Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 2 August 2023

Council

02 August 2023

Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace changes
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1058327
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer, Gemma.Dioni@ccc.govt.nz Tessa Zant, Manager Engagement, Tessa.Zant@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 to provide the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board with a summary of submissions received through the public engagement (survey) on extended changes to Park Terrace as part of the wider project to install safety improvements during the Canterbury Museum’s redevelopment along Rolleston Avenue. This report also provides an evaluation of the four-week trial period and an assessment of options for Park Terrace. Staff have analysed the results and make recommendations regarding the Temporary Traffic Management Plan (TTMP) for Rolleston Avenue and propose an alternative option for the changes to Park Terrace.

1.2 This report is intended to support the Community Board to deliberate on both the survey results and deputations, the evaluation of the trial period, and consider advice from staff on amendments to the changes to Park Terrace. The Community Board will then be in a good position to make recommendations to the Council regarding the changes.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined primarily by the high level of community interest in the changes to Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace. The public consultation outlined in this report and in the attachments reflect this assessment.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Considers the results of the public engagement process on the changes to Park Terrace (Attachment A), and in doing so hear any deputations.

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

2. Approves the changes to Rolleston Avenue (Attachment B) for a five year period, which is the expected duration of the Canterbury Museum redevelopment project, and will be given effect through a Temporary Traffic Management Plan;

3. Notes that the Temporary Traffic Management Plan for the changes to Rolleston Avenue is required to be reviewed on a 12-monthly basis.

4. Approves the changes to Park Terrace (Attachment C) for a further trial period of five years:

a. Retaining the changes to Park Terrace as implemented for the:

i. Two-way cycle way on-road

ii. Pedestrian refuge crossing north of Armagh Street between two-way cycleway and traffic lanes

iii. Speed cushions on southbound lane on approach to the crossing

iv. Removal of one northbound traffic lane

v. Reconfigured cycle / pedestrian crossing at Salisbury Street

b. Changing the layout at the bus stop opposite Peterborough Street to remove the in-lane bus stop and bus border arrangement, and replace it with an indented bus stop.

5. Notes that if the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will report back to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board with resolutions to change the bus stop resolution under the Community Board delegation.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommendations in this report fulfil a staff commitment to report back to the Community Board and Council on the results of public engagement on temporary changes to Park Terrace, which was open for feedback via a survey from 29 May to 11 June 2023. The recommendations also consider staff data analysis at the location and an independent report on options.

3.2 Concerns were raised regarding the changes to Park Terrace when the construction works (under a TTMP) commenced, therefore additional options have been considered and assessed by both staff and independent consultants. Taking into account this analysis, early stakeholder engagement and the public feedback received through the survey, staff recommend leaving the changes in place for a further five years, with an additional change of layout at the bus stop opposite Peterborough Street to remove the in-lane bus stop and bus border arrangement. This will instead be an indented bus stop.

3.3 Leaving the changes to Park Terrace in place with the change to an indented bus stop will address the safety concerns raised by the community around the bus stop being in the traffic lane. This will also improve the perceived delays from traffic exiting Kilmore Street.

3.4 The TTMP for the changes to Rolleston Avenue in the vicinity of the museum site is necessary for the museum redevelopment project. The redevelopment project is scheduled to be completed in approximately five years, therefore the TTMP needs to remain in place for this duration to ensure safety to all road users. For consistency across both Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace, staff also recommend that the changes to Park Terrace are in place for five years.

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki

4.1 In August 2022 the project team for Canterbury Museum’s multi‑million dollar redevelopment engaged with the Transport team on easements that were required to support the closure of the museum, and the reduced space available outside the museum on Rolleston Avenue due to construction requirements.

4.2 To enable the museum works, a number of changes were required for people travelling on Rolleston Avenue. This included moving cyclists on-road to help ease congestion on this busy shared path and to make it safer for all users. Safety concerns were also identified on Park Terrace, resulting in reducing one lane of traffic and adding a separate cycleway.

4.3 On 31 August 2022 staff informed both Elected Members and the Executive Leadership Team on the proposed project related to the section of Rolleston Avenue via memo (Attachment D). This was followed up with a further memo on 9 January 2023 (Attachment E), after staff had engaged with immediately affected stakeholders on Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace.

4.4 The Rolleston Avenue changes are given effect through a TTMP. The TTMP will need to be in place for the duration of the museum redevelopment project, which is expected to be approximately five years. The changes to Rolleston Avenue include:

· Moving cyclists from the existing shared path to a two-way on-road cycleway on the western side of Rolleston Avenue to reduce the demands on the remaining path width for pedestrian safety.

· Providing a new crossing point south of the museum as the existing zebra crossing will be closed and the pedestrian crossing markings will be removed.

· Traffic calming to support lower speeds in locations where there are lots of people travelling on many different modes.

· Relocating tour coaches from outside the museum and botanic gardens to the north side of Hereford Street. The current tour coach parking on Rolleston Avenue will be converted to parking spaces.

· Creating P3 school parking on the south side of Gloucester Street to increase the number of spaces available for pick-up and drop-off.

4.5 The proposed changes to Park Terrace included reducing northbound traffic to one lane and extending the cycleway to Salisbury Street and the bridge into Hagley Park, providing an opportunity to improve the crossing point on Park Terrace at Salisbury Street. Groups of school children have been observed crossing at this point where there are two lanes of northbound traffic travelling at speed making it difficult to judge a safe crossing opportunity. To save the Council time and money, low-cost materials were used to make improvements that could be implemented at the same time as the Rolleston Avenue works. Further detail on the changes to Park Terrace are included in Attachment G.

4.6 At its meeting on 14 March 2023 the Council was given an update on the proposed changes to Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace. It also approved parking restrictions on Gloucester Street and Hereford Street to support the changes on Rolleston Avenue. This report to Council included a summary of engagement with affected stakeholders, which was undertaken between December 2022 and January 2023.

4.7 The initial construction works for Park Terrace were given effect through the TTMP. However, when construction started on 17 April 2023, a northbound lane closure that was put in place to manage traffic during the works created additional delays for northbound journeys particularly on Montreal Street. This raised some concerns by Council.

4.8 On 16 May 2023 at a Council briefing outlining the proposed changes to Park Terrace, staff advised that it was preferable that the changes remain in place for approximately 10 weeks. This would allow time for a four-week trial period, community engagement, evaluation of the trial and an assessment of options for Park Terrace to occur. A survey was open from 29 May to 12 June 2023 to seek public views (further detail is included in the section on Community Views and Preferences below).

4.9 At the 7 June 2023 Council meeting, Notices of Motion were put forward to remove the changes to Park Terrace and clarify the delegations under which the TTMP was implemented. The Council did not pass these Notices of Motion. At this time, the survey was still open for public feedback, with results to be reported back to the Community Board and Council for formal approval of any changes. With the additional concern raised at Council, the Park Terrace work was put on hold until this public engagement period could be completed. Once the temporary traffic measures associated with the construction works were removed, the traffic flow evened out with the new layout.

5. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

5.1 During the design process staff identified safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists that extended from Rolleston Avenue through to the Park Terrace/Salisbury Street intersection. Some of these concerns have been previously reported by the public and captured in the Hybris Ticketing system and provided in Attachment F.

Engagement on the changes to Rolleston Ave and Park Terrace

5.2 From 2 September 2023 until 3 October 2023, the Council consulted on both temporary and permanent easements for the Canterbury Museum redevelopment and informed the public that the temporary easement would reduce the width of the well-used shared path on Rolleston Avenue.

5.3 The public were advised that if the museum easements were approved then a separate transport project would be trialled during the construction period to improve the safety of people travelling along Rolleston Avenue through to Park Terrace, particularly for those who walk, scoot and cycle.

5.4 Following the Council’s decision to grant the museum temporary easements (for up to 5 years)^{^[1]}, staff engaged with stakeholders from 8 December 2023 to 2 March 2023 on the changes to Rolleston Ave and Park Terrace.

5.5 Before work started in April 2023, the Council staff delivered a start work notice to all businesses, residents and stakeholders along Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace up to and including Salisbury Street at the Park Terrace end, an email was sent to a wide range of local stakeholders and advocacy groups and the contractor undertook further face-to-face communications with the schools and other businesses.

5.6 On 13 April 2023, a Newsline story was published informing the public that work would commence after the Christchurch Marathon on 17 April 2023.

5.7 At the 16 May 2023 briefing to Council, the Victoria Neighbourhood Association and Victoria Street Business Precinct were suggested as a potential additional party to engage with. A further email was sent to these parties, inviting them to a meeting with staff. This offer was not taken up.

Consultation on the Park Terrace Changes

5.8 In accordance with section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a road user survey was set up to understand how the trial changes to Park Terrace had affected user journeys across all travel modes.

5.9 The survey opened on 29 May 2023 and remained online until 12 June 2023. It was publicised via email to a wide range of central city stakeholder and advocacy groups as well as through social media posts.

5.10 The survey asked users the following:

· What part of the city they live in;

· How they most often travelled when using park Terrace;

· How the change shad affected their journey;

· Left space for them to leave a comment.

5.11 The survey received 4,102 responses – a significantly higher response rate than the usual engagement surveys. Of the respondents 2032 (50%) were car drivers, 1334 (33%) were cyclists, 419 (10%) were walkers and the remaining 319 respondents were either passengers in cars, motorbike or scooter users, or used a combination of transport modes.

How have the recent changes on Park Terrace affected your journey?
	Car driver	Car passenger	Walk	Cycle	Scooter	Motor bike	Other
There’s been no change	303 (15%)	24 (20%)	32 (8%)	43 (3%)	2 (5%)	2 (14%)	7 (5%)
They've made it better	216 (11%)	14 (11%)	263 (63%)	1178 (88%)	26 (62%)	2 (14%)	42 (30%)
They've made it worse	1484 (73%)	81 (66%)	107 (26%)	86 (6%)	12 (29%)	10 (71%)	82 (59%)
Not sure / don't know	29 (1%)	4 (3%)	17 (4%)	27 (2%)	2 (5%)	0	7 (5%)
	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

5.12 The responses to the survey were roughly split over how the changes to Park Terrace had impacted people’s journeys. Car drivers and passengers were more likely to feel the changes have negatively impacted their journey and cyclists wore more likely to say the changes have positively impacted their journey.

5.13 A full breakdown and analysis of the results are provided in Attachment A.

6. Monitoring and evaluation

6.1 As part of the four-week trial period for the changes to Park Terrace, staff monitored the traffic and impacts on the affected part of the network. An independent analysis has been completed by consultants of all the data collected regarding Park Terrace. The QTP review is provided in Attachment H, and the findings are summarised in this section.

6.2 Part of the process to identify the safety concerns associated with the Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace included collecting traffic count and speed data during February 2023 prior to the work being implemented (in summertime). Further data was collected in June 2023 following implementation (in wintertime). The tables below show volumes and speed data:

	Park Terrace (50km/h) Feb 23		Park Terrace (50km/h) Jun 23
Volume& speeds	Northbound	Southbound	Northbound	southbound
Volume (7-day average)	10,450	5,170	9,137	4,527
Mean speed	52.4 km/h	54 km/h	45.8 km/h	42 km/h
85%ile speed	58.0 km/h	44.9 km/h	51 km/h	51 km/h
% of drivers travelling over the speed limit	63.4%	31.5%	18.7%	16.8%

	Rolleston Ave (30km/h) Feb 23		Rolleston Ave (30km/h) Jun 23
Volume& speeds	Northbound	Southbound	Northbound	southbound
Volume (7-day average)	3,247	3,979	2,251	3,134
Mean speed	32.3 km/h	33.6 km/h	26.3 km/h	25.5 km/h
85%ile speed	40.0 km/h	40 km/h	31.9 km/h	31.9 km/h
% of drivers travelling over the speed limit	64.6%%	73.1%	23.1%	22.5%

6.3 The speed data in the table above shows that speeding was an issue on Park Terrace prior to the implementation of the changes with over 60% of northbound vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit of 50km/h. Regardless of the cause of a crash, speed is the difference between someone being able to walk away relatively unharmed or being seriously injured or killed. Reducing the operating speed vehicles travel on the network, creates safer outcomes for our communities.

6.4 Throughout the four-week trial period for the change to Park Terrace, Council staff also collected data on:

· Travel time data for general traffic on routes potentially affected by the works from Traffic Watcher.

· Traffic signal SCATS data for the Kilmore/Park intersection.

· Traffic counts undertaken at Armagh/Park, Kilmore/Park and Park/Salisbury intersection.

· Traffic queue counts for Kilmore Street approach to Park Terrace

· Cycle tube counts on Park Terrace and in the cycleway.

· Bus boarding numbers and journey times between two bus stops to understand dwell times and associated impacts of bus boarders in the main traffic lane.

6.5 This data and a summary of the changes to Park Terrace are included in Attachment G.

General traffic travel times

6.6 QTP found that when comparing data from May 2022 and May 2023, additional travel time delay is most likely to be from changes in demand related to wider Central City changes during this period, rather than the changes to Park Terrace. Inspection of both TomTom link probe samples and SCATS loop counts confirms apparent substantial reassignment of Northbound traffic from Park Terrace south of Kilmore Street, both to Kilmore Street (and consequently Park Terrace), but also to alternative routes including Victoria Street and Montreal Street. Further investigations could have been undertaken using data from earlier in 2023 prior to the implementation of the changes but would likely be affected by seasonal variation.

6.7 The origin and destination of vehicle users of Park Terrace north of Kilmore Street for northbound journeys are shown below. The average trip length of this is 5.6 kilometres. Further analysis shows that 56% of northbound users have origins on Kilmore Street, 61% of northbound users have destinations via Harper Avenue.

Origin and destination data showing where vehicles have originated (data source: TomTom).

6.8 The TomTom data daily-average total trip time for the average journey of 5.6km:

Before changes	10.4 minutes
After changes	+ 9.8 seconds
Percentage change	+1.6%

6.9 The data suggests an increase in delays in the month following implementation (compared to the previous year), the bulk of the above changes clearly appear to result primarily from wider changes, given the net increase of traffic on the network. For example, there is also increased overall demand to the north of Salisbury Street.

6.10 The delay analysis above does not take into account traffic signal control changes introduced on 8 June 2023 to mitigate delays, as part of on-going operational optimisation. Therefore, the delays on Kilmore Street (using May 2023 analysis) are likely to be over-stated, compared to post-8 June performance. Transport staff will continue to monitor for delays and make further changes to the traffic signal phasing if appropriate.

6.11 While the Park Terrace northbound approach has also dropped from two approach lanes to a single lane, maximum queue lengths are typically 10 vehicles (50m) or less and always clear within a single traffic signal cycle.

General traffic – Kilmore Street approach

6.12 On Kilmore Street, queues that were previously spread over two traffic lanes are now combined into a single lane. Additionally, the loss of a lane has reduced capacity for this movement from 1,230 to 640 vehicles per hour. However, prior to the changes, peak vehicle demand for this movement was 693 (during the evening peak hour) which equates to only 56% of the available capacity available at the time (so any excess capacity was not being utilised).

6.13 With the changes, the amount of traffic making the right turn has changed only slightly (to 606, a reduction of 87 or 12%). So, the movement is now operating close to its capacity during the busiest parts of the day (peaks of the peak periods), but well within capacity at other times.

6.14 Up to a maximum of 14 vehicles should be able to make the right turn every signal cycle (the signals can be adapted to balance queues and apportion time where required). The post‑implementation queuing data shows that average queues lengths are:

· 5 vehicles during the morning peak period

· 3 vehicles during the inter-peak period

· 8 vehicles during the evening peak period.

6.15 The absolute maximum observed queue length was 16 vehicles. Queues formed only very occasionally, with the greatest number of queues being during the mid-afternoon (between 3:45pm and 4:00pm), when 11 instances were observed. In these instances where the queue length exceeds the maximum throughput of 14 vehicles per green light, then the remaining one or two vehicles had to wait for the next green light. This means that out of the 3,389 vehicles that made the right turn per day, only around 50 (or 1.5%) did not get through in a single green phase and therefore experienced additional delay (typically around 30 seconds).

6.16 As noted above, the traffic signal timings at this intersection were altered on 8 June 2023 to provide more green time to Kilmore Street during the PM peak period. Therefore, for this period, the observed Kilmore Street queues on the survey date of 30 May 2023 are likely to over-state the current (post 8 June) queues.

In-lane bus stop

6.17 QTP also analysed data provided by Environment Canterbury in regard to the bus route and stop. Data relating to northbound weekday observed bus boardings between 1 May and 13 June 2023 at the stop near Peterborough Street are summarised below by period:

Period	Average number of boarding	Maximum number observed boarding
morning peak period (0700-0900)	0.6 per day	2
inter-peak period (0900-1600)	4.4 per day	6
evening peak period (1600-1800)	3.6 per day	7

6.18 Based on the time it takes these passengers to board, then the duration the bus is stopped is summarised below:

Period	Average stopping time (seconds)	Maximum stopping time (seconds)	Bus being stopped for an average total	Probability of a motorist being delayed by a bus stopping
morning peak (0700-0900)	6	13	18 seconds out of 7,200 seconds	0.2%
inter-peak (0900-1600)	6	29	83 seconds out of 25,200 seconds	0.3%
evening peak (1600-1800)	9	33	34 seconds out of 7,200 seconds	0.5%

6.19 QTP concluded that the very low probability and relatively small effect of motorists being delayed by bus boardings occurring in the traffic lane results in an impact that is less than that of a typical pedestrian crossing or signalised intersection.

Cycle numbers post-implementation

6.20 In addition to the Council tube counts, QTP provided information from the Strava application. They provided the following commentary:

· Strava only measures the routes of users of the application (who tend to be the keener cyclists). Comparing to Smart Counters (which count 100% of trips), typical sample rates from Strava are currently around 5.8% of all cyclists in this area. But if the sample is expanded, it can provide an estimate of the (changes) in daily cycle demand, on a link-by-link basis.

· North of the Antigua Bridge, daily cycle use rose from around 1,300/day (May 2022) to around 1,450/day in May 2023.

· Over the Armagh Bridge, daily cycle use remained broadly static, at around 1,250/day between May 2022 and May 2023.

· South of Armagh St however, total cycle use is estimated to have risen from 1,320 to 1,450/day, or +10%.

· North of Armagh Street, total cycle use (including via the parallel path inside Hagley Park) is estimated to have risen from 640 to 810/day, or +26% in the year between May 2022 and May 2023 (the month after the scheme was implemented).

6.21 Council staff reviewed the cycle tube count data from June 2023. When compared to the user numbers and speeds on the shared path, this data also shows that there has been an increase in the number of people riding along Rolleston Avenue (excluding people who rode on the carriageway).

6.22 The tube count data shows that people riding bicycles in the separated cycleway are travelling at speeds, that if mixed again with people walking, could make it feel quite uncomfortable, particularly for more vulnerable pedestrians (elderly, mobility impaired, people with visual and hearing impairments, neurodivergent citizens).

Rolleston Avenue (Worcester to Gloucester – Jun 2023)

5 Day Average			7 Day Average			85%ile Speed		Mean Speed
North	South	Both	North	South	Both	North	South	North	South
976.0	1,079.0	2,055.0	805.0	863.0	1,668.0	25.9	26.6	21.9	22.4

6.23 The highest number of people riding on the cycleway on Rolleston Avenue between Worcester Street and Gloucester Street was 2242 over a 24-hour period on Wednesday 14 June 2023, with 2054 trips between 7am and 7pm.

Park Terrace (Kilmore to Peterborough – Jun 2023)

5 Day Average			7 Day Average			85%ile Speed		Mean Speed
North	South	Both	North	South	Both	North	South	North	South
353.0	237.0	590.0	300.0	192.0	492.0	27.9	26.3	23.2	22.0

6.24 The highest number of people riding on the cycleway on Park Terrace between Kilmore Street and Peterborough Street was 642 over a 24-hour period on Wednesday 14 June 2023, with 591 trips between 7am and 7pm.

6.25 An intersection count was undertaken at the Armagh/Rolleston/Park to understand the number of people walking and cycling at this location. There were 652 people walking and cycling through this intersection between 0800-0900 hours, with 370 users turning from the Hagley Park entrance and heading south to Rolleston Avenue. This was similar in the evening peak period between 5pm and 6pm, which was the busiest time when 510 users were counted at the intersection and the highest demand movement was the left turn from Rolleston Avenue into the park.

7. Preferred option for Park Terrace

7.1 Seven options have been considered for the Park Terrace section between Armagh Street and Salisbury Street). An independent design review of the options has been completed by consultants, Abley. This review also considered the alignment with strategic transport direction, user comfort and perception of safety and alignment with best practice guidance. The Abley report is provided in Attachment I.

7.2 All options include completing the works on Salisbury Street at Park Terrace that were not completed when the project was put on hold. This is because people walking and travelling south along Park Terrace have little to no visibility when crossing the exit lane into Salisbury Street from the north.

7.3 The options considered are listed in the table below. Cost estimates have been completed for construction costs and traffic management required for implementation only. The estimates exclude any design time, contract management, and environmental management/tree protection plans. These are estimates only and have not been priced by a contractor. The plans are provided in Attachment J.

Option	Design	Cost estimates
Option 1 (currently implemented)	Retain the changes to Park Terrace as implemented: · Two-way cycle way on-road. · Pedestrian refuge crossing north of Armagh Street between two-way cycleway and traffic lanes. · Speed cushions on southbound lane on approach to the crossing. · Removal of one northbound traffic lane. · Reconfigured cycle / pedestrian crossing at Salisbury Street	$60,000 (the remainder of the work to be completed after the project was put on hold)
Option 2 (preferred option)	Option 2 is the same as retaining what has been implemented aside from a change of layout at the bus stop opposite Peterborough Street to remove the in-lane bus stop and bus border arrangement.	$150,000
Option 3	Terminates the separated two-way cycling facility at the Peterborough Street bus stop and directs people on bicycles onto the existing shared path. This option reintroduces two lanes north of Kilmore Street by converting the flush median to a northbound traffic lane.	$150,000
Option 4	Terminates the separated two-way cycling facility at the 30/50 km/h speed limit boundary just south of Kilmore Street and directs people on bicycles onto the existing shared path. All works are removed north of Kilmore Street.	$145,000
Option 5	Option 5 is the same as Option 4 south of Kilmore Street. North of Kilmore Street, the existing shared path is widened, and a raised signalised crossing is introduced at the Salisbury Street intersection.	$575,000
Option 6	Option 6 removes the two-way cycle facility back to the Armagh Street entrance and people on bicycles are directed on to the existing shared path.	$165,000
Option 7	Option 7 is generally the same as Option 6 however, the existing shared pathway is widened through to Salisbury Street to 3.5 metres.[2] As per Option 5 a raised signalised crossing is introduced at Salisbury Street.	$710,000

7.4 In summary the Abley review concluded:

7.4.1 The option assessment undertaken in this review has considered a range of matters. The options that include use of the shared path for all or part of Park Terrace, even if widened slightly, raise safety, user comfort and best practice design concerns. They also do not align well with the intent of An Accessible City as they retain road space for car travel when the route is intended to prioritise public transport, walking and cycling.

7.4.2 If the shared path options included a 4m shared path this would go some way to alleviate the concerns raised around the shared path option. However, a 4m width may be unachievable at this location due to the riverbank and existing lamp posts.

7.4.3 The options that retain two northbound traffic lanes without pedestrian/cycle crossing priority at Salisbury Street also raise safety and accessibility concerns. Option 1 and 2 provide the best alignment with the matters considered.

7.4.4 Option 2 changes the bus stop opposite The George to be indented rather than functioning as an in-line stop (bus boarder) as it does in Option 1. This will help alleviate current delay concerns from some road users but does not align with the intent of An Accessible City that this street provides public transport priority.

7.4.5 Overall, Options 1 and 2 provide the best alignment with safety, accessibility outcomes and design guidance. They also deliver on the intent of An Accessible City.

7.5 Advice was sought from the Council's Environmental Planner on any implications for completing work alongside the Ōtākaro Avon River. Any works alongside the river, will require:

7.5.1 Environmental Management Plan

7.5.2 Tree Protection Management Plan and arborist supervision (CSS, Part 1 Section 22.3 / District Plan section 9.4.) for works occurring within the Protection Zones of existing trees and works within the dripline / Protection Zone of existing trees.

7.6 Having considered the results of the public survey and the review of data by QTP, along with the Abley recommendations, Council staff determine that the preferred option is Option 2: retaining what has been implemented at Park Terrace with a change of layout at the bus stop opposite Peterborough Street to remove the in-lane bus stop and bus border arrangement. Under this option, the bus stop will be changed to an indented bus bay. The two-way cycleway will then be moved closer to the river and some new footpath will be required.

8. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Rolleston Avenue

8.1 An alternative to a TTMP would be to consider permanent changes to the area. If the changes were made permanent there would be no ongoing TTMP monitoring or renewal costs, and any replacement costs become part of the maintenance contract. However, as the TTMP is related to the museum redevelopment project, it is preferable to keep the TTMP in place. The TTMP is required to be renewed every 12 months, therefore there is an opportunity to assess the safety issues annually.

8.2 Another alternative for Rolleston Ave could be to implement the TTMP using alternative materials. This would involve removing the black bollards and to implement standard orange temporary traffic management such as cones and barriers that would require daily checks by the Site Traffic Management Supervisor. This is a more labour-intensive approach at a higher cost to Council, therefore, it is not recommended.

Park Terrace

8.3 Seven alternative options for Park Terrace are discussed above in section.

8.4 If the Community Board do not agree with the preferred option recommended in this report, there will be additional considerations for options where the SCAPE Solidarity Grid is affected:

8.4.1 Streetlamps from 21 cities around the globe were gifted to Christchurch as a gesture of solidarity with the city during the recovery and rebuild process. The installation is known as Solidarity Grid. The streetlamps installed along Park Terrace have been located on both sides of the existing path.

8.4.2 Options that widen the existing shared path (Options 5 and 7) towards the kerb could result in the columns being within the pathway. While the Abley review suggested a 4m wide path, only a 3.5m path has been considered to minimise the effect on the Scape artwork. Changes to the streetlamps would be an additional cost to the estimates below.

9. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

9.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, including, enabling active and connected communities, and meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available.

9.2 An Accessible City is the strategic document for guiding transport choices in the Central City. This guide identifies Park Terrace as a street that should prioritise active transport with a local access function for vehicle traffic.

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

9.4 Transport

9.4.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=36% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

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

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.39 Increase the numbers of people cycling into the central city - >=1,900 cyclists

· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - >=85% resident satisfaction

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

9.5 The changes made to Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:

9.5.1 The changes made align with road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).

9.5.2 The changes made align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change Impact Considerations section below.

9.6 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. Increasing the safety and accessibility of our footpaths, shared paths, cycle lanes and cycle paths, and encouraging active modes of transport is one of several focus areas to achieve this.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

9.7 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.

9.8 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.

9.9 Mana whenua have interests in the Avon Otakaro River. For any minor work alongside the river there is no statutory requirement for consultation. For any more significant works than what has been implemented, additional consultation with mana whenua should be undertaken.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

9.10 The decisions in this report are likely to:

9.10.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

9.10.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

9.11 The Rolleston Avenue changes and the Park Terrace changes, include a bi-directional cycle path installed on the west side of the street, which will have a net positive impact for the climate by helping to reduce transport emissions.

9.12 Cycleways are a key part of council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low emission way for residents to move around the city. Removing the cycleway would make it more difficult to achieve the district’s greenhouse gas emissions targets and would be inconsistent with the goals of the council’s climate strategy.

9.13 As the cycleway has only been open for a short time, it would be difficult to accurately estimate total emissions reduction as a result of the cycleway’s utilisation. The QTP report noted that any increases in traffic delays, or associated increase in emissions from the wider area were unlikely to be caused by the cycleway itself - ‘most of the change in delays in the vicinity of the cycleway are likely to be related to wider Central City changes rather than brought about by the scheme’.

9.14 The Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace shared paths had a broad variety of users travelling at a range of speeds: recreational walkers, people visiting the botanic gardens, hospital, school children, festival-goers, local residents and central city commuters. This creates conflicts and discomfort, and so staff consider that providing a separate path for higher speed cyclists is considered beneficial in this location as part of the wider safety considerations with the museum redevelopment project.

9.15 The National Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) states we will have to ‘substantially improve infrastructure for walking and cycling’ to meet our emissions targets (including a 20% reduction in light Vehicle Kilometres Travelled by 2035 - required under the ERP). Improving the quality of cycling infrastructure is also a key part of the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi’s efforts to decarbonise the transport system, so removing or reducing the quality of the cycleway would seem inconsistent with national direction.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

9.16 This proposal improves accessibility for people walking and cycling, by providing a safer means of accessing and using our street network. The delays for vehicular traffic have been mitigated by traffic signal changes.

10. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

10.1 Cost to Implement the Rolleston Ave TTMP and the Park Terrace Changes – $550,000 (already incurred). There is an additional cost of $150,000 to complete the works at Salisbury Street/ Park Terrace to improve the safety of people walking who currently have little to no visibility to the north when crossing the slip lane, and make the recommended changes to the bus stop.

10.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs –Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.

10.3 Funding Source – Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.

Other He mea anō

10.4 None identified.

11. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

11.1 The statutory powers to undertake the proposals in this report are as follows:

11.1.1 Section 342 of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74), which provides that the Council may, in the manner set out in Schedule 10, stop any road in the district or:

(b) Close any road to traffic or any specified type of traffic (including pedestrian traffic) on a temporary basis in accordance with that Schedule and impose or permit the imposition charges as provided for in that Schedule 10

11.1.2 Clause 11 of Schedule 10 of the LGA74, which provides:

11 The Council may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit (including the imposition of a reasonable bond), and after consultation with the Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency, close any road or part of a road to all traffic or any specified type of traffic (including pedestrian traffic)—

(a) while the road, or any drain, water race, pipe, or apparatus under, upon, or over the road is being constructed or repaired; or

(b) where, in order to resolve problems associated with traffic operations on a road network, experimental diversions of traffic are required; or

(d) when for any reason it is considered desirable that traffic should be temporarily diverted to other roads;

11.2 The Council has delegated these powers to the Chief Executive, who has in turn delegated them to staff. Staff exercised the power sub-delegated to them in clause 11(b) of Schedule 10.

11.3 The recommendations in this report would see the Community Board recommend that the Council approves the staff exercise of this sub-delegation. The recommendations in this report would see the Community Board recommend that the Council approves the staff exercise of this sub-delegation. Whilst an approval of this kind is not a legislative requirement, it is desirable to confirm the Council's position on these works/trial/changes due to the heightened public interest.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

11.4 Other legal implications include ensuring good and consistent decision making. As part of its decision on this report, the Community Board must take into account the following relevant considerations:

11.4.1 the evaluation of the four-week trial;

11.4.2 the assessment of options;

11.4.3 the results of the public engagement and deputations received on the proposed changes in accordance with section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002;

11.4.4 climate impact in accordance with section 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (which provides that consideration of the climate impact, specifically the national net zero target, emissions budgets, or emissions reduction plan, may be taken into account).

12. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

12.1 The museum redevelopment is a five-year project of significant construction. Clear access is required to ensure the project can meet deadlines. The TTMP for the changes to Rolleston Avenue needs to align with the museum redevelopment project or the project could be at risk of delays. TTMPs are required to be reviewed on a 12-monthly basis, therefore, there is opportunity for the Council to review the safety of all road users on a regular basis.

12.2 If the changes to Park Terrace are removed or substantially altered, the Council would not be addressing the known road safety concerns in that area. This could be a reputational risk to the Council as it would be contrary to the Council’s road safety and climate goals. There has also already been a substantial amount of monetary investment in the works. The analysis of the survey results, the review of the four-week trial period and the independent assessment of options support the continuation of the changes to Park Terrace for five years (to align with the museum redevelopment project and temporary Rolleston Avenue changes).

12.3 Transport staff will continue to monitor the network and address any arising issues over the five year period. A review of these temporary changes will be undertaken before any further decisions are made.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Summary of survey results	23/1067595
b	Rolleston Avenue - For Approval Plan	23/1001002
c	Park Terrace - For Approval Plan	23/1047987
d	Memo to Councillors and ELT (August 2022)	22/1173654
e	Memo to Councillors and ELT (January 2023)	22/1644122
f	Community views - Hybris tickets	23/1008076
g	Park Tce - Background information to support the design	23/1066357
h	QTP report - independent analysis	23/1008912
i	Abley report - independent options analysis	23/1001024
j	Alternative options for Park Tce Plans	23/1001057

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

Sophie Meares - Senior Legal Counsel

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

02 August 2023

10. Organics Processing Plant - revocation of previous decision
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/973567
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste
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 This report recommends that Council revokes the Finance and Performance Committee resolutions of 28 April 2022 and 26 May 2022 for the Organics Processing Plant (OPP) to continue operating at the current site in Bromley with current process controls in place until an alternative facility, or redevelopment of the current site, is operational.

1.2 The Committee made that decision based on advice that operational improvements at the OPP would adequately reduce risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary for that period. However, assessments between January and May 2023, have determined that the odour risk remains.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. While there is high interest in the OPP decisions from the community, in particular Bromley residents who are negatively affected by the odour from the OPP, the level of significance for this report was determined to be low as it is a procedural decision which will enable the Council to explore alternative interim options for the composting facility.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Revokes the below resolution of the Finance and Performance Committee on 28 April 2022 (FPCO/2022/00019):

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

2. Revokes the below resolution of the Finance and Performance Committee on 26 May 2022 (FPCO/2022/00043):

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 At the 21 June 2023 Council meeting (item 5), the Council considered a report on proposed interim options for processing the Council's kerbside organics that could be quickly implemented while the long term solution is being developed. The Council resolved that its preference is to end the current composting activity at the OPP as soon as practicable, noting that offensive and objectionable odour has still occurred beyond the boundary of the site. Therefore the April and May 2022 resolutions discussed in this report are no longer appropriate as the Council is investigating other solutions. The Council requested that staff consider and report back to the Council by 2 August 2023 on a recommendation to revoke the Finance and Performance Committee resolutions of 28 April 2022 and 26 May 2022.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Council could choose not to revoke these 2022 resolutions. This option is not preferred as the Council resolutions at its meeting on 21 June 2023 are to seek alternative solutions, rather than continuing with the approach in these 2022 resolutions.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1 The existing OPP site receives all of the Council’s kerbside collected garden waste and food organics -approximately 55,000 tonnes pa, plus 5,000 tonnes pa from the Waimakariri District Council. The Council-owned facility is managed by Living Earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.7 This shows that the operational improvements have not removed the risk of there being offensive and objectionable odour beyond the site boundary to a reasonable level. The April and May 2023 incidents show that there is still more work to do, and other options for addressing the odour should be considered as an interim and temporary solution while the long-term solution is developed.

5.8 On 21 June 2023, the Council resolved to engage with the community and mana whenua on the following options for interim and temporary measures until a new-long term facility is operational:

5.8.1 Continue composting at the OPP with operational improvements; or

5.8.2 Send some or all mixed kerbside organics to an alternative, or several alternative, composting and worm farm facilities if and when they have all necessary regulatory approvals; or

5.8.3 Send some or all mixed kerbside organics to Kate Valley landfill, if and when Kate Valley has all necessary regulatory approvals.

5.9 The Council also resolved on 21 June to request staff to consider and report back to Council by 2 August 2023 on immediate options to reduce offensive and objectionable odours from the OPP site. That is being addressed in a separate report.

5.10 As the resolutions of 21 June 2023 change the approach resolved by Council in the April and May 2022 resolutions, it is appropriate to revoke those 2022 resolutions.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

6.2.1 Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

· Level of Service: 8.2.5 Consent compliance for operation of Council's Organics Processing Plant - No major or persistent breaches of consents

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 If Council agrees to revoke the two Finance and Performance Committee resolutions this report recommends, then this report is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including:

6.3.1 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP 2020)

6.3.2 Kia tūroa tea o, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021

6.4 It is also consistent with Te panoni I te hangarua Transforming Recycling, the Ministry for the Environment’s proposal to improve New Zealand’s recycling.

6.5 It should be noted however, that any decision on interim and temporary measures until a new-long term facility is operational after consultation has occurred will likely have significant impacts on Council’s Plans and Policies. These inconsistencies will be considered in the analysis of proposed options for consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 The decision is this report is procedural and does not require separate engagement for this process. The Council will be engaging mana whenua throughout the consultation process to ensure that we have an understanding of matters related to the interim and long term management of kerbside organics that are of importance to mana whenua.

6.7 This procedural decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore it does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions, nor our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

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 This is because the decision to revoke the prior resolutions will not itself impact on emissions. It should be noted however, that any decision on future options for the OPP after consultation has occurred will likely have significant climate impacts, and those should be considered when determining the preferred option.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10 The recommendations in this report are procedural and do not raise any accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 There is no cost associated with the revocation of the Committee’s resolutions.

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 statutory power to make and revoke resolutions.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There are no other legal implications of this decision to revoke a previous resolution.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 If the Council does not agree to the recommendations in this report, there is an inconsistency in the Council’s resolutions of April/May 2022 and 21 June 2023.

9.2 The current Council process of investigating and engaging on options in addition to continuing the current activity at the OPP, leading to a decision in December, creates uncertainty regarding contractual arrangements when the current contract with Living Earth ends in January 2024. The Council’s contractual and procurement officers will be addressing that risk.

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

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

David McArdle - Contracts Supervisor

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

02 August 2023

11. Organics Processing Plant - Immediate Odour Risk Reduction
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1107626
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	David McArdle, Contract Supervisor – Organics, Resource Recovery, Transport & Waste Management (David.McArdle@cccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Information Update and Report Origin

1.1 This report further explores interim options for management of the current Organics Processing Plant site in Bromley (OPP) until an alternative facility to the OPP is operational which is expected to be in 2027-2029. Addressing resolutions from 21 June 2023 report to Council on interim kerbside organics management options.

1.2 The Council resolved that its preference is to end the current composting activity at the Bromley site as soon as practicable. They also asked staff to report back, by 02 August 2023, on ceasing the use of compost at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWWTP), options to reduce the risk of offensive or objectionable odour from the existing site and options for providing support and/or relief to affected households.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Organics Processing Plant – Immediate Odour Risk Reduction Report.

2. Note that additional time is needed to determine appropriate options for providing support and/or relief to affected households and that staff will report back in December 2023.

3. Brief Summary

3.1 In April 2022 and in May 2022 the Council resolved to continue composting at the current Organics Processing Plant site in Bromley (OPP) until an alternative facility, or redevelopment of the current one, is operating. That was based on advice that operational improvements at the OPP would adequately reduce risk of offensive and objectionable odours beyond the boundary for that period. However, the odour risk remains. Offensive and objectionable odours have been assessed in January to May.

3.2 On 21 March 2023 the Mayor and councillors asked staff to advise whether there are other interim options for processing the Council's kerbside organics that can be quickly implemented while the long term solution is being developed.

3.3 On 21 June 2023 (item 5), the Council considered a staff report on interim kerbside organics management options. The Council resolved that its preference is to end the current composting activity at the Bromley site as soon as practicable, noting that offensive and objectionable odour has still occurred beyond the boundary of the site.

3.4 The Council also resolved to engage with the community and mana whenua seeking views on the below shortlisted options, which staff had identified as most feasible to implement at the earliest opportunity:

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

3.4.2 Send all kerbside organics to Kate Valley Landfill, if they Kate Valley has all necessary regulatory approvals; or

3.4.3 Continue composting at the OPP with operational improvements.

3.5 The Council requested that in the meantime, staff investigate and report back on:

3.5.1 A date by which the use of the compost from the OPP at the Wastewater Treatment Plant can cease; and

3.5.2 Options that can be immediately implemented to reduce the risk of offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site.

3.5.3 Options for providing support and/or relief to those households directly impacted by any offensive and objectionable odours from the OPP.

3.6 Since January 2021 independent external environmental specialist Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) has been contracted by the Council to assess and provide guidance on odour, at and around the Organics Processing Plant. They have also looked at odour control measures at the Plant and their effectiveness. To minimise the risk of odour PDP have previously recommended to;

3.6.1 Eliminate outdoor screening of material;

3.6.2 Minimise the amount of material stored outside;

3.6.3 Minimise the amount of compost awaiting screening so the volume doesn’t exceed processing capacity.

The activities that will be undertaken to address these risks are discussed in Section 5 of this report.

4. Ceasing use of compost at the Wastewater Treatment Plant

4.1 Compost from the OPP has been used at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to improve soil health for mass planting of native plants and trees since May 2021. The purpose of the planting is: to ease the midge problem in the area by providing a natural barrier between the oxidation ponds and the residential area; reduce carbon emissions; improve biodiversity; and provide an important habitat for native birds.

4.2 On 26 June 2023 the Council gave Living Earth notice that the Council would no longer use the OPP compost for that purpose. The Council ceased accepting compost from the OPP at the Wastewater Treatment Plant on 30 June 2023.

4.3 Fulton Hogan, the Council’s contractor, spent the following week spreading the remaining compost stockpiles on the Dyers Road hardstand. Final clean-up of plant and removal of machinery from the site was completed by mid-July 2023.

4.4 As a result of the Council not accepting the compost at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, there is a risk of increased odour from the OPP, as Living Earth could now temporarily store more compost outdoors at the OPP. Council staff are working closely with Living Earth to ensure that this does not occur. Living Earth is continuing to establish further end markets for all of the compost.

4.5 In order to minimise the outdoor storage of compost at the OPP, Living Earth is actively seeking:

4.5.1 Offsite storage for excess compost that cannot go directly to end markets. This activity does not require a resource consent; and/or

4.5.2 An offsite location to screen compost. This activity would require a variation to an existing resource consent if one were held or a new resource consent if one is not yet held.

4.6 Living Earth has identified potential sites for both activities. Staff have expressed a preference to Living Earth not to use Council-owned land.

4.7 Additionally, the Council’s Resource Recovery team are discussing options with the Parks Unit for supplying compost for Parks’ planting work programmes.

5. Immediate actions taken to reduce offensive and objectionable odours

5.1 Living Earth has made significant changes to site operations since March 2020, in co-operation with requests by Council staff. The report to Council on 21 June 2023 outlined the key changes since May 2022 that were underway or completed. From these improvements, there are two changes which are still ongoing:

5.1.1 Removal of tailings from the site that are surplus to operational requirements. Since recommencing this programme of work in February 4,075 tonnes of tailings have been removed site and 432 tonnes remain on site. This work is ongoing; and

5.1.2 Replacing tunnel boards to improve airflow to ensure optimum composting during the “In-Vessel Composting” tunnel phase. Expected to be completed October 2023.

5.2 Since 21 June 2023, Living Earth and Council staff have also implemented the following improvements:

5.2.1 Living Earth has obtained its AssureQuality re-certification following the operational changes made under the Transitional Plan i.e. removing the windrows and outdoor maturation. This allows Living Earth to supply certified compost to the market directly from the tunnel after it is screened. Previously certification was granted when the operation included outdoor maturation in windrows. This product is not as mature as pre-Transitional Plan but Living Earth are rebuilding and expanding the market for the current product.

From an odour risk perspective, the re-certification opens further markets which will contribute towards minimising the compost temporarily stored on site after screening.

5.2.2 Once the new biofilter media settles in the recently refurbished biofilter and microbe growth fully returns, which takes six weeks, a final load of biofilter media is scheduled for delivery at the end of July 2023. Following this, as requested at the 16 May 2023 Community Liaison Group meeting, an independent review of the operation of the new biofilter has been scheduled.

5.2.3 Refurbishment of the biofilter tank between May and July 2023. During the removal of the old biofilter, sludge was unintentionally washed into the biofilter tank. This increased the water level, decreased tank headspace, created back pressure and impacted air flow through the biofilter.

5.2.4 Two replacement tunnel doors have been ordered. The seals on the new tunnel doors will reduce fugitive processing odours which enter the processing hall from the tunnels and is expected to be completed by mid-October 2023.

5.3 Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) have been engaged to identify further immediate actions that can be taken to reduce offensive and objectionable odour. When PDP have completed this piece of work, staff will consider the results and work with Living Earth to address any immediate actions.

5.4 PDP will also further investigate the option to continue composting at the OPP with operational improvement and three sub options proposed in the 21 June report to Council:

5.4.1 Purchasing a second screen.

5.4.2 Reducing the quantity of material going to the OPP.

5.4.3 Partial (indoors) processing at the OPP and then transport to another site for the second stage of maturation and screening.

5.5 Living Earth have created a Seasonal Management Plan to address the enforcement action at the start of the year. The objective of the Seasonal Management Plan is to minimise the volume of material being temporarily stored outside. The document details trigger levels for the different input material (unscreened compost, screened compost and tailings) and mitigations to enact at those levels.

5.6 Living Earth are financing all of the immediate actions taken above through a combination of OPEX and CAPEX.

6. Options for providing support and/or relief to households affected by the odours

6.1 Analysis is being undertaken to determine if offensive or objectionable odours are present beyond the Living Earth site boundary. This will assist the Council to identify households that are directly impacted.

6.2 The work underway to consider options for the interim and permanent solutions for the OPP will provide additional information, for example the duration for any proposed relief package. Therefore, more time is required to determine appropriate options and staff will report back to the Council in December 2023.

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

David McArdle - Contracts Supervisor

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

02 August 2023

12. Christchurch Northern Corridor - Downstream Effects Bus Lane Trial: Request for Time Extension
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1004901
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	David Sun, Project Manager Transport
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 to request Council to approve an extension to the Special Purpose Bus Priority Lane trial on Cranford Street until the end of February 2024, to allow a sufficient time period for staff to carry out further consultation and analysis before reporting back to Council later in 2023.

1.2 The bus lane trial on Cranford Street ended in February 2022. An extension is necessary to ensure continuity of bus lane operations until a permanent solution is approved by the Board and Council later this year and then implemented.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the relatively small number of residents and businesses impacted by the bus lanes.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve the continued operation and enforcement, in conjunction with the approved temporary traffic management plan, for the special purpose bus priority lanes on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street through to the end of February 2024 or earlier if a decision on the final solution is taken before that time.

2. Note that staff are currently reviewing three original options for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, including a bus lane, clearway, and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane.

3. Note that public consultation will be conducted in September to gather feedback on these three options, and following the consultation, staff will prepare a decision report outlining the public's preferred option for the Board and Council's approval in October/November 2023.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The extension of the bus lane trial to February 2024 will cover the period until a permanent solution is approved by the Board and Council later this year, and the period for engaging a contractor for any potential modifications and implementation. This will ensure that the benefits of the bus lane continue to be realised during this interim period and that the road space occupied by the bus lane can continue to be used without any physical changes.

3.2 The bus lane trial on Cranford Street has been in place for over two years. However, a significant part of the trial period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. This is likely to have resulted in atypical traffic patterns, including reduced traffic volumes and bus patronage, which do not accurately represent typical traffic conditions on Cranford Street and the surrounding local area.

3.3 Extending the bus lane trial to February 2024 will allow an assessment of the impact of the bus lane on traffic flow, safety, and bus journey times under 'new normal' traffic conditions. This will provide more reliable data to inform the decision-making process for the future operation of Cranford Street.

3.4 The extension will also allow for further community engagement and stakeholder feedback to ensure that the views and preferences of those affected and interested are properly considered in the decision-making process.

3.5 The extension will be superseded if a decision on the final solution is taken before the end of February 2024.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The 'Do Minimum' option.

4.1.1 If the extension of the bus lane trial is not approved, this would mean that the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) or authorisation for the dedicated bus lane trial would become obsolete. This would not only withdraw the authority to regulate the lane but would also require the removal of associated signage, road marking and other installations, thereby returning the road to its pre-trial state until a final decision is made later.

4.1.2 Under these circumstances, the road spaces utilised by the bus lane will be repurposed as unrestricted on-street parking. This is because this section of Cranford Street, constructed prior to the opening of the Christchurch Northern Corridor (CNC), is without any regulations applicable to this specific road section.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

5.1 Resolutions made by the Council at the Extraordinary Council meeting on 26 November 2020, resolved that there be a trial of special purpose bus priority lanes commencing in February 2021 for three months on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street. It delegated authority to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board to approve the design and operating hours for the installation for this trial.

5.2 The special purpose bus priority lanes were approved by the Community Board and installed 26 February 2021 and the trial was implemented until the 28 May 2021.

5.3 On 12 August 2021, the Council resolved (CNCL/2021/00133) to extend the bus lane trial until the end of February 2022. The bus lanes remain operational, and in accordance with the approved temporary traffic management plan remain enforceable.

5.4 Following the trial's expiration, the enforcement authority loses its authority to regulate the bus lane.

5.5 Staff are currently reviewing three original options for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, including bus lane, clearway, and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. A public consultation will be conducted in September to gather feedback on these three options. Following the consultation, staff will prepare a decision report outlining the public's preferred option for the Board and Council's approval in October/November 2023.

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

5.6.1 Waipapa Papanui- Innes-Central Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The current implementation of the bus lanes is consistent with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and is also consistent with the Council’s Strategic Priorities as it supports enabling active and connected communities to own their future.

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

6.3 Transport

6.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=36% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

· Level of Service: 10.4.1 More people are choosing to travel by bus - >=13.1 million people

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.7.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.7.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 A time extension of the special purpose bus lanes trial will have limited impact on accessibility.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - There is no further cost associated with the decisions in this report.

7.2 Enforcement costs during bus lane operation period – Enforcement of parking and driving in the bus priority lanes when they are operational is required. Costs associated with his are covered under existing council contracts and include tow truck vehicles and associated staff time.

7.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - There are no additional maintenance and ongoing costs associated with this decision. The maintenance costs have not been estimated for the extended period of implementation of the bus lanes. Maintenance costs will be estimated and reported for any recommended permanent solutions.

7.4 Funding Source - The project is currently funded through the Council’s Long Term Plan, project number #17088 Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Delivery Package.

Other He mea anō

7.5 The Council is currently carrying out a monitoring programme of traffic levels in the Downstream Effects study area to understand traffic changes following the opening of the Christchurch Northern Corridor. This monitoring programme is consistent with the recommendation of the Independent Traffic Expert and the Downstream Effects Management Plan. This work will continue as part of the preferred option and budget is currently allocated within the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Bus priority lanes are a form of special vehicle lane authorised by Council resolution under Clause 18 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board does not have the delegation to approve the bus priority lane trial for longer than a three-month period.

8.3 Unless the Council makes a further delegation, only the Council has the authority to prescribe the permanent installation of a special purpose bus priority lane after the trial.

8.4 The Council is obligated under the conditions of the resource consent for the Christchurch Northern Corridor to follow the recommendations of the Independent Traffic Engineer in the Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP). The DEMP did not initially recommend this bus priority lane trial but the Independent Traffic Expert has reviewed and recommended this trial and agrees with the time frame to make recommendations and decisions.

8.5 The Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 delegates that the Temporary Traffic Management Team can authorise temporary bus lanes under an approved Temporary Traffic Management Plan.

8.6 In terms of the enforcement of the bus priority lane, the Council’s parking compliance officers have the powers of parking wardens under the Land Transport Act 1998. Parking wardens are authorised to enforce the provisions of special vehicle lane offences, and in particular infringement offences. Special vehicle lane infringement offences include parking a vehicle in a special vehicle lane ($60 infringement fee), and the unauthorised use of a special vehicle lane ($150 infringement fee).

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk that the implementation of bus priority lanes is impacting the flow of traffic on Cranford Street and the local streets. Traffic monitoring is continuous and will be fully reported on within the decision report due later this year.

9.2 There is a risk that an increase of rat-running on local streets may be incorrectly attributed to the bus priority lanes.

9.3 It is acknowledged that the views of the local community and the Independent Traffic Expert may diverge regarding the permanent solution for Cranford Street. These differences may pertain to the outcomes of the trial, staff recommendations, or the proposed permanent solution for Cranford Street.

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

David Sun - Project Manager

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Sharon O'Neill - Programme Manager Transport Capital Programme

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

02 August 2023

13. Proposed sale of 18m2 site adjoining 43 Jollie St
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1023392
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Elizabeth Hoskins Property Consultant elizabeth.hoskins@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 This report seeks a resolution from Council that it reslove to sell a small 18m2 fee simple parcel of land (a redundant corner splay) in Jollie Street to the adjoining property owner which is Kainga Ora.

1.2 Kainga Ora have obtained consent for, and commenced, a development of their adjoining site at 43 Jollie Street. Shortly after initiating site works Kainga Ora realised that their development area included this land title owned by the council. Discussions over how to resolve this have resulted in a proposal to transfer ownership. This portion of land is not required by council and has in actual fact been the subject of private occupation for years.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the fact this land for sale is a fee simple site, 18m² in area adjoining land owned by Kaianga Ora earmarked for a new residential multi housing development. The sale will enable a second access from the site to the road and is required for their subdivision to be approved.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council pass the following resolutions:

1. Declares the Council owned portion of land adjoining 43 Jollie Street known as Section 2 Survey Office Plan 16971 held in certificate of title CB30A/1183 and comprising 18 m²surplus to requirements.

2. Approves the sale of the land to Kaianga Ora at $7,000 including gst if any, on a unilateral basis and in doing so resolves to depart from the policy to sell land using a market process on the following basis that:

a. This land was originally part of the adjoining site until the corner was taken to provide for a proposed road in 1958. The adjoining land never became road but an accessway for pedestrian and cycles.

b. Kainga Ora, who own the adjacent and contiguous land, are the obvious and natural owner for the property.

c. The sale will enable a housing development.

d. There is no other party that would be interested or benefit from purchasing or keeping this site.

e. The original use for which the land was acquired is no longer relevant and the land is now fee simple and able to be sold at market value by the Council.

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The 18m² parcel of fee simple land, on the corner of the adjoining site at 43 Jollie Street is not needed for what it was originally acquired for in 1958, which was a corner splay access to a proposed road. Instead, the next -door land became an accessway for pedestrians and cycles with no further use for the splay. The Road Reserve designation was revoked by Gazette in 1977, leaving this parcel of land held, as a fee simple parcel.

3.2 The private property owner at 43 Jollie Street previously occupied this land with their drive, fencing and land scaping. That property has since been purchased by Kainga Ora, with the residential dwelling demolished and the site incorporated into a larger development.

3.3 Kainga Ora inadvertently incorporated this portion of land in their development and consent. To resolve this, they have approached the Council and following discussions on how to resolve the issue it has been agreed the mutually beneficial outcome is for Kainga Ora to purchase this land.

3.4 Not only does that avoid the consent needing to be revisited and the development design for which site works have already commenced, but the location of the 18m² allows a better access with a second access into and out of the development and makes a regular shape for the adjoining site.

3.5 The site is not in any list for disposal and is not identified for any specific Council Activity.

3.6 The land has not been identified for disposal however dealing unilaterally with the adjoining owner, who is the only obvious purchaser, is required to conclude any sale of this land and this requires a Council resolution to proceed.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Council Hold the Property

4.1 The Council keep this corner area in Council ownership.

4.2 The disadvantage with this option is the site at No 43 Jollie Street and the larger area (33-43 Jollie Street) adjoining would require a complete redesign and consent variation for setbacks and vehicle access into and out of the complex.

4.3 There is no logical reason to hold the site as the proposed road never eventuated and the road reserve was revoked in 1977. A pedestrian accessway instead was constructed between residential sites.

4.4 The adjoining site- No 43 Jollie Street- has not had legal access to their site from this corner, however a driveway over the Council’s land has been in place for many years and the land treated by the Owner as their own. This 18m2 would need to be changed to legal road to allow legal access to the site which would be an unnecessary process and cost to Council.

Council declares the site surplus and sells on the open market.

4.4 The 18m2 corner of a site has no value other than to the adjoining owner.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 An unsolicited approach was made to Council from the adjoining owner (Kaianga Ora) to purchase this 18m² site at 43U Jollie St, to enable a secondary access to a large site they are developing for social housing at 33 -43 Jollie St, Linwood.

5.2 The land (18m²) was originally taken in 1958 as a splay for a proposed road next door when surrounding land was originally subdivided, however the road reserve was revoked by a Gazette notice in 1977 and allowed to be sold by the Council at market value. It became a fee simple site.

5.3 A valuation was commissioned jointly by the Council and Kaianga Ora to establish market value which was subsequently assessed at $7000 including GST. Consistent with current Council practice, the funds from the sale will be applied to the Capital Sales Programme.

5.4 There is no value to any other party other than to the adjoining owner due to the size, shape and location of the 18m2 fee simple site.

5.5 The Council corner site at No 43U has been used for access with a driveway to No 43 Jollie St for many years as well been fenced in, as if part of No 43.

A picture containing outdoor, sky, tree, land vehicle

Description automatically generated A picture containing map, line, diagram, yellow

Description automatically generated

Proposed Development and location of Council site in yellow below

A picture containing text, map, plan, screenshot

Description automatically generated

5.6 A Council decision is required to allow the sale of the land, as it cannot delegate authority to dispose of land unless it is in accordance with the LTP.

5.7 The Council must also agree to any departure from policy. Dealing unilaterally with a purchaser is outside the usual process for disposing of property but circumstances and the nature of the land in question, makes this the appropriate decision.

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

5.8.1 Waitai Coastal- Burwood- Linwood Community Board.

5.8.2 There is no need for any public consultation on this sale, due to the size, location and possible use for the land, with no identifiable alternative use or value to any other party.

5.8.3 Due to the low-level nature of this transaction and for efficiency this matter is being straight to the Council as the decision maker. The local Community Board has been advised of this proposal and recommendation.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This allows the transfer of property rights to enable future development.

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in that this process for Council to approve the sale when not in the Disposal list and to deal unilaterally with one prospective owner.

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, and 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 land is not listed as having any cultural significance and is not near any body of water.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.8 The use of the site as sealed driveway will remain after this sale.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 This sale to the adjoining owner enables better legal access and development to the adjoining site. It does not impact on any existing public road, footpath or accessway.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $1000-$2000

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Nil

7.3 Funding Source – Proceeds from the sale.

Other He mea anō

7.4 The sale agreement will incur legal costs only.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The legal consideration is the statutory provisions in the Local Act 2002, and the Council’s Disposal of Council Property policy. Legal will be involved in drafting and approving any Sale and Purchase agreement.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no risks involved in making this decision due to the nature and current use of the site and that no alternative use or benefit can be identified.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	CB 30A/1183	23/1040815	145
b ⇩	Valuation	23/1040816	147
c ⇩	Gazette Notices 1958 and 1977	23/1041167	163

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

Elizabeth Hoskins - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Council

02 August 2023

14. Community Loan Application - Canterbury Softball
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1118733
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell Head of Community Support & Partnerships
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 to enable Council to consider an application to the Community Organisation Loan Scheme.

1.2 This report is staff generated after receiving an application from Canterbury Softball Association Limited (Softball) for a Community Organisation Loan of $45,000 to complete the final stage of the installation of the artificial surfaces at Softball Headquarters on Cuthberts Green, Wainoni.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the dollar value of the implications of these decisions, the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the fact that Council support for the installation of the artificial surfaces at Softball Headquarters to date is in the 2021/31 LTP, and the fact that Community Loans are a level of service in the 2021/31 LTP. Accordingly, this report has been discussed with the applicant and relevant Council staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a Community Organisation Loan Scheme loan to the Canterbury Softball Association Limited of up to $45,000 to complete the installation of artificial softball surfaces at Cuthberts Green Wainoni; with a loan term of three years, at an interest rate of 5.4% per annum.

2. Resolve that the loan is conditional upon:

a. Council taking general security on the current and fixed assets of the Canterbury Softball Association Limited.

b. Canterbury Softball Association Limited demonstrating that they have sufficient funding for the project to proceed.

3. Delegate authority to the Head of Community Support & Partnerships to make the necessary arrangements to implement this resolution noting that all loan documentation will be reviewed by Council’s Legal Services Unit.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommendation will allow Softball to complete the installation of artificial surfaces at Cuthberts Green, Wainoni. It will result in an attractive, fit for purpose, international sporting facility in the heart of Wainoni.

3.2 It will allow for a saving in current playing-surface preparation and maintenance costs of approximately $20,085 per annum. Allowing Softball to repay the loan and then provide an ongoing efficiency to be reinvested in the sport. The saving is achieved as follows:

· $15,985.23 p.a. being wages. A contractor currently maintains the diamonds during competition and tournament play (the old lime surface needs to be remarked between each innings).

· $2,500 p.a. being supplies (the paint and marking materials).

· $1,600 p.a. being cleaning, to remove the lime dust from the grandstand on a regular basis otherwise it corrodes the metal surfaces.

· These figures have been confirmed by Council’s Recreation Sport and Events Unit.

3.2.2 The annual cost to Softball to repay a $45,000 loan over three years at 5.4% is approximately $16,374.16.

3.3 The recommendation is for a modest loan that will confer substantial benefit to Christchurch’s highly inclusive and accessible softball community based in Wainoni – it is backed by a strong business case and is considered low-risk.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Refer Softball to alternative funders. This was not recommended as Softball have already raised $340,000 third-party funding toward the total project cost of $495,000. There is a degree of urgency to complete the project to confer the benefits of ongoing savings onto next season.

4.2 Recommend Council decline the application. This was not supported as Softball meet all the criteria for a community loan, they are a highly inclusive and accessible sport based in Wainoni, they have a strong business case based on historic and current data.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Please see the Loan Decision Matrix attached to this report as attachment A.

5.2 The decision will be enjoyed city-wide but particularly affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.2.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Community Organisation Loans are a level of service in the 2021/31 LTP.

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

6.3 Communities and Citizens

6.3.1 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

6.4 The decision is consistent with these Council Plans and Policies, more particularly:

6.4.1 Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

· Te Pou Tua Rua: Te Whenua “We support and help build connections between communities and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship.”

· Te Pou Tua Tahi: Te Tāngata 1.6 “Support groups involved in providing access to arts, culture, heritage, recreation and those who care for the environment”.

6.4.2 The Community Organisation Loan Scheme guidelines, attached in Attachment B.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the decision is whether to approve a community loan and not whether the benefited-projects proceed or not.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The decisions in this report are likely to reduce emissions as the installation of artificial playing surfaces significantly reduce the need for maintenance, preparation and cleaning.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 Softball is a highly inclusive and accessible community-based sport in Wainoni, the installation of artificial playing surfaces increase accessibility by providing a more reliable surface and reducing ongoing maintenance and preparation costs.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Approximately $400 of staff time which is provided for within existing budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - A loan of $45,000 will be repaid with interest covering Council’s cost of borrowing (5.4%). The cost of monitoring new loans and their repayments will be minimal as they will be undertaken alongside the monitoring of other current loans.

7.3 Funding Source - The loan would be funded from the Community Organisation Loan Scheme. There is approximately $75,000 available for Community loans.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Two years audited financial accounts show an average modest surplus of approximately $15,000 before any savings. These are attached as attachment C. Section 3.2 of this report details how Softball will have the capacity to save approximately $20,085 per annum from existing expenditure because of savings arising from efficiencies from the artificial surfaces.

7.4.1 This is sufficient to cover the anticipated $16,374.16 p.a. in borrowing costs over three years whilst providing a contingency of approximately $3,700 p.a. to cover unanticipated expenses.

7.4.2 Additionally, Softball will retain their current assets (cash and deposits) of $70K providing financial sustainability over and above the ability to repay.

7.5 Audited accounts detail current and fixed assets of $70,000 and $590,000 respectively. Current assets are cash and deposits; fixed assets are primarily equipment or other chattels. Whilst not ideal, these assets do represent an acceptable level of security that would ensure Council’s loan is repaid in the event the anticipated savings did not materialise.

7.6 In summary this is a relatively small loan over a short period in favour of a stable community organisation with the capacity to repay from savings derived from core funded activities. Modest security can be offered in the event of an unanticipated default.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The statutory power to undertake the proposal derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is legal context relevant to this decision being the requirement that Council’s Legal Services Unit will draft and review all loan agreement documentation prior to execution.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The principal risk to Council is that Softball fails to repay their loan.

9.1.1 This risk is assessed as low due to the financial stability and performance of the organisation and the verified ability to use operational savings to fund repayment.

9.1.2 This risk is partially mitigated by the general security Council will have on Softball’s assets.

9.2 Council funds loans from the Community Organisation Loan Scheme. Approval of this loan will reduce the funds available through this scheme to approximately $30,000. There presents a risk around the ability of other groups to borrow more than this amount. To mitigate this risk, the Community Support and Partnership Unit, in association with Finance, has initiated a programme to contact all existing loan recipients to identify if or how existing loans could be repaid earlier.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Softball Loan Decision Making Matrix	23/1120373	170
b ⇩	Community Loan Scheme Guidelines	21/558776	171
c ⇩	Softball Incorporation & Audited Financial Accounts	23/1012384	172

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Council

02 August 2023

15. Multicultural Elected Member Portfolio Report August 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1090546
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Multicultural Portfolio Lead
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Information Update and Report Origin

1.1 This is the first six-monthly report back to Council.

1.2 This report has been prepared by Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Multicultural Portfolio lead in collaboration with staff.

2. Elected Member Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Multicultural Elected Member Portfolio Report August 2023 Report.

2. Proceed with an expression of interest with Ministry for Innovation and Employment (MBIE) through Immigration New Zealand for Christchurch to join the Welcoming Communities programme.

3. Request staff explore the re-establishment of a Pacific Advisory Group in partnership with the Pacific Community and the Ministry for Pacific People’s (MPP).

4. Request staff provide advice on the establishment of a Diversity and Inclusion Panel or other appropriate mechanism to ensure the voice of diverse communities is considered.

5. Note that: A Partnering Agreement has been developed between the Ministry for Pacific Peoples and the Christchurch City Council that sets out our intention to work more closely on issues of common interest. A formal acknowledgement where Chief Executives of both parties will be organised and which all elected members will be invited to attend. Date and time to be advised.

3. Brief Summary

3.1 Christchurch has a resident population of approximately 190 ethnicities, with many diverse cultures and faiths calling Ōtautahi home. We celebrate and value this diversity but also observe the challenges that many people can face in achieving equity, inclusion, wellbeing.

3.2 27.1% of people in Christchurch were born overseas and it is projected that the Māori population will increase from 9.4% to 12.3% by 2038, Pacific from 3.5% to 4.9% by 2038 and Asian population will increase from 13.2% to 18.9% by 2038 with a decrease in European and other nationalities from 81.8% to 76% by 2028. Census 2018

3.3 Opportunities to connect, belong and participate can also be a challenge. Council is working hard to ensure these inequities are understood and addressed where possible.

3.4 It is very important to acknowledge that Multiculturalism exists within a bi-cultural framework. “All cultures are valued for the contributions they bring. Everybody has rights and responsibilities as citizens/residents of New Zealand, however Te Tiriti o Waitangi affords Māori a dual set of rights as Tangata Whenua. Therefore, it is important to recognise that New Zealand is a multicultural society underpinned by foundations of Te Tiriti and establishing ongoing relationships between Māori and the Crown” (Pg 8 Multicultural Strategy, CCC, 2021)

3.5 There are many opportunities for Council to engage further with culturally and linguistically diverse communities to ensure that a wide range of views are considered in annual and long-term planning. Civic participation enables communities to feel empowered to have a say in shaping their futures and gain a greater sense of belonging.

3.6 The Multicultural Portfolio was created in November 2022 after the triennial election. The Mayor established the committees of the Council under Section 41A (3) of the Local Government Act 2002. The committee structure was designed to ensure Council business was managed efficiently and effectively and Councillors could spend more time in the community. Portfolios were introduced to ensure Council engages appropriately with particular population groups/issues. Portfolios holders were to be the champion for a particular population group or issue.

3.7 Council work in this space is guided by the Te Rautaki Matawaka Rau Christchurch Multicultural Strategy and the Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy. Both of the strategies acknowledge and commit to building authentic and trusted relationships across the diverse communities of Christchurch under a bi-cultural framework and to ensure the Ōtautahi Christchurch and Banks Peninsular is place of opportunity for all.

4. Our Diverse City- Events and Celebrations attended

4.1 Filipino community – Philippines Independence Day

Philippines Independence Day was celebrated at Tūranga Library on 24 June 2023 showcasing the history, people and cultures of the Philippines. Thank you to the Libraries Team who continue to open pathways for our communities to celebrate their culture.

4.2 Chinese community – Silk Road and Chinese New Year

On 8 February 2023 I attended the Chinese New Year celebration celebrating the Year of the Rabbit.

The 7th Silk Road International Expo Promotion Conference on 28 June 2023, a key event that launched the beginning of a planned trip to the Shaanxi Province with businesses in Canterbury to create commercial opportunities here and abroad.

Our Community and Events staff are working with the Chinese community to deliver the 2024 Happy New Year event which is the ‘Year of the Dragon’. It was previously delivered by Christchurch NZ and Christchurch City Council. This event will be the first delivered by the community themselves.

4.3 Muslim Community – Unity Week, Eid Day

Unity Week was the second official week of Unity brought to the city by the Sakinah Trust; an extraordinary group of wives of the Shuhada from the March 15 terror attack. The week explored the sharing of food to bring cultures together, a talk from Dai Henwood, a march for unity and peace and many more events which spanned over two weeks. The next Unity Week will be larger in 2024. This week was supported by the Council and many other organisations.

Eid al Fitr Festival was one of the largest events in the calendar year bringing thousands from around our city to be a part of the festivities. This was hosted by Asturlab Cultural Centre in partnership with the Christchurch City Council at North Hagley Park.

A group of people standing in front of a screen

Description automatically generated

4.4 Culture Galore

Operating for 20 years, every year the stage showcases a diverse array of performances, encompassing Japanese drummers, vibrant traditional dances, and melodious songs from countries like Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Poland, China, Fiji, Russia, Thailand, Mexico, Bangladesh, and numerous others.

In addition to these incredible performances, there is a wide variety of interactive activities available for everyone to try. These include the Canterbury Cricket dive mat, flax weaving, face painting, soft archery, bouncy castles, police speed radar, fire evacuation challenge, and a demonstration on kitchen fire safety.

It is important to note that Culture Galore is growing and there may be a need to expand into alternative venues based on its broad interest and success.

4.5 Thai Festival

The Thai Society of Canterbury held a festival at Victoria Square in January. We welcomed the ambassador of Thailand and more than one thousand residents from all around the city. It was an event filled with great food, performances and an opportunity for the city to see what Thailand has to offer.

4.6 Ethnic Advantage Conference – Ministry for Ethnic Communities

I attended and spoke at the Ethnic Advantage Conference a flag-ship event hosted by the Ministry of Ethnic Communities which brought community providers from all around Canterbury to empower ethnic communities to thrive and help grow awareness in the value that people from diverse backgrounds have to offer. A memorable moment was hearing from Abbis Naziri, one of Christchurch’s treasured residents, now residing in Wellington. Abbass told his families story of their harrowing experience on the Tampa as they fled Afghanistan in the 1990’s. Abbas continues to inspire others with his resilience, humour and commitment to his new country.

A group of people posing for a photo

Description automatically generated

4.7 Korea Day

The Korean Society of Christchurch hosted a day to remember the veterans of the Korean war, the partnership between our countries and to celebrate the sharing of kai, offer performances and grow the bond between our sister cities.

A group of children wearing clothing

Description automatically generated

4.8 Buddha’s Birthday Celebration for World Peace

I attended the remembrance of the Venerable Master Hsing Yun at the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple. It was also a promotion of World Peace and exploring interfaith peace and prosperity. During the event, Venerable Manshin, Abbas gave a cheque of $50,000 to go towards the development of the Christ Church Cathedral.

A group of men holding a large check

Description automatically generated

4.9 Hindu culture night – temple redevelopment

I attended the Hindu Culture Night on 18 March 2023 with elected members from local and central government. This was also a launch to provide insight in the proposed development of the largest Hindu Temple in the South Island. They are currently fundraising for the Temple.

A group of people sitting in chairs

Description automatically generated

5. 15 March 2019 Update

5.1 15 March National Memorial Project

5.1.1 Council has been working with the families of the bereaved (Shuhada) alongside the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and the Ministry for Ethnic Peoples to understand the communities views on a National memorial to commemorate the attacks of 15 March 2019. There is significant community support for such a memorial. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage will present the findings to Cabinet for a decision to proceed. A further update will be provided to Council once this decision is made.

5.2 Unity Week

5.2.1 The Sakinah Trust are seeking further support from council for Unity Week 2024 which coincides with the 5-year anniversary of the March 15 attack. Staff will continue to work with the trust to build on the message of Unity and support the delivery of events across the city whereever possible.

5.3 Linwood Mosque Development

5.3.1 The Linwood Mosque reconstruction is underway. Demolition of the KFC building has begun on the proposed site. No timeline or update has been provided as of late. The community will be looking forward to a new development for the Muslim community post March 15. Council has offered project management assistance to support the community navigate through building consult requirements and other related issues pertaining to the Mosque and Civilisation Centre construction. Staff continue to be available to support the community through the process.

5.3.2 The coronial inquiry into the deaths of 51 people in relation to the 15 March 2019 terror attacks on the city’s Dean Avenue and Linwood Avenue Mosques has been set down for 24 October 2023. It involves more than 120 interested parties, covering broad issues for Inquiry, experts from a variety field including complex digital and documentary evidence. Planning is underway to support bereaved families and relatives (many of those travelling from overseas), those injured or witnesses to the event and the wider community. It will be important to connect with those individuals and organisations during this time to offer support and Council remains ready to assist.

5.4 Royal Commission of Enquiry

5.4.1 Information is provided in the link below showing progress on the 44 recommendations of the Royal Commission of Enquiry in the 15 March Mosque attacks. Council is represented by Claire Appleby Phillips who sits on the Ministerial Advisory Group -Kapuia advocating strongly to central government, the role that Local Government plays in building strong, resilient and socially cohesive communities.

6. Multicultural Advisory Group

6.1 The Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG) recently provided input into Council’s Long-Term Plan, trialling the new What Matters Most Campaign. Their advice has helped to hone the campaign to be more inclusive and participant friendly. The group have also approved an engagement tool for Council staff to consider before seeking advice. This will help the members better shape their advice to Council and encourage Council staff engage early and often.

6.2 There are currently 4 vacancies on the MAG. Staff are in the final stages of recruitment.

6.3 Profiles of MAG members are available on Council’s website.

7. Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Update

7.1 Staff continue to work with a newly formed board of trustees established to oversee the Centre operations in partnership with Council (the asset owner). It is anticipated that Christchurch Netball will be vacating the premises in late October early November.

7.2 A monthly newsletter has been developed to provide regular updates to a wide range of stakeholders on progress. (Attachment A).

7.3 Council has engaged widely with diverse communities to understand how groups wish to activate the space. This information is supporting the Trust to shape their vision, values, mission and goals. (Attachment B)

8. Welcoming Communities

8.1 Welcoming Communities is a programme led by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) in partnership with the Ministry of Ethnic Communities and the Human Rights Commission. Welcoming Communities works towards healthier, happier, and more productive communities by welcoming newcomers into the local community. The Welcoming Communities approach focusses on strengthening social inclusion by encouraging and facilitating positive interactions between people. It ensures newcomers can access services and activities that enable to them to participate fully.

8.2 Welcoming Communities also focusses on the role of receiving communities by engaging, mobilising, and involving local residents in welcoming activities and facilitating community connections, engagement and participation. As we are all well aware, social, cultural, and economic benefits are derived when people feel a sense of belonging and feel they can participate and contribute.

8.3 The programme augments existing Council strategies, particularly the Multicultural Strategy which serves as a model that is already producing cultural, civic and social benefits in addition to Council’s newly adopted Strengthening Communities Together Strategy. The programme will provide Christchurch City Council with funding of $50,000 (excluding GST) per annum for three years to support the implementation. The funding is a contribution towards the salary of a Council employed Welcoming Communities Coordinator, to support the establishment and implementation of the programme across the city and Banks Peninsula. A Welcoming Communities Coordinator would be ideally located at the new Christchurch Multicultural Recreation Centre where the role would enhance the settlement outcomes for newcomers by assisting in the activation and community networking aspect of its operations.

8.4 Ashburton, Hurunui, Timaru, Selwyn and Waitaki are currently participating in the programme and there is an opportunity to further enhance a Canterbury-wide Welcoming Communities network.

9. Equity and Inclusion

9.1 The Council has acknowledged the importance of creating opportunities for diverse groups and communities to be involved in influencing, shaping, designing and contributing to decision-making and the development of services and programmes.

9.2 If Council hears from and considers the views of people of different ethnic groups, gender, sexual orientation, race, age, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, and (dis)ability, we are more likely to make better decisions and deliver the better outcomes.

9.3 It’s important for us to consider how the elected Council can better hear and capture the views of as diverse range of community members as possible. There is an opportunity to develop a range of formal and informal mechanisms. It is recommended that staff provide advice on the options.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Multicultural Hub Newsletter - July 2023	23/1056270	197
b ⇩	Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre - analysis of submissions	23/1168497	199

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

Document Name – Location / File Link https://ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/statistics-and-facts/facts-stats-and-figures - statistics on diversity

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Strategies/Multicultural-Strategy-/Diversity-and-Inclusion-Report-2020-21.pdf - Last multicultural report 2021

https://www.unityweek.co.nz/ - Unity Week website

https://ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/running-an-event/community-programmes/culture-galore-registration - culture Galore

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Strategies/Multicultural-Strategy.pdf - Multicultural Strategy

RCOI Progress update

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

Claire Appleby-Phillips - Manager Community Planning & Projects

Antje Schmidt - Projects and Events Coordinator

Dean Kilbride - Senior Communications Advisor

Miranda Adams - Procurement Officer

Approved By

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

02 August 2023

16. Electoral matters
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1142914
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Helen White, Head of Legal & Democratic Services (helen.white@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The staff recommendation is to note the report.

1.2 This report is not required by legislation but was requested at a council briefing.

1.3 The decision recommended by staff in this report of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering that the staff recommendation is to note the current position of the Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the report.

2. Notes that First Past the Post is the electoral system that will be in place for the next general election of the Council in 2025.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The reason for this report is to promote understanding of the requirements of relevant electoral legislation in relation to the electoral system and Māori wards.

3.2 This report has information on:

3.2.1 Electoral systems and context

3.2.2 Polls

3.2.3 Engagement

3.2.4 Māori wards

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Context

4.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 allows the Council to choose either first past the post (FPP) or single transferable vote (STV) as the electoral system for local elections. The electoral system applies to the election of the Mayor, councillors and community board members.

4.2 The Council’s electoral system is FPP. The Council is not required to make any decisions in relation to the electoral system. It is required by law to give public notice that FPP will be the electoral system in place for the next local election in 2025 by 19 September 2023 and advise the public of the right to demand a poll. More information on polls is below from 4.10.

4.3 It is open to the Council to resolve to change its electoral system to STV and if it does so, this must be by 12 September 2023.

The two electoral systems

4.4 Under FPP the candidate with the most votes wins equal to the number of positions there are to fill. Voters tick the boxes of the candidates they want to vote for, up to the number of positions to be filled.

4.5 STV is sometimes called ranked voting. Here voters rank candidates in order of preference. Votes are transferred if the voter’s most preferred candidate does not need all their votes or is not popular with other voters. The quota of votes needed to be elected is calculated on the basis of total number of votes divided by one more than the number of positions. Any candidate who reaches the quota is elected and the surplus votes are transferred. If after the transfers, not all positions are filled, then the candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and their votes transferred to the next preference.

4.6 The transferring calculations under an STV election are undertaken by computer and cost approximately up to 20 - 25% more per vote to process than FPP.

4.7 Attached at ‘A’ is a flow chart which describes the STV process which you can also view at: https://www.stv.govt.nz/countingdiagram.shtml . Attached at ‘B’ is a comparison of the two electoral systems from Taituarā’s Code of Good Practice for the Management of Local Authority Elections and Polls, Part 4 – Electoral Systems. More information is available at:

4.7.1 DIA Electoral system info: https://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_URL/About-Local-Government-Participate-in-Local-Government-All-about-STV-and-FPP

4.7.2 STV: https://www.stv.govt.nz/index.shtml

4.7.3 FPP: https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-STV-Information-More-about-FPP?OpenDocument

4.8 The Council’s position is most recently recorded in the Local Government Commission Determination for the October 2022 Election which contains the acknowledgement by the Council that there is growing interest in STV and any future consideration of it should be accompanied by a consideration of a move to multi-member wards in the next representation review. The Council is required to have a representation review every six-years. The next representation review will take place in the 2025-2028 council term.

4.9 The Future for Local Government Final Report recommends at 11.2 ‘adopting [STV] as the nationwide method for local elections.’ There has been no formal response from the government on this recommendation.

Polls

4.10 The Council can resolve to hold a poll on the electoral system, or the public has the right to demand one. Polls are determinative and are undertaken in accordance with legislative requirements. This means that the Council would be bound by that result for a minimum of the next two elections.

4.11 If the Council decided to hold a poll that would take effect for the 2025 local election it must resolve to do so by 21 February 2024. However, if the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill (the Bill) passes into law, this date will be brought forward to 11 December 2023.

4.12 A poll will also be held if 5 % of the registered electors demand one. This right will be set out in the public notice referred to in 4.2 above. The timescales for the public demanding a poll are the same as in 4.13 below.

4.13 If the Council resolves to hold a poll to take effect for the next election or the public so demand one, this poll must be held by 21 May 2024. If the Bill passes, this date will change to 14 March 2024.

4.14 Another option available to the Council is to resolve to hold a poll at the same time as the next local election. Advantages of a poll held at the same time as an election include that it is simplified conversation at the same time the Council is communicating participation. It is also a time that the Council resources are mobilised to undertake election activity. There is no legislative deadline for such a decision to be made.

4.15 There is no allocated budget for a standalone poll this financial year and in the event, one is required, the funds and staff resources would need to be reprioritised. The estimated costs of a standalone poll would be in the region of $750 000.00 - $800 000.00 when considering communication (marketing) costs including placement of advertising, postage, stationary, external election services, staff and electoral officer costs, insurance, and printing.

4.16 The costs if there were to be a poll held contemporaneously with the next election would be around $175 000.00 in addition to the costs that will already be incurred.

4.17 Staff recommend that if the Council has appetite consider holding a poll that a further report is provided to include more definitive costings and logistical information. If that poll is to be held by March/May 2024, this report would also include information on what reprioritisation of existing work and budgets would be required. If that poll is to be considered to be held at the same time as the next local election in 2025, the Council may first wish to defer such a decision until after any Government response to the Future for Local Government Final Report.

Engagement

4.18 If there is no appetite for change, then there is no need for the Council to engage now. The Council has already acknowledged that the electoral system will be looked at when the next representation review is held. The Local Government Commission has recommended robust community engagement at that time on representation matters.

4.19 If there is appetite for change before then, the following options for engagement could be considered:

4.19.1 Holding a poll at the next election. This would mean that a majority of those who participate would decide rather than elected members who may be considered to have an interest in the decision. It allows for a city-wide conversation at a time when the Council will be engaging on electoral participation anyway. However, this will be in October 2025.

4.19.2 A poll to be held by May/March 2024 (depending on the legislation). This poll result would then be in place for the next two local elections. The cost and resource challenges will mean reprioritisation. Some Council projects may need to be delayed allowing for the redeployment of staff to support the delivery of the poll. This would also require a city-wide communication process which is not currently planned for.

4.19.3 A full community consultation in advance of a Council resolution to change by 9 September 2023. This is unable to be delivered on current budget and capacity. Even if budget and resource were identified, the Council is already engaging on other significant issues and there is a risk that any meaningful message may be lost.

4.19.4 Feedback from community boards. As community boards are the advocate for the communities this is an option for engagement. However, this is not recommended. It cannot be assumed that elected members would fully understand what their communities think about electoral systems as they are not universally understood.

Māori wards

4.20 It is open to the Council to resolve that its area is divided into one or more Māori wards for electoral purposes. If the Council were to resolve to establish a Māori ward, it must do so by 23 November 2023. This would then trigger a representation review which would mean adopting an initial proposal by 31 August 2024. Budget and resource would need to be identified to support this work.

4.21 It is understood that mana whenua do not support the establishment of Māori wards and none exist in the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. This is because legislation acknowledges that Ngāi Tahu hold rangatiratanga over their takiwā.

4.22 There have been recent legislative changes that remove the ability to hold a poll on the establishment of Māori wards. Instead, they may be created in the same way as other wards, through the representation review process. The Bill also changes some of the process requirements for establishing a Māori ward but if enacted, these will not come into effect until 2025.

5. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

5.2 Governance

5.2.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

· Level of Service: 4.1.2 Provide and maintain robust processes that ensure all local elections, polls and representation reviews are held with full statutory compliance. - 100% compliance, no complaints regarding statutory compliance are upheld by the ombudsman or the Courts.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.4 The decision to note the position in relation to electoral legislation is not a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

5.5 The decision to note the position is not a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and would not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. However, if the Council were to explore the establishment of Māori wards this may impact the partnership as no Māori wards exist within the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. This is because legislation recognises the rangatiratanga of Ngāi Tahu over their takiwā.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.6 The decisions in this report are likely to have no impact on climate change consideraitons because this is a noting report.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

5.7 None relevant.

6. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 There are no funding implications as this report notes the current position. There will be unbudgeted implications if the Council were to adopt a different course of action.

Other He mea anō

6.2 None.

7. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.1 As contained within this report.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

7.2 As contained within this report.

8. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

8.1 As contained within this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	STV process map	23/1177954	217
b ⇩	STV - FPP comparisons	23/1177955	218

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

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Approved By

Katy McRae - Head of Communications & Engagement

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

[1] CNCL/2022/1123 link to 30 November 2022 report?

[2] Note that the cost of only widening the shared path is $286,700, however, this is not considered to be a viable option.

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 27 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1039460
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Cathy Harlow, Democratic Services Advisor, cathy.harlow@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

6. Council Minutes - 5 July 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1052368
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 - 19 July 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1150677
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katherine.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1070607
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 ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070759	50
b ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070760	58
c ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070761	62
d ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070764	68
e ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070766	81
f ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report July 2023	23/1070769	90

9. Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace changes
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1107190
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer (Gemma.Dioni@ccc.govt.nz) Tessa Zant, Manager Engagement (Tessa.Zant@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Rolleston Avenue and Park Terrace changes	23/1058327	104

17. Complaint under the Elected Members' Code of Conduct
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1084415
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn. Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

18. Mayor's Report - Hospital Parking
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1185583
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Mayor Phil Mauger

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
20.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 5 July 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
21.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 19 July 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
22.	Extending Valuation Service Provider Contract with Quotable Value.	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations	The terms of the contract are commercially sensitive. Councillor discussions around the terms of the contract could prejudice any ongoing negotiations.	Permanent non-release