed in this report will apply new modelling and knowledge gained from storm events in recent years to increase certainty and update the priority areas for flood mitigation, with actions initially drawn from within the current LTP through applying the standard capital programme management processes, including change requests.

4.12 There are also a number of projects in the current LTP to address localised areas of flood risk. These projects are listed in the LTP 2021-2031. The proposed project budgets total approximately $14 million and will deliver a number of smaller works across the city, in: McCormacks Bay, Bishopdale, Riccarton, Heathcote Valley, Hoon Hay, Hillsborough, Shirley, Cashmere and Redcliffs. The $14 million figure does not include budgets for the larger flood management schemes (e.g. OARC or Upper Heathcote Storage) or to provide for growth.

4.13 The three waters reform programme is currently underway. There is some uncertainty how this could alter prioritisation of work in future years. At present, we are working within existing frameworks and this report has been framed as such. Independent of reform outcomes, the work on prioritisation will be useful to either the water entity or Council.

4.14 The decision affects the entire district due to the potential rates impact and that there are stormwater and flood management concerns in many parts of the city. There have been many complaints about flooding and issues raised in many areas from various stakeholders, including: residents, business owners, residents associations and community boards. Much of this feedback has called for Council to act to reduce surface water ponding and flooding. However, this feedback may not be representative of the broader community views and preferences. Engagement on the Annual Plan will be an opportunity to further understand the views and preferences of the community.

5. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

5.1 An alternative is to initiate projects to address the areas of concern immediately. This would involve allocating budget for:

5.1.1 New capital projects, followed by design, consenting and construction

5.1.2 Increasing the maintenance budgets and applying more effort to keep the network clean and clear.

5.2 Past investigations have been undertaken as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, Mayoral Flood Taskforce and standard planning processes. These investigations developed options to address flooding but not all options were: cost effective, successful in securing funding through the Council’s planning processes or were decided against / deferred by past Council decisions. For example, options were investigated but not initiated in the following areas:

5.2.1 Edgeware Village: a new pump station and stormwater network extension

5.2.2 Emmett Street: new pipe work to drain water away from low lying properties

5.2.3 Flockton Street area: a new pump station to over-pump the Flockton invert pipework into Dudley Creek to extend the benefits of the Dudley Creek Flood Remediation work

5.2.4 Francis Avenue: new pipe network to duplicate the Flockton invert

5.2.5 Bromley Park: a storage basin in Bromley Park and a pump station to reduce flood risk in adjoining areas

5.2.6 Brittans Drain and City Outfall Drain catchments: a large number of options were investigated to reduce flood risk in Linwood and Bromley including pumps, pipes and storage

5.2.7 Estuary Drain: a new pump station draining the Rowses Road area

5.2.8 Central City: stopbanks, floodwalls, river bank work and associated road work

5.3 A basic summary of these and other options is provided in Attachment A. The summary excludes options that are currently funded in the LTP and are supported by the draft Annual Plan.

5.4 The advantage of doing any or all of the above projects would be to reduce flood risk. However, such action may not be consistent with the prioritisation which would result from taking a city-wide view, and may not provide an efficient delivery platform. Also, if progressed, most of the above projects will require additional funding and will cause disruption. Some projects may require land acquisition. Further investigations will be required to develop the individual options and build more certainty in risks, costs, benefits and impacts. The possibility of uncovering contaminated land and achieving consents to undertake the work will be key risks if the projects were to progress.

5.5 As such, the estimates provided in Attachment A should be treated as indicative only and not used for budgetary purposes. Consideration of funding these projects could be achieved through standard processes. The cost estimates for the preferred projects would need to be revisited prior to approval.

5.6 With any flood management approach there will be residual risk of flooding. Even if immediate work were to be undertaken there would still be residual risk of flooding in events larger than that of the design capacity of the system.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The proposed approach is aligned with Council’s current strategic priorities to meet the challenge of climate change through every means available and ensuring rates are affordable and sustainable. These priorities are subject to change with the new term of Council.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The proposed approach to develop a prioritised list of projects through Council’s standard processes is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.3.1 Te Wai Ora o Tāne Integrated Water Strategy: Objective 6 of the strategy is to “Understand the likely extent and effects of flooding, and the risk posed by flooding.” Objective 7 is to “Manage and adapt to the effects of flooding using natural systems, planning tools, community adaptation and infrastructure solutions.” The proposed approach will help deliver against these objectives.

6.3.2 Obligations under the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent: Condition 25 requires Council to “provide retrofit water quality and quantity mitigation for existing development where practicable.” Developing a prioritised list of practicable work helps to meet Council’s obligations under the consent.

6.4 Obligations under the Local Government Act 2002: see discussion in Section 8 below.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. However, any options that are implemented are likely to, and Mana Whenua will be engaged with in the formation phases of resulting projects.

6.6 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga as the nature of the investigations could result in impacts on Te Mana o Te Wai.

6.7 The prioritised programme of work resulting from the proposed investigations could have cultural impacts. These will need to be explored as part of scoping the individual projects. Consents to undertake physical works are likely to be required with associated statutory obligations for consultation with Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The development of a prioritised programme proposed in this report will have very limited climate change impacts as the work will be mainly desktop based. However, there will be climate change impacts for any works proposed to be prioritised within the resulting programme of work. These impacts will need to be considered at the time of approving the projects within the proposed programme.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 The proposed approach does not have any accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – the cost to undertake the proposed investigations required to develop a prioritised programme will be delivered utilising existing resources over a number of years. Given the nature of the work the total cost is highly uncertain and has not been estimated. Acceleration in the work could be achieved if additional funding were granted.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There will be no ongoing costs associated with the proposed approach. Any ongoing costs associated with delivery of works within the developed prioritised programme would need to be agreed with Council at that time.

7.3 Funding Source – Existing operational planning budgets.

Other He mea anō

7.4 The cost estimate to undertake the investigations is highly uncertain and further funding may be required to support development of the prioritised physical works programme. This can be addressed through standard Council processes, such as, future Annual Plans and Long Term Plans.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The proposed approach to develop a prioritised programme of surface water ponding and floodplain management work is consistent with the principles of the Local Government Act 2002 to give effect to it identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner (section 14(1)(a)(ii)) and that a local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets (section 14(1)(g)).

8.2 Council has powers under the Local Government Act 2002 to plan for and deliver services, including stormwater drainage.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 The legal consideration is that reform is currently underway of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991. This could give rise to changes in the way that stormwater and flood protection activities are delivered. Uncertainty remains as to the role that local authorities will have in the provision of these services.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Any flood risk intervention will have some residual risk. The proposed programme of work will not resolve flooding in all areas; for all time. From past experience it is clear that it will not be possible to identify viable engineering options for all areas. This is particularly true in areas with isolated pockets of flooding that are distant from major waterways or the coast. As the programme may not address surface water ponding and flood management in all areas there may be some dissatisfaction within sectors of the community.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Surface Water Flooding Past Options Summary	23/205181	188

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

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Kevin McDonnell - Team Leader Asset Planning

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Tim Drennan - Manager Service Excellence

Approved By

Gavin Hutchison - Manager Planning & Delivery

Brent Smith - Acting Head of Three Waters

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 April 2023

18. Central City - managing noise in mixed use environments
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/209778
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning, mark.stevenson@ccc.govt.nz Carolyn Bonis, Urban Regeneration Team Leader, carolyn.bonis@ccc.govt.nz Nigel Grant, Team Leader Environmental Health, nigel.grant@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 Elected members are asked to endorse the commencement of work on a blend of regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to address noise-related issues in our central mixed use environments.

1.2 This report follows: a presentation to the Council in 2022 from Save Our Venues; a further presentation of a petition in 2023 regarding noise standards; and an informal request from elected members to advise further on a potential response.

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 acknowledging:

1.3.1 The likely proportion of the city’s current and potential future population with a direct interest in the matter (e.g. Central City residents) plus a number of business operators and members of the creative sector;

1.3.2 That late night noise can negatively affect sleep and therefore wellbeing; and

1.3.3 The recent media and community interest in the topic.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Endorse commencement of a plan change process to the District Plan, including evaluation of options for managing effects of noise in the Central City.

2. Endorse commencement of a programme of non-regulatory initiatives focused towards lower cost actions that educate and advise operators and potential buyers on the noise environment.

3. Note that additional non-regulatory mechanisms may be identified in due course, including through engagement processes, and may be subject to further approval processes.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Both live music and residential living are important for the vibrancy of our city’s primary commercial centre. Enabling these activities to co-exist well is a complex issue.

3.2 This report recommends progressing a combination of both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to provide the best, balanced response. Regulatory initiatives will enable greater certainty via a fresh look at district plan provisions. This is a statutory process which will take some time. Acknowledging this, there are various interim, non-regulatory actions that can be progressed within current resourcing. Nevertheless, there are no quick fixes and ongoing discussions may identify further possible actions for consideration.

3.3 Staff are seeking endorsement to commence work across both regulatory and non-regulatory fields and will continue to report progress and seek any key approvals through the normal channels.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Four options

4.1 The following four options have been considered:

4.1.1 Option 1: A blend of regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives (preferred)

4.1.2 Option 2: Regulatory (District Plan) initiatives only.

4.1.3 Option 3: Non-regulatory initiatives only.

4.1.4 Option 4: No action

Key components of regulatory initiatives (Options 1 and 2)

4.2 Regulatory (District Plan change) initiatives would comprise of:

4.2.1 A Plan Change to review the provisions in the District Plan and determine whether changes are required and, if changes are needed, amend the District Plan accordingly.

4.2.2 This process would likely take two years to complete.

4.2.3 As part of this process, staff will evaluate different options to address the issue, and consider the costs and benefits of each option.

4.2.4 Possible changes to the District Plan could include reviewing the precincts identified for entertainment and hospitality in the Central City and their related provisions, amending the noise limits and/or insulation requirements and/or other options that may be identified through the process.

4.3 Advantages are:

4.3.1 District Plan provisions provide certainty for new operators and residents as to the expected sound environment. This enables clear monitoring and enforcement processes, including for situations where complaints might be received but not considered justified.

4.3.2 Aside from matters of live music, there is already a need to review the provisions managing noise in the Central City, including ensuring consistency of road noise management rules between the Central City and other areas^{^[1]} and to review the extent of the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena Noise Insulation Area (reflecting updated modelling). This could be considered alongside or as part of a plan change for managing noise in mixed-use environments.

4.3.3 It is timely to review the provisions as it is 11 years since the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan was prepared. There is an opportunity to review and consider how the provisions are working and identify any changes to better achieve the outcomes sought.

4.4 Disadvantages are:

4.4.1 The process will likely take two years to complete and therefore this option does not help resolve the immediate issues that have been identified. There is also a risk of appeals on any decision that may add costs to the process.

4.4.2 The work required to progress a plan change will draw resources away from other plan change priorities as part of the work programme of the Planning and Strategic Transport unit.

4.4.3 There is uncertainty with this process as to what the end outcome and provisions might look like.

4.4.4 The plan change will not resolve existing or future conflicts in situations where activities were lawfully established or consented under the current District Plan, as these are not subject to the new rules under any proposed plan change.

4.4.5 Any response decided through a plan change may not be responsive to further changes to the environment in the future e.g. entertainment activities establishing in a location not anticipated by the plan change.

Key components of low-cost non-regulatory initiatives (Options 1 and 3)

4.5 Non-regulatory initiatives would principally address the following programme of work.

4.5.1 Commencing this financial year:

· Information gathering.

· Educate/promote the Central City to buyers as a vibrant environment.

· Encourage developers to positively market projects with additional noise attenuation.

· (Continue) advice to support quality residential and mixed use development and healthier, more efficient buildings.

· (Continue) advice, workshops and masterclasses with the music industry.

4.5.2 Commencing FY23/24:

· Investigate mechanisms to improve public advice to new builds/owners, e.g. boosting advisory notes on LIMs.

· Develop educational material and further boost existing ‘wrap around support’ to the live music community to help manage noise at source.

4.6 Advantages are:

4.6.1 All initiatives identified above are low cost to the Council and zero or low cost to operators and residents.

4.6.2 Most actions can be initiated in the shorter term, require a low to medium level of additional staff capacity and carry a low level of reputational risk.

4.6.3 The above list is a starting point, pending further work with stakeholders and ChristchurchNZ, but will provide staff with confidence to commence work on new initiatives.

4.7 Disadvantages are:

4.7.1 None of the actions comprise a ‘silver bullet’ to address issues associated with noise tensions in mixed use environments.

4.7.2 The initiatives have a medium to low level of certainty that change will occur.

4.7.3 While the actions can all be commenced in the shorter term, several require ongoing resourcing without a clear ‘project completion date’ (e.g. education and promoting increased density).

Option 4 (no action)

4.8 Advantages of this option are:

4.8.1 No Council resource or funding required.

4.9 Disadvantages are:

4.9.1 Ongoing and potentially increased tension between activities seeking to locate in the mixed use environments of the Central City.

4.9.2 Potential resulting decisions – for both operators of live music venues and Central City residents – to relocate elsewhere. This would be to the detriment of the full regeneration of the Central City.

Preferred option

4.10 Noting the above advantages and disadvantages, the preferred option is to undertake both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives, the latter focusing on actions that can be addressed within current resourcing of the organisation. The combined Option 1, comprising both regulatory and non-regulatory components, would enable the medium term plan change review to progress while assisting both residents and live music venue operators in the shorter term with non-regulatory actions as outlined. Engagement will commence with relevant experts and stakeholders; this process will inform any regulatory plan change and potentially support identification of any further non-regulatory initiatives worth investigating, further to those indicated in 4.5 above.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Value of providing a residential environment attractive to new residents

5.1 Central City neighbourhoods are regenerating well, with a current estimated 7,760 people currently living within the four avenues and a strong pipeline of new housing development. Nevertheless, the Council has an aspiration to achieve 20,000 residents living in the Central City and the south-east mixed use neighbourhoods provide the greatest potential for change to achieve this outcome. Opportunities provided by the Central City are a key catalyst for development in this area. The enablement of greater housing densities through plan change 14 further supports this area’s transformation to a well-functioning mixed use neighbourhood.

5.2 While the Central City offers many benefits of a more vibrant environment, it is also important to support the wellbeing of residents living in mixed use neighbourhoods. This requires attention to a variety of attributes, including safety, access to green outdoor space, – and the ability to secure sufficient sleep to optimise health outcomes.

5.3 Various options, beyond the requirements of the building code, may be available to house builders to improve the residential experience in vibrant mixed use areas. .

Value of providing a range of live music venues across the City

5.4 Operators have advised elected members and staff that it is important to recognise the ‘ecosystem’ associated with performance venues. Smaller venues provide a key contribution to the economic and cultural health of the city. They provide both performance and social spaces for rising acts and have been described as a ‘seed-bed’ from which a town or city’s musical reputation grows. ‘Practicing musicians make their way from the smallest rooms to the largest open spaces, and this variety of venues is crucial not only to their own career development but to the cultural lives of audiences’.^{^[2]} A variety of spaces also increases opportunities for a diversity of music types to be shared and experienced.

5.5 It is well-recognised that smaller venues and independent operators find it more difficult to absorb costs of compliance with noise standards. Finding a pathway that supports a healthy local live music sector will benefit musicians, venue operators and the city’s music-loving patrons.

Current situation – location of venues and extent of complaints

5.6 This report recognises the tension arising between residents’ amenity expectations and commercial operators concerned for the future of these businesses.

5.6.1 The Council’s compliance team has received complaints that several venues are generating noise greater than what is allowed by the permitted noise standards in the District Plan. Even a single complaint still requires attendance and enforcement if standards are breached.

5.6.2 Equally, live music venues are apprehensive that further planned residential developments near their venues could increase the potential for noise complaints; operators have proactively raised concerns with the Council that the industry – and therefore the city’s night time economy – is at risk.

5.7 Fifteen Central City entertainment venues/sites have been subject to noise complaints from 2021 to the present. Of these, there are three complaints where agreed mitigation actions are still underway, while the rest of the complaints have been closed. Attachment A: Noise complaints - Entertainment Venues provides detail on the proportion of complaints that were justified across the range of venues and required action from the venue operator.

5.8 We have seen that getting advice from acoustic engineers has been beneficial for several operators subject to complaints. Complaints have stopped after taking actions recommended by the acoustic engineer.

5.9 Staff anticipate the current mixed use tensions to continue into the future as the benefits of Central City living are taken up.

Feedback from Life in Christchurch survey

5.10 Given the tensions noted above, the latest Life in Christchurch survey has included additional questions targeting Central City residents’ experience of noise.

5.11 The survey closed after this report was lodged and staff can provide an update at the Council meeting when this report is considered. Initial responses (to 3 March) are included in Attachment B: Interim feedback from Life in Christchurch survey.

5.12 These show that 38% of respondents indicated that excessive noise levels are an unappealing feature of their current neighbourhood. While traffic noise is an identified issue, results show that disruptive evening/night time noise is generated by:

5.12.1 Patrons at bars/restaurants – most disruptive;

5.12.2 Live outdoor music/entertainment – second most disruptive;

5.12.3 Music from bars and restaurants (live or not) – the least disruptive.

5.13 At the time of preparing this interim information, the South East mixed use neighbourhoods of the Central City had garnered few responses due to the relatively low current residential population. This situation is anticipated to change in the future.

Current regulatory rules

5.14 The current District Plan provisions are consistent with the amendments introduced by the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, prepared in July 2012. They reflect the environment when the plan was prepared, and where entertainment and hospitality activities were anticipated to locate as the earthquake recovery got underway.

5.15 Bars and live music venues are permitted activities in the mixed use and commercial areas of the Central City. Residential development is also generally allowed throughout the Central City except in the Category 1 Precinct (refer to paragraph 5.16.1 below). Rules addressing noise limits and residential acoustic insulation standards vary by location.

5.16 Attachment C: Noise rules - Limits & insulation requirements and Attachment D: Map of Planning zones and precincts in Central City provides further detail. In summary:

5.16.1 There is a small Category 1 noise precinct where entertainment and hospitality activities are anticipated (focused around the former Sol Square area) with the highest level of noise allowed relative to the remainder of the Central City.

5.16.2 The Category 2 areas (to the immediate northwest and south east of the Category 1 precinct and also along Victoria Street) are where entertainment and hospitality activities are also anticipated with a greater level of noise than the remainder of the Central City but more restricted than Category 1.

5.16.3 The remainder of the Central City is Category 3, where noise levels are stricter again.

5.16.4 The highest level of permitted noise (LAmax) across all the Central City is 85dB but this varies as to the time of day (i.e. applies until 3am in the Category 1 precinct, until 1am in the Category 2 precinct and principally during daytime hours in Category 3 areas). By comparison, residential zones beyond the Central City have an Lmax of 65dB after 10pm. Therefore, the existing sound environment within the four avenues, even within the residential zones, is anticipated to be noisier than the suburbs.

5.16.5 Insulation rules are focused on: the area surrounding Te Kaha arena; the Category 2 noise precinct; the Category 3 sites in close proximity to Category 1 and 2 precincts or areas zoned Central City Business, Central City Mixed Use and Central City (Mixed Use (South Frame).

5.16.6 Insulation is also required to mitigate the effects of noise in proximity to main roads in the Central City.

5.17 As noted above, it is timely to revisit the rules for managing noise in the Central City. As a statutory process, any change to the noise/insulation standards will take at least two years to complete, and potentially longer, depending upon any appeals to Council’s decision.

Ongoing wrap-around support for operators

5.18 Council staff are leading a variety of initiatives to support local bands and performers. In addition to supporting development of ‘local stages’ at Electric Ave and the new event Rock the Park, industry-specific mentoring and incubator programmes have been developed:

5.18.1 Through the 2021 and 2022 ‘Go Live!’ events (and planned for July 2023), panel discussions and talks have been held with industry representatives from the Music Community, NZ On Air and independent producers and recording labels.

5.18.2 In 2022, a number of musicians were supported through an incubator programme as part of the implementation of Toi Ōtautahi, the city’s arts strategy. This programme will continue into 2023 and 2024.

5.18.3 Alongside the incubator programme, additional mentoring and development opportunities will be offered through workshops and masterclasses. This year, staff will be working with Dig the Gig and Sole Music Academy to provide this service. Future masterclasses have potential to support and improve understanding of responsibilities concerning district plan noise standards.

Work requested of ChristchurchNZ

5.19 The Letter of Expectations for ChristchurchNZ has requested consideration of support that could be provided to the local music sector. ChristchurchNZ is completing research on the economic impact of the creative and local music sector in Christchurch.

5.20 Through this work, there is potential to integrate initiatives around the sector such as those listed in 0.

5.21 The findings from the ChristchurchNZ-led evaluation will be presented in due course as part of a planned workshop to councillors. Meanwhile, staff are continuing to work across organisations and with an eye to work underway elsewhere (for example, Dunedin City Council is developing a Live Music Action Plan).

New non-regulatory initiatives

5.22 In preparing this report, staff have considered a range of potential actions.

5.23 Those actions which staff are confident can be progressed in the immediate future as part of a non-regulatory approach are identified in section 4.5 above. These focus on lower cost initiatives that can be achieved within existing budgets and without significantly displacing other work priorities. Attachment E: Range of non-regulatory initiatives provides more detail on these proposed actions.

Potential additional future work, funding dependent

5.24 Further non-regulatory initiatives could be undertaken if the situation is not readily resolved across the coming two years, although they would require allocation of additional funding. For example, these might include:

5.24.1 Helping to fund acoustic advice for resource consents

5.24.2 Initiating an acoustic advisory service.

5.24.3 Providing financial assistance via grant funding to attenuate noise emission at source and/or noise at the receiving dwelling.

5.25 Further details of these additional mechanisms are also provided at Attachment E.

Remaining open to further solutions

5.26 Other solutions may also present themselves and can be considered on a case by case basis. In particular, further ideas may be forthcoming through conversations with stakeholder groups in coming months. For example, there may be opportunities to:

5.26.1 Take advantage of new technology.

5.26.2 Utilise mechanisms including the District Plan to better apply ‘agent of change’ principles to new arrivals.

5.26.3 Broker agreements to shift venues to more appropriate locations (once these locations are confirmed via District Plan review).

5.26.4 Lease Council land for a new venue.

5.27 There may also be programmes of work that incidentally support improved noise management. For example, studies have shown that environments with increased greening result in an increased tolerance of noise by residents - although presumably the calming influence of visible greenspace reduces at night. These added benefits of greening our Central City could supplement the principle actions to reduce noise (i.e. via appropriate noise control and acoustic insulation).

Geographic scope

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

5.28.1 Central Ward

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The proposed approach is consistent with the Council strategic priority of ‘Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21^st century city’.

6.2 It is also consistent with community outcomes of:

6.2.1 Safe and healthy communities;

6.2.2 Celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport;

6.2.3 Vibrant and thriving central city, …;

6.2.4 Great place for people, business and investment; and

6.2.5 An inclusive, equitable economy with broad-based prosperity for all.

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

6.3.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

o Level of Service: 17.0.20.2 Place-based policy and planning advice to support integrated urban regeneration, city identity, community leadership and place making. - Provide annual regeneration programme report/s to Council, that report on: Central City regeneration projects, including a focus on residential development (P8011)Regeneration projects in priority Suburban Centres, Annual Heritage Festival

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including:

6.4.1 The Central City Action Plan, refreshed in 2020, sets a number of themes and actions, including supporting local businesses and encouraging more people to make the Central City their home.

6.4.2 The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan sets the foundation for the current District Plan, noting for the Mixed Use Zone: ‘the corollary of the permissive approach taken in the Business Zone is that there are limitations on the extent of retail, commercial services and office development that can occur in the mixed use area. These activities are preferred in the new consolidated Central City Business Zone and the distinction is made clear in the new zone provisions’. … ‘The development standards are designed to ensure an appropriate standard of residential amenity recognising that such development will occur within a highly developed urban and mixed use environment.’

6.4.3 The Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy has actions including to ‘Actively support and advocate for the arts, play, … to enhance wellbeing and community connection and foster regional pride’ and ‘Initiate engagement with residents and stakeholders in new and changing communities (including the central city)’.

6.4.4 The Toi Otautahi – Arts and Creativity Strategy is focused on creating an environment where creative people want to live, work, and produce work. It notes that arts and creativity underpin innovation and boost the economy, making the city more dynamic for residents and more attractive to visitors. ‘Creative festivals and events are a great way to activate the central city. They give residents and visitors a reason to explore and reconnect with the city. They also help arts to engage with a broader audience, and introduce new ideas to the city. Christchurch can emerge as a dynamic, creative hub bringing with it activities and opportunities that enhance the local economy’.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 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.

6.7 The Mahaanui Kurataiao Iwi Management Plan does not identify noise as a specific issue for mana whenua. Through the process of identifying key stakeholders across both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives, staff will engage and confirm any mana whenua interest.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 Compact centres and increased density support a reduction in travel emissions. This is a key element in reducing our vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. Identifying mechanisms to better support a mix of land use activities in denser urban environments is a step to support and improve Ōtautahi’s resilience.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 There are no specific accessibility considerations to address through this decision.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Cost implications will depend upon the range of actions chosen and the timeframe in which they are implemented. The regulatory actions to change the district plan would necessitate planning staff and technical expert input, namely acoustic and economic advice, which would draw on existing budgets that could otherwise be spent on other priorities. The proposed non-regulatory actions can be achieved within current budget allocations. Should elected members decide to add further mechanisms from the list identified in Attachment E, additional budget may need to be allocated. Funded acoustic advice / advisory service, with potential grants to increase acoustic insulation, can be further investigated and reported on if directed to do so.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – N/A

7.3 Funding Source – Actions that can be undertaken this financial year are able to be funded through existing operational budgets. Decisions on the plan change programme will align volume of work with available resources. Any further initiatives, such as establishing a new advisory service and/or providing grant funding to support noise attenuation will require discussion and prioritisation decisions through the Annual Plan and LTP processes.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Given impact for budgets and staff capacity, it is considered advisable in the first instance to undertake the more straightforward non-regulatory actions proposed and test their effectiveness ahead of any more significant measures.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Regulatory mechanisms are delivered under the Resource Management Act, in relation to changes to the District plan / resource consent processes.

8.2 Non-regulatory mechanisms will principally be delivered as part of Council services under the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 The legal consideration is an acknowledgement that some potential initiatives will require advice from legal colleagues through the delivery process. For example, should work commence (as proposed) to add text to Land Information Memoranda, it would be prudent to include legal oversight to ensure the vires and accuracy of any proposed wording.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The regulatory response of considering a plan change to address Central City noise standards incorporates the usual risks associated with the time required to adopt new rules and the potential for Environment Court processes. As such, there is a risk that the process could take longer than two years.

9.2 The non-regulatory actions proposed, and supplemented by a possible longer list at Attachment E, seek to avoid key risks:

9.2.1 Reputational risk. For example, any decisions to spend ratepayer money to directly purchase and retrofit a new venue would likely be unpopular and have not been incorporated into the set of proposed actions.

9.2.2 Risk associated with expensive and drawn-out processes associated with legislation change. For example, the Council is currently limited to an existing range of enforcement mechanisms and any new ones would require a change to the Resource Management Act 1991.

9.3 Remaining risks across all potential initiatives relate to delivery speed, certainty of delivering change, extent of staff capacity required and the extent of cost to deliver. The proposed actions take these into account and seek a balanced approach: providing certainty for the rule framework via a district plan change, while initiating lower cost supplementary actions to educate relevant occupiers of the Central City mixed use environment.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Noise complaints - Entertainment Venues	23/306320	206
b ⇩	Interim feedback from Life in Christchurch survey	23/306388	207
c ⇩	Noise Rules - Limits and Insulation requirements	23/314297	210
d ⇩	Map of Planning zones and precincts in Central City	23/315018	212
e ⇩	Range of non-regulatory initiatives	23/275565	213

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

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 April 2023

19. Okains Bay New Water Supply Scheme
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/320384
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Michele McDonald, Team Leader Asset Planning Water & Wastewater (Michele.McDonald@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 seek approval for a capital change to the WS Okains Bay New Water Supply project (CPMS 52902) that will increase the budget of $2.6 million to $8.5 million - an increase of $5.8 million.

1.2 This report is staff generated pursuant to a Capital Change Request submission to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and in line with financial delegations regarding budget changes of more than $5 million. Due to the timing of the change request and in consideration of the status of the project, it is recommended that this report be presented to Council as opposed to the next Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

1.3.1 The project aims to provide a fully compliant drinking water supply to a small rural community and a camping ground operated by Council.

1.3.2 The project was adopted in the Long Term Plan and is supported by Te Whatu Ora – Waitaha Canterbury, the Banks Peninsula Community Board, and the Okains Bay Reserve Committee, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as well as the Okains Bay community.

1.3.3 The water supplied to the Council operated Okains Bay campground is untreated and there is a high risk of waterborne disease, should campers not adhere to the standing ‘boil water’ or ‘no drinking’ notice.

1.3.4 The ongoing viability of the Okains Bay campground could be impacted by climate change and specifically sea level rise.

1.3.5 The new water supply system will have an ongoing operations and maintenance implication.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve the Capital Change Request for CPMS 52902 WS Okains Bay New Water Supply which provides for:

a. an increase of $5,872,979 to the existing budget of $2,627,021 to provide a budget of $8,500,000;

b. the additional budget to be sourced from the remaining budget against the WS New Small Supplies programme and the Lyttelton Harbour Water Supply Security project (CPMS 60007);

c. an extension of time to complete the project by changing the project delivery completion milestone from 30 June 2023 to 20 December 2024 (18 month extension).

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The preliminary design cost estimate for the Okains Bay New Water Supply System amounts to $8,500,000 with an accuracy range of -20% / + 30%, meaning that the actual cost could range between $6.3 million to $10.5 million.

3.2 The business case for the Okains Bay New Water Supply project was proposed in the 2018 Long Term Plan and was accepted following a Mayoral recommendation. The purpose of this project is to provide a rural restricted drinking water supply to the 40 households, a school and a museum as well as to the Okains Bay Campground that can accommodate up to 500 campers. The motivation for the project is to remove the high risk of water borne disease outbreak in Okains Bay and in general to support development and tourism in Okains Bay.

3.3 Under the Camping-Grounds Regulations (1985) (Part 2) the operator of the camp ground is required to ensure that there is an adequate supply of wholesome and potable water provided to the satisfaction of the local authority. Under Section 14 the local authority can grant an exemption from such requirements and Okains Bay camp ground has effectively been operating under an exemption to provide a potable water supply. It is however not deemed acceptable for Council to continue to operate a substantial camping ground that provides an untreated water supply. Because the campground can service up to 500 campers, a drinking water supply to the campground will require full treatment as provided for in this project.

3.4 The Okains Bay New Water Supply must achieve compliance with the new Drinking Water Standards and the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules. As such it must include the prescribed treatment processes and instrumentation needed to demonstrate drinking water compliance.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Place the project on hold

4.1 An alternative option to the recommendation would be to place the project on hold and to incorporate a budget increase in the Three Waters Reform capital budget. The outcome of such an alternative is however uncertain as it is unclear how the new water services entity will prioritize projects.

4.2 This alternative option will have the following advantages:

4.2.1 No additional funding needs to be secured in the short term.

4.2.2 Deferral of increased operations and maintenance costs.

4.2.3 Additional time is provided to deliberate on the medium-term future of the campground in light of expected climate change impacts.

4.3 This alternative will have the following disadvantages:

4.3.1 The campground will not achieve drinking water quality compliance in the short term and the high risk of a water borne disease outbreak will remain.

4.3.2 The Okains Bay community does not have access to a safe drinking water supply in the short term.

4.3.3 A further delay in the project will result in additional cost escalation.

Cancel the project

4.4 Council may decide to review the business case for this project due to the higher cost implications. Such a decision will have to be made in consultation with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the local community, since an expectation has been created to deliver this project as part of the current Long Term Plan.

4.5 This alternative option will have the following advantages:

4.5.1 No additional funding needs to be secured, and the existing budget of $2.6 million can be assigned to cover the shortfall on the WS Duvuachelle Membrane Filtration project.

4.5.2 No need to provide for a future operations and maintenance budget (estimated at $75,000 to $100,000 per year).

4.5.3 Reduced risk of establishing infrastructure that may not be utilized for its full life period due to the potential of a reduced demand as a result of climate change i.e. if the campground is closed due to sea level rise.

4.6 This alternative will have the following disadvantages:

4.6.1 The campground will not achieve drinking water quality compliance and the high risk of a water borne disease outbreak will remain.

4.6.2 The Okains Bay community does not have access to a safe drinking water supply.

4.6.3 Fruitless expenditure amounting to $522,285 including $35,000 that was paid for the proposed treatment plant site at 839R Okains Bay Road.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Okains Bay community (100 population) and camp ground (up to 500 people) is served by an untreated water supply system which is owned and managed by the Okains Bay Water Committee. The supply does not meet Drinking Water Standards. The campground is operating under an exemption regarding the provision of a potable water supply and ‘boil water’ notices are displayed to as a means to secure the health of campers and say visitors.

5.2 The Okains Bay New Water Supply project was adopted for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan, with a specific recommendation from the Mayor that: “The Okains Bay Water supply project to be funded through the LTP water supply renewals programme, with further work being undertaken on design and community engagement in 2018/19.” (Resolution CLTP/2018/00028). At this time it was envisaged that an affordable, containerised water treatment plant could be installed to provide safe drinking water to the small community and campground as a restricted rural water supply.

5.3 The project was initiated in September 2019 and work started with extensive water quality testing of the stream water as required to direct the treatment plant process design. The concept process design was delivered in January 2021 and concluded that a more complex treatment process would be required to treat the Okains Bay stream water. Because this would require additional treatment units, it would therefore also not be feasible for the treatment plant to be installed in a container.

5.4 The concept design stage estimated a project cost of $5 million that included a 30% contingency ($2.4 million budget increase). Staff recommended at that stage that a Design and Build Expression of Interest should be pursued to seek alternative technologies and approaches that could deliver a more affordable solution that aligns with the available budget. A Design and Build Expression of Interest was issued in October 2021. The response did not provide staff with confidence that the solutions put forward would guarantee compliance with the drinking water quality assurance rules nor that the final solution would be less costly.

5.5 Taumata Arowai was established as the dedicated water services regulator in November 2021 and released a comprehensive set of compliance rules in July 2022. The new Drinking Water Standards and Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules came into effect in November 2022 and prescribe the minimum requirements for drinking water treatment and monitoring to demonstrate that safe drinking water is continuously delivered. The additional compliance requirements have been incorporated into the Preliminary Design of the Okains Bay treatment plant that was completed in February 2023.

5.6 Ecological assessments and flood modelling were completed as part of the Preliminary Design phase and resolved that the site that has been selected and procured for the Okains Bay New Water Treatment Plant is severely constrained. Part of the site is classified as a natural wetland and flood modelling aligned with the adopted climate change scenario highlights the potential for future flood hazards. Because of limited opportunities to secure an alternative site for raw water abstraction, it is recommended that these constraints be addressed by providing an alternative solution to treat and dispose of backwash water and by providing a raised platform for the treatment plant.

5.7 The $5.8 million cost increase for this project is due to:

5.7.1 $3.2 million or 55% because of the need to establish a more complex treatment process to treat the Okains Bay water and to achieve minimum drinking water quality assurance compliance. This includes an increased provision for contractor overhead that is expected to deliver a more complex solution;

5.7.2 $1.15 million or 20% due to flood mitigation provision;

5.7.3 $1.5 million or 25% due to cost escalation.

5.8 The preliminary cost estimate that was used to develop the change request is a pre-tender estimate. There is a risk of additional cost escalation. It should however be noted that a 10% design development and a 15% construction contingency have been factored into the new cost estimate. Should these contingencies not be realized, a saving of approximately $1,800,000 will be available to offset against further cost escalation.

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

5.9.1 Banks Peninsula Community Board

5.9.2 The Okains Bay camp site is managed by the Okains Bay Reserve Committee, comprising elected members of local iwi and the community and established as a subordinate decision-making body of the Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 It is a strategic priority to ensure high quality drinking water supply that is safe and sustainable. It is taken that this priority extends to Council operated campground facilities.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Water Supply

· Level of Service: 12.0.2.9 Proportion of residents (with supplies of > 100 customers) supplied water compliant with the DWSNZ bacterial compliance criteria - 1

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The recent Water Supply and Wastewater Needs Assessment confirms that Okains Bay is one of the larger communities (>500 people) that does not have access to a safe drinking water supply and that there is therefore a high water safety risk to the community and visitors.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 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.

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

6.6 The Okains Bay Reserves (Ōkeina) is land vested in Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu under the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 but controlled and managed by Christchurch City Council as if it were a recreation reserve, pursuant to section 38(1) of the Reserves Act. Under the Settlement Act the ownership of the structures and improvements on Ōkeina is vested with the Council to hold in trust, maintain, and administer for the benefit of the Ōkeina (Okains Bay) community. Council manage day to day running of the Okains Bay Campsite and Visitor facilities. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are landowner and accordingly have formal representation on the Okains Bay Reserve Committee.

6.7 In a letter dated 22 March 2019, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu confirmed that: “As kaitiaki it is of utmost importance to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Te Rūnanga o Moeraki that the mauri of Ōkeina is protected and that Ōkeina manuhiri are provided a safe place to stay. Essential to this is the availability of clean drinking water. The provision of potable water will enable manaakitanga and empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu whānui to stand with mana on their land.”

6.8 The Ecological Impact Assessment completed as part of the preliminary design has identified īnanga spawning sites in Opara Stream which will require the design of the water take weir structure to include fish passage. The intake design as well as the design of the backwash waste stream to the receiving environment are being developed in collaboration of local Rūnanga (Koukourārata).

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The Ōtautahi Christchurch Coastal Risk Explorer used by the Council’s Coastal Hazard Adaption Planning Team and adopted for long term planning, predicts the potential of coastal flooding of Okains Bay within the next 30 years (20 cm sea level rise increment).

6.10 The proposed water treatment plant site at 839R Okains Bay Road is located above the coastal flood impacted area but flood modelling using the climate change ‘worst case’ scenario (NIWA HIRDS V.4 RCP8.5 2081-2100) predicts flooding of the site. This risk can be mitigated by providing a raised platform for the water treatment plant and contributes to the increased cost for this project.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11 Not applicable as the facilities will not be accessed by the public.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – A funding increase of $5,872,979 is required for this project.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – it is estimated that the annual operating and maintenance budget for the new water supply system will amount to $75,000 to $100,000.

7.3 Funding Source –

7.4 The initial budget required will be sourced from programmes and projects within the Water Supply Activity with some rephasing of existing projects (no overall budget change) to facilitate a bringback.

7.5 An amount of $298,040 to be sourced from the WS New Small Supplies programme, however, this programme has a limited remaining budget. Funding for new water supply systems will have to be re-introduced in subsequent long term plans or Three Waters Reform capital budgets.

7.6 An amount of $5,569,395 to be sourced from WS Lyttelton Harbour Water Supply Security project. This project is funded in the Long Term Plan at $36 million over the period FY27 to FY31 to provide for additional infrastructure to secure a resilient water supply to Lyttelton Harbour should KiwiRail maintain that the water pipes in rail tunnel must be abandoned. Staff is collaborating with KiwiRail as part of WS Lyttelton Rail Tunnel Pipeline Renewals to develop a concept design for renewing the water pipes within the rail tunnel. It is not yet certain whether a solution will be found, but good progress has been made in this respect. Upon approval of the design for the pipe renewal through the rail tunnel, the residual budget against this project will be assigned to address some of the shortfall in the Water Supply Safety Improvements programme. This programme is targeted to achieve compliance with the New Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules and the Council’s Water Safety Plans. If agreement is not reached, future Long Term Plans or water services entity capital programs will have to provide for an increased budget to deliver an alternative solution.

Other He mea anō

7.7 Not applicable as project will be implemented by external consultants and contractors.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Under Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council has full capacity to carry out and undertake any activity of business, do any act, or enter into any transaction, and for that purpose has full rights, powers, and privileges. This broad power is subject to any other enactment and the general law.

8.2 In terms of the Local Government Act, 2002 a territorial authority must identify and assess any public health risks relating to the drinking water services supplies to the community and has a duty to ensure that communities have access to drinking water if an existing supplier faces significant problems.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 As operator of the campground, the Council has been exempt from providing a potable water supply under the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985, as it is considered a ‘remote campsite’. The exemption is granted under regulation 14(3) as, despite the revocation of the reserve status of Okains Bay under section 127 (3) of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, the Council is required to manage Okains Bay under section 38(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as if it were a reserve.

8.4 As a drinking water supplier, whether as operator of the campground or as part of its Water Supply service, Council must ensure that the drinking water supplied to the campground is safe. In terms of the Water Services Act 2021, drinking water includes water used for oral hygiene or washing utensils as could be expected from campers and visitors using the Okains Bay Camping Ground and Visitor Centre.

8.5 Legal Services have considered whether a decision to approve additional Council funding of $5.8M would require further engagement with the public (such as consultation).

8.6 The Council is required to comply with its decision-making obligations in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 79 provides that it is for each Council to determine how it will achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78, although as a general rule compliance should be largely proportional to the significance of the matter. Essentially, the more significant the matter, the higher the standard of compliance is expected from the identification and assessment of options, the consideration of the views of those affected, and the extent of the written record kept showing compliance.

8.7 Section 78 does not require the Council to undertake a consultation process of itself but the Council must have some way of identifying the views and preferences of interested and affected persons.

8.8 The Okains Bay New Water Supply project was adopted for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan. At this time it was envisaged that an affordable, containerised water treatment plant could be installed to provide safe drinking water to the small community and campground as a restricted rural water supply.

8.9 The significance of the decision has been assessed as of low significance, however when looking at the proposed increase, the project cost will increase by over 226%, which is a material change from the content of the LTP and Annual Plan. A conservative approach would be to undertake a further engagement process with the public to ascertain their views on the total picture.

8.10 Nevertheless, when the cost of the project is compared with the overall budget for 3 Waters in the LTP, the size of the increase would not be deemed material in terms of the overall budget. Furthermore, there is likely to be no effect on rates as the funding will come from budget underspend. The reasons for the increased budget is the need to establish a more complex treatment process to treat the Okains Bay water and to achieve minimum drinking water quality assurance compliance and the effects of climate change, which are well known by the public. There also seems to be wide support for the implementation of the project. Further, due to the new Drinking Water Standards and Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules and the prescribed minimum requirements for drinking water treatment and monitoring Council now has a statutory obligation to comply with those Drinking Water Standards and Rules.

8.11 On balance, Legal Services consider that the Council can take these matters into account in terms of section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002. Despite the amount of the increase, the public is likely to want the project to proceed even with the cost escalation, and that further consultation with the public is not required. Legal Services consider this is a relatively low risk approach in terms of any possible judicial review challenge for this project.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The significant risks for the decision to increase the budget to allow implementation of the Okains Bay New Water Supply are:

9.1.1 Council would invest capital and operating funds to the delivery of a new water supply service to an area that has a high risk of coastal flooding and therefore with an uncertain future demand. As noted above, the water treatment plant will be located at a higher elevation and therefore would be secure.

9.1.2 The accuracy of the cost estimate is considered -20% / 30% with a range of $6.3 million to $10.5 million. There is also a high risk of additional cost escalation, not provided for in the current cost estimate.

9.2 The following significant risks, should this project not be implemented:

9.2.1 The risk to the health of campers and visitors and the community at large will remain.

9.2.2 Council will not fully achieve its strategic priority to ensure a high quality drinking water supply that is safe and sustainable.

9.2.3 As operator of the campground, Council would be at risk of not complying to the Water Services Act 2021 and the Compliance Rules issued by Taumata Arowai;

9.2.4 A reputational risk for failing to implement the project which was included in the Long Term Plan and supported by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and several other stakeholders.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Michele McDonald - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Brent Smith - Acting Head of Three Waters

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

Council

05 April 2023

21. 2022/23 Sustainability Fund Allocations
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/310526
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Lexie Reuben, Team Leader Community Funding Tony Moore, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience
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 Council allocation of the Sustainability Fund for the 2022/23 financial year.

1.2 Forty-nine applications to the Sustainability Fund have been received by the Council. An evaluation panel comprising of staff from across the organistion has reviewed the applications and made the funding recommendations in this report.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because they are consistent with approved delegations, the Sustainability Fund’s Terms of Reference, and support the Council’s established climate change objectives.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve allocations from the 2022/23 Sustainability Fund as follows, subject to any changes made at the Council decision-making meeting:

Page No.	Lead Organisation	Project	Panel Recommendation
1	Ecobulb Limited	Christchurch Home Energy Saver Extension	$ 40,000
2	Roimata Commons Trust	Pedal Power	$ 31,190
3	Christchurch Transitional Architecture Trust	Christchurch Conversations 2023: the Regenerative City	$ 30,000
4	Project Lyttelton	Community Action on Climate change - Carbon Reduction	$ 26,500
5	Recycle a Device	Recycle a Device	$ 25,000
6	Conservation Volunteers New Zealand	Donna Lusby	$ 20,000
7	Te Puna Auaha Lyttelton Trust	ResourceFull	$ 20,000
8	New Brighton Community Gardens Trust	Propagating Young Gardeners Sustainability Hub	$ 20,000
9	Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery. And Te Aratai College Technology Centre	Solar power installation for Climate Action Campus , Otautahi and Te Aratai College Technology Centre	$ 20,000
10	Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust	Phillipstown Community Gardens	$ 20,000
11	Shirley Community Trust	MacFarlane Park Community Garden	$ 12,000
12	Bush Farm Trust	Bush Farm Education	$ 8,000
13	Friends of Morgan's and Sam's Gullies	Purau Bay Reserve	$ 2,000
14	A Rocha Aotearoa New Zealand	Carbon footprint calculation and emission reduction initiatives with church communities	$ 15,000
15	Canterbury Community Gardens Association	Community Networker	$ 10,000
16	Richmond Residents and Business Association	Petrie Park Bowling club remediation	$ 5,000
17	Styx Living Laboratory Trust	Bethany Baker	$ 10,000
18	Christchurch Vegan Society	Christchurch Vegan Night Makete	$ 2,955
19	Superhome Movement Charitable Trust	Superhome Movement Healthy Home Guide and Super Renovations Guide	$ 10,000
20	Foodbank Aotearoa New Zealand	Innovate to Alleviate : A Climate Change Initiative	$ 2,000
21	Linwood Resource Centre and Community Gardens	Waste and Consumption Reduction Project including Water Tanks	$ 1,530
22	Molten Media Trust	James McKellow	$ 10,000
23	Richmond Community Garden Trust	Richmond Compost Collective & Urban trapping	$ 15,000
24	Mount Pleasant Community Centre and Residents Association	Mount Pleasant Community Resilience	$ 5,000
25	St Teresa's School (Riccarton)	Responsible neighbours of PÅ«taringamotu - School organic waste, onsite composting and product development project.	$ 4,960
26	Sustained Fun Limited	World Sustainable Toy Day campaign	$ 4,200
27	Summit Road Society	Avoca Valley - landslips and climate change	$ 10,000
28	Avon Otakaro Network INC	Avon Ōtākaro In River Clean up project	$ 10,000
29	Christchurch Envirohub Trust	Te Tuna Tāone	$ 15,000
30	Bishop Julius Hall T/A Arcady Hall	Arcady Hall Food Waste to Soil Food Programme	$ -
31	Food Resilience Network	Ōtākaro Orchard Sustainable Building Project	$ -
32	Food Resilience Network	Ōtākaro Orchard 333 Urban Farm	$ -
33	The Mount Pleasant Community Centre Squash Rackets Club (Incorporated)	Insulation Improvement	$ -
34	Bee Awesome He Pī Mīharo	Bee Awesome He Pī Mīharo	$ -
35	Biological Husbandry Unit	Regenerate Urban Organics Training	$ -
36	ElecSys Lab (formerly Electronics Limited)	Sustainable Smart Greenhouses for Food Security	$ -
37	Blue Cradle Foundation	Ocean Literacy Education for Ōtautahi/Christchurch	$ -
38	Redcliffs Residents' Association	Te Awa Kura - Regreening Barnett Park
39	Flourish Kia Puawai	No More Waste Network	$ -
40	Flourish Kia Puawai	Otautahi Patchwork Forest	$ -
41	Ōtākaro Living Laboratory	Ōtākaro Living Laboratory - Body of Knowledge	$ -
42	Korimako	Supporting Mission-led Climate Action in Ōtautahi	$ -
43	The Green Machine NZ Limited	The Green machine	$ -
44	Design Encounter	Along Bicycle Co	$ -
45	Water Cremation Aotearoa New Zealand	Deborah Richards	$ -
46	Waitikiri Golf Club	Solar Power System Installation	$ -
47	FoodFuse	FoodFuse Home Biodigester Development	$ -
48	Woolston Development Project	hua rākau rawa	$ -
49	Upstream Sustainability Ltd	Scope 3 Data-Collection Module	$ -

2. Approve the transfer of any remaining unallocated budget from the 2022/23 Sustainability Fund to the 2023/24 Sustainability Fund.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council has received applications to the Sustainability Fund, which was established to support community action on climate change. Each application has been assessed against the Fund’s Terms of Reference and evaluation criteria and a rationale for the recommendations contained in this report is provided in Attachment B. Full detail regarding the assessment of each application against the evaluation criteria is provided in the Decision Matrix – Attachment A.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Council can determine which, if any, applicants receive funding and the amount allocated. Should unspent funds remain, they will be added to the amount available in the 2023/24 financial year.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In June 2021 the Council approved the Kia tūroa te ao, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021 containing targets, goals, principles and action programmes related to climate change. The purpose of the Sustainability Fund is to encourage community, school, social enterprise or business projects that help meet these climate objectives.

5.2 Through submissions on the Climate Resilience Strategy and the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan, the community sought urgent action on climate change. The Sustainability Fund is an important way to support community climate actions.

5.3 The Terms of Reference for the Sustainability Fund including: the purpose, climate change objectives and targets, evaluation criteria and a list of what is not generally funded is provided on the Council’s Sustainability Fund webpage. Details of previously funded projects are also listed on this webpage.

5.4 This report seeks Council decisions on the applications to the 2022/23 Sustainability Fund.

5.5 The 2022/23 Sustainability Fund budget, the amount requested by applicants in this round, the staff panel recommendations and the remaining balance are listed below.

Total 2022/32 Sustainability Fund budget	Total requested by applicants in this round	Staff panel recommendations	Fund balance if staff recommendations are adopted
$405,691	$1,626,299	$405,335	$356

5.6 The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application. This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

5.7 To support Council decision making, an evaluation panel considered each proposal against the Terms of Reference and evaluation criteria for the Fund. The evaluation criteria are: Relevance, Benefit, Legacy, Deliverability and Measurability. The evaluation panel was made up of Council staff from across the organisation and Council technical advisors specifically related to the proposals (e.g. from waste, transport, parks, education and community areas). The projects were prioritised by the evaluation panel as follows:

5.7.1 Priority 1 – Outstanding project, highly recommended for funding. Project meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund.

5.7.2 Priority 2 – Worthwhile project, recommended for funding. Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes well to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund, but to a lesser extent than Priority 1 projects.

5.7.3 Priority 3 – Satisfactory project, not recommended for funding. Meets eligibility criteria, meets most evaluation criteria, and contributes to the fund purpose and outcomes, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 projects.

5.7.4 Priority 4 – Unsatisfactory project, not recommended for funding. For example, it may not meet eligibility criteria, insufficient information was provided, other funding sources are more appropriate or the project offers a limited or uncertain benefit.

5.8 A table providing a brief summary of each proposal, the determined priority level, a funding recommendation and a combined rationale from the evaluation panel is provided in Attachment B.

5.9 Each application, excluding supporting documents and confidential information (such as detailed budgets, letters of support, job descriptions and organisational and contact information) is provided in Attachment A. The application process asks each applicant to identify confidential information. Any information deemed to be confidential under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act has been removed from this report.

Applications have been categorised based on the main type of activity being undertaken (e.g. community, transport, waste, food, buildings, innovation, energy and water).

General staff observations about funding round one

5.10 Staff have made the following observations about the applications received in this funding round:

5.10.1 A total of 49 applications were received. Evaluation Panel assessment considered 9 projects to be priority one, 20 projects to be priority two, 13 projects to be priority three and 7 project considered to be a priority four. A total of 29 projects are recommended for funding. A total of 20 applications are not recommended for funding.

5.10.2 Should the Council agree with the staff recommendations approximately $3,062,285 worth or community-sourced resources (cash and kind) will be leveraged from a Council investment of $405,335. This equates to $7 of public good, for every dollar invested by the Council.

5.10.3 The total amount sought by the community from the Sustainability Fund was $1,626,299, which indicates strong community demand for support of climate related actions.

5.11 For most projects only partial funding is recommended. In some cases a lower level of funding can provide leverage and encourage co-funding. However, for some projects a lower level of funding may mean a reduced level of activity. This will be negotiated with the applicants when the Grant Funding Agreements are developed and finalised.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The decisions in this report support the Kia tūroa te ao, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decisions in this report are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically the Climate Resilience Strategy.

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 Many of the projects supported aim to help improve water quality, support the regeneration of nature and encourage environmental understanding and action of whanau and tamariki. These projects would be aligned to the interests of Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The Sustainability Fund has been specifically designed to support the Council’s Climate Resilience Strategy goals and targets. This Fund is a key way for the Council to support community action on climate change. Projects supported through the Sustainability Fund aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or grow resilience to the local impacts of climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 The Sustainability Fund is open to everyone through a website and online application form. Council libraries can support individuals with limited access to computers or the internet.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The available balance of the 2022/23 Sustainability Fund is $405,691.

7.2 This report is recommending granting $405,335 to applicants.

7.3 Should these recommendations be approved, $356 will remain in the Fund and will be carried forward into the 2022/23 financial year, as per the fund Terms of Reference.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Following the dissolution of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee, the Council now has the authority to allocate grant funding from the Sustainability Fund. Following the decisions in this report the Community Funding Team will notify the applicants and action the grant funding agreements.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The Grant Funding Agreement entered into by successful applicants has been prepared by the Legal Services Unit and fully reviewed in 2020. Each applicant is required to agree to the terms and conditions before Council funds are allocated. Each applicant is also required to submit an accountability report.

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The Grant Funding Agreement that each successful applicant must sign before funds are allocated aims to minimise the risks to the Council. Despite this, some level of risk remains that projects may not proceed, they may fail to deliver outcomes proposed or timeframes may change. Having a good relationship with the applicants and adopting a no-surprises approach helps respond to these risks. A detailed accountability report is required from applicants that also helps manage risk.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	2022-23 Sustainability Fund - Matrices	23/360918	319
b ⇩	Staff Rationale Summary	23/405510	368

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

Lexie Reuben - Team Leader Community Funding

Tony Moore - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

[1] The rules were changed for other areas through a plan change and there is now inconsistency between the Central City and these areas.

[2] ‘The Cultural Value of Live Music from the Pub to the Stadium: Getting Beyond the Numbers’ (Dr Adam Behr, Dr Matt Brennan, Prof Martin Cloonan, DATE. Research by The University of Edinburgh and The University of Glasgow.

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 28 February 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/288272
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support, Katie.matheis@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

7. Council Minutes - 14 March 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/363670
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Committee and Hearings Support (katherine.matheis@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
9.	Road Stopping at 11 Humboldt Street, Sydenham
	Attachment c - Attachment C Valuation Details	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Commercially sensitive information	31 December 2023 31/12/2023 Road Stopping Report- 11 Humboldt Street
23.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 1 March 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
24.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 14 March 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

6. Council Minutes - 1 March 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/298730
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Committee and Hearings Support (katherine.matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/355974
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)

10. Waterloo Road Improvements - Pavement markings
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/355883
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer, Operations gemma.dioni@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

11. New Traffic Lights - 171 Main North Road - Pak'n Save access
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/347432
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Andy Milne, Team Leader Asset Planning Transport (andrew.milne@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

20. 2022 Triennial Elections
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/56664
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)