Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 19 July 2023

Council

19 July 2023

5. Development Contributions remission application- The Canterbury Brain Collective and The Cancer Society
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/551428
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katrina Mansell, Team Leader Development Support Gavin Thomas, Principal Advisor – Economic Policy Sophie Meares, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal and Democratic Services
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with information to assist in making a decision on whether to approve or decline requests for Development Contributions remissions from two separate Charitable Trusts. These are:

· The Canterbury Brain Collective which has been levied development contributions of $57,608.10 including GST.

· The Cancer Society of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Incorporated which has been levied development contributions of $250,860.13 including GST.

1.2 Both organisations are asking Council to remit development contributions under clause 6.3.2 of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy 2021 which provides for the remission of development contributions in “unique and compelling circumstances”.

1.3 The decisions sought in this report are considered to be of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by consideration of the financial impact of foregoing development contribution revenue for the two developments against the Council’s overall development contribution revenue and the impact on rates this would entail.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Decline the request for a remission to the Cancer Society of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Incorporated.

2. Approve a partial remission of for the Canterbury Brain Collective equivalent to the legal costs of $2758.86 for registering an encumbrance to allow issue of Code Compliance while a rebate scheme was being considered. Decline the remaining request for a remission of $54,849.24.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The report recommendation is staff’s interpretation of clause 6.3.2 of the Development Contributions Policy.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Approve the requests for a remission of development contributions.

Advantages	Disadvantages
It would reduce development costs for both organisations	May set a precedent regarding the use of the remission provision of the Development Contributions Policy for other charitable organisations.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

BrainTree Wellness Centre

5.1 The Canterbury Brain Collective Limited’s BrainTree Wellness Centre is a facility that will provide tailored space to a range of organisations to promote lifestyle changes to clients to reduce the risk of being diagnosed with a neurological condition, help people post diagnosis to live well, and to provide support for carers, partners and whanau.

5.2 The facility has two parts; offices from which Dementia Canterbury, Multiple Sclerosis / Parkinsons Canterbury, Stroke Foundation and other similar organisations will provide specialised services; and secondly, the majority of the space being ‘community space’ including meeting rooms, studios for physical activity and art/craft, plus a social area including a café.

5.3 The offices will be rented to neuro-related charitable organisations at a heavily subsidised rate ($250/m2). There will be no charge for the use of the community spaces by these groups. The community spaces will also be available to the local community at a nominal charge.

5.4 The Canterbury Brain Collective Limited’s request for remission of development contributions points out that the Council’s existing community spaces do not cater for the special needs of those who will use the facility. Likewise, the Canterbury District Health Board (now Health New Zealand) does not provide any such facilities, with provision being left to the community to support this group.

5.5 The number of people diagnosed with neuro conditions in the Canterbury region is expected to double to 30,000 over the next 20 years. Recent research points to 1:2 women and 1:3 men being diagnosed with a neuro condition in their lifetime. There is growing evidence that lifestyle changes can reduce the risk dramatically. The Canterbury Brain Collective believes the model of care provided by its Wellness Centre will be a NZ first, if not world first.

5.6 The project has not received any Government funding. The Directors have given thousands of hours to drive the project and help make the land acquisition, fundraising and building project come to a successful conclusion. Suppliers, contractors and consultants to the project have given significant donations in-kind, exceeding $1m, and the total funds raised is approaching $6m.

5.7 The Council has previously provided this project with a grant of $100,000 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund.

5.8 The Canterbury Brain Collective is also in receipt of a rates remission. The remission provides a 100% reduction to the general rate and 50% discount to the targeted rate. Over the 2022/2023 rating year, this provided a discount of $33,922.20 of the $50,762.21 rates requirement. This remission will also be provided in the 2023/2024 rating year.

Cancer Society

5.9 Prior to 2011, the Cancer Society delivered services from a multi-purpose Community Centre in Manchester Street and purpose-built accommodation facility (Davidson House) on Cambridge Terrace. The 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes had a massive impact on both facilities. The accommodation facility was acquired by the Crown as part of the Eastern Frame and the Community Centre was damaged beyond feasible repair.

5.10 Since 2011, the Cancer Society has provided patient accommodation services in Christchurch from two older style motels (Riccarton Rd and Papanui Rd) and is currently delivering community and regional administration services from a rented building in Fitzgerald Ave.

5.11 The Cancer Society Project will provide a purpose-built facility, bringing all services under one roof. The accommodation facility will offer a home away from home for cancer patients receiving cancer treatment at Christchurch Hospital. This facility has been designed to meet the specific needs of those receiving treatment and will cater to the increasing demand for the foreseeable future. The facility has 50 individual accommodation units and a wide range of shared amenities.

5.12 The administration centre will house the function centre and Cancer Society administrative office. The function centre will help the Cancer Society deliver their community outreach/support programmes to cancer patients, their family and whānau.

5.13 The Cancer Society provides accommodation and free support services to anyone who is planning or receiving treatment for cancer. The Cancer Society also offers a range of free health promotion and cancer prevention programmes to schools, workplaces, and the general public. In addition, financial and practical support with a wide range of cancer research, locally and nationally, is offered.

5.14 The Cancer Society of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast Division Inc. does not receive any direct government funding year on year. The majority of their funding comes from bequests, donations, Daffodil Day and other fundraising activities.

5.15 The facility (and services delivered from it) will be able to be used by any resident in need of those services, thereby providing a potentially significant wellbeing benefit to those in need. The facility will enhance Christchurch’s position as the main healthcare and wellness centre for the South Island.

6. Development Contributions Policy

6.1 The Council requires development contributions in accordance with Sections 197, 198(2) and 199 of the Local Government Act and in accordance with its Development Contributions Policy. Development contributions enable the Council to require developers to make a fair contribution towards the provision of growth infrastructure. Without this revenue stream these costs would fall entirely on ratepayers.

6.2 The Development Contributions Policy states that the Council can only remit payment of development contributions in unique and compelling circumstances. The term ‘unique and compelling’ is not defined in the Development Contributions Policy. However, a dictionary definition describes ‘unique’ as ‘having no like or equal’ ‘remarkable’ or ‘unusual and ‘compelling’ as ‘not able to be refuted’ convincing’ or ‘persuasive’. The decision for the Council is largely based on whether it considers a specific situation to be unique and compelling in the sense that it is such a remarkable case that it justifies a remission to be granted.

6.3 The Council has in the past received requests for the remission of development contributions from a range of developers for a variety of development types. In the last seven years only one application has been approved. This was to adapt and reuse Spreydon Lodge as a café/restaurant as part of Halswell Commons – being part of an exemplar development site following the earthquakes.

6.4 The Council should, however, treat each request on its own merits but should be clear, if agreeing to a remission, why a particular development is regarded as constituting “unique and compelling circumstances”

7. Comment

7.1 While both these organisations provide a valuable community service, applications for remissions are required to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Contributions Policy.

7.2 Staff consider that while both applications are compelling, they are not unique, and other charitable trusts and community organisations have been levied development contributions in the past.

7.3 Both remission applications were originally presented to Council in November 2022. The Council delayed making a decision and instead requested staff to prepare a rebate policy for consideration by the Council to provide for community organisations which provide a community service and are charitable/not for profit to be eligible for development contribution rebates.

7.4 A report on possible new development contribution schemes, including for community organisations developing community facilities such as these, was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee on 22 March 2023. The report recommended that a rebate scheme for community organisations developing community facilities not be progressed due to the complexity in defining projects and developers who would and would not meet the criteria.

8. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

8.2 Strategic planning and policy

8.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.5 Not applicable.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.6 Both facilities have been designed specifically to cater for all requirements of those who will use the facilities, including access considerations.

9. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga RauemiCapex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1 Cost to Implement – Nil.

9.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs –If the development contributions are remitted the amount remitted will need to be funded from rates. As development contributions revenue is largely used to repay debt incurred to fund infrastructure to service growth the cost of the remission will be funded over time as though it is debt.

9.3 Funding Source – rates levied for activities for which development contributions are normally charged.

Other / He mea anō

9.4 N/A

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

10.1 The Council’s ability to levy development contributions is under section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002. This is a discretionary power, meaning that the Council retains the discretion to remit a development contribution if it chooses to do so. This discretion has not been sub-delegated.

10.2 Clause 4.2.1 of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy 2021 provides that the Council will exercise its discretion in “unique and compelling circumstances” and that Council officers will provide the Council with a report such as this analysing whether the remission should be granted.

10.3 Approving a remission may set a precedent and set an expectation that other similar applications be accepted. Given that the Council has levied development contributions in similar situations, this in itself indicates that the circumstances are not “unique” as per the Policy.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.4 There are no other relevant legal implications for this report.

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1 As per legal implications set out above, approving a remission may set a precedent and set an expectation that other similar applications be accepted.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Development Contributions remission application - The Canterbury Brain Collective	23/1028892	13
b ⇩	Development Contributions remissiion application - The Cancer Society	23/1028893	15

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

Document Name

Location / File Link

Development Contributions Policy 2021

Minutes or Finance and Performance Committee 22 March 2023

Minutes of Council 15 September 2022

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Policies/Development-contributions/Development-Contributions-Policy-2021.pdf

Minutes of Finance and Performance Committee - Wednesday, 22 March 2023 (infocouncil.biz)

Minutes of Council - Thursday, 15 September 2022 (infocouncil.biz)

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sophie Meares - Senior Legal Counsel

Katrina Mansell - Team Leader Development Support

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Council

19 July 2023

6. Development Contributions remission application - Hereford Limited
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/542815
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katrina Mansell, Team Leader Development Support Gavin Thomas, Principal Advisor – Economic Policy Sophie Meares, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal and Democratic Services
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council make a decision on whether to approve or decline a request for a Development Contributions remission of $124,884 from Hereford Street Limited. This report contains infomation and analysis to assist the Council in its decision making.

1.2 Hereford Street Limited have made an application to the Council for remission of development contributions as provided for in the Council's Development Contributions Policy 2021.

1.3 The decision sought in this report is considered to be of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by consideration of the minor financial impact of foregoing development contribution revenue for this one development.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Declines the request for a development contributions remission from Hereford Street Limited.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Staff recommend that this request for remission of development contributions is declined because of the following:

· The development is not considered to be “unique and compelling” as is required to qualify for a remission under the policy provision. The development is the renovation of an earthquake damaged office building.

· Granting a remission for this development may create a precedent where future applications would be expected to be treated similarly.

· Some other similar developments have already paid development contributions and have not received a remission.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Approve the requests for a remission of development contributions.

Advantages	Disadvantages
It would reduce development costs for the applicant.	It may set a precedent regarding the use of the remission provision of the Development Contributions Policy for other developers, particularly those listed as “barrier sites”.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 A remission application has been received from Hereford Limited for their redevelopment of an earthquake-damaged office building at 159 Hereford Street.

5.2 The credits for this site expired in February 2021, 10 years after the building ceased to be used following the earthquakes. The developer is seeking remission on the basis that redeveloping the site is becoming financially unviable due to increasing costs.

5.3 Under the DCP, existing demand credits expire 10 years after the previous development exerted demand on infrastructure:^{^[1]}

5.4 This site is included on the list of barrier sites in the central city (the so-called ‘Dirty 30’).

6. Development Contributions Policy

6.2 The Development Contributions Policy 2021 states that the Council can decide to remit payment of development contributions in unique and compelling circumstances. The term ‘unique and compelling’ is not defined in the Development Contributions Policy. However, a dictionary definition describes ‘unique’ as ‘having no like or equal’ ‘remarkable’ or ‘unusual and ‘compelling’ as ‘not able to be refuted’ convincing’ or ‘persuasive’. The decision for the Council is largely based on whether it considers a specific situation to be unique and compelling in the sense that it is such a remarkable case that it justifies a remission to be granted.

6.4 The remission was approved by Council on the basis that Spreydon Lodge was part of the Halswell Commons medium density housing project which was approved as an exemplar development as provided for under section 4.1.1 of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and Action 8 of the LURP. However, the development did not proceed.

6.5 The Council should, however, treat each request on its own merits but should be clear, if agreeing to a remission, why a particular development is regarded as constituting “unique and compelling circumstances”.

7. Comment

7.1 The main reasons raised in the application are that the building is existing and an eyesore, and costs have escalated due to inflation and earthquake strengthening requirement (see Attachment A for more detail). Staff assessment of the reasons is that they are not unique and compelling.

7.2 Approving a remission could also create a precedent and result in inconsistent treatment of previous sites where development contribution credits have expired.

7.3 If a remission is provided in this case, it does raise a fairness issue that similar developments have already paid development contributions where credits have expired. The development contributions already paid on developments with expired credits is difficult to quantify without a complete review of recent development contribution payments. Providing remissions on future development in the central city where credits have expired (i.e., undeveloped sites) could cost the Council an estimated $8.1m.

7.4 Below is a breakdown of the DC requirements over the 42 Barrier sites.

DC status	Number of sites	Total DC’s required excluding GST
Credits expired. No current consents for development	13	Unknown
DCs paid	3	$58,353.84
DCs required but not yet paid	5	$693,774.90
DCs not required. DC credits applied prior to expiry.	16	$0.00
DCs rebated	5	$181,974.33
Total	42

7.5 An estimate of development contributions payable was provided to Hereford Limited on 10 February 2022 prior to settlement of the site.

7.6 No detailed financial information has been provided to demonstrate the significance of the development contribution charges of $108,594 (ex GST) for the financial viability of the development project.

7.7 On the basis that the application is not considered unique and compelling, and the potential for this application to raise precedent and inconsistency issues, it is the staff recommendation that the application should be declined.

7.8 As a final point, staff do acknowledge that the building will be an asset to the central city in terms of offering office accommodation and that the development is currently a barrier site. However, the application must be assessed on its merits in accordance with the policy requirements.

8. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

8.2 Strategic Planning and Policy

8.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.4 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.

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

8.6 The Council provides a dedicated development contribution rebate scheme for development in Papakāinga/ Kāinga Nohoanga zones.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.7 Not applicable

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.8 Not applicable

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

9.1 Cost to Implement - $124, 884.00. This amount is effectively borrowed as part of the debt associated with capital expenditure to provide assets to service growth.

9.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The annual cost to the Council is the cost of servicing debt to the value of the remission. In this case if calculated at 7.5% of the remission amount of $124,884 it would be approximately $9,400 per year.

9.3 Funding Source - Rates

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.3 Clause 2.3.1 of the Policy relating to the 10-year expiry of existing demand credits is currently the subject of an objection process under section 199C of the Local Government Act 2002, and there are other assessments under which development contributions have been levied where credits have expired under this clause.

10.4 Approving a remission may set a precedent or create an expectation that a remission is available where existing demand credits have expired be accepted. This in itself indicates that the circumstances are not “unique” as per the remission clause in the Policy.

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1 There is a risk that if the Council grants the remission, then all developers will expect the same treatment. This risk can be managed by not granting the remission.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Development Contributions remission application - 159 Hereford Street	23/1028990	42

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

Document Name – Development Contributions Policy 2021

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Policies/Development-contributions/Development-Contributions-Policy-2021.pdf

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

Sophie Meares - Senior Legal Counsel

Katrina Mansell - Team Leader Development Support

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Council

19 July 2023

7. Rates Remission for Overcollection of Akaroa Health Centre Targeted Rate
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/512484
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Thomas, Principal Advisor Economic Policy (Gavin.Thomas@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer (Leah.Scales@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to confirm the size of the grant to be paid to the Akaroa Community Health Trust, and to consider a rates remission for ratepayers in the eastern portion of Banks Peninsula to return a small over-collection of the Akaroa Community Health Trust targeted rate.

1.2 The Akaroa Community Health Trust has finalised its fundraising for the Akaroa Community Health Centre, which determines the size of Council's grant to the Trust. Council has collected slightly more from Akaroa ratepayers through the targeted rate than needed to fund the grant. Staff propose a remission to affected ratepayers, using the "fair and equitable" provision in the Rates Remission Policy (remission category 10).

1.3 In 2019 the Council agreed to a request from the Akaroa Health Centre Trust (the Trust) for a one-off grant of up to $1.3 million to assist the Trust in meeting a funding commitment for the cost of the new Akaroa Community Health Centre. It was agreed the Trust would continue with their fundraising and the Council would adjust the final grant based on the fundraising collected. The grant would be equal to $3.0 million (the commitment to the District Health Board of $2.5m plus establishment costs of $0.5m), less total fundraising. Fundraising has been finalised at $2,163,854. Staff have reviewed the fundraising figure in the Trusts financial reports. This means the grant will be $836,146.

1.4 The grant was to be recovered over a four-year period through a fixed targeted rate on all properties in the eastern portion of the Banks Peninsula ward. The 2022/23 rating year is the last year of the rate and the Trust’s ongoing fundraising means the Council has slightly over-collect on the targeted rate by $19,464 (allowing for interest earned by ratepayers on the funds held). It is proposed the Council agree to a rates remission for ratepayers in the Akaroa subdivision to return the small over-collection of the targeted rate. The remission amount is $6.88 including GST per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

1.5 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the amount of people affected, the sum to be returned, and the future impact on ratepayers.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Notes that a Council review confirms the Akaroa Community Health Trust has fundraised $2,163,854 for the Akaroa Health Centre.

2. Agrees that a Council grant of $836,146 will be paid to Akaroa Community Health Trust, which reflects the original $3 million commitment towards the Akaroa Health Centre less the fundraising of $2,163,854.

3. Agrees to a rates remission of $6.88 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit under the Council’s Rates Remission Policy (Remission category 10) for ratepayers in the Akaroa subdivision of the Banks Peninsula Ward to return the small over-collection of the Akaroa Community Health Trust targeted rate via credit on the next rates invoice.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The grant reflects Council’s intention in its decision on 13 June 2019 [CNCL/2019/00123].

3.2 It is considered fair that any over-collection amount is returned to the relevant ratepayers. A rates remission for the over-collection of the Akaroa Community Health Trust targeted rate is simple and efficient to process. A remission would simply appear as a credit on the next rates invoice for the impacted properties.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The alternative option is to give the over-collection of the targeted rate to the Trust as part of the grant. This would be simple to administer and support the Trust to provide health services that meet the needs of the Akaroa community. However, affected ratepayers were not consulted on, and have not provided their feedback on this option.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Rate Overview:

5.1 The Akaroa Health Centre targeted rate is set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA) and is outlined in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy. The Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy allows targeted rates to be used to fund one-off Council grants, subject to public consultation.

5.2 The purpose of the rate is to recover, over four years, the cost of a grant to be paid to the Trust.

Akaroa Community Health Centre:

5.3 The Akaroa Hospital was damaged beyond economic repair in the 2010/11 earthquakes and was subsequently demolished. The then-Canterbury District Health Board (now Te Whatu Ora ‐ Waitaha Canterbury) worked with the affected community and health care providers to develop a new health model of care for the Akaroa and Bays communities based on agreed services to be provided largely from the new Heath Centre facility.

5.4 The Trust’s costs for the project were $3.0 million, which consisted of an agreement to pay $2.5 million to Te Whatu Ora ‐ Waitaha Canterbury towards the capital cost of the new health centre, plus an estimated $0.5 million associated with establishing the health centre. As at March 2019 the Trust had raised $1.7 million and was continuing its fundraising efforts. The Trust asked the Council to provide a grant of up to $1.3 million to be funded by a targeted rate.

5.5 Following a request from the Trust for a grant and associated targeted rate, the Council agreed to consult the community. A Hearings Panel considered submissions over 16-17 April 2019.

5.6 The Council received what it considered to be strong community support for the rate. The community engagement provided options for the rate to be spread over 4 or 10 years. The 4-year option was favoured in the community submissions.

5.7 On 13 June 2019, the Council agreed to a grant for up to $1.3 million, with the final amount to be paid dependant on the final level of the Trust’s fundraising [CNCL/2019/00123].

5.8 As of April 2023, the Trust has confirmed it has fundraised $2,163,854 towards the capital cost of the health centre.

5.9 Council staff have reviewed this figure, recognising the potential for any under-reporting of fundraising to inappropriately increase the grant funded by Akaroa ratepayers. Staff consider the fundraising information provided is sufficiently accurate and reliable for the purpose of the grant.

5.10 The total grant amount is $836,146, which is the original $3m commitment ($2.5m commitment to CDHB + $0.5m fit-out costs) less the fundraising of $2,163,854.

Affected Ratepayers:

5.11 The rate is set on land within the western portion of the Banks Peninsula ward (Akaroa subdivision), defined by specified valuation roll numbers (23890, 23900, 23910, 23920, 23930, 23940 and 23961). It is levied on the number of separately used or inhabited parts of each rating unit (SUIPs). Usually, each rating unit has one SUIP, but a rating unit with two flats would have two for example.

5.12 Targeted Rate by Financial Year:

Financial Year	Rate per SUIP
2019/2020	$129.07
2020/2021	$116.38
2021/2022	$55.14
2022/2023	$35.54

5.13 A wash up process in the final year of the Akaroa targeted rate project was not unexpected. Previous staff advice noted that a formal decision as to how to deal with any over-recovery of the targeted rate had not been made and staff would need to present options to Council for consideration, if required.

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

5.14.1 Banks Peninsula

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The Council’s Long Term Plan (2021-2031) includes the Akaroa Health Centre in income collected from rates.

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.4 This decision is reflective of the Revenue and Financing Policy and the Rates Remission Policy.

6.5 The proposed solution intends to be transparent with how much and how rates are spent. Returning over-collection shows the public that rates are being used as intended.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 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.

6.7 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.

6.8 There is no direct impact on Mana Whenua as this proposal looks at remission for specific ratepayers. Non-rateable Māori freehold land in Akaroa does not pay rates under the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land so will not be impacted by this rate by remission. All Māori-owned land which is subject to, and has paid, this targeted rate will receive the remission.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 There are no direct climate change implications as this proposal is about the rates of specific ratepayers.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10 There are no direct accessibility implications as this proposal is for remission of rates so no action will be required by the ratepayers involved.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The cost to implement this remission will be met from existing operational budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no maintenance or ongoing costs for this rates remission as it is just a one of credit on rates invoices for affected parties.

7.3 Funding Source – over-collection amount is intended to be returned by remission to ratepayers.

Other He mea anō

7.4 There are no other resource implications.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Section 85 of the LGRA allows local authorities to remit all or part of the rates on a rating unit if the local authority has adopted a rates remission policy under section 109 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the local authority is satisfied that the conditions and criteria in the policy are met.

8.2 Remission 10 of the Council’s Rates Remission Policy allows the Council to remit any rate or rates penalty by specific resolution when it considers it fair and equitable to do so.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Staff have conducted a review of the Trust’s reported fundraising and have concluded that the fundraising information provided is sufficiently accurate and reliable for the purpose of determining the grant.

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

Authors

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Jefferies - Manager Rates Revenue

Approved By

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

Council

19 July 2023

8. Heritage Incentive Grant Applications
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/784719
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner Victoria.Bliss@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 consider applications for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the organisations listed below, noting that the recommendations can be accommodated within the funds available.

1.2 This report is staff generated in response to applications received for Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

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 is determined by the heritage significance of the items, the cultural and community wellbeing outcomes of the projects, the amount of funding requested, and the fact that Council has approved Heritage Incentive Grant funds for allocation in the 2022/23 financial year. There are no engagement requirements in the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020 for this grant scheme.

1.4 Approval of these grants would support the Community Outcomes: “Resilient Communities”, “Liveable City” and “Prosperous Economy”.

The impact of these grants are as follows:

Applicant	Project Name	Total eligible costs	Amount Recommended
Malthouse Trust	‘Malthouse Theatre’ roofing replacement and upgrade project	$144,212	$72,100 (50%)
Antigua Boatsheds	Boatshed exterior maintenance and repair project	$43,850	$21,925 (50%)
Home and Family Charitable Trust	‘Our House’ 319 St Asaph Street maintenance and conservation project	$84,000	$42,000 (50%)
B. Harbison	Crew family Addington cemetery monument repair and conservation project	$2,565	$1,282 (50%)
4 Medbury Terrace	Roofing replacement and upgrade project	$57,868	$17,360 (30%)
35 Rata Street	Exterior repainting project	$42,156	$21,078 (50%)
Okains Bay Library	Maintenance and conservation project	$1,214.50	$607.00 (50%)
2 Whisby Road	Conservation, repair and maintenance project	$166,300	$49,890.00 (30%)
Totals		$542,165.50	$226,242.00

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a grant of up to $72,100 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade works for the Malthouse, 69-71 Colombo Street, Christchurch.

a. Note that the applicants have previously entered into a full conservation covenant with the Council.

2. Approve a grant of up to $21,925 for exterior conservation and repairs for the Antigua Boatsheds, 2 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch.

a. Note that payment of the grant is subject to the applicants entering a 15 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration on the Personal Property Securities Register.

3. Approve a grant of up to $42,000 for conservation and maintenance works to ‘Our House’, 319 St Asaph Street, Christchurch.

a. Note that the applicants have previously entered into a full conservation covenant with the Council.

4. Approve a grant of up to $1,282 for repair and conservation of the Crew Family Addington Cemetery monument.

5. Approve a grant of up to $17,360 for roofing replacement and upgrade works at 4 Medbury Terrace, Fendalton, Christchurch.

6. Approve a grant of up to $21,078 for exterior repainting works at 35 Rata Street, Riccarton, Christchurch.

a. Note that payment of the 35 Rata Street grant is subject to the applicant entering a 15 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

7. Approve a grant of up to $607.00 for maintenance and conservation works to Okains Bay Library at 1130 Okains Bay Road, Okains Bay.

8. Approve a grant of up to $49,890.00 for conservation, repair and maintenance works at 2 Whisby Road, Cashmere, Christchurch.

a. Note that payment of the 2 Whisby Road grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

In summary staff recommend the following grants (see section 5 of this report for a full project description and rationale):

3.1 Malthouse conservation, maintenance and upgrade project - $72,100 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation and maintenance of the highly significant heritage building and ensures its ongoing public accessibility and use. The works are urgent as the roof is in a poor condition and leaking. Unless it is replaced there will be ongoing water ingress which threatens the integrity of the structure and its retention for future generations.

3.2 Antigua Boatsheds conservation and repair project - $21,952 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation and repair of the highly significant heritage building and ensures its ongoing public accessibility and use. The works are urgent as the building is not currently watertight which threatens the integrity of the structure and its retention for future generations.

3.3 ‘Our House’ 319 St Asaph Street conservation and maintenance project –$42,000 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the conservation and maintenance of the highly significant heritage building and ensures its ongoing public accessibility and use. The works are required as there are areas of the exterior which are suffering from rot and deterioration and require remedial maintenance to retain the heritage fabric.

3.4 Crew family Addington Cemetery monument repair and conservation project - $1,282 (50% of eligible works). This level of grant funding supports the repair, upgrade and conservation of large monument in a highly significant historic cemetery. The works are urgent as there is a risk of ongoing deterioration and loss of heritage fabric and damage to the granite structure.

3.5 4 Medbury Terrace roofing replacement and upgrade project - $17,360 (30% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and maintenance of the significant heritage building and ensures its ongoing use. The works are urgent as the roof is in a poor condition and leaking. Unless it is replaced there will be ongoing water ingress which threatens the integrity of the structure and its retention for future generations.

3.6 35 Rata Street exterior repair and repainting project- $21,078 (50% eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and maintenance of a significant heritage building with high social and cultural significance. The works are required to protect the exterior envelop of the building from further water ingress, to ensure it remains in use and publicly accessible for future generations.

3.7 Okains Bay Library maintenance and conservation project - $607.00 (50% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and maintenance of a significant heritage building and its opening for community and visitor use. The building is owned by the community and is currently closed awaiting repairs.

3.8 2 Whisby Road conservation, repair and maintenance project - $49,890 (30% of eligible works). This level of funding supports the conservation and repair of a highly significant heritage building, with high historic and architectural significance. The dwelling is currently in a poor state of repair and the works are urgent as the exterior envelope is no longer watertight. The works are required to protect the building from further water ingress, to ensure its retention for future generations.

3.9 Approving these eight applications will enable the diverse heritage of the district and its unique history to be protected, conserved and shared. The projects contribute to the development of a collection of heritage places across Ōtautahi Christchurch which are identified by the community as having heritage significance and meaning to them. This contributes to a distinctive identity, character and sense of place for the city and its communities.

3.10 Approving the recommended grants will enable the Council to support communities to protect our heritage, meet the vision of “Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019 -2029” and achieve the purpose of heritage incentive grants “… to incentivise owners and kaitiaki to undertake works to protect, maintain, repair and upgrade heritage buildings, places structures and objects.” (17 December 2020, SACRC/2020/00046).

3.11 These projects will have a wide and diverse reach: they include engagement with multiple communities and groups across the district and are accessible for people of all ages and abilities. Approving grant contributions for the eligible works to these heritage buildings, items and structures will contribute to the Council’s aim to maintain and protect built, cultural, natural, and significant moveable heritage items, areas, and values.

3.12 The recommended grants align with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020) and can be accommodated within the available budget.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Malthouse conservation, maintenance and upgrade project

Option 1: Grant funding of $43,263 (30% eligible works): this level of funding would support the maintenance, conservation and upgrade works necessary to ensure the Malthouse is made weatherproof, and the Canterbury Children’s Theatre and Malthouse Costumes are able to operate. However, staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the Trust to maintain the highly significant landmark heritage building, which has community social, economic and cultural wellbeing outcomes.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a highly significant heritage item; would reduce positive community wellbeing outcomes; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.2 Antigua Boatsheds conservation and repair project

Option 1: Grant funding of $13,155 (30% of eligible works): this level of funding would support the maintenance, conservation and upgrade works necessary to ensure the Antigua Boatsheds are maintained and able to operate. However, staff consider the project may not proceed with a reduced level of funding.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the applicants to undertake the maintenance and repair of the building, which is a landmark on the river and provides economic benefits to the city.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support a project to conserve a central city landmark; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.3 ‘Our House’ 319 St Asaph Street conservation and maintenance project

Option 1: Grant funding of $25,200 (30% of eligible works): this level of funding would support the maintenance, conservation and upgrade works necessary to ensure ‘Our House’ is maintained and able to operate. However, staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding. The eligible works are part of a larger project which includes heating and air conditioning upgrades, totalling $151,330 and for which the applicants are required to fundraise.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

4.4 Crew Family Addington cemetery monument repair and conservation project

Option 1: Grant funding of $770 (30% of eligible works): staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would not support the descendants to maintain the monument in the highly significant Addington Cemetery, which has community social and cultural wellbeing outcomes. There is no longer any separate funding stream available from Council to incentivise or support conservation of graves and monuments in the district’s heritage cemeteries.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a highly significant heritage item; would not incentivise descendants to maintain and conserve graves and monuments; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.5 4 Medbury Terrace roofing replacement and upgrade project

Option 1: Grant funding of $28,934 (50% eligible works): this level of funding would support the maintenance, conservation and upgrade works necessary to ensure the significant heritage building is made weatherproof and prevent the loss of heritage fabric and values. However, staff consider the sum is high given the availability of grant funding and the fact that the building is not fully publicly accessible.

Advantages: funding would support the costs of replacement of a large and ornate slate roof on a significant heritage building which reflects the established character and amenity value of the suburb.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would be available to other projects/applicants.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a significant heritage item; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.6 35 Rata Street exterior repair and repainting project

Option 1: Grant funding of $12,684 (30% of eligible works): this level of funding would support the conservation works necessary to ensure the building is maintained and able to operate as part of the Disarmament and Security Centre. However, staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding. The exterior works for which a grant is sought are part of a larger project which includes roofing, joinery and window repairs, totalling in excess of $70,000.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the owners to maintain the significant heritage building, which through its use and association with the district’s peace movement has community social and cultural wellbeing outcomes.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a significant heritage item; would not support the retention of a building which is the centre of the district’s peace heritage; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.7 Okains Bay Library maintenance and conservation project

Option 1: Grant funding of $365 (30% of eligible works): staff consider the project would be unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding. The Okains Bay Enhancement Society wish to re-open the building for community use and are actively seeking additional funding for the project.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would reduce the ability of the community to repair and reopen the significant heritage building.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a significant heritage item; would not support a community project; would reduce positive community wellbeing outcomes; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

4.8 2 Whisby Road conservation, repair and maintenance project

Option 1: Grant funding of $83,150 (50% of eligible works): this level of funding would support the conservation, repair and maintenance works necessary to ensure the highly significant heritage building is made weatherproof and conserved for future generations. However, staff consider the sum is high given the availability of grant funding and the fact that the building is not fully publicly accessible.

Advantages: this level of funding would support the urgent works required to conserve a highly significant heritage building, which was the residence of the Macmillan Brown family, designed by Hurst Seager, and was one of the first dwellings erected on the Cashmere Hills.

Disadvantages: a lower level of funding would be available to other projects/applicants.

Option 2: Decline the application.

Advantages: funding would be available for allocation to other projects/applicants.

Disadvantages: would not support the conservation of a highly significant heritage item; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Malthouse conservation, maintenance and upgrade project

5.1 The applicant for the grant is the Malthouse Trust.

The Project

5.2 The Malthouse was constructed in 1869. It is one of New Zealand's oldest surviving malthouses and the only known example of an intact stand-alone malthouse. It is scheduled as a highly significant heritage place and is also listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 2 Historic Place. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment A).

5.3 A prominent local landmark and key contributor to the streetscape, the building has high heritage significance as a monument to the important place of brewing in New Zealand's early industrial development, and the once central role that independent maltster and malthouses played in brewing.

5.4 The Malthouse building was purchased by the Canterbury Children’s Theatre in 1965. The Malthouse Trust was established to maintain the building as well as to encourage and support participation in theatre for children. The Trust provides an ongoing home and venue for the Canterbury Children’s Theatre at the Malthouse. In addition, the building is actively utilised by community groups and houses Malthouse Costumes, which provides a revenue stream to support the work of the Trust.

Front elevation of the Malthouse from Colombo Street (image provided by applicant)

Aerial view of the Malthouse showing the extent of the roof requiring replacement (image provided by applicant)

The Grant Application

5.5 The Malthouse requires a replacement roof, flashings and rainwear if it is to remain watertight. The current roof is failing, and water ingress is increasing. This has caused some areas of the roof structure to fail, including over 100 metres of purlins. The eligible costs for the project total $144,212 and include:

· Replacement corrugate colorsteel roof

· Flashings and rainwear

· Scaffolding

· Repair/replacement of rotten areas of the roof structure.

5.6 The Trust are actively seeking funding for the project. They are awaiting the outcome of an application to Lotteries for a grant, and crowd funding via a ‘Give a little’ page on their website and social media.

5.7 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020, see: https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Heritage/Heritage-Incentive-Grant-Fund-Guidelines-2020.pdf The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.8.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

5.8.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Antigua Boatsheds conservation and repair project

5.9 The applicants for the grant are the owners, M. and S. Jones.

The Project

5.10 The Antigua Boatsheds were constructed in 1882 and have high heritage significance as the city’s only remaining nineteenth century boatsheds. They have remained in use for pleasure boat hire for over 140 years. An illustrated guide to Christchurch dating from 1885 states: “The sheds are the most complete in the colony. They have a landing stage with a frontage of 200 feet to the river, ladies’ waiting room and gentlemen’s dressing room, and besides all these easily house the 38 boats…”

5.11 A prominent local landmark and key contributor to the riverscape, the Antigua Boatsheds still provide boat hire. They now also offer bicycle hire and house the Boatshed Café. The Boatsheds have high contextual significance as a central city landmark on the Avon. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment B).

5.12 A project was recently undertaken to strengthen the buildings and make remedial repairs. The applicants now need to make urgent repairs to the exterior envelope of the building, as there is water ingress which threatens the heritage fabric and structure of the Boatsheds.

Several boats parked on a dock

Description automatically generated

Photo M. Vairpiova

Photo Canterbury Stories

The Grant Application

5.13 The Boatsheds require repairs to the leaking roof and guttering; renewal of the flashings; a replacement barge roll, and exterior repainting if they are to remain watertight. The current roof is failing in areas, and water ingress is increasing. The eligible costs for the project total $43,850 and include:

· Repairs to iron roof

· Flashing and rainwear repairs and replacement

· Scaffolding

· Repair/replacement of rotten areas of the roof structure

· Exterior repainting.

5.14 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.15.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

5.15.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

‘Our House’ 319, St Asaph Street conservation and maintenance project

5.16 The applicant for the grant is Home and Family Charitable Trust.

The Project

5.17 The Community of the Sacred Name Convent has high historical and social significance as the only Anglican convent in New Zealand, and as a part of Christchurch's identity-defining Anglican heritage. It is also listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category I Historic Place. A prominent local landmark and key contributor to the streetscape of St Asaph Street, the building now houses Te Whare Manaaki Tangata Home and Family, a child-focused charity organisation, and the Good Habit café.

5.18 Only the first two stages of the convent building remain, dating from the 1890s. The third stage of the development (a large, three storey brick, neo-gothic building on the corner of Barbadoes and St Asaph Streets) was demolished following the Canterbury earthquakes. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment C).

5.19 In 2016 the Trust undertook an extensive repair, upgrade and conservation project to save the heritage building, which had suffered extensive earthquake damage. They were supported by a $950,000 Landmark Heritage Building grant from the Council, to assist with the two million dollar project required to prevent the demolition of the building.

5.20 Budget constraints during the 2016 works meant that maintenance to some areas of the building had to be deferred.

A car parked near a building

Description automatically generated

Photo B. Smyth, 2014 before the conservation and repair works

A church with pews and a altar

Description automatically generated A row of stained glass windows in a church

Description automatically generated

Photo of restored Chapel, 2023 Joseph O’Sullivan

The Grant Application

5.21 The Community of the Sacred Name Convent requires urgent maintenance and repairs to the exterior envelope of the building if it is to remain watertight. The current flashings, guttering and areas of the timber cladding are failing, and water ingress is increasing. This presents a risk to the structure and heritage fabric of the building.

5.22 The urgent repairs and maintenance works are being combined with a project to upgrade the heating and cooling system of the building, opening new spaces for occupation to meet the Trust’s growing needs, and to ensure the building remains fit for purpose. The eligible costs for the project total $84,000 and include:

· Fire protection system upgrade

· Roofing repairs and repainting

· Flashings and rainwear renewal

· Scaffolding

· Repair/replacement of rotten joinery and cladding

· Repainting exterior as required.

5.23 Total costs for the project, including works which are not eligible for grant funding, are $151,000. The Trust are actively seeking funding for the project. They are awaiting the outcome of an application to Lions for a grant of $58,000.

5.24 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.25.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

5.25.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Crew family Addington Cemetery monument repair and conservation project

5.26 The applicant for the grant is the plot owner, B. Harbison.

The Project

5.27 Addington Cemetery is located on Selwyn Street (between Disraeli Street and Fairfield Avenue). It opened in 1858 and closed in 1980. The cemetery was in effect the city’s first public cemetery, established by the Presbyterian Church of St Andrews in reaction to the ‘exclusiveness’ of the Anglican Barbadoes Street Cemetery. As a public cemetery, Addington was open to all denominations with no segregation according to religion. Noteworthy people buried here include Kate Sheppard, Christchurch Mayor Tommy Taylor, artist John Gibb, architect Samuel Farr and members of the pioneer family, the Deans.

5.28 Managed since 1947 by the Council, Addington Cemetery has high heritage significance. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment D) and Historic cemeteries : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

5.29 While the Council manages the cemetery, the individual monuments erected there are owned by the families of the person buried within the grave. Plots 30c and 31a are the graves of members of the Crew family. A large granite monument was erected between 1916-23 to mark the graves of John Joseph, Maria and Maria Alice Crew. A smaller monumental stone also marks their four children.

A group of stone blocks with writing on them

Description automatically generated A tombstone in a cemetery

Description automatically generated

Photos showing the Crew family monumnet before and after repairs were completed (images supplied by applicant)

A display of photos on a wall

Description automatically generated

The Grant Application

5.30 The Crew family monument was badly damaged in the Canterbury earthquakes, when it fell and was broken. Damage was also sustained to the surrounding grave margin. Over the past twelve years, the condition of the monument has deteriorated. The family have worked with Council staff to undertake appropriate conservation, repair and upgrade to restore and repair the monument.

5.31 Constructed of granite and basalt, a new foundation was required. Each section of the damaged structure had to be pinned back into place, and then restored to ensure the ongoing structural integrity of the monument.

5.32 The works are now completed and were closely monitored by Council staff. The guidelines for the grant scheme recognise that applications for works may be submitted on time but the processing of the application and hence of the grant approval may be delayed. If the scope of work has been agreed, the applicant may choose to continue with the work.

5.33 The eligible costs for the project total $2,565 and include:

· Repair and restoration of the granite monument

· Structural upgrade of monument

· Repair of grave margin.

5.34 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.35.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

5.35.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

4 Medbury Terrace roofing replacement and upgrade project

5.36 The applicants for the grant are the owners, H. Browning and C. de La Fage.

The Project

5.37 The dwelling at 4 Medbury Terrace was constructed in 1896, originally as a homestead on two acres of land. Reflecting the lifestyle of affluent Canterbury farmers, it retains interior features including stained glass window panels, an ornate timber staircase, and baronial fireplaces. The house, and its mature trees, have landmark value in the area. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment E).

5.38 The dwelling is partially visible from Fendalton Park, Medbury Terrace and Clyde Road. It has been opened for fundraising and garden tours and is included on the Council’s Fendalton Local History Walk: Fendalton Local History Walk No 1 | Christchurch City Libraries Ngā Kete Wānanga o Ōtautahi The owners also utilises the dwelling to assist in their honorary consul duties, and frequently host foreign citizens and visitors to New Zealand.

A picture containing building, house, outdoor, home

Description automatically generated

Photo CCC Heritage Files

A bird's eye view of a house

Description automatically generated A picture containing outdoor, building, window, house

Description automatically generated

Aerial view of 4 Medbury Terrace and detail showing the area of the roof requiring replacement (image provided by applicant)

The Grant Application

5.39 The southeast section roof is currently leaking, leading to water ingress and damage to the structure of the building. This is part of the original slate roof, dating from the late 1800s. The roof is large and complex, with an ornate patterned detail. A like for like replacement with slates of a similar colour and cut to size is necessary to preserve and retain this historic architectural feature.

5.40 The eligible costs for the project total $57,868 and include:

· Re-roofing of the southeast elevation with Glendyne slate to match original roof

· Flashing and valley renewals

· Replacement ridge with bracketing detail to match the original

· Repair/replacement of rotten joinery battens and rafters

· Installation of ply sarking to upgrade the structure

· Scaffolding.

5.41 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.42.1 Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

5.42.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

35 Rata Street exterior repainting project

5.43 The applicants for the grant are the owners, C. Dewes, R. Green and D. Shand.

The Project

5.44 The dwelling at 35 Rata Street is included in the current plan change for scheduling as a significant heritage place. Constructed in 1925, it has served as the Disarmament and Peace Centre (DSC) since 1983. In addition to its architectural, technological and contextual significance the dwelling has high cultural and social significance by its association with the district’s peace movement. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment F).

5.45 In the past 40 years, many landmark events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s peace history have been shared at 35 Rata Street, with educational resources, lectures, meetings and events being hosted at the dwelling. Details can be found at: https://www.disarmsecure.org/

5.46 Many peace leaders from Parihaka, Ngai Tahu, Rekohu, Rongomaiwahine, Tuhoe and other iwi have been hosted at the Whare. Letters of support and endorsement of the social history of the property from various members of peace groups have been provided by the applicant, including from the late Upoko of Te Runaka ki Otautahi o Kai Tahu and Dr P. Low.

35 Rata Street, photo: G. Wright

A group of people posing for a photo

Description automatically generated A person sitting on a couch in a room with boxes and a table

Description automatically generated

Atomic bomb survivors visiting the centre DSC archive collection (photos supplied by applicant)

The Grant Application

5.47 The dwelling is in need of exterior repainting as part of its ongoing maintenance. The exterior repainting will be undertaken after a wider scope of works including structural repairs and upgrades are completed.

5.48 The eligible costs for the project entered in the application total $42,156 and include:

· Repainting of the exterior

· Scaffolding.

5.49 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.43.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

5.43.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Okains Bay Library maintenance and conservation project

5.51 The applicant for the grant is the Okains Bay Enhancement Society.

The Project

5.52 Constructed in the 1860s, the Okains Bay Library has high heritage significance. It was the first public library on Banks Peninsula, housing a book collection as well as providing a venue for community meetings and serving as the local court. It has high contextual significance as one of a group of early nineteenth century buildings which form the Okains Bay museum precinct. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment G).

5.53 The building is currently closed. Okains Bay Enhancement Society are seeking funding to undertake repairs which will enable them to open the historic library for community gatherings and hui, as well as to the general public.

5.54 In addition to achieving positive heritage outcomes by undertaking maintenance and ensuring the building remains weathertight, the project will be community led and achieve wider social, cultural and economic wellbeing outcomes.

Okains Bay Library, photo A. Ohs

Interior of the Library showing original heritage fabric and features, photo: A. Ohs

The Grant Application

5.55 The building is in need of repairs and maintenance if it is to be protected from water ingress and able to be re-opened to the public for use.

5.56 The eligible costs for the project total $1,214.50 and include:

· Weatherboard repair/replacement and repainting

· Capping of the chimney

· Repairs to interior linings and joinery

· Scaffolding.

5.57 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.58.1 Te Pataka o Rakaihautu Banks Peninsula Board

5.59 It is noted that Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

2 Whisby Road conservation, repair and maintenance project

5.60 The applicant for the grant is the owner, O. Alpers.

The Project

5.61 The dwelling at 2 Whisby Road was constructed in 1898 as the residence of the Macmillan Brown family. Professor John Macmillan Brown was one of the three founding professors of Canterbury College (the University of Canterbury); Helen Macmillan Brown was the first woman of the British Empire to graduate MA with honours, and principal of Christchurch Girl’s High for twelve years.

5.62 The dwelling was one of the first residences to be constructed on the Cashmere Hills and was designed by notable architect Hurst Seager. It is in very original condition, with a significant amount of original heritage fabric and features remaining. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment H).

A house with a garden

Description automatically generated

4 Whisby Road, photo M. Vairpiova

A picture containing building, outdoor, sky, property

Description automatically generated A room with a brick fireplace and wood pieces

Description automatically generated

Images showing extent of maintenance and conservation required, supplied by applicant.

The Grant Application

5.63 2 Whisby Road requires urgent maintenance and repairs to the exterior envelope of the building if it is to remain watertight. The current roofing, rain ware and flashing require replacement, and there are areas of the timber joinery and cladding in need of renewal and repair. The exterior requires repainting and the applicant is also seeking to reinstate the collapsed chimneys.

5.64 Eligible works considered for funding total $166,300 and include:

· Roofing, rain ware and flashing renewal

· Exterior repainting

· Scaffolding

· Reinstatement of chimneys

· Repair/replacement of rotten joinery, cladding and framing

· Repair/replacement of rotten joinery and cladding.

5.65 The urgent repairs and eligible maintenance works are being combined with a much larger project to conserve the building. This includes structural repair and upgrade and interior conservation, repairs and upgrades to ensure the building remains fit for purpose as a dwelling. The total project costs are $339,688.

5.66 A grant for the proposed works is in alignment with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020. The works are within the scope of grant consideration, and the application and grant amount meet the Criteria for ‘Assessment of Applications’.

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

5.67.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

5.67.2 It is noted that Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme aligns to the Community Outcome “Resilient Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation’ and ‘strong sense of community’. It also supports “Liveable City” – ‘21st century garden city we are proud to live in’ and “Prosperous Economy” – ‘great place for people, business and investment’.

6.2 The Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme supports delivery of the overarching strategic principle of “Taking an intergenerational approach to sustainable development, prioritising the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future.” This is because heritage is an intergenerational equity. It contributes to our personal and community sense of identity and belonging and enhances high levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

6.3 Outcomes achieved through the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme support delivery Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy Pillars of People, Place, Participation and Preparedness.

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

6.5 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.5.1 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

6.6 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.7 Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

6.8 Heritage Incentive Grants Policy –Guidelines 2020

6.9 International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010

6.10 Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.13 The six papatipu rūnanga hold the mana whenua rights and interests over the district and are partners in the Our Heritage, Our Taonga - Heritage Strategy 2019-2029. Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Wairewa Rūnanga, Ōnuku Rūnanga and Te Taumutu Rūnanga are primary kaitiaki for the taonga tuku iho of the district. They are guardians for elements of mātauranga Māori reaching back through many generations and are a significant partner in the strategy implementation.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The grants will support the retention of heritage buildings and the embodied energy within them. Retention and reuse of heritage buildings can contribute to emissions reduction and mitigate the effects of climate change. Retaining and reusing existing built stock reduces our carbon footprint and extends the economic life of buildings.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.15 Works eligible for grant funding include accessibility upgrades, in line with the Heritage Strategy’s principle of ‘Accessibility’.

6.16 Six of the grants will support buildings/items which are publicly accessible. Two of the grants, although to private residences, support heritage places which have some public access and are visible to the community from the public street.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - the recommendations are for grants for Malthouse Theatre -$72,100; Antigua Boatsheds- $21,925; ‘Our House’ - $42,000; Crew family Addington Cemetery monument - $1,282; 4 Medbury Terrace - $17,360; 35 Rata Street - $21,078; Okains Bay Library - $607.00, and 2 Whisby Road - $49,890.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

7.3 Funding Source - The Heritage Incentive Grant fund was an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. Council approved funding to be diverted into this fund from the now closed Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund in 2020. The carry forward of the remaining funds was approved for inclusion in the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan, with the resolution to spread these funds over three financial years.

7.4 The impact of these grants are as follows:

Total remaining funds for Heritage Incentive Grants (HIG) for FY 22/23	$426,741
Approved grant to Medbury School	$14,999
Approved grant to St Saviours, Holy Trinity, Lyttelton	$25,169
Approved grant to Tug Lyttelton	$58,063
Approved grant to 10 Brittan Terrace, Linwood	$10,679
Approved grant to 45 Ranfurly Street, St Albans	$32,239
Approved grant to 98-100 Chester Street East	$27,060
Total approved funds to date for FY23	$168,209
Total Remaining HIG Funds for FY22-3	$258,532
Proposed grant to Malthouse Theatre (50%)	$72,100
Proposed grant to Antigua Boatsheds (50%)	$21,925
Proposed grant to ‘Our House’ (50%)	$42,000
Proposed grant to Crew Family Addington Cemetery monument (50%)	$1,282
Proposed grant to 4 Medbury Terrace (30%)	$17,360
Proposed grant to 35 Rata Street (50%)	$21,078
Proposed grant to Okains Bay Library (50%)	$607
Proposed grant to 2 Whisby Road (30%)	$49,890
Total proposed grants in this report	$226,242
Total Remaining HIG Funds for FY22	$32,290
Total Remaining HIG Funds FY22 –FY24	$379,679

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The delegated authority for Heritage Incentive Grants decisions was with the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee but as this committee is no longer sitting, this report is being submitted to Council.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There are no legal contexts, issues or implications relevant to these decisions.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works; certification by Council staff that the works have been undertaken in alignment with the ICOMOS NZ Charter 2010; presentation of receipts and confirmation of the conservation covenant (if required) having been registered against the property title or on the Personal Properties Securities Register. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Malthouse Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938914	77
b ⇩	Attachment B: Antigua Boatsheds Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938915	81
c ⇩	Attachment C: 'Our House' Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938916	85
d ⇩	Attachment D: Addington Cemetery Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938917	90
e ⇩	Attachment E: 4 Medbury Terrace Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938919	94
f ⇩	Attachment F: 35 Rata Street Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938920	98
g ⇩	Attachment G: Okains Bay Library Heritage Statement of Significance	23/938922	103
h ⇩	Attachment H: 2 Whisby Road Heritage Statement of Significance	23/939735	107

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

[1] Development Contributions Policy 2021, cl 2.3.1.

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Council Joint Development - setting the scene (Under Separate Cover)	23/1099356
b	Letter of Expectation (Under Separate Cover)	23/463470
c	Updated Environmental Scan (Under Separate Cover)	23/1044197
d	Draft LTP 2024-34 Strategic Framework, including Climate Resilience (Under Separate Cover)	23/964007
e	Latest customer feedback (Residents Survey - Snapshot 22-23) (Under Separate Cover)	23/809614
f	Schedule of joint development briefings and meetings with Council - July to December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	23/1100129

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
12.	Audit and Risk Management Committee: Appointment of Independent Member	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the candidate's reputation	Following the conclusion of the independent member appointment process.

9. Richmond Neighbourhood Greenway Metropolitan Significance
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/938784
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Lisa-Maria Biggar, Junior Project Manager Transport lisa-maria.biggar@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

10. LTP 2024-34 - Setting the Scene
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/396393
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning and Performance, (peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)