Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 5 July 2023

Council

05 July 2023

16. Community Board Better Off Funding Criteria and Process
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/830153
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Matthew Pratt, Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships (matthew.pratt@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 purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the criteria for Community Boards to grant funding from the Better Off Fund allocated to the Council by Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs.

1.2 The report is a requirement to meet Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs Better Off Funding critieria.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined due to all community boards areas across the city being impacted by the decision on how to grant the Better Off Funds.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Adopts the criteria as detailed in Attachment A of this report.

2. Notes the process for Community Boards to take the lead in identifying potential projects and community partners to be recipients of Community Board allocated Better-Oﬀ funding.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommendation in the report is a requirement to meet Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs Better Off Funding criteria.

3.2 The criteria recommended is consistent with existing Council criteria for other grant schemes, such as the Strengthening Communities Fund.

3.3 Community Boards will each receive an allocation of Better-Off funding. Each Community Board will take the lead on identifying potential projects and developing new partnerships with the community to address Board Plan priorities and local issues that have been brought to their attention.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 An alternative option to adopting the criteria as detailed in Attachment A of the report would be for Council to request that staff provide options of criteria through a Briefing this will delay the process of Community Boards identifying potential projects eligible for funding.

4.2 A second alternative option would be for Council not to adopt the criteria detailed in Attachment A of the report. The disadvantage of this option would be that the available funds would not be allocated as the requirements of DIA would not be met.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Government created the Three Waters Better Off pool to recognise the impact on Councils from shifting assets and service delivery from Councils to the Water Service Entities. Christchurch City Council has been allocated $30.61 million in Tranche 1 and has submitted an application to Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs confirming the projects proposed for funding.

5.2 Better Off Funding (tranche 1) will be used to sustain and nurture our community’s wellbeing, by prioritising things that mana whenua and communities have told us are important. These include increasing the tree canopy across the city and our regional parks, enhancing biodiversity, safer neighbourhoods, repairing infrastructure and facilities, responding to climate change through adaptation planning and encouraging active travel. Partnering with mana whenua, government agencies and community-based organisations and groups to deliver these projects will underpin their success.

5.3 Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs have approved programme two of tranche one- pathway to partnership. This report only relates to this programme. The goal of programme two is to partner with organisations and groups to support local initiatives, projects and activities through additional Community Board funding ($500K per urban Board, $300K for Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula to be spent over triennial), including a focus on local actions to increase climate resilience, and improving wellbeing.

5.4 Community Boards will lead the process of identifying potential projects and community partners to receive grants from their allocation of the available Better-Off funding.

5.5 Identified projects receiving Better-Oﬀ funding could be delivered via three diﬀerent mechanisms.

5.5.1 Delivered in partnership with a community organisation

5.5.2 Delivered by local Community Governance Teams

5.5.3 Delivered by another Unit of Council

5.6 The decision in this report affects all Community Board areas across the city.

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 Communities and Citizens

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies and is most aligned to Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.6 The decision in this report relates only to the criteria of granting the Better-Off Funding. The decisions made subsequent to this will consider impacts to Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 One of the priority outcomes determined by Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs in allocating the Better Off Funding to Council is that it will contribute towards “responding to climate change through adaptation planning”.

6.8 Further climate change impacts will be assessed at the time individual grants are made by the Community Boards.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 Any accessibility considerations will be included as part of the assessment process undertaken by staff prior to the Community Boards allocating funding.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $2.8 million which has been allocated by Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs as part of the Three Waters Better Off pool of funding.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – ongoing costs will be met from current capacity in the local governance teams.

7.3 Funding Source - Te Tari Taiwhenua Department of Internal Affairs.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Not applicable.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Local Government Act allows for the decision to be made and implemented.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are minimal risks associated with this decision. The Council has strong grant funding processes and the Better-Off Fund will fit in with these processes to ensure good processes are followed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Community Boards Better Off Funding - Eligibility and Criteria	23/931150	161

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

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

Maryanne Lomax - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Approved By

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 July 2023

17. Safe Speed Neighbourhoods (Interim Speed Management Plan)
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/891306
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer Gemma.Dioni@ccc.govt.nz Hannah Ballantyne, Senior Engagement Advisor Hannah.Ballantyne@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 new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 (Rule) has changed the way speed limits are set.

1.2 Speed Management Plans are the primary means by which proposed speed limit changes and other speed management activities are developed, shared and certified. Speed Management Plans outline a ten year vision and a three year implementation plan for a whole of network approach to speed management, including setting safe and appropriate speeds. To meet timeframes for the completion of speed limit changes outside 40% of our schools by 2024 and the remainder by 2027, a requirement of the new Rule, Council produced an Interim Speed Management Plan called Safe Speed Neighbourhoods.

1.3 Council is required to prepare a full Speed Management Plan. Under the Rule (3.6(1)), the Director for Land Transport has set deadlines for preparing a long-term Speed Management Plan. Therefore, Council will be engaging with the community on the Speed Management Plan in late 2023.

1.4 This report asks you to adopt the Interim Speed Management Plan. The objective of this is to make it safer around all schools and surrounding neighbourhoods. Whether you're visiting whanau and friends, letting tamariki walk, scooter or bike to school, or driving to work or home again, you should be able to do it safely. As a result, the Interim Plan incorporates the following priorities:

· Streets surrounding schools. The Rule requires Council to categorise all schools following the Guidance provided by Waka Kotahi. All Christchurch schools have children using active modes to get to/from school. Therefore, all schools in Christchurch have been categorised as Category 1 schools and will have 30km/h speed limits as per the Rule, either permanently (on local streets) or by using variable speed limits on busier roads.

· Slow Speed Neighbourhoods, a long-term plan project to lower speed limits in neighbourhoods to safe and appropriate speeds.

· Speed limit changes to neighbourhoods identified through engagement with the Community Boards to be funded through the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF).

· Allowing speed limits to be set in new subdivisions through the planning process rather than after implementation of the new neighbourhoods.

· Changes to rural roads, in addition to schools, on Banks Peninsula. This was to complete the Banks Peninsula speed limit review, which has been underway for several years, most recently in 2021.

1.5 Setting safe speed limits will result in several benefits that allow Council to deliver across two of the five strategic priorities set by Council, including, enabling active and connected communities, and meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available. This is because safe and appropriate speeds:

· reduce the number of people seriously injured or killed on our roads;

· provide for safer walking, cycling or scooting trips to and from school for children and their families;

· provide more choice for people travelling around their neighbourhood;

· provide more people with low-cost options for moving around, creating a more inclusive transport network; and

· enable people to make these healthier choices by creating an environment with lower carbon emissions and improved air quality.

1.6 The Rule removed the ability for speed limits to be made under a bylaw. A report is being presented to Council separately to revoke the current provisions in the bylaw for setting speed limits.

1.7 Following approval by Council, the Interim Speed Management Plan, as provided in Attachment A, will be submitted to Waka Kotahi for certification as per the Rule. The speed limits will then be formalised by entering the speed limit data into the National Speed Limit Register to create land transport records.

1.8 Waka Kotahi also prepared and consulted on an Interim State Highway Speed Management Plan between November and December 2022. In Christchurch, this covered all schools that front the State Highway network, except for Belfast School. Council requested through its submission that this be added. The State Highway Interim Speed Management Plan, at the time of writing this report, has not been published as final.

1.9 The decisions in this report are medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the changes to speed limits being proposed across the district, the proposals being in-line with national guidance and requirements (the One Network approach), and that a public consultation process has been undertaken.

1.10 The consultation referred to in this report forms part of the Interim Speed Management Plan process, as per the requirements for consultation detailed in the Rule. Prior to consultation, staff completed Community Board briefings in addition to a key stakeholder session. The way Council has consulted on the proposed speed limits in our Interim Speed Management Plan was undertaken through gathering feedback using an interactive map due to the network approach. The network approach aligns with the Rule.

1.11 Following consultation, and the full Council meetings where submitters could be heard, staff are now recommending different speeds in some locations to what was originally proposed to address residents’ suggestions. Residents’ suggestions were primarily around consistency and reducing the number of different speed zones within small areas. Where feasible, changes are being accommodated, and where additional areas have been requested these will be addressed as part of the long-term Speed Management Plan. This will be consulted on following the completion of this current process for the Interim Speed Management Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Adopt the Interim Speed Management Plan (Attachment A to this report), which includes the speed limits as recommended on the maps provided in Attachment B. Note that staff will enter the agreed speed limits into the National Speed Limit Register to create land transport records to formally set each speed limit.

2. Agree to set speed limits for new subdivisions through the planning process to align with the One Network Framework, which would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

3. Install signs to display the new speed limits at, or near, the point where the speed limit changes to give effect to the new limits.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for Council and is also a national priority under the principles and guidance of the Te Ara ki te Ora Road to Zero - New Zealand’s road safety strategy for 2020-2030. There are several focus areas being looked at nationally to achieve this, but the most significant difference can be made through having safe and appropriate speeds on our roads.

3.2 Research shows that speed is a contributing factor in all fatal and serious injury crashes, it not only effects the likelihood of a crash occurring due to effecting stopping distances and reaction times, but it also effects the severity of every crash by dictating the energy transfer when a crash occurs.

3.3 The new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 has changed the way speed limits are set. Councils no longer set speed limits through a bylaw. This means the speed limit setting parts of our Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 are redundant and a report is to be presented to Council to revoke the speed limit setting parts of the bylaw. Speed limits are now set through a nationalised system, with speed limit data entered into a National Speed Limit Register by each council.

3.4 Following approval by Council, the Interim Speed Management Plan will be submitted to Waka Kotahi for certification as per the Rule, and the speed limits will then be formalised by staff entering them into the National Speed Limit Register to create land transport records for each speed limit.

3.5 The Setting of Speed Limits Framework provides the rationale for identifying the safe and appropriate speed limits for all streets and roads, in accordance with standards set by the Safe System approach. The inputs into a safe and appropriate speed limit should be:

· the Safe System speed thresholds for crash survivability;

· the One Network Framework Street categories that reflect the movement and place functions of a street or road; and

· the presence or planned implementation of safety infrastructure to reduce the risk of harm for people traveling outside vehicles (for example, bicycle lanes and raised crossings) that could allow a speed limit to be retained.

3.6 Council needs to align their roads and streets with the One Network Framework Street categories when undertaking the setting of safe and appropriate speed limits. It is recommended that during the planning and design of new subdivisions, new neighbourhoods have safe and appropriate speed limits in place when new streets are being opened for use. This approach means safe and appropriate speed limits will be set more efficiently through the subdivision planning process, rather than after the subdivision has been built.

3.7 The speed limits proposed through the Safe Speed Neighbourhood programme, Council’s Interim Speed Management Plan, generally align with the safe and appropriate speed limit. The framework states that the safe and appropriate speed limit for a local street is 30km/h. There are areas where a higher speed limit (40km/h) has been proposed based on community feedback. Speed limits can be transitioned to 30km/h over time through the Speed Management Plan.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 As set out above, the national process for setting speed limits has changed. We have developed an Interim Speed Management Plan to enable Council to meet the requirement set out in the Rule to implement safe and appropriate speed limits outside 40% of our schools by 2024, and the remainder by 2027. The interim plan also includes projects funded through the Slow Speed Neighbourhood programme and the Christchurch Acceleration Regeneration Fund.

4.2 Any options for speed limits have been covered in previous reports and canvassed through the recent public consultation process.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Rule no longer requires speed limit changes to be considered in relation to current mean operating speeds. Previously speed limit changes were set by operational speeds and infrastructure was required to support the lower speed limit. Under the new rule, safe speed limits can be set without requiring the installation of new design and infrastructure, which could be a costly barrier to achieving safe speed limits.

5.2 Council will approach the changes to the speed limits by implementing speed limit signs that display maximum enforceable speed limits.

5.3 Where necessary, the need for infrastructure will still be assessed through separate projects and programmes. The Safe Speed Neighbourhood programme involves the installation of signs only, including static and variable speed limit signs.

5.4 An overview map showing existing and proposed speed limits is provided in Attachment C.

5.5 An independent review of Vulnerable Road User Trauma (DSIs) in Christchurch and the Effectiveness of Speed Management has been completed. The research identified the following:

· In total, in the five-year period from 2018-2022, there were 1316 injury crashes recorded on Christchurch’s road network (including state highways). This includes 34 fatal crashes, 355 serious injury crashes, and 927 minor injury crashes. Taking into account underreporting (Austroad’s under-reporting rates have been used in the analysis), it is estimated that this is equivalent to 3057 total crashes that have occurred over the same period. This is likely to be conservative as other sources have higher under-reporting than what was used in this analysis.

· The majority of the VRU (Vulnerable Road User) crashes occur on local roads rather than state highways. This shows that CCC (Christchurch City Council) can have a significant impact on vulnerable road user crashes, as, in Christchurch, they primarily relate to CCC’s network.

· The highest category of crashes for Council are cyclists, representing 61% of the analysed Christchurch scaled VRU injury crashes, while pedestrians represent only 18% of the analysis VRU injury crashes and motorcyclists represent 21%. While motorcycle crashes are estimated to make up only 21% of VRU injury crashes, they make up 50% of VRU fatalities.

· While the majority of trauma occurs on roads with over 6000 vehicles per day, there is still a substantial number of injury crashes (34%) and trauma crashes on roads below 6,000 vehicles. For that reason, a network approach to speed management is required.

· There is a slight downward trend in the total estimated number of VRU injury crashes within Christchurch. However, there are still a significant number of residual crashes across the network, and the current trend in VRU crashes is unaligned to vision zero goal, “reducing deaths and serious injuries by 40% by 2030” (Waka Kotahi, 2021).

· Crossing and Turning crashes, are by far the dominant crash type, with Crossing and Turning crashes and Pedestrian vs Vehicle crashes combined, representing 65% of fatal crashes and just under 60% of DSI crashes.

· In terms of location, urban residential injury crashes were the highest, representing 46% of underreported-adjusted VRU injury crashes; closely followed by Commercial big box/ industry, representing 37% of underreported-adjusted VRU crashes.

· When assessing the land use (residential, commercial etc) and road category (local street, arterial etc) combination for underreported-adjusted pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist Christchurch Crashes (2018-2022). Non-commercial/ industrial arterials make up only a small proportion of estimated crashes. The majority of crashes instead fall into the Local non-commercial (roads that are neither arterial roads or have commercial/industrial land use) and the Commercial industrial category (a combination of arterials and other roads that fall into the commercial/industrial land use categorisation).

5.6 Given that from 2018-2022 there are 725 reported DSIs in Christchurch (145 per year). This includes 74 deaths and 651 serious injuries). MegaMaps, (a spatial tool provided by Waka Kotahi to assist road controlling authorities, such as council, with speed management information) indicates the total DSI saving that could still be achieved by speed limit changes, from the current speed limit to the safe and appropriate speed is 9.2 reported DSI annually (noting that many speeds are already aligned to Safe and Appropriate speeds and thus there is no estimated benefits for these roads, and that this would be significantly higher when taking into account under reporting).

5.7 Removing the benefits of current speed limit reductions, approximately 6.3 of actual DSIs in Christchurch can still be reduced by speed limit changes alone. Noting that additional complimentary speed management related standard safety interventions (such as raised safety platforms, roundabouts etc) would assist with reducing DSIs further. Moreover, if speed limits were made on arterial roads, changing only 200km of speed limits, would reduce DSI annually by 2.6 (noting that this would significantly higher when taking into account under reporting). These will be reviewed as part of the long-term Speed Management Plan.

5.8 Under reporting should also be considered, however. Given the ratio of fatal to serious injuries is 1:8.8 (74:651), if it is assumed that the reported DSI reduction percentage is equivalent to both the fatality and serious injury reduction percentage, this represents a fatality reduction of 0.94 a year and a serious injury reduction of 8.27 annually. Applying the scaling factor from the Austroads research, this is equivalent to a scaled serious injury reduction of 12.8 serious injuries annually. Noting that the fatality reduction is not scaled as it is assumed that all road crash fatalities are reported.

6. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.1 Prior to consultation, an early engagement workshop was held with key stakeholders including emergency services and the Ministry of Education, which showed support for the intention of Safe Speed Neighbourhoods. Early engagement also included internal briefings with the Transport Unit.

6.2 The Council proposed and consulted on reducing the speeds to safe and appropriate limits around schools and specified neighbourhoods based primarily on the One Network Framework street category. The One Network Framework is a national classification system for New Zealand's transport network, categorising roads and streets based on the movement and place function. The proposed changes to Christchurch streets were displayed on an interactive map that could be commented on.

6.3 Public consultation started on 10 October 2022 and ran until 3 January 2023. This period included an extension where additional streets were added, and some existing street speeds lowered further. Key stakeholders, including all schools and principals, and emergency services, were directly notified of the consultation via email. Libraries and service centres were briefed and provided with physical submission forms. A Newsline story was posted and shared to social media including Facebook community groups. Paid advertising included newspaper, Google Display, a Stuff Sponsored Content article, bus shelters, and flyers at targeted cafes.

6.4 While monitoring feedback, staff noticed patterns in submissions. During consultation, three zones were extended, and five zones had their proposed speeds lowered further (from 40km/h to 30km/h) where there was considerable feedback to support this. Some 40km/h zones were retained because of consultation feedback.

6.5 Flyers discussing the zone extensions and limit reductions were delivered to every newly affected household.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.6 2,008 comments were made on the Safe Speed Neighbourhood consultation’s interactive map. These were made by 1,139 unique businesses, organisations, and individuals.

6.7 458 comments (24%) clearly stated their support for the proposed changes, 230 (11%) clearly stated their opposition, while the remaining 1,320 (66%) were observations or specific requests.

6.8 A full analysis of submissions is available in Attachment D.

6.9 Fire and Emergency New Zealand made a submission during consultation. The specific element in their submission related to the provision for timely and adequate emergency access through areas. In their submission, FENZ stated that:

“In reducing speed limits, this can create negative impacts on FENZ’s ability to respond to emergency events. When reducing speed limits, emergency response speed for fire appliances is reduced as fire appliances are only allowed to drive at 25km/h above the applicable (posted) speed limit’.

6.10 Section 5.1(3)(b) Land Transport Road User Rule states that:

“A driver who drives at a speed exceeding the applicable speed limit is not in breach of subclause (1) if the driver proves that, at the time the vehicle was being driven,—

(a) the vehicle was being used by an enforcement officer engaged on urgent duty and compliance with the speed limit would be likely to prevent the execution of the officer’s duty; or

(b) the vehicle was an emergency vehicle being used in an emergency and was operating a red beacon or a siren, or both;

6.11 Therefore, there is no limit set within the rules that would limit FENZ to travel only within 25km/h of the maximum speed limit and staff understand this to be an operational policy set by FENZ.

6.12 As previously stated, the setting of safe and appropriate speed limits is guided by the Setting of Speed Limits Framework, which is a national policy. Staff have referred the issue to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport to work with FENZ at a national level. Staff have also met with FENZ locally and will work together on further speed limit changes in Christchurch through the long term Speed Management Plan, as well as to discuss infrastructure improvements identified in the Speed Management Plan and in our Road Safety Programme.

Changes following consultation in response to submissions and hearings

6.13 After receiving feedback on the plan, staff propose further amendments, which are shown in Attachments B-G and summarised in tables below for each Community Board area. Where the recommendation is to defer a change to the long-term Speed Management Plan, the intention is these areas would be prioritised in Years 1-3 of the Plan.

6.14 Some new zones were added as a result of consultation feedback. Where these changes affected new residents (who previously didn’t have any changes proposed for their street) a letter was delivered to their letter boxes. Feedback from these additional proposals is available in Attachment E.

6.15 All investigated changes post-consultation have been recommended for approval, apart from a zone extension to Winters and Grimseys Roads (and their side streets) in Redwood, where feedback indicated that the community was not ready for these changes.

Te Pāataka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Lyttelton	New	Further requests for lower speeds.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Diamond Harbour	New	Further requests for lower speeds.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Akaroa	New	No changes made	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Okains Bay	Change	School zone reduced and changed to 30km/h with sections of 40km/h on approaches.	Included
Diamond Harbour	New	No changes made	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Sumner	Change	Wakefield Ave changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h	Included
Redcliffs	New	Additional streets included and consulted on further.	Any further requests will defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Heathcote	New	Flinders Road, Ferrymead Park Dr, Deavoll Pl/Truscotts Road included	Martindales Road & Port Hills Road to cover Heathcote Valley pre-school, in addition to all remaining streets in Heathcote defer to SMP.
Brookhaven Subdivision & Waterman Place	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for neighbourhood consistency.	Included
Albert/Centaurus/ Wilsons & Centaurus Rd	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h	Included
Cashmere/Centaurus/ Dyers/Colombo	New	Additional streets included and consulted on further.	Included
Barrington St & Cashmere Rd	Change	Extension of variable to cover the roundabout	Included
Wilsons Road South	New	Adjoining zones are 30km/h. Change for consistency.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Busier roads in St Martins	Change	Request to lower speed. No change proposed at this time.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Addington west of Lincoln Rd & main roads through Addington	New	No changes made	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Riccarton	New	Division & Lyndon extension to Wharenui School zone. Including Riccarton south of the mall.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Middleton Rd and Lochee Rd	New	Extension to Middleton School zone	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Ilam Rd extended to Riccarton Rd	New	Extension to cover Arvida Ilam and church	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Buchanans Rd	New	Extension to Buchanans Rd variable limit to the east	Included
Tower Street	New	Extension to cover length of street	Included
Lady Wigram Retirement Village (Kittyhawk Ave)	New	No change at this time	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Whincops Rd	New	No change at this time	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Dunbars Rs	New	No change at this time	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Albert Willis Ave area	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Oaklands, Halswell	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Nicholls Rd, Halswell	New	Entire length	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Rearsby Dr, Halswell	Change	Change for consistency with Oaklands changing to 30km/h	No further requests
Halswell on the Park	Change	Milns Rd and Six Silvers Ave. Milns Rd to cover lack of footpath in northern section and new school zone, playground and Banbury Park Retirement Village. Six Silvers included to reduce multiple zones in short section.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Cashmere Road	New	Lower to 40km/h	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Banks St, Templeton	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h.	Included

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Small streets north of Staveley St	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Bentley, Dinton	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Cutts, Aspley, Hawthornden	New	Change from 50 to 40km/h as requested by the Community Board	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Area bound by Withells to Memorial Ave & Maidstone Rd	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Memorial Avenue extension of 50km/h	Change	Keep current extension of 50km/h and defer the further extension	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Snowdon & Bradnor	New	Neighbourhood consistency	Included
Sir William Pickering Drive	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h following requests	Included
Area bound by Grahams, Wairakei, Greers, Memorial	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Area bound by Farrington, Wairakei, Greers, Harewood	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Crofton Rd & adjoining streets	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for consistency	Included
Brogar Place	New	Was missed as an adjoining street	Included
Blighs Rd (Wairakei to Blighs)	New	New 30km/h street to cover two pre-schools	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Idris Road	New	Extension of variable speed limit	Included
Yaldhurst Model School	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h	Included

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Lydia Street	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h for Marian College entrance	Included
Main North Road	Change	Extend Variable 30km/h south through the intersection with Northcote Road to the new Pak n Save.	Included
Barnes Rd & Sturrocks Rd	New	Requests through consultation. No changes made at this time.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Area south of Prestons Rd (redwood)	New	Requested by Community Board. No changes made at this time.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Winters Rd & Grimseys Road.	New	No changes made at this time. Investigated through further consultation, but Community were not ready for this change.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Manchester Street	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h. Includes Aberdeen St to reduce signage clutter.	Included
Selwyn Street	New	Was missed from the Hagley College zone. Consulted on further	Included
Gloucester Street	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h.	Included
Barbadoes Street	Change	Changed to permanent 30km/h from variable 30km/h.	Included
Moorhouse Ave	Change	Variable no longer required with Marian College moving.	Removed
Ferry Road (Grafton to Ensors)	New	Required for Ryan Street entrance to Te Aratai, Te Wai Pounamou Cultural Centre and Manutangirua Te Kohanga Reo	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Remainder of Central City	New	No change proposed at this time.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)

Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Area	Change or new	Requests made through consultation or hearing/further technical analysis	Outcome
Brooklands	New	Change to 40km/h as requested	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Lower Styx Road	New	Change to 60km/h as requested	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Burwood, Queenspark, Parklands & Travis Country	Change	Change from 40km/h to 30km/h. Include Bower Ave from Queenspark to Beach at 40km/h	Included
Saltaire & Marriotts	New	Change to 30km/h for High schools and North Beach Community School	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Bridge St & Estuary Rd	Change	Extension for South New Brighton School. No change adopted at this time.	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Bromley area	Change	Reduced amount of 40km/h excluding Ruru Road from Hay to Maces.	Included
Linwood Ave slip lane (outside Linrose Retirement Village)	Change	Reduce from 40km/h to 30km/h for neighbourhood consistency.	Included
New Brighton inc Ascot Ave etc (new zone)	New	Reduce to slow speed streets	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)
Extend 50km/hr - Linwood Ave to Hargood St	New	Reduce to 50km/h to Hargood	Defer to SMP (Yr1-3)

6.16 Through the consultation and the hearings process, submitters requested further infrastructure. Where possible, these requests have been passed to project teams working on transport capital projects? in different areas of the city. The remaining requests will be added to the Traffic Operations Potential Projects database for further consideration and ranking against existing project requests.

6.17 Through consultation we also heard the need for further enforcement of speed limits, both existing and proposed. Staff continue to work with Police on the issue and encourage residents to inform Police of anti-social road user behaviour.

6.18 Staff have also advocated for additional safety cameras. NZ Police currently own and operate safety cameras in Aotearoa New Zealand. All safety camera types (including red light, mobile and static speed) and the associated operations will be transferred from the Police to Waka Kotahi over the coming years. Police will retain and administer officer-issued infringements.

6.19 Waka Kotahi is working on expanding the safety camera network nationally on both local roads and state highways throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, as part of delivering Road to Zero. Currently they are deciding on the locations which will have the greatest impact, the number of cameras, and mixture of camera types to use, to deliver the most effective safety outcomes. Potential camera locations will complement the speed limit and infrastructure changes already planned on high-risk corridors and intersections.

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

7.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, including the community outcome Resilient Communities (safe and healthy communities).

7.2 This report aligns with the Council’s Long Term Plan:

7.3 Transport

7.3.1 Activity: Transport

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The Interim Speed Management Plan and approach to Safe Speed Neighbourhoods generally aligns with road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).

7.5 Improving safety on local roads is a national priority under the principles and guidance of the Te Ara ki te Ora Road to Zero - New Zealand’s road safety strategy for 2020-2030. Having safe and appropriate speeds on our roads is one of several focus areas to achieve this.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.8 This proposal includes measures to increase safety on our local streets and journeys to school. This can encourage walking and cycling and will therefore result in positive changes to reduce carbon emissions and the effects of Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.9 This proposal improves accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, by providing a safer means of accessing and using our street network.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement – The estimated cost is $6.5milion for the supply and installation of static signs, variable speed limits signs, poles and special foundations where required to support the variable speed limit signs. The majority of the cost is associated with the school speed limit changes as this includes the more expensive variable speed limit signs.

8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - To be covered under the area maintenance contract.

8.3 Funding Source – School Safety, Minor Road Safety, Slow Speed Neighbourhoods, Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Fund, and the Climate Emissions Reduction Fund. Waka Kotahi funding support is provided through all the funding sources.

Other He mea anō

8.4 None identified.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9.1 The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 requires road controlling authorities (such as the Council) to set speed limits for roads under their control and sets out requirements that must be complied with when setting speed limits.

9.2 The Rule requires road controlling authorities to prepare and adopt a speed management plan, with a ten-year vision and a three-year implementation plan. The Safe Speed Neighbourhoods programme is considered an interim speed management plan.

9.3 The Rule empowers Waka Kotahi (as the Agency) to set deadlines for road controlling authorities to prepare speed management plans. The Director for Land Transport has now set deadlines for preparing a long term? Speed Management Plan, and staff are working on a plan to present to the public for engagement in mid-2023.

9.4 The Rule requires completion of speed limit changes outside 40% of schools by June 2024, and speed limits at all schools by 2027. This Interim Speed Management Plan has been produced to allow Council to meet these timeframes.

9.5 As per the Rule (3.5(1), consultation has been undertaken on the Plan. Submitters were also provided with a chance to speak to the decision-makers through a full Council hearing.

9.6 The decision-making authority for speed limit changes sits with the Council and cannot be delegated to a Committee of Council or other body.

9.7 Once adopted by the Council, the Interim Speed Management Plan will be submitted to Waka Kotahi for consideration and certification, as per the Rule.

9.8 The Rule requires speed limits to be set by creating land transport records and entering those records into the National Speed Limit Register. Once the speed limit is migrated into the Register, the land transport record will become the legal instrument for the speed limits.

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

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

9.10 The report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 Delays to approvals for speed limits around schools could result in Council not meeting the timeframe requirements that are set out in the Rule. The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 requires the completion of speed limit changes outside 40% of our schools by 2024. Adoption of the Safe Speed Neighbourhoods (interim speed management plan) will enable the Council to meet this requirement.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Safe speed neighbourhoods - Intermim Speed Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)	23/924699
b	Safe speed neighbourhoods - Speed limit maps by Community Board (Under Separate Cover)	23/920108
c	Safe speed neighbourhoods - Overview map of existing and proposed speed limits (Under Separate Cover)	23/938771
d	Safe speed neighbourhoods - Submission analysis (Under Separate Cover)	23/719043
e	Safe speed neighbourhoods - Zone extension post-consultation submissions (Under Separate Cover)	23/896957

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

Gemma Dioni - Senior Transportation Engineer

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Kirstie Watts - Solicitor

Approved By

Katie Smith - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

05 July 2023

18. Review of Council's naming policies and draft replacement naming policy
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/261175
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy (ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz) Elizabeth Wilson, Team Leader, Strategic Policy (elizabeth.wilson@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 This report informs the Council of the outcome of the review of current naming policies and recommends a draft replacement policy for community consultation.

1.2 This report is staff generated.

1.3 The decision in this report is assessed to be of low/medium significance in terms of the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Significance has been assessed on the basis of the proposed policy and its impact, noting that the final form of the policy will be decided at a later date following a consultation process.

1.4 The assessment of significance has had regard to factors including the low number of people directly affected by the proposed change in policy, the perceived level of wider community interest in the policy and the assessed costs and benefits of the proposed policy.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information on the review of the Naming of reserves and facilities policy and the Roads and rights-of-way naming policy, and

2. Approve the draft Naming Policy 2023 (Attachment A) for consultation.

3. Note that staff will prepare a consultation document for the proposal and that the consultation process will include:

a. advertising the proposal on the Council’s website, social media and on Newsline,

b. direct notification of parties identified as being affected and/or having an interest,

c. making available the consultation document and draft Policy online and upon request through libraries and service desks,

d. allowing submitters to provide their views via ‘HaveYourSay’, by email or in writing, and

e. provision for submitters to be heard on their views.

4. Convene a hearings panel to receive and hear submissions on the proposed replacement policy, deliberate on these submissions, and make recommendations to the Council on the final form of the policy.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council’s existing naming policies are outdated, not well-aligned to existing strategies and policies and don’t provide adequate guidance for the community, Community Boards or staff. Staff and Community Boards have identified a number of issues with the current policies. A replacement naming policy is proposed to address the identified issues.

3.2 Staff recommend consultation on the draft policy before it is adopted, so that the views and preferences of stakeholders and the wider community can inform the Council’s decision-making on the policy.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Option 1-Replace the two current policies with a new policy.

4.1 This is the preferred option and is discussed in this report.

Option 2- Retain the current policies.

4.2 Option 2 is to retain the current policies following their review.

4.3 This is not the preferred option because the current policies are outdated and not well aligned to Council’s current strategy and policy settings or practice. Overall, the current policies provide little guidance for the community or staff on the naming of roads, open spaces and facilities. Shortcomings include a lack of appropriate criteria to inform the assessment of names, an absence of direction on the appropriate use of Māori names, including gifted or dual names, and very limited consideration to changing names.

Option 3- Revoke the policies and not replace them.

4.4 Option 3 is to revoke the current policies, and not replace them. This is not the preferred option because the review of current policies found that better guidance on naming is required for all those involved in the naming process, from applicants e.g., the development community, to staff considering and reporting on proposals for names and for those who make the decisions on names (e.g., community boards) on behalf of the Council.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1 While the responsibility for naming settlements, suburbs, localities and geographic features sits with the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (NZGB), it is the role of the Council to name public and private roads, parks and reserves and facilities (including buildings and parts of buildings/facilities) under the Council’s control.

5.2 Currently the Council ‘s policy for naming places can be found in two 1993 policies , the Roads-and-rights-of-way-naming policy and the Naming-of-reserves-and-facilities policy.

5.3 The need for a review was identified by several Community Boards, who expressed concerns about the current naming policies and the lack of diversity in the names presented to them for consideration and approval. This review of the policies has been underway for some time and when the Community Boards were asked for feedback on this policy review in March 2022, elected members expressed strong support for the review of the current policies and the development of a replacement policy. This support was confirmed in more recent feedback (May 2023) from Community Board members.

The review of the current naming policies

5.4 Overall, staff assessed that the current policies provided little guidance for the community or staff on the future naming of roads, open spaces and facilities. Shortcomings include a lack of criteria for the assessment of names, an absence of guidance on the appropriate use of Māori names, including gifted or dual names and the lack of guidance for making decisions on changing or altering names.

5.5 Staff concluded that overall there is a lack of alignment between the present policies and the Council’s (more recent) strategy framework including the Council’s Multicultural and Heritage strategies. In respect to the Council’s partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga, staff considered that the existing policies were inadequate in respect of the use of Māori names.

5.6 Staff then surveyed recent naming policies made by other local authorities with the intention of providing a replacement policy which reflects best practice and addresses the problems identified with the current policies. The draft policy (Attachment A) has been developed with the involvement of the Tiriti Relationships team and with staff from Parks, Planning (resource consents), Transport Operations, the facilities establishment team of the Recreation Sports and Events unit and the Community Support and Partnership unit.

The draft naming policy

5.7 The draft policy for the naming of roads, open spaces (parks and reserves) and facilities aligns with current Council practices in naming and:

· provides criteria for naming which emphasises the importance of local identity, particular environments and diverse social and cultural heritage,

· identifies the types (characteristics) of names which are not consistent with the Policy’s criteria and therefore should not be approved,

· takes on board the guidance from our mana whenua partners,

· provides for the acceptance of gifted names without further consultation,

· allows for dual names ( and English) for park and facilities but is not directive as to when dual names should be adopted.

· outlines the criteria for consideration and approval of proposals to rename or to alter names.

5.8 One change to the current policy is that the draft policy does not specify that (a certain percentage of) residents and owners must give their consent to a change in road name. While it is recognised that consultation with those affected by a name change is undoubtedly necessary, a decision to change a name should be based on wider considerations rather than be bound by what is essentially a poll particularly where there a compelling reason for a name change.

Guidance for the naming process

5.9 Alongside the policy, staff are working on a guide to the naming process for applicants and other interested parties, outlining the steps for the naming of roads, parks, reserves and facilities, including any requirements for engagement with the community.

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): Strategic Planning and Policy. Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The replacement policy reflects the Council’s current policy and strategy settings including key documents such as the Multicultural and Heritage strategies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and the development of the draft policy has drawn on advice from Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga and the Tiriti Relationships team including with regard to the policy in respect of dual names.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 None

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5 None.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - The cost of reviewing the policies including consulting on the draft policy, finalising a replacement policy and its implementation will be met within existing budgets.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Current legislation provides Council with the ability to name or rename roads (other than motorways) in its district as well as reserves.

Roads

8.2 Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 provides:

319 General powers of Councils in respect of roads

1 The council shall have power in respect of roads to do the following things:

(j) to name and alter the name of any road and to place on any building or erection on or abutting on any road a plate bearing the name of the road;

Reserves

8.3 Section 16(10A) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the power to territorial authorities to name reserves vested in them:

16 Classification and management of reserves

(10A) The Minister, or territorial authority or regional council in the case of a reserve vested in a territorial authority or regional council, may, from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, declare that a reserve shall be known by such a name as is specified in the notice, and the Minister or territorial or the regional council, as the case may be, may in a like manner change the name of any reserve..

8.4 Council must follow the procedures in sections 16(10) and 16(10A) of the Reserves Act to name or rename a reserve.

8.5 Currently, the Council has delegated the power to name roads and reserves to Community Boards.

Facilities and Parks

8.6 The naming of facilities and parks follows the code of practice as set out by the Council’s Naming of reserves and facilities policy (1993). Where assets having local or major status are first referred to the relevant Community Board. When necessary, the proposal is referred to the community for their views before formal recommendation and adoption to the Council.

8.7 Council has retained its authority to name assets with metropolitan status.

8.8 Once a final version of the Naming Policy is adopted, the Legal Services unit will incorporate the updates into the Delegations Register.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.9 The Council’s Legal Services unit has been engaged in the review of the current policies and the development of a replacement policy. It is satisfied that the proposed replacement policy is proportionate, reasonable, and justifiable in relation to the Council’s powers to make a naming policy and the proposal to consult the public on the draft policy is consistent with the principles of consultation of the Local Government Act 2002.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The risks of consulting on and then adopting some form of proposed replacement policy are low. The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Naming Policy 2023	23/906297	185

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

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

05 July 2023

19. Amendments to Delegations
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/583768
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Maryem Al Samer, Legal Counsel (maryem.alsamer@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide for an amendment to delegations from the Council to Community Boards.

1.2 This report has been written because only the Council can resolve to provide for this delegation change.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

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

a. Delegate to the Community Boards the authority to name parks as set out in Attachment A to this report.

2. Notes that these delegation changes take effect on the date of this resolution, and that Legal and Democratic Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

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

3.1 Part A of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is then able to sub-delegate those responsibilities, duties and functions to staff as she sees fit. These sub-delegations are set out in Part C of the Delegations Register.

3.2 Part B of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations in respect of the Resource Management Act 1991 as well as other matters where the Council delegates directly to staff and other persons because, for the most part, the law does not allow for sub-delegations of these matters.

3.3 Part D of the Delegations Register contains the delegations from the Council to community boards, committees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

3.4 The proposed delegation to Community Boards is sought to clarify who has the delegated authority to name parks per the Council’s policy.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The other alternative option that was considered, but not selected as the preferred option, is not making any changes to the delegations. This is not a reasonably practicable option. This would not promote efficiency and effectiveness in Council decision-making.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Naming of Council Parks

5.1 The proposed additional delegation to Community Boards is sought to clarify who has decision making authority to name parks. Community Boards currently have the delegations to determine the name of any reserve (including changing the name of any reserve) under section 16 of the Reserve Acts 1997. There is no equivalent delegation for naming parks which are not covered by the Reserves Act.

5.2 The Council’s current Naming of Reserves and Facilities Policy (1993) indicates that Community Boards are intended to have the delegated authority to rename both “parks and reserves”. This policy is currently under review, but the replacement draft policy also anticipates that naming authority will be set out in the Council’s Delegation Register.

5.3 Given the Council’s policy contemplates that Community Boards should be the decision maker for naming both reserves and parks, it would be desirable to confirm that the Community Boards have naming authority for parks in the delegations register.

5.4 Council officers have advised that is particularly pertinent now due to the proposed renaming of Maryland’s Reserve in Middleton. In light of the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, the Waihoro Spreydon-Heathcote Community Boards is pursuing the renaming of this reserve due to its association with the Marylands School, where abuse was inflicted upon children and young people.

5.5 Marylands Reserve, despite the name, is not an official reserve under the Reserves Act. It is a secondary-purpose recreation reserve under section 191 of the Public Works Act 1981. Its legal status means the existing delegation cannot be relied upon, and the Community Board does not have the authority to rename this particular ‘reserve’ currently.

5.6 Amending the Delegations Register as proposed will enable the renaming decision to be made by the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Governance

6.2.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

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

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 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 matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The decisions in this report do not create a climate change impact.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 The decisions in this report do not raise accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The Changes to the Delegations will be entered in the Delegations Register by the Legal and Democratic Services

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no outgoing costs from making these changes to delegations. There also anticipated savings in staff time in having delegations sit at the appropriate level in the organisation.

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

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that

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

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

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

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

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

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

(g) [Repealed]

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

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

8.3 This report has been written by Legal Services.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4 There are no other legal issues or implications relevant to this decision.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

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

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A	23/916863	197

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

05 July 2023

20. Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/941316
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst (ellen.cavanagh@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to appoint its presiding and alternate delegates to enable the Council’s representation at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM), to be held on Wednesday 26 July 2023 in Christchurch. The LGNZ Conference and Awards will take place on Thursday 27 and Friday 28 July 2023, following the AGM.

1.2 The Council is required to appoint a presiding delegate for the 2023 LGNZ AGM. The presiding delegate is the person responsible for voting on behalf of their council at the AGM.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Appoint the Mayor as the presiding voting delegate and the Deputy Mayor as the alternate voting delegate for the Christchurch City Council at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting on 26 July 2023.

2. Note the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors Donovan, Harrison-Hunt, Henstock, Moore, Peters and Templeton will attend the Local Government New Zealand 2023 Conference and Awards on 27-28 July 2023 as representatives of the Christchurch City Council.

3. Agree that Simon Britten, Zone 5 representative on the Community Board Executive Committee, will attend the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting on 26 July 2023 as an observer for the Christchurch City Council.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The AGM of LGNZ member authorities is held annually. As a member of LGNZ, the Council is entitled to representation at the AGM.

3.2 Under the rules of the LGNZ constitution, member authorities must appoint a presiding delegate and may appoint one or more alternate delegates. The presiding delegate is the person responsible for voting on behalf of their council at the AGM.

3.3 The LGNZ Conference and Awards are usually held in close proximity to the AGM. The Council normally sends between four and six councillor attendees, the Mayor and the Chief Executive to the LGNZ Conference. This year with the Conference hosted in Ōtautahi-Christchurch, the Council will send the Mayor and seven councillors. This reflects the significant LGNZ agenda over the next 12 months, including the recently released Future for Local Government Report, resource management reforms, reform of water services and the Government’s climate change programme. It is anticipated elected members will actively participate in the Conference and act as representative “city hosts” to the sector

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The alternative option is for the Council to not appoint a presiding delegate for the AGM. This would result in the Council forgoing the opportunity to participate in the LGNZ AGM.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The LGNZ AGM will be held on Wednesday 26 July 2023 at Te Pae Christchurch Convention Centre in Christchurch.

5.2 The LGNZ 2023 Conference and Awards will take place on Thursday 27 and Friday 28 July 2023, also at Te Pae.

5.3 The Council is entitled to seven votes at the AGM. It is recommended that the Mayor be the Council’s presiding voting delegate with the Deputy Mayor named as the alternate voting delegate.

5.4 The Council is entitled to have up to four delegates attending the LGNZ AGM. The LGNZ constitution provides that the term delegate includes both an elected member and an officer of the member authority and may include members of the National Council.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This report supports the Council’s Strategic Priorities.

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

6.3 Governance

6.3.1 Activity: Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive, and Treaty Partner Relations

· Level of Service: 4.1.25.1 Provide direct advice and administrative support to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors - Provide information, support and advice within 48 hours, or as priorities are agreed.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6 The decision to appoint a presiding delegate does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

6.7 As Christchurch is hosting the LGNZ AGM this year, Council representatives (including the Principal Advisor Treaty Relationships) have been part of the LGNZ Conference Advisory Group.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

6.9 The decision contained in this Report is for Council to appoint a presiding (and alternate) delegate to the LGNZ AGM.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10 There are no specific accessibility considerations associated with these decisions.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Attendance cost for the LGNZ Conference is $9,418.50 including GST.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – see above.

7.3 Funding Source – The 2022/23 Professional Development budget will allow for attendance to the Conference and Awards and the AGM.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has delegation to appoint its voting representatives at the LGNZ AGM.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no risk management implications associated with this decision.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Jonathan King - Head of Office of Mayor & Chief Executive

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

05 July 2023

21. Biodiversity Fund applications to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on private land
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/820286
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Nicholas Head, Senior Ecologist, Nicholas.Head@ccc.govt.nz Antony Shadbolt, Team Leader Biodiversity. Antony.shadbolt@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 This report provides summary information on applications that meet criteria to qualify for biodiversity funding to protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity on private land.

1.2 Biodiversity funding supports Council's statutory obligations to protect significant indigenous biodiversity on private land.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the report on applications that meet the criteria to qualify for biodiversity funding.

2. Approve a total of $54,450 from the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund 2022/23 across the following three projects and as allocated below:

a. $16,000 for Okains Bay catchment weed control;

b. $26,970 for protection and enhancement of threatened native climbing broom; and

c. $11,480 for Cloud Farm & French Farm covenant weed control.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 All projects recommended for support meet fund criteria, are ready for immediate implementation, and have access to co-funding where this is required for success.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Alternative options are not to fund, or not fully fund these projects. As the Biodiversity Fund (the Fund) is allocated specifically to assist private landowners to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity and the applications received achieve this, these options were discounted.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Fund supports custodians of biodiversity working to protect ecologically significant sites. Council provides up to 50% of funding (maximum of $60,000 per individual project/property per year), for eligible projects on private land. Up to $400,000 is available for allocation this year.

5.2 The Fund is an opportunity to support private landowners who are taking voluntary action, and investing their own time and money, to protect and enhance biodiversity on their properties. The projects provide real protection for biodiversity in the Christchurch District through direct action.

5.3 The community is very supportive of the Council contributing funds to assist with conservation of private land. Several submissions were made by community groups and individuals to the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 requesting that Council increase the annual allocation to the Biodiversity Fund. As a result, the Fund was increased to $400,000 - an outcome consistent with the Council declaring an ecological and climate emergency.

2023 Funding Applications

5.4 The recommendation for this 2022-2023 round of funding would allocate a total of $54,450 across three projects. This contribution, together with applicant-matched funding and funding from other contributions that far exceeds grant contributions, totals a considerable investment in projects that protect and enhance our local biodiversity.

5.5 This means the fund is fully allocated for the 2022 – 2023 financial year.

5.6 Biodiversity funding bids for this round of the 2022/23 financial year are outlined in the table below:

Project Name	Work	Amount requested	Landowner contributions	Other contributions	Total Cost of Project
Okains Bay catchment weed control	Weed control	$16,000	$15,400	$1,500	$32,900
Protection and enhancement of threatened native climbing broom	Survey, seed collection, protection	$26,970	$23,270		$50,240
Cloud Farm & French Farm covenant weed control	Weed control	$11,480	$10,000		$21, 480
Total		$54,450	$48,670	$1,500	$104, 620

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

· Te Pataka o Rakaihauta Banks Peninsula

Update on Previously Funded Projects

5.8 Since the fund was established in 2017, a total of $1,601,421.00 has been allocated to 68 projects (excluding the current applications). 60 of these projects are complete, with eight still in progress.

5.9 Most previous projects involved fencing (44 projects). Restoration planting (12 projects), pest plant control (17 projects), and pest mammal control (9 projects) are other activities that have been supported. Some projects involve multiple activities.

5.10 Over 2000 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation has been protected, along with the indigenous fauna that live in those habitats. Many projects have also protected streams and important waterways.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The programme aligns with the strategic framework supporting principle of “taking an inter-generational approach to sustainable development prioritising the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future,” by supporting individual landowners to protect and enhance biodiversity on private land.

6.2 The programme also aligns with the strategic framework supporting principle of “actively collaborating and co-operating with other local, regional and national organisations.” We work with Environment Canterbury and covenanting agencies to ensure that projects have adequate support and that our combined resources are efficiently allocated.

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

6.4 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.4.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.6 The programme aligns with District Plan policies regarding the protection of ecologically significant sites, and the provision of advice and incentives for landowners who wish to do this on private property.

6.7 The programme supports the goals of the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water but does involve indigenous species and ecosystems that have intrinsic values. Therefore, this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. Staff note, however, that the intent of all projects is to have a positive impact on indigenous biodiversity.

6.9 While matters of indigenous biodiversity are of interest to Mana Whenua, this specific decision to allocate funding to enhance biodiversity will not impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 Most of the projects provide protection to regenerating forest habitats, which will boost the carbon sequestration capacity of these areas. Protecting and enhancing the ecological health of sites will improve the resilience of the district’s habitats and species within them to the impacts of climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11 All the applications subject to grant approval occur on protected private land, accessibility considerations are beyond the scope of issues to consider in this decision.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - none other than staff time to administer the fund.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - none other than staff time to administer the fund.

7.3 Funding Source - the Fund is provided for in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Considerable checks and balances are in place to ensure the funding granted to projects is spent in accordance with the project plan and meets expectations, including progress reports, proof of completions and inspections if necessary. Staff time in relation to this is an inherent part of overseeing the fund.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no significant risks associated with allocating funds to the projects as outlined. Processes are in place to ensure funding granted is spent in accordance with the project plans and expectations.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Biodiversity fund applications June 2023 - Confidential	23/873937

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

Nicholas Head - Senior Ecologist

Antony Shadbolt - Team Leader Biodiversity

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

6. Council Minutes - 7 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/888011
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

7. Council Minutes - 21 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/967068
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - June 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/903662
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager, Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903666	54
b ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903669	66
c ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903673	70
d ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903675	75
e ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903677	80
f ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report June 2023	23/903678	90

15. University of Canterbury - Community Impact Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/644011
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

5. Council Minutes - 25 May 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/882595
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Committee and Hearings Advisor ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

9. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 27 February 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1011834
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

10. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 21 April 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1012026
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

11. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 23 February 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/938931
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

12. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 23 March 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/939039
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

13. Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 13 March 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/940850
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

14. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 21 March 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/994916
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Committee and Hearings Advisor, (ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

22. 2022-23 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Application - The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/1202419
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Lexie Reuben, Team Leader Community Funding, lexie.reuben@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board	Kaiwhakahaere or Māori Programmes Manager	$100,509	$30,000
	TOTAL	$100,509	$30,000

Total Budget 2022-23	Granted To Date	Amount Returned	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$302,768	$246,057	$2,000	$56,711	$26,711

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
21.	Biodiversity Fund applications to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on private land
	Attachment a - Biodiversity fund applications June 2023	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the personal details of private individuals.	1 June 2025
24.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 7 June 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
25.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 21 June 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
26.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 27 February 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
27.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 21 April 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
28.	2025 Conferences	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Due to the competitive bidding process with other cities, disclosure of any information in this brief could compromise the city's bidding position for hosting rights of the Asia Pacific Cities Summit 2025.	30 October 2023 Once the decision on who will host APCS 25 has been made.