Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 21 June 2023

Council

21 June 2023

5. Interim kerbside organics management options
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/416000
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Keygan Clutterbuck (Keygan.Clutterbuck@ccc.govt.nz); David McArdle, contract supervisor organics (David.McArdle@ccc.govt.nz); Brent Pizzey, senior legal counsel (Brent.Pizzey@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 This report is seeking an initial indication of Council preferences for management of greenwaste until an alternative facility to the OPP in Bromley is operational so that Council staff can prepare consultation with the community on those options. A decision on whether to engage with the community and potential operators on options for ceasing composting operations at the current Organics Processing Plant site in Bromley (OPP) as soon as possible, rather than in 2027-2029 when an alternative process site or redevelopment of the current site is operating.

1.2 In April 2022 and in May 2022 the Council resolved to continue composting at the OPP until an alternative facility, or redevelopment of the current one, is operating. That was based on advice that operational improvements at the OPP would adequately reduce risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary for that period. However, the odour risk remains. Offensive and objectionable odours have been assessed in January to May. On 21 March 2023 the Mayor and councillors asked staff to advise whether there are other options for processing the Council's kerbside organics that can be quickly implemented while the long term solution is being developed.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council resolves to:

1. Engage with the community and mana whenua on whether to:

(a) Continue composting at the OPP with operational improvements; or

(b) Send all mixed kerbside organics to an alternative, or several alternative, commercial composting and wormfarm facilities if they have all necessary regulatory approvals; or

2. Make a decision on its preferred option as soon as practicable, subject to meeting the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 , and after the Council decision on the long term processing of kerbside organics.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 In April and May 2022 the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to continue operating the OPP with the current process controls in place to manage and mitigate odour until the long term alternative is operating. Those resolutions were based on advice that the proposed operational improvements would appropriately mitigate the risk of there being offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site.

3.2 Proactive monitoring by the Council and by Environment Canterbury has identified offensive and objectionable odour this year. Mayor and Councillors were concerned about the impact this has on the quality of life on members of the community. As a result, on 21 March 2023 the Mayor and Councillors sought advice on options for processing the Council’s kerbside organics for the period until approximately 2027-2029 when an alternative long term solution is operating.

3.3 Processing options explored by staff and described in this report are grouped in to five approaches (Appendices A-C – Location Options; Long List Options; Short List Options):

(A) Composting mixed organics at OPP: Continue composting mixed kerbside organics at the current site and make operational improvements including an option of shifting the compost to a commercial composter for maturation, or setting a maximum volume for this site and processing or disposing of the balance elsewhere;

(B) Composting of mixed kerbside organics at other sites;

(D) Other disposal or processing options; and

(E) Dispose mixed kerbside organics to landfill.

3.4 Staff have developed a recommended shortlist for engagement with the community to learn community views. That shortlist is reflected in the recommended resolution.

3.5 It is too soon for the Council or staff to propose a preferred option. That is because:

(a) Further information and assurance is needed before the Council can be satisfied that improvements at the OPP will adequately reduce the risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary of the site. Staff intend to seek to clarify this before engagement starts;

(b) The Council’s selection of a preferred option for the period to 2027-29 should have regard to the highly relevant decision on the long term solution;

(c) Council and central government policies, and the Council’s levels of service in the Long Term Plan (LTP), illustrate that there should be disposal to landfill only if there is no reasonable alternative. Reasonable alternatives are likely to be available.

Timing of decisions to make changes

3.6 The Council is seeking to mitigate the impact of odour from the OPP on the Bromley community as soon as practicable.

3.7 Under the Local Government Act 2002, Council should not make a decision to end part or all of the composting at Bromley until:

(a) After the Council has learnt the views of the whole community. That is because ending composting at Bromley is a significant change to levels of service and may entail significantly higher costs; and

(b) After the Council has made a decision following assessment of options for the long term solution. That decision is likely to be in December 2023. The Council’s assessment of the merits of the options for the period until 2027-29 should have regard to the long term solution. That will be a relevant consideration; and

(c) If the chosen option for the interim period until 2027-29 requires significant increases to current costs post- June 2024, the Council cannot confirm implementing the preferred option until after the LTP decision in June 2024.

3.8 Other practicalities relevant to timing of changes are:

(a) Resource consents: Kate Valley would need a variation of resource consent to accept the additional truck movements carrying the Council’s kerbside organics. Alternative composters in the South Island also need consents. These might take 6-12 months or longer;

(b) Logistics and practicalities of setting up for alternative composters and processes.

3.9 None of these options, other than continued composting and maturation at the current site, can be implemented by January 2024 when the contract with the current operator ends.

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki (Include community views and preferences on the matter)

Background

4.1 The activity on the OPP site is receipt of all of the Council’s kerbside collected garden waste and food organics -approximately 55,000 tonnes pa, plus 5,000 tonnes pa from the Waimakariri District Council. The Council owns the site. The Council contracts with Waste Management to operate the site. Waste Management trades as “Living Earth” for this purpose.

4.2 Discharge of odour from the site is authorised by an air discharge consent under the RMA held by the Council and issued by Environment Canterbury (ECan). A condition of the consent is that there shall not be an offensive or objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site.

4.3 If ECan takes enforcement action under the RMA for breach of the resource consent, the enforcement can be against Waste Management, or the Council, or both.

4.4 In December 2020 the Council resolved to redevelop the site so as to reduce the risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary of the site.

4.5 In 2021 the Council considered the cost of redeveloping and resolved to investigate options for managing disposal of green waste and food waste in other ways that did not require composting at this site.

Finance and Performance Committee resolutions in 2022

4.6 On 28 April 2022 the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to (FPCO/2022/00019):

“1. Agree in principle the relocation of the Organics Processing Facility to an alternative site”.

“3. Support the continued operation at the Metro Place site with the current process controls to manage and mitigate odour until an alternative facility, or redevelopment of the current site, is operational”.

“6. Request staff bring back in one month the full net cost to Council and implications of immediately closing the plant”.

4.7 On 26 May 2022 the Finance and Performance Committee considered a staff report on the implications of immediate closure. The Committee resolved that it (FPCO/2022/00043):

“2. Confirm the previous resolution [3] of 26 April 2022”.

“3. Notes staff will consider whether any further process control measures can be implemented to mitigate the risk of odours beyond the boundary”.

“7. Request staff investigate removing the tailings and covering more of the operation and report back to Council as soon as possible”.

4.8 Resolutions 3 and 7 above had the objective of further mitigating the risk of there being offensive or objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site.

Improvements made by Living Earth

4.9 Living Earth have made significant changes to site operations since March 2020, in co-operation with the requests by Council staff. The significant ones since May 2022 are:

· A new drum for the screen with a larger screen size was installed in May 2022, which produces a coarser product for the current output but a higher yield of 50 to 55%. Therefore reducing the volume of tailings the screening process produces. A back up screen drum has been built as is on site as a contingency.

· Removal of tailings from the site that are surplus to operational requirements: Tailings are sticks and other large material that are separated from the finer compost during the screening process. These tailings are then reintroduced to the process to create air space between the compost. This air flow is essential for the composting process. Council’s odour expert consultants at PDP had in April 2022 identified tailings as being a potential odour source. From 9 June 2022 to 19 September 2022 there has been a removal of about 8,600 tonnes. The minimum amount needed to be retained on the site for composting operations is 3,000 tonnes.

· The 2022/23 summer season was the first one in which Living Earth has been operating under a “Transition Plan”. This Transition Plan was in place in response to the Abatement Notice issued by ECan in January 2021. One of the key elements of the Transition Plan was to cease outdoor maturation. That entailed 31,397m3 of finished compost previously maturing in outdoor windrows being removed from site.

· 30 January 2023, after ECan serving notices of non-compliance: A second leased screen was brought on site to run alongside the fixed main screen, and an existing leased screen, to clear the backlog of unscreened material. The backlog was cleared as of 7 March and the two hire screens removed from site.

· 14 February 2023 :The removal of tailings from site that are surplus to operational requirements recommenced. As of Monday 15 May, 3,230 tonnes of tailings have been removed from site. Work is ongoing.

· 20 February 2023: Tunnel time for material was increased to an average of 21 to 22 days, instead of 14 days during peak season (summer).

· 24 February 2023: Maintenance work was last completed on the main biofilter in May 2021 and is due every three years. The next programme of main biofilter maintenance work was brought forward fifteen months. The biofilter media, floor and substructure were removed and replaced. Removing all elements of the biofilter, rather than repairing them, accelerated this programme of work. The work was completed in two sections with one half of the biofilter remaining functional while the other was replaced. The first half was completed by the end of April and the second half was completed at the start of June.

· 27 February 2023: Maintenance work completed on the second biofilter, which services the main screen and enclosure. The work involved removing the biofilter media, repairing the floor and adding new media.

· 6 April 2023: Screen infeed hooper refurbished to improve screen resilience and reduce the risk of a screen failure and the resultant backlog of stored unscreened material.

· 17 April 2023: Second shredder recommissioned to accelerate green waste processing. Additional green waste is being sourced from Styx Mill transfer station to create bulkier less odorous green waste only tailings to replace the kerbside organics tailings being removed from site.

· Tunnel boards are currently being replaced. This programme of work will improve and maintain airflow to ensure optimum composting during the “In-Vessel Composting” tunnel phase, and is expected to be completed by the end of October 2023.

4.10 Since March 2023 Living Earth has been developing a “Lessons Learnt” register and a revised operations plan. These implement lessons learnt from that first season under the Transition Plan and from reviews and proposed mitigations from Council’s odour consultants. The operations plan reviews operational variables such as input levels, input mixture (e.g. arsenic contamination during winter), input weights, available tunnel time and tailing compositions, throughout the different seasons and how to manage these variables in the best way possible.

4.11 Since March 2023 Living Earth has been developing a “Lessons Learnt” register and a revised operations plan. These implement lessons learnt from that first season under the Transition Plan and from reviews and proposed mitigations from Council’s odour consultants. The operations plan reviews operational variables such as input levels, input mixture (e.g. arsenic contamination during winter), input weights, available tunnel time and tailing compositions, throughout the different seasons and how to manage these variables as best as possible.

Further issues with offensive and objectionable odour

4.12 While those changes have been underway, Environment Canterbury enforcement officers have assessed offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary of the site on 6 dates (Monday 19 December 2022, Tuesday 10 January 2023, Sunday 15 January 2023, Thursday 26 January 2023, Tuesday 31 January 2023 and Wednesday 1 March).

4.13 Further proactive monitoring by the Council’s odour consultants has identified offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site on four further dates that were not identified by Environment Canterbury: on 2 February, 10 February, 6 April and 13 May 2023.

4.14 This shows that the operational improvements have not completely removed the risk of there being an offensive and objectionable odour beyond the site boundary. Whilst it is not the objective of the Council to completely remove all risk, the objective is to be reasonably satisfied that the risk is mitigated to a reasonable level. The April and May incidences show that there is still more work to do.

5. Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Summary of investigation of options

5.1 The key decision is how to process the Council’s kerbside organics collection, either by continued composting, composting at an alternative site, by anaerobic digestions and wormfarming or by disposing of it to landfill. Decisions on locations flow from that key decision.

5.2 The long list of options is presented in this report along with a description of feasibility and a recommended shortlist for engagement.

5.3 Staff have investigated :

· 23 alternative processing locations: 8 composters, 4 community initiatives, 6 alternative processes and 5 landfills (Appendix A).

· 20 categories and sub-categories of processing options (Appendix B).

5.4 The categorisation of processing options in the long list (Appendix B) is:

(A) Composting at OPP: Continue composting mixed kerbside organics at the current site and make operational improvements and/or then shift the compost to a commercial composter for maturation (3 options assessed);

(B) Composting of mixed kerbside organics at other sites, including the option of continued use of the current site up to a maximum volume (4 options assessed);

(C) Collect kerbside organics in separate food and garden bins, then process it in different places (3 options assessed);

(D) Other disposal or processing options (4 assessed); and

(E) Dispose at landfill (3 options assessed, 5 landfills considered).

5.5 Staff have also considered possible combinations of those processing options.

5.6 The planning assessment of the long list is in Appendix D and the PDP odour assessment of the shortlist options for the OPP is in Appendix E.

A. Composting mixed organics (both food and garden waste) at the OPP (A1-A5)

5.7 There are several options for reducing the potential for offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the OPP site while continuing to compost and mixed kerbside organics. These are:

A1 Continue with status quo as per resolution s FPCO/2022/00019 and FPCO/2022/00043 above (lessons learnt, with ongoing operational adaptation). There will still be a risk of ongoing odour issues.

A2 Continue to compost all kerbside material at the OPP with additional operational enhancements. There are several options for enhancements, including having a second screen in a fully enclosed building and additional odour controls. However, PDP advise that if this still involved outdoor storage, the risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary might remain.

A3 Enclosing all existing operations – meaning no outdoor storage or processing - and treat all air by a biofilter. PDP advise that the odour character detected offsite is of material being stored outdoors therefore the best way to eliminate the risk of offensive and objectionable odour offsite is to enclose all maturing compost; however, that comes with a significant cost and time delay. It was for this reason – the costs of this option – that the Council resolved in 2021 to consider other options.

A4 Reduced quantity: Dramatically reducing the amount of kerb side organics that are processed at the site, so that the material is matured in the tunnels for the optimal length of time (about 21 days) and so that there is reduced use of outdoor storage between the tunnels and the screening. This means setting a cap on the amount of kerbside organics received that the site, and the balance being sent to Kate Valley landfill or to an alternative processor. PDP cannot be sure that this would substantially reduce risk. PDP advise that optimising the tunnel times would in theory produce a less odorous (but not odour free) product. It would still be stored outside for screening. PDP is uncertain if the changes would be significant enough to prevent all offensive odours off-site. The balance above the maximum volume would still need to be processed or disposed of elsewhere, with the costs of that. Therefore, staff do not recommend relying on this option.

A5 Continue to compost all kerbside material at the OPP but transfer the material immediately offsite (no screening or stockpiling at the current site), subject to any required consents. If this would mean that there is no outdoor storage, which PDP assesses to be the main source of odour, this should mean that the ongoing risk of offensive and objectionable odour is low. Staff are aware of possible alternative sites managed by NALG, Intelligro and Canterbury Landscape Supplies.

B. Composting mixed kerbside organics at other sites (B1-B4):

5.8 Appendix A sets out the 9 composting locations considered, and a worm farm. Some operators have not responded to staff queries. Others are interested but need resource consent. Some can take only separate green waste. Three operators seem able to accept part of the mixed waste now – Eco Gas in Reparoa, Envirofert in Tuakau and MyNoke in Taupo, Tokorao and Ohakune. Others need new or amended RMA approvals. The timeframe for these being viable depends on the pace of the RMA approval processes and procurement. Options assessed by staff at the time of this report (there may be others that put their names forward that staff are not currently aware of) are:

(a) Envirofert in the Waikato District. They could currently accept approximately 10,000 tonnes pa of the Council’s mixed organic waste for composting. They have infrastructure and interest in accepting all of the Council’s mixed kerbside organics, but their current resource consent does not authorise accepting all of it. Council staff understand that they are interested in seeking RMA approvals. The planning assessment (Appendix D) estimates that this has medium prospects of being a straightforward process and might take 12 months.

(b) EcoGas at Reparoa. They state that they can currently accept up to 15,000 tonnes pa of the Council’s mixed kerbside organics, potentially increasing to 40,000 tonnes pa in 18 months.

(c) The setting up of a new composting operation either at Kate Valley or NALG. Consenting and establishment timeframes for this are still unknown;

(d) Wairākau Ōtautahi – Compost Christchurch (Intelligro), at Rolleston. It plans to expand its operations with establishment of a new facility that could compost approximately 50,000 tonnes at a new location on Pound Road. The planning assessment (Appendix D) estimates that this has a low feasibility rating for full composting of the Council’s kerbside organics, but it has a high feasibility rating if it was taking waste that had been partially composted at the OPP, and that this could be established in 6-12 months.

(e) Canterbury Landscape Supplies: The planning assessment estimates the feasibility of this operator establishing sites for full composting of the Council’s kerbside organics as being low (3 years) for an Oxford site and medium (2 years) for a Swannanoa site. However, the feasibility of them taking second stage composting after the first (indoors) stage is completed at the OPP is high and might take 6-12 months.

(f) MyNoke (worm farming), currently established in Taupo, Tokoroa and Ohakune, but interested in options for operating in the South Island. They have the RMA approvals and capacity to accept up to 21,000 tonnes pa of the Council’s mixed waste.

5.9 The Council’s communications with community gardens for the purposes of this report have resulted in a detailed preliminary proposal being delivered by Pā Wairākau . The proposal is attached as Appendix F.

5.10 Pā Wairākau is a community solution for local organics collections, processing and distribution. Pā Wairākau is led by a kaupapa Māori indigenous approach, to restore the fragile ecosystem that alternately supports life and wellbeing. It proposes a solution for management of some of the Council’s green waste and food waste in both the interim and the long-term. It may take some years to investigate feasibility and establish operations. They predict that following feasibility and trail they might be able to receive 2,400 tonnes pa of separated food waste.

5.11 Other community gardens in the city have scope to accept less than that.

C. Collect kerbside organics in separate food and garden bins (C1-C5):

5.12 Staff investigated this as it could provide for more options for processing and disposal.

5.13 Some existing composters have RMA approvals to accept only separated green waste. Council could send green waste to a combination of the composting facilities that have capacity and consents to compost it, up to the maximum that they are able to take. These include Canterbury Landscape Supplies (CWS – they say up to 30,000 tonnes pa), Envirofert and potentially Intelligro.

5.14 The less odorous component, which is generally garden waste, could be processed at the OPP and the food waste elsewhere. However, expert advice to staff is that household green waste with a high component of grass clippings forms a dense material and that this increases the odour of green waste. It does not remove the risk at the OPP (Appendix E - PDP report).

5.15 Food waste, which amounts to approximately 11,000 tonnes pa out of the 55,000 tonnes pa collected in green bins annually, could potentially be processed in anerobic digestion at an alternative site, at either the Christchurch Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWTP, further detail below), or at the EcoGas facility in Reparoa (Central North Island). Eco Gas have advised it has the capacity to process all of Christchurch’s separated food waste.

5.16 Canterbury Landscape Services (CLS) have told staff that they can take 30,000 tonnes of green waste across two sites – Oxford and Swannanoa – without any change to resource consents. However, their existing air discharge consent for Swannanoa expires in 2025.

5.17 Community gardens can take a small portion of the green waste. Staff estimate that the maximum portion of the kerbside organics that could be sent there without needing resource consents, in the short term, is in the hundreds of tonnes pa. Richmond Community Gardens for example can take 10 tonnes pa.

5.18 Intelligro Wairākau Ōtautahi – Compost Christchurch (formerly called Intelligro) have a proposal in place to develop a facility to compost 50,000 tonnes of green waste in Pound Rd, but the timeframe to implement that is unknown.

5.19 The other green waste composting sites staff contacted were either unable to accept the material or have not responded.

5.20 Staff recommend to not shortlist, and not further engage, on the option of separating food and garden waste, as:

(a) The PDP advice (Appendix E) is that it would not dramatically reduce the odour risk at the OPP;

(b) It would undermine existing waste diversion efforts and behaviours and could undermine implementing the new long term solution, because of the behaviour change that is needed; and

(c) It does not provide a quick interim solution. Implementing this option to separate the waste stream would take much longer to establish than sending all materials directly to an alternative composting site or landfill. Staff estimate that it would take 18 – 24 months to implement the new separated bin collection system.

D. Other disposal or processing options for mixed kerbside organics (D1-D4):

5.21 Disposing kerbside mixed organics as a form of land reclamation (e.g. Lyttelton Port reclamation) was considered but is not consented and is unlikely to be authorised.

5.22 Staff have considered its use as part of mine rehabilitation but do not recommend that this be investigated any further due to possible poor environmental outcomes.

5.23 Staff have investigating whether the Christchurch Waste Water Treatment Plant(CWTP) can accept some or all of the food waste, and/or liquid from the combined waste. That would be processed at the CWTP by anaerobic digestion in the existing or in new digesters. The current OPP operator advises that this is neither feasible nor efficient and effective having regard to the composition on the mixed kerbside organics. Staff do not recommend advancing that option any further.

5.24 Processing part (up to 21,000 tonnes) of mixed kerbside organics via large scale worm farming (e.g. MyNoke located in the North Island) is feasible but has large emissions and transport costs.

E. Dispose organics at Landfills (E1-E3)

5.25 Sending to Kate Valley was assessed in the staff report to the 26 May 2022 Finance and Performance Committee meeting [Supplementary Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee - Thursday, 26 May 2022 (infocouncil.biz)]

5.26 There is one substantive change to that assessment. CWS could seek a Variation to their resource consent to accept all of the Council’s kerbside organics. If they do that it is possible that a Variation of consent could be granted by July 2024, when the Council makes a decision on funding this in the Long Term Plan.

5.27 Collecting less kerbside organics, coupled with promoting home composting, might be the way to achieve some of the above options. Changes to collection frequency or bin type would achieve that, for example:

· Collect green bin fortnightly, remainder goes into red bin, owners dispose of remainder green waste at EcoDrops or by collection from private contractors

· Stop collecting green bin and collect food organics only in new smaller bin

· Stop accepting food organics in green bin (advise residents to place in red bin)

· Increasing the red bin capacity and/or frequency of collection

5.28 The outcome would be more organics going to landfill in red bins, and more costs for residents with more disposal at EcoDrops and more use of private waste operators. This would have high GHG emissions, and not align with the New Zealand Waste Strategy Te Rautaki Para March 2023. It would not comply with the targets and objectives of the New Zealand Waste Strategy or with the Emissions Reduction Plan and would be contrary to the Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. It would substantially undermine the implementation of the long term solution.

6. Recommended options

6.1 If the Council’s objective is to cease composting operations at the current site at the earliest opportunity, while retaining the green bin collection system to collect mixed organics, it has two options:

(a) First, dispose of it all at Kate Valley – in the hope that Kate Valley will be consented to accept those extra truck movements by July 2024. The preliminary assessment, subject to engagement, does not favour this as it is contrary to the Council’s and central government’s policies, and as it undermines achieving the long-term aim of continued composting/processing of the city’s kerbside organics.

(b) Secondly, dispose of as much as is possible at the composting facilities that have current ability to receive it and dispose of the remainder at Kate Valley. This might be 15,000 tonnes pa to Eco Gas, 21,000 tonnes pa to MyNoke and 10,000 tonnes pa to Envirofert. The balance – possibly 9,000 tonnes – disposed at Kate Valley (if CWS confirm that availability). Again, the preliminary assessment, subject to engagement, does not favour this as it is contrary to the Council’s and central government’s policies with regard to disposal at Kate Valley and emissions caused by transport to the North Island, and as the costs (financial and environmental) of transport to the North Island are unnecessary when there may be feasible local solutions.

6.2 It is recommended that Council obtain more certain and unambiguous information about whether operational improvements at the OPP in Bromley – of either use of a second screen, or partial (indoors) processing here and then transport to another site for the second stage of maturation and screening – would appropriately mitigate risks of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary of the site.

6.3 While doing that, the Council should engage with the community and mana whenua on whether to:

(a) Continue composting at the OPP with operational improvements; or

(b) Send all mixed kerbside organics to an alternative, or several alternative, commercial composting and worm farm facilities if they have all necessary regulatory approvals; or

6.4 Council should make a decision on its preferred option, subject the funding in the Long Term Plan (if needed), after the Council decision on the long term processing of kerbside organics is known. That decision on the long-term operation could influence the assessment of the merits of the options for management of kerbside organics until the long term solution is implemented.

7. Next Steps

Refining the logistics

7.1 If the Council decides to cease composting at the current site, but still collect kerbside organics (via the green bin), it will still need a transfer station to handle the waste for transport to another site. Options for that transfer facility include the OPP building, at Council’s EcoDrops, or at other commercial sites including the CWS transfer site.

7.2 Use of the OPP site for a transfer station is likely to require a land use consent under the District Plan for a restricted discretionary activity for breaching the high trip generation rule. Given the existing operation occurring, site location and the access from a major arterial road, this application should be straightforward and achievable within 6 months. It would not require a new consent from ECan. If an alternative transfer station is required, it is unlikely that this material can be managed at the EcoDrop transfer stations because there may be odour risks (non-compliance with a permitted activity requirement) and health and safety risks due to the additional truck movements. An enclosed commercial facility would be required.

7.3 This will be further investigated while engagement material is being prepared.

Other composters

7.4 The planning assessment and current information from possible local operators is that there are three who might be able to take “stage 2” composting from the OPP site, but none locally who are able to accept all of the Council’s mixed kerbside waste for the whole of the composting. Staff further enquiries would be seeking more information about those possibility.

Refining cost and rates information

7.5 The current information on costs and rating implications of the options (Appendix C) is being further checked and refined before engagement commences.

Engagement

7.6 Selecting a preferred option other than the status quo is a significant decision due to costs, policies, levels of service and environmental considerations. As the Council doesn’t know the views of the community as a whole and the matter is significant, the Council is required to do the following before it could decide to dispose of the kerbside organics at Kate Valley, or other options:

(a) Consult the community to understand views before making a decision, regardless of whether the decision is to send all of the KSO to KV until 2027-29, or just part (12-18,000 tonnes pa) until another short-term solution is established in 2024; and

(b) As the costs are significantly more than the status quo, plus the levels of service change significantly, the Council will need to make a LTP decision in June 2024 if there are to be significant increased costs past June 2024.

Timing

7.7 Council wishes to make a decision as soon as practical to mitigate the ongoing impact on the Bromley community. Under the Local Government Act 2002, Council should not make a decision to end part or all of the composting at Bromley until:

(a) After the Council has learnt the views of mana whenua and the whole community; and

(b) After the Council has made a decision following assessment of options for the long-term solution. That decision is likely to be in December 2023. The Council’s assessment of the merits of the options for the period until 2027-29 should have regard to the long term solution. That will be a relevant consideration; and

7.8 Other practicalities relevant to timing of changes are:

· Resource consents: Kate Valley would need a variation of resource consent to accept the additional truck movements carrying the Council’s kerbside organics. Alternative composters in the South Island also need consents. These might take 6-12 months or longer;

· Logistics and practicalities of setting up for alternative composters and processes.

7.9 None of these options, other than continued composting at the current site, can be implemented by January 2024 when the contract with the current operator ends.

Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa Strategic Alignment8.1 The following policies are considered in relation to this proposal:

(a) Waste Minimisation Act 2008 - The purpose of this Act is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to (a) protect the environment from harm; and (b) provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits.

(b) Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2020 – make sure the organics facilities support climate change emissions targets.

(d) Te panoni I te hangarua/Transforming Recycling - Food and garden waste should be diverted from landfills to support working towards a low emission circular economy.

(e) Emissions Reduction Plan 2022 – need to reduce biogenic methane emissions

8.2 A decision to immediately close the OPP and divert organic waste to landfill does not align with the Council’s strategic priority to ‘meet the challenge of climate through every means available’.

8.3 A decision to close the OPP and divert organic waste to landfill does not promote the community outcome we strive to achieve, ‘sustainable use of resources and minimising waste’.

8.4 The immediate closure of the OPP does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

· Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

· Level of Service: 8.2.7 Organic materials collected by Kerbside Collection and received for processing at the Organics Processing Plant (OPP) - 130kg +40%/-10% organic materials / person / year collected by Kerbside Collection

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.5 A decision to divert waste to landfill would be is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

(a) Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP 2020)

(b) Its submission on Te panoni I te hangarua / Transforming Recycling

8.6 A decision to divert waste to landfill would not align with Council’s target of being net carbon neutral for its operations by 2030 or the commitments under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2020.

Climate Change Impact Considerations

8.7 The Council is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 for its own operations and has set a target for the district to reach net zero greenhouse gas emission by 2045 and to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (with separate targets for a 25% methane reduction by 2030 and 50% methane reductions from the baseline by 2045).

8.8 Programme 9 of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy commits the Council to work towards zero waste and includes as a focus area work to maximise the diversion of organic material.

8.9 The emissions calculations in the shortlist table in Appendix C are from the assessment by Council’s consultants that is detailed in Appendix C:

(a) Diverting organic waste from the kerbside green bins to landfill instead of processing it significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions. This is due to both the increase in methane produced and emitted into the atmosphere from the landfilling of organic waste as well as through the carbon impact of the transportation of waste to the landfill site.

(b) Transporting the Council’s organic material long distances/ out of region will incur significant additional transport costs and carbon emissions. These details are assessed in more detail in the greenhouse gas emissions assessment in Appendix C. Transporting all the kerbside organic waste to Kate Valley for 5 years would add an estimated additional 89,503,054 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) to the district’s emissions. For context, in recent years Council’s annual emissions have averaged approximately 22,000 CO2-e per year. While these emissions would not directly fall under the Council’s own emissions inventory, they would add to the district’s emissions and make it harder to achieve the Council’s district emissions targets.

(c) There is no financial cost to the Council for causing these emissions as the emissions caused by the interim management decision end in 2027-29, before the need to offset emissions begins in 2030.

Community views

8.10 We have heard from some members of the local Bromley community that the operation of this facility is:

(a) Affecting their quality of life

(b) Negatively impacting their health and wellbeing

8.11 These impacts have been ongoing for the community for a number of years. A number of people in the community have said that only a closure of the plant would improve their sense wellbeing.

8.12 If the OPP was closed it would provide immediate relief for the residents of the local community.

8.13 However, a closure decision affects the entire district. The closure of the OPP will also have an impact on rates. The views of the wider community have not been sought regarding a closure.

8.14 The OPP is in the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote ward.

8.15 Public consultation will be required for all options that remove the Council’s ability to accept all of the organic waste for the purpose of composting, at the same or near same cost that it does currently, for the following reasons:

(a) Levels of service

· 8.0.3 Customer satisfaction with kerbside collection service. At least 85% customers satisfied with Council’s kerbside collection service for each year. Community outcome - Sustainable use of resources and minimizing waste.

· 8.2.1 Total organic material collected at Council facilities and diverted for composting. > 200kg + 30% / - 10% / person / year. Community outcome - Sustainable use of resources and minimizing waste

· 8.2.7 Organic materials collected by Kerbside Collection and received for processing at the Organics Processing Plant (OPP) 140kg +40%/- 10% organic materials / person / year collected by Kerbside Collection. Community outcome - Sustainable use of resources and minimizing waste

(b) Impact on rates – significant enough to require consultation as a minimum as part of the LTP.

We will move towards a zero waste, circular economy, enabling resources to be reused or recycled, supporting new jobs and innovation, and creating a low-emission, resilient and more sustainable economy. Our focus areas 1) Maximise composting of organics (page 27).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.16 A decision to cease composting, or to substantially reduce the amount of composting, would be 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.

8.17 Full and comprehensive consultation with Mana Whenua should be undertaken before any decision is made to divert organics to landfill as this action is contrary to the Council’s Plans and Strategies that have been developed in partnership with iwi.

8.18 There has as yet been no consultation with mana whenua.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.19 There are no accessibility considerations related to the decision to seek community views.

9. Resource Implications

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1 The sole financial cost of a decision to seek community views is the cost of engagement. That is approximately $50-60,000.

Other He mea anō

9.2 There is no other cost.

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

10.1 The Council has a statutory power – and obligation – to seek the views of the community on significant decisions. It also has a statutory power – and obligation – to engage with the community when developing a Long Term Plan that plans funding the Council’s activities.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.2 The Council will be at risk of legal challenge to its decision making process if it does not comply with the decision-making requirement of the Local Government Act 2002, including fully assess options and consider community views prior to making a decision.

10.3 There have been breaches of the Council’s resource consent for the discharge of odour to air at the OPP. That risk of breaches will continue while the Council is undertaking this option assessment process. Further enforcement by Environment Canterbury remains possible. That risk is mitigated by the Council continuing to encouraging and enable the operator to do everything within their power to reduce that odour risk; and also by the Council undertaking this option assessment.

10.4 The Council’s contract with the current operator of the OPP expires in January 2024. As noted above, the Council has no reasonable option but to continue composting at this site past that date. The Council will need to negotiate a contract extension with the current operator while both are uncertain about the outcome – in selecting an option, and in timeframe for implementing it - of this options assessment process.

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1 A well considered and comprehensive assessment of options and merits of those options, together with learning the views of the community, will reduce risks of challenge to the Council’s processes.

11.2 Potential impact on residential behaviour is a significant risk. Changes to the processing (e.g. organics to landfill) could undermine residential recycling. Behaviour change takes time to implement and can have long-term impacts. An example of this was during the Covid lockdown when residents were able to put rubbish into their recycling bin. This was only meant to be for the lockdown period but the impact of the change in behaviour has been extensive. It has taken 2.5 years of marketing messaging since then to achieve 99% of trucks being recycled. The cost of this to the Council has been considerable, at approximately $3.6 million ($3.1 million for trucks to landfill and $500,000 for marketing spend).

11.3 If organics material was sent to landfill there is a high likelihood that residents will start using the green bin as an extra rubbish bin. The resulting change would be likely to result in organics mixed with waste and would be likely difficult to remedy once the long term solution is in place.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	A - Location options	23/935431	23
b ⇩	B - Long list options	23/940214	25
c ⇩	C - Short list options	23/940216	30
d ⇩	D - Planning report	23/935436	32
e ⇩	E - PDP odour report	23/935438	56
f ⇩	F - community composting proposal	23/935439	69

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

Keygan Clutterbuck - CDEM Planning Coordinator

David McArdle - Contracts Supervisor

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

21 June 2023

6. Otukaikino Stormwater Management Plan
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/817349
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Paul Dickson, Drainage Engineer, paul.dickson@ccc.govt.nz
Senior 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 Ōtukaikino Stormwater Management Plan is presented for Council adoption ahead of its submission to Canterbury Regional Council by the deadline 30 June 2023.

1.2 The Stormwater Management Plan is a requirement of the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent CRC231955 (Comprehensive Consent) that was granted to the Council by Canterbury Regional Council on 20 December 2019. Condition 4 of the consent requires Council to develop stormwater management plans across the City, and settlements of Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū-Banks Peninsula where there are stormwater networks.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium-to-high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the requirements under the comprehensive consent, the significance of stormwater management to mana whenua, the degree of expressed public interest in stormwater management, previous Councillor interest, and the quantum of funding during the term of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the attached Ōtūkaikino Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment A to this report).

2. Adopt the Ōtūkaikino Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment A to this report).

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 So that the Council can submit the finalised Ōtūkaikino Stormwater Management Plan to Canterbury Regional Council by 30 June 2023, as required by the Comprehensive Consent.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Two options were considered. Option A – compliance and aspirational and Option B - compliance.

4.2 A plan corresponding to Option A would develop aspirational storm-water quality and quantity management contaminant load reduction targets to be affected by a range of measures. This option was generally preferred by consultees. However, Option A involved committing the Council to (a) currently unfunded actions, (b) water quality and quantity improvement programmes that while ideal are not practicable or definitely attainable, and (c) contaminant reduction methods that would need to obtain legal support. It was concluded that the risks for the Council of adopting this option were too high.

4.3 This plan has been developed from the second (compliance) Option B. It (a) complies with all consent conditions, (b) achieves a good level of contaminant reduction, (c) adopts a programme of capital work already in the Long Term Plan and (d) introduces regulatory processes that are within the Council’s powers under the Local Government Act. The plan does not preclude additional Council funding to achieve enhanced levels of storm-water treatment.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The stormwater management plan was developed in consultation with parties specified in the conditions of the Comprehensive Consent:

· Te Ngai Tūahuriri Rūnanga

· The Christchurch-West Melton Water Management Zone Committee

· The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

· The Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

· The Department of Conservation

· The Canterbury Regional Council Regional Engineer

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

· Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

· Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

5.3 Consultation started on 7 March 2023 and ran until 2 May 2023. An email was sent to 102 key stakeholders, including key government agencies, representatives for rūnanga, local residents’ associations, water industry and not for profit groups, environmental networks and local businesses within the Ōtūkaikino catchment. The consultation was posted on the council Facebook page, inviting submissions on the Have Your Say webpage.

5.4 Consultation documents were delivered to Redwood and Fendalton Libraries, as well as the Civic Offices in March 2023, and were subsequently redelivered twice to these locations in April 2023.

5.5 Submissions were made by 1 Community Board (Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board), 1 recognised organisation, 1 business and 3 individuals.

5.6 Key issues raised by submitters are addressed in Attachment A.

5.7 Material to be supplied by the Christchurch International Airport Company Limited is still to arrive for inclusion as Appendix G (Bird strike management advice).

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):

6.2 Stormwater Drainage

6.2.1 Activity: Stormwater Drainage

· Level of Service: 14.0.2.4 Council manages the stormwater network in a responsible and sustainable manner: Number of infringement notices regarding Council resource consents related to discharges from the stormwater networks per year - 0 infringement notices

· Level of Service: 14.0.2.1 Council manages the stormwater network in a responsible and sustainable manner: Number of abatement notices regarding Council resource consents related to discharges from the stormwater networks per year - 0 abatement notices

6.3 Flood Protection and Control Works

6.3.1 Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

· Level of Service: 14.1.7.1 Reduce pollution of waterbodies from discharge of urban contaminants to waterways: Annual rolling average reduction in the discharge of zinc/copper/Total Suspended Solids (TSS) to be equal or greater than that required to meet the reduction set in the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC) for 2023 and 2028, derived through contaminant load reduction modelling of the stormwater treatment facilities which have been installed - Pass

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, being a plan generated for the purpose of statutory compliance.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The Council is required to work in partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga, with assistance from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, to implement the Comprehensive Consent. The Comprehensive Consent deals with a wide range of significant decisions to be made 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.

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

6.7 The impact on Mana Whenua can be assessed with reference to Policies and Issues in the Maahanui Iwi Management Plan which states expected outcomes for activities covered by the stormwater management plan. The plan acknowledges the Iwi Management Plan policies but cannot deliver on some issues due to constraints on its scope. This may limit Mana Whenua support as indicated by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd in early commentary in relation to its Position Statement.

6.8 A position statement is to be supplied by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd on behalf of Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga in lieu of consultation. The Position Statement is awaited.

6.9 The Council is working, with assistance from Maahanui Kurataiao Ltd, to ensure that implementation of the plan enhances mana whenua values where possible as outlined in the Maahanui Iwi Management Plan objectives.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 Climate change is taken into account in design rainfall intensities.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11 Accessibility is not relevant to this plan.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - this Stormwater Management Plan does not initiate any additional capital projects.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - operational costs are business as usual, however operating costs will increase as new treatment basins are built.

7.3 Funding Source – The funding for implementing the SMP is held within existing projects and programmes in the current 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Not relevant.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Local Government Act 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision because the stormwater management plan is produced to enable the Council to comply with a resource consent condition under the Resource Management Act.

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The Canterbury Regional Council may question aspects of the stormwater management plan including how targets were set for contaminant load mitigation. In this case the two organisations can discuss how targets could be revised. This could also happen at any stage after the plan has been submitted within its ten year review period as more effective treatment/mitigation options become available.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment to report 23/732236 (Title: Submission Table (Public - issues and responses)) (Under Separate Cover)	23/789631
b	Attachment to report 23/732236 (Title: Otukaikino Stormwater Management Plan SMP to Council)) (Under Separate Cover)	20/1027631

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Consultation version of the draft Ōtukaikino Stormwater Management Plan

https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/574

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

Paul Dickson - Drainage Engineer

Kevin McDonnell - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Brent Smith - Acting Head of Three Waters

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

21 June 2023

7. Review of the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw and proposed consultation on replacement bylaw
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/208488
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst, teena.crocker@ccc.govt.nz Andrew Hensley, Traffic Engineer, andrew.hensley@ccc.govt.nz Kirstie Watts, Solicitor, kirstie.watts@ccc.govt.nz Stephen Wright, Manager Transport Operations, stephen.wright@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 Legislation requires the Council to regularly review its bylaws. This review is being completed to comply with legislative requirements. The Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 regulates two activities related to antisocial road user behaviour, and complements other powers the Police have to address associated activities. The bylaw is made under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2002. Some changes are being proposed to improve and update the bylaw. If the Council agrees to the proposed changes, we will proceed with public consultation.

1.2 This report is staff generated, to ensure the Council complies with its legislative obligations to review bylaws.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the proposed changes to the bylaw being only minor updates and improvements. Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the consultation requirements for making, amending or revoking bylaws, and for this bylaw, requires that consultation is undertaken in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Act.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Note that:

a. the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 enables the Council to specify roads where cruising is prohibited, and roads where night-time access is prohibited, and to specify days and times when these prohibitions apply, in order to reduce the potential for antisocial road user activities;

b. the bylaw is made using bylaw-making powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 (cruising) and the Local Government Act 2002 (prohibited times on roads);

c. the bylaw must be reviewed to comply with section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002, and in accordance with the bylaw review procedure set out in section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

d. section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that a council makes certain determinations as to the appropriateness of the bylaw as part of the review process.

2. Determine, in accordance with the requirements of section 155, this report and the attached documents (as outlined in Section 5.2 of this report), that:

a. the bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified problems;

b. the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and that

c. the bylaw gives rise to some implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, but none that are inconsistent with that Act, as is the required test.

3. Agree that:

a. public consultation on the proposed changes to the bylaw can be undertaken to seek the community’s views, in accordance with section 156(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002;

b. the bylaw, reasons for the changes, and information relating to the section 155 determinations, will be made available as part of the consultation process, in accordance with section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002; and that

c. the same public consultation can seek views on the registers that lists the roads regulated by the bylaw, and on the replacement policy for prohibited times on roads.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Local Government Act 2002 sets out certain requirements relating to the review of bylaws. The recommendations above reflect those requirements.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 There are three likely options resulting from a bylaw review:

· the bylaw is appropriate in its current form and no changes are recommended;

· the bylaw remains necessary, and some changes are recommended; or

· the bylaw is no longer necessary and revocation is recommended.

4.2 Regardless of which of these outcomes is the case, the Local Government Act 2002 requires public consultation as part of the review process (section 160).

4.3 The preferred option is that the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw is updated and improved, with some minor changes being recommended. Details are set out below and in the attached documents. The attached clause-by-clause analysis sets out the proposed changes and reasons for the changes.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The review has considered the bylaw, the roads contained on its registers, and an associated policy. The bylaw provides the legal mechanism for the Council to regulate roads, the registers list the roads the bylaw regulates, and the policy sets outs how roads may be added/removed as new issues arise.

5.2 The detail of the review of the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw is contained in attachments to this report:

Bylaw review report

Attachment A

· Sets out the bylaw-making powers and penalties

· Describes the activities the bylaw regulates and evidence of the activities that require regulation

· Sets out proposed changes to the roads regulated by the bylaw, and reasons for the proposed changes

· Contains the section 155 analysis, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 assessment

Clause-by-clause analysis

Attachment B

· Analyses the current bylaw

· Contains commentary and staff advice on proposed changes

· Analyses the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy

Proposed replacement bylaw

Attachment C

· Sets out the 2014 bylaw, inserted into the updated bylaw template, with the recommended changes incorporated to form a replacement 2023 bylaw (for consultation)

· Changes are indicated with a blue background. Detail on the changes is contained in the clause-by-clause analysis

Updated registers

Attachment D

· Sets out the two registers associated with the bylaw. These specify roads where the Council has previously resolved to:

o prohibit cruising; or

o prohibit night-time access for light vehicles.

· Includes the proposed changes to the roads regulated by the bylaw

Proposed replacement policy

Attachment E

· Sets out guidance associated with adding, removing or altering roads where night-time access for light vehicles is prohibited

· Would replace the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy

6. Proposed changes to the bylaw and the roads it regulates

6.1 The recommended changes are set out in more detail in the attachments to this report, but in summary, they are:

· updating and modernising the format and language of the bylaw;

· clarifying that the bylaw is a “qualifying bylaw” by definition under the Land Transport Act 1998, which means that warning notices can be issued for a breach of the bylaw, and that a further breach can result in a vehicle being seized and impounded by Police;

· adding to the list of access exemptions that apply to the prohibited times on roads clauses to better reflect legitimate access during prohibited times (e.g., deliveries and the increasing use of ride share vehicles); and

· updating of the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy (which gives guidance on the process to add or amend roads, or to remove existing roads from the coverage of the bylaw).

6.2 We recommend adding roads in Hornby, Sockburn, and near Christchurch International Airport so that they have Prohibited Times on Roads restrictions in place. These roads have become problem locations for antisocial road user activities. Inclusion of these roads is supported by the Police:

· Establishment Drive, Depot Street, Headquarters Place, Quadrant Drive, Aruhe Road and Mania Road (Hornby South); part of Branston Street (Hornby); Watts Road (Sockburn); Weaver Place; part of Pound Road (Yaldhurst); Aviation Drive (Yaldhurst); part of Syd Bradley Road (Yaldhurst); part of Jet Place (Harewood); and Lakes Way, Outlook Place, Lakeside Place (Harewood).

6.3 We recommend removing the following road from the register of Prohibited Times on Roads due to subdivision development: part of Blakes Road (Belfast).

6.4 More analysis of these roads is provided in the Bylaw Review Report (Attachment A).

7. Background

7.1 The decisions in this report affect the following wards/Community Board areas: All community board areas. All community boards were briefed on the bylaw review between November 2022 and March 2023. ELT was briefed on 6 April, and Council was briefed on 18 May 2023. Staff have also been working with the Anti-social Road User Team at the Christchurch Police.

7.2 Briefings emphasised the limitations of the bylaw to address the wide range of antisocial road user issues that occur, such as modified vehicles with loud exhausts, dangerous driving or undertaking burnouts in residential areas at night.

7.3 Many of these matters are already addressed in legislation and apply across the country - the bylaw does not duplicate these, but regulates two very specific and local things, and only on specified roads in our district. The Council has other tools at its disposal to address activities that are not covered by this bylaw, and the Police have a wide range of powers to address driver behaviour and vehicle matters. This report focuses on the review of the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw (to comply with legislative review requirements), and not on how to address wider antisocial road user activities.

7.4 All feedback received through these preliminary stages has been considered and incorporated, where appropriate, to prepare the revised replacement bylaw for public consultation, and changes to the roads the bylaw regulates.

8. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

8.1 The Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw, and its focus on reducing the potential for antisocial road user activities, generally aligns with:

· the community outcome Resilient Communities (safe and healthy communities), in the Council’s Strategic Framework;

· the key priority of improving community safety in Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy; and

· the general road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).

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

8.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 17.0.19.4 Bylaws and regulatory policies to meet emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements - Carry out bylaw reviews in accordance with ten-year bylaw review schedule and statutory requirements

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, and is an update on an existing bylaw. The Prohibited Times on Roads Policy has been reviewed as part of this project.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.4 The decision is not 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.

8.5 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

8.6 This report concerns the update of an existing bylaw, which has no known specific impacts on mana whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.7 Other than relating to the use of vehicles, this bylaw does not have a climate change impact. It regulates two aspects of driver behaviour that have a road and community safety focus.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.8 There are no specific accessibility considerations relating to this report or the bylaw.

9. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1 Cost to Implement – We will not know the exact cost of signage associated with implementing the bylaw until the consultation process is complete and any new roads are finalised and adopted by the Council. The proposal recommended for consultation includes the addition of sixteen roads.

9.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Traffic Operations has a budget for ongoing signage costs. If the costs exceed the business-as-usual budget, additional funding could be sought through the Annual Plan process.

9.3 Funding Source – Traffic Operations signs and markings budget.

Other He mea anō

9.4 There may be reduced damage to roads caused by antisocial road user activities in areas regulated by the bylaw.

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

10.1 The Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw is made using the following bylaw-making powers:

· section 22AB(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (enabling the regulation of cruising) and;

· section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 (this enables the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw, using a general bylaw-making power to protect the public from nuisance, protect public health and safety, and minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places);

10.2 The bylaw must be reviewed to comply with section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002 (ten year review requirement), and in accordance with the bylaw review procedure set out in section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the procedure follows the same process as making a bylaw).

10.3 Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that a council makes certain determinations as part of the bylaw review process. This includes determining that the bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified problems, and that is the most appropriate form of bylaw. It also requires an assessment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications.

10.4 This assessment requirement only relates to the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw, as it is the part made under the Local Government Act 2002. As the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw limits access by drivers of light vehicles to specified roads and within specified times, there are NZBoRA implications. However, as the attached Bylaw Review Report sets out, these limitations are justifiable, and therefore the bylaw is not inconsistent with that Act.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.5 The bylaw can only be enforced by the Police. The Police can enforce bylaws made under the Land Transport Act 1998, and section 113 enables the Police to enforce transport-related bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002.

10.6 The two parts of the bylaw have different penalties as they are made under different legislation. A breach of the cruising part of the bylaw can result in a $150 infringement fine, a warning notice, or both. A breach of the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw can result in a $750 infringement fine, a warning notice, or both. The fines are set out in the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. A fine on prosecution is also possible for a breach of either part of the bylaw.

10.7 Both parts of the bylaw are considered “qualifying bylaws” under the Land Transport Act 1998, which means that a warning notice can be issued. This is affixed to the vehicle used in the offence, and if the vehicle is involved in another offence under the same part of the bylaw within a 90-day period, the vehicle can be seized and impounded by the Police for 28 days. The Police can issue an infringement, a warning notice, or both.

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1 The main risk to the Council in relation to the bylaw review is the risk of judicial review.^{^[1]} A bylaw (or part of it) can be quashed by the High Court if it is deemed invalid.^{^[2]} This is a risk for any bylaw the Council makes, and our bylaw review processes are intended to minimise this risk as much as possible.

11.2 Bylaws can be challenged by judicial review and in relation to the Bylaws Act 1910. Challenges can be on grounds such as unreasonableness, for being ultra vires (outside of legal powers) or being repugnant to the laws of New Zealand.^{^[3]}

11.3 This includes challenges in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that section 5 of NZBoRA enables reasonable limits to be imposed where they are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that a council determines whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZBoRA. The assessment is included in the attached Bylaw Review Report, and the requirements are reflected in the recommendations to this report.

11.4 The bylaw may give rise to implications and limitations on people’s freedom of movement under section 18 of NZBoRA. However, our assessment is that any limitations imposed by the bylaw are the minimum impairment, and the limit is proportional to the overall objective of the bylaw.

11.5 The attached documents, particularly the Bylaw Review Report, set out the relevant matters that have been considered, and confirm that any NZBoRA implications have been appropriately addressed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Bylaw Review Report 2023 - Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014	22/1605352	90
b ⇩	Review of the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014: Clause-by-clause analysis	22/639751	104
c ⇩	Proposed replacement bylaw for consultation - Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2023	23/779682	117
d ⇩	Registers of decisions made under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw and proposed changes	22/1627810	123
e ⇩	Proposed Prohibited Times on Roads Operational Policy - draft for consultation	23/766429	129

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

The Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads 2014 can be accessed here: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/cruising-and-prohibited-times-on-roads-bylaw-2014/

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Kirstie Watts - Building Claims Specialist

Andrew Hensley - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

21 June 2023

8. Major Cycleway South Express Section 1 - Detailed Traffic Resolutions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/499381
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Natasha Wells, Project Manager, natasha.wells@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 This is a technical decision to approve the detailed traffic resolutions for MCR South Express Section 1 as requested by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on 22 July 2019 (ITEC/2019/00022).

1.2 This report is staff generated in response to the above Committee recommendation.

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 on the basis that all the delivery decisions have been previously made and this report seeks approval for the detailed traffic controls, parking and stopping restrictions.

1.4 There are no fundamental changes between the approved scheme design and the layout as detailed in the 22 July 2019 report and the resolutions contained in this report for the road, footpath and cycle facilities.

1.5 The management of the Gilberthorpes Road / Waterloo Road / Parker Street / Moffett Street intersection is under discussion with the Community Board, and is dependent upon design decisions from Kiwirail, so is excluded from this report. This is marked red on the attached layout drawings , and will be reviewed and submitted to Council for approval at a later date.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

Makes the following resolutions relying on its powers under Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

1. Waterloo Road – Hei Hei Road to Kirk Road - Traffic Controls

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Waterloo Road from its intersection with Hei Hei Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Kirk Road, excluding the intersection of Gilberthorpes Road / Waterloo Road / Parker Street / Moffett Street as highlighted on Sheet 3 of Attachment A, pertaining to traffic controls, 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 b-w below, be revoked.

b. Approves all kerb alignments, islands, road surface treatments and road markings on Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with Hei Hei Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Kirk Road, excluding its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and Parker Street, as detailed on plans SK 103-118 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

c. Approves that the path on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing at a point 301 metres west of its intersection with Smarts Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 379 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

d. Approves that a bi-directional cycle path be established on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 680 metres west of its intersection with Smarts Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 168 metres, as detailed on Attachment A, in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 and Clause 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

e. Approves that the path on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing at a point eight metres west of its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with the new Halswell Junction Road alignment (that intersection controlled by Traffic Signals), be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

f. Approves that the path on the southwest side of Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with the new Halswell Junction Road alignment (that intersection controlled by Traffic Signals), and extending in a north westerly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (the intersection controlled by a Roundabout), be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

g. Approves that the path on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (the intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

h. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of west bound cyclists be installed on the south side of Waterloo Road Street commencing at a point 105 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (the intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Pound Road, as detailed on plans SK109-112 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

i. Approves that the path on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing its intersection with Islington Avenue and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Pound Road, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

j. Approves that the path on the south side of Waterloo Road, commencing its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Kirk Road, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

k. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of west bound cyclists be installed on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 521 metres, as detailed on plans SK107-108 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

l. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of east bound cyclists be installed on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 90 metres west of its intersection with Barters Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point 18 metres west of its intersection with Pound Road, as detailed on plans SK 107-108 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

m. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of east bound cyclists be installed on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point 94 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road ( that intersection controlled by a roundabout), as detailed on plans SK 109-112 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

n. Approves that the path on the north side of Waterloo Road, commencing its intersection with Pound Road and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a roundabout) be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

o. Approves that a Stop control be placed against Taurima Street at its intersection with Waterloo Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

p. Approves that all traffic movements at the Waterloo Road and the Halswell Junction Road new alignment intersection (that intersection closest to Main South Road) be controlled by Traffic Signals, in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, as detailed on plan SK 113, attached to this report as Attachment A.

q. Approves that the intersection of Waterloo Road (west) and Halswell Junction Road be controlled by a roundabout in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, as detailed on plan SK 112, attached to this report as Attachment A.

r. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against Enterprise Avenue at its intersection with Waterloo Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.3 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

s. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against Islington Avenue at its intersection with Waterloo Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.3 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

t. Approves that all traffic movements at the Waterloo Road and Pound Road intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, as detailed on plan SK 108 - 109, attached to this report as Attachment A.

u. Approves that a Stop control be placed against Barters Road at its intersection with Waterloo Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

v. Approves that a Stop control be placed against Waterloo Road at its intersection with Kirk Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

w. Approves that the left turn movement from Waterloo Road into Kirk Road be prohibited for any vehicle exceeding nine metres in length, in accordance with Clause 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017. Note: confirming this is an existing restriction required for rail safety purposes.

2. Waterloo Road – Hei Hei Road to Kirk Road - Parking and Stopping

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Waterloo Road from its intersection with Hei Hei Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersections with Kirk Road, excluding the intersection of Gilberthorpes Road / Waterloo Road / Parker Street / Moffett Street as highlighted on Sheet 3 of Attachment A , 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 parking and /or stopping restrictions described in recommendations b-ww below, be revoked.

b. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a distance 394 metres west of its intersection with Smarts Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 54 metres.

c. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with Taurima Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

d. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Taurima Street, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

e. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Taurima Street, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

f. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road, commencing at its intersection with Taurima Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

g. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 228 metres east of its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 205 metres.

h. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 146 metres west of its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (the intersection controlled by Traffic Signals).

i. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Fulham Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 32 metres.

j. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Fulham Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

k. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Fulham Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of seven metres.

l. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Fulham Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

m. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Finsbury Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres.

n. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Finsbury Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

o. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Finsbury Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of seven metres.

p. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Finsbury Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

q. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Mortlake Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.

r. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Mortlake Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

s. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Mortlake Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

t. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Mortlake Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

u. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Wilson Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

v. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Wilson Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

w. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Wilson Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

x. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Wilson Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

y. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Brexton Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

z. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the southwest side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with the new Halswell Junction Road alignment (that intersection controlled by traffic Signals) and extending in a north westerly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout).

aa. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the northeast side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with the new Halswell Junction Road alignment (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a south easterly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by Traffic Signals).

bb. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 84 metres.

cc. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 95 metres.

dd. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a bus stop be installed on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 84 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout), and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

ee. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a bus stop be installed on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 95 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout), and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

ff. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a distance 99 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 312 metres.

gg. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at a distance 110 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Enterprise Avenue.

hh. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at intersection with Enterprise Avenue and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Islington Avenue.

ii. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road, between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am on any day, commencing at a distance 411 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 469 metres. Note: this is an existing restriction associated with anti-road user behaviour.

jj. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a point 880 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road (that intersection controlled by a Roundabout) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Pound Road.

kk. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at intersection with Islington Avenue and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Pound Road.

ll. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Pound Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Barters Road.

mm. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Pound Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 521 metres.

nn. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Barters Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 90 metres.

oo. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a distance 1246 metres west of its intersection with Barters Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

pp. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Bicknor Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

qq. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Bicknor Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

rr. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Kissel Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

ss. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Kissel Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

tt. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Kissel Street commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

uu. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection with Kissel Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

vv. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at a distance four metres west of its intersection with Kissel Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

ww. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Waterloo Road commencing at its intersection of Kirk Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

3. Kirk Road – Main South Road to Railway Terrace – Traffic Controls

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Kirk Road from its intersection with Main South Road, and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Railway Terrace, pertaining to traffic controls, 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 b-c below, be revoked.

b. Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments and road markings on Kirk Road, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Railway Terrace, as detailed on plan SK103 attached to this report as Attachment A.

c. Approves that the path on the west side of Kirk Road, commencing at its intersection with Railway Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 37 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

4. Kirk Road – Main South Road to Railway Terrace - Parking and Stopping

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Kirk Road from its intersection with Main South Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Railway Terrace, 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 parking and /or stopping restrictions described in recommendations b-e below, be revoked.

b. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Railway Terrace, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

c. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

d. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Main South Road, and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Railway Terrace.

e. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Main South Road, and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Waterloo Road.

5. Railway Terrace and Jones Road- Kirk Road to Globe Bay Drive -Traffic Controls

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Railway Terrace and Jones Road from its intersection with Kirk Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Globe Bay Drive, pertaining to traffic controls, 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 b-g below, be revoked.

b. Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments and road markings on Railway Terrace and Jones Road, commencing at its intersection with Kirk Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Globe Bay Drive, as detailed on plans SK 101-103, attached to this report as Attachment A.

c. Approves that a Stop control be placed against Waterloo Road at its intersection with Kirk Road, in accordance with Section 4 and Section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

d. Approves that the path on the south side of Railway Terrace and Jones Road, commencing intersection with Kirk Road and extending in a westerly direction to the boundary with Selwyn District, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

e. Approves that the path on the north side of Jones Road, commencing at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 60 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport Road User) Rule: 2004.

f. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against the bi-directional Shared Path on the north approach at its intersection with Railway Terrace as detailed on plan SK101, attached to this report as Attachment A.

g. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against the bi-directional Shared Path on the south approach at its intersection with Railway Terrace as detailed on plan SK101, attached to this report as Attachment A.

6. Railway Terrace and Jones Road - Kirk Road to Globe Bay Drive -Parking and Stopping

a. Approves that any previously approved resolutions on Railway Terrace and Jones Road from its intersection with Kirk Road, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Globe Bay Drive, 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 parking and /or stopping restrictions described in recommendations b-j below, be revoked.

b. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Railway Terrace commencing at its intersection with Kirk Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

c. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Railway Terrace commencing at its intersection with Kirk Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

d. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Railway Terrace commencing at a distance 58 metres west of its intersection with Kirk Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 91 metres.

e. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Jones Road commencing at distance 126 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

f. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a bus stop be installed on the north side of Jones Road, at a location 114 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

g. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Jones Road commencing at distance 99 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

h. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Jones Road commencing at distance 61 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

i. Approves under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a bus stop be installed on the south side of Jones Road, at a location 53 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

j. Approves that under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Jones Road commencing at distance 38 metres east of its intersection with Globe Bay Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

7. Trees

a. Approves that seven trees be removed along the south side of the western end of Waterloo Road as detailed on Attachment A.

b. Approves that seven trees be removed along the south side of Railway Terrace as detailed on Attachment A.

c. Approves that seven trees be removed along the south side of Jones Road as detailed on Attachment A.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 On 22 July 2019, the scheme design for the South Express Major Cycle Route project was approved for detailed design and construction by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee. It recommended that the detailed design traffic resolutions be brought back to the ITE Committee at the end of detailed design prior to beginning construction. This delegation now lies with the Council and as such, the resolutions for Section 1 are presented within this report (ITEC/2019/00022).

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 There are no alternative options considered for this report as the option of not passing resolutions would mean the changes could not be enforced after construction of the cycle route and Halswell Junction Road.

4.2 There are no fundamental changes between the approved scheme design and the layout as detailed in the 22 July 2019 report and the resolutions contained in this report for the road, footpath and cycle facilities.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The South Express Major Cycle Route scheme was approved on 22 July 2019 by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee. The report presented at that meeting detailed the community view and preferences of the engagement process that took place in early 2019.

5.2 As the design has not changed, the community views and preferences remain the same and no further consultation is required.

5.3 The resolutions associated to the intersection of Waterloo Road, Gilberthorpes Road, Parker Street and Moffett Street have been isolated and removed from this report. This is indicated on the drawings as a red shared box. These will be brought back via a separate report once the requirements associated with KiwiRail infrastructure are clear.

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

5.4.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking among the main stream of traffic.

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

6.3 Transport

6.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city - >=66% resident satisfaction

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 not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.6 The report is for the approval of traffic resolutions only.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 This option helps reduce vehicle emissions by encouraging more residents to cycle of walk for local and longer trips.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 Accessibility has been prioritised in the design for the route through the inclusion of tactile pavers and audible pedestrian crossings.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The decisions in this report have no financial implications as they are not enacted until construction is complete.

7.2 The project has been approved and the costs have been included in the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes.

Other He mea anō

7.3 N/A

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The statutory power used to undertake proposals as contained in this report is under the Local Government Act 2002.

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

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

8.4 The decisions within this report fall within the Council’s delegation.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 If these resolutions are not approved, the legalities relating to the uses of the road space including parking and cycle lanes will not be enforceable.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	South Express MCR Plans	23/806822	147

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Minutes of Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 22 July 2019 (infocouncil.biz)

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

Natasha Wells - Project Manager

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

[1] A judicial review is where a judge is asked to review an action or a decision that has been made under a legal power. The judge looks at whether the way the decision was made was in accordance with the law. (Judicial review summary, Ministry of Justice, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/media/rules-and-resources/Judicial-reviews.pdf)

9. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/609491
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor
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
11.	Community Partnership Fund (Better Off Funding)	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	Community organisation financial details will be discussed when the allocation of funding decisions are made.	29 December 2023