Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 6 September 2023

Council

06 September 2023

Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board – 7 August 2023

12. Consider Objections to the Revocation of Local Purpose Reserve (road) 242R Lake Terrace Road Shirley
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1256470
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn, Property Consultant colin.windleborn@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Bruce Rendall, Head of Growth and Property, Sustainable City bruce.rendall@ccc.govt.nz

Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 That pursuant to Section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board has considered matters raised by the objectors to the proposal and considering all matters have made recommendations for the Council's consideration and approval.

1.2 This report arose from a Decision Report to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board 7 August 2023 meeting.

1. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

Noting: That pursuant to Section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 the board has considered the matters raised by the objectors to the proposal and considering all matters supports the following resolutions appropriate.

1. Recommend that the Council proceed with the application for revocation on the basis that:

a. submitters do not raise any compelling arguments against the revocation;

b. there is no immediate or foreseeable use of the reserve for its designated purpose as “road”;

c. there are no other immediate or foreseeable uses for this land;

d. the revocation is unlikely to result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity or level of service for the public.

e. the revocation and disposal of the land will provide wider benefit to the community through making it available for housing and releasing capital to re-invest in achieving community outcomes.

2. Staff are authorised to proceed with the reserve revocation and subject to the Department of Conservation ratifying the revocation, Section 1 Survey Office Plan 552966 (the land) be declared surplus and made available for sale.

3. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate, conclude and administer all the agreements necessary to facilitate the recommendations above on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

2. Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Recommendation to Council Te Tūtohu

Part A

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

1. Recommend that the Council proceed with the application for revocation on the basis that:

a. submitters do not raise any compelling arguments against the revocation;

b. there is no immediate or foreseeable use of the reserve for its designated purpose as “road”;

c. there are no other immediate or foreseeable uses for this land;

d. the revocation is unlikely to result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity or level of service for the public.

e. the revocation and disposal of the land will provide wider benefit to the community through making it available for housing and releasing capital to re-invest in achieving community outcomes.

4. That the immediate neighbours be given first right of refusal on the purchase of the land.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Consider Objections to the Revocation of Local Purpose Reserve (road) 242R Lake Terrace Road Shirley	23/685561	94

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Plan of Road to Vest	21/126803	101
b ⇩	Review of Properties for Disposal	18/578152	102
c ⇩	Report on Revocation of Reserve Status	22/1626493	104
d ⇩	Resolution for Revocation of Reserve Status	22/1751981	111
e ⇩	Public Notice	23/190244	113
f ⇩	Map and Locations of Mail Out	23/1164031	114
g ⇩	Letter delivered to Residents	23/703351	115
h ⇩	Precis of Objections with Comment	23/691420	116

Council

06 September 2023

Consider Objections to the Revocation of Local Purpose Reserve (road) 242R Lake Terrace Road Shirley
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/685561
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn, Property Consultant colin.windleborn@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The Purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal- Burwood-Linwood Community Board to consider the objections to revoke the reserve status and make available for disposal 450m2 of Local Purpose Reserve (road).

1.2 This property is one of a list of properties identifed as part of a Property Review Process in June 2018 as not being required by Council.

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 assessing the impact of revocation of the road reserve on the provisions contained within The Reserves Act 1977.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

1. Recommend that the Council proceed with the application for revocation on the basis that:

a. submitters do not raise any compelling arguments against the revocation;

b. there is no immediate or foreseeable use of the reserve for its designated purpose as “road”;

c. there are no other immediate or foreseeable uses for this land;

d. the revocation is unlikely to result in any appreciable loss of reserve amenity or level of service for the public.

e. the revocation and disposal of the land will provide wider benefit to the community through making it available for housing and releasing capital to re-invest in achieving community outcomes.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The revocation decision is not a choice as to what is a better use of the land (as a Local Purpose Reserve (road), or the possible alternative use) as another form of reserve, but a decision as to whether the loss of reserve land is appropriate and can be justified in the light of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.2 It is relevant to understand how the land would be used if revocation proceeds, including the public interest in that use i.e., as a residential section.

3.3 The revocation of the reserve status is unlikely to result in an appreciable loss of reserve amenity or level of service for the public.

3.4 That part of the land which was required for road was vested as road in 2021 with the balance remaining as Local Purpose Reserve (road) – which is the subject of the reserve revocation contained in this report.

3.5 Having considered the objections, officers recommend that the Council proceed with the application for revocation. This recommendation is based on:

3.5.1 Submitters do not raise any compelling arguments against the revocation;

3.5.2 there is no immediate or foreseeable use of the reserve for its designated purpose as “road”;

3.5.3 it is not suitable or required for public use; and

3.5.4 there is wider benefit to the community in making this land available for housing and releasing the capital to re-invest in achieving community outcomes.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Option One: Recommend revoking status and retain as fee simple.

Advantages

· Land is available for future unknown demand.

· No further disposal costs.

· Land is accessible to whole community –all be it this is somewhat limited.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Retention as an underutilised asset.

· Ongoing costs including maintenance/rates.

· Council has already identified the land as surplus.

4.2 Option Two: Recommend revoking status and sell land.

Advantages

· Is in accordance with the decisions made when all Council Property reviewed in 2018.

· Potential for future housing which will increase rate take.

· Sales proceeds available for future debt reduction or other Council activities including bringing the road up to a suitable standard.

· Reduced maintenance and operating expenditure.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Wouldn’t meet the requirements of the objectors.

· Possible low market interest.

· Loss of amenity to the adjoining properties.

4.3 Option Three: Recommend upholding the objections and not revoke the reserve status and retain land.

Advantages

· Would meet the requirements of the objectors.

· Reserve remains accessible to the community.

· No further disposal costs.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Retention of an underutilised asset.

· Ongoing maintenance costs.

· The land is not required for road.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In 1976 a subdivision reserved land for roading purposes, to provide future access to adjacent landholdings when they were subdivided. The Land was described as 242R Lake Terrace Road Local Purpose Reserve(road) comprising 804 m².

5.2 The adjacent land to the rear was subdivided, and the road reserve land was not needed for access and remained as Local Purpose Reserve (road).

5.3 Dwellings were constructed on 244, and 2 units on 242 Lake Terrace Road with legal access off Lake Terrace Road with an informal access through the Local Purpose Reserve (road).

5.4 In 2018 Council undertook a review of its property holdings and 242R Lake Terrace Road was identified as being surplus. Attachment B

5.5 In 2020 a decision was made to provide access to 244, and 2 units on 242 Lake Terrace Road, by way of vesting a portion of the Local Purpose Reserve (road) as road-354 m² with the remainder of the property(450m²) being left as Local Purpose Reserve (road). Attachment A

5.6 A report was presented to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board on 12 December 2022 to gain consent to commence the procedures under the Reserves Act 1977 for the revocation of the reserve status of the land. Attachment C with resolution Attachment D

5.7 A notice of Councils intention to revoke the reserve status was hand delivered to 21 residents in the proximity of the land on 26 January 2023 with a notice advertising Councils intention placed in the Christchurch Press on Monday 30 January 2023 and available on Councils website. Attachments E and F and G

5.8 Council received 3 enquiries with respect to the public notification and 3 objections to the revocation. Attachment H details the submissions and officers’ comments with respect to the objections.

5.9 A meeting with the objectors was held onsite on 10 February 2023.

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

5.10.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Aligns with the Councils resolution CNCL/2018/00143, which confirmed the report which undertook the Property Review Process to declare a number of properties surplus and CCBCC/2022/00024 which confirmed the previous resolution subject to consulting with Community Housing Providers and following the procedures under the Reserves Act 1977.

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

6.3 Internal Activities

6.3.1 Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.7 Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga have been consulted with and the revocation and will continue if the revocation process is continued and the land is declared surplus and available for sale.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 Once the legal status of the land is changed with a dwelling construct on the site, the impact on Council’s climate change considerations will be negligible.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 The revoking of the reserve status will have no effect on accessibility as the land is not needed for access.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – There are costs associated with the reserve revocation with respect to the process.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There will be costs if Council chooses to bring the access up to Councils roading standards.

7.3 Funding Source – will be from the proceeds of the sale.

Other He mea anō

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

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Reserves Act 1977

Statutory Provisions to Revoke the Reservation over Public Reserve under
Reserves Act 1977
The Local Purpose Reserve (road) is held by the Council “in trust” by Council as the local authority administering body under the Reserves Act 1977.
Section 24(1) (b) of the Reserves Act 1977, provides that Council can pass a resolution, if it considers for any reason to be stated in the resolution that the reservation of the whole or part of the land as reserve should be revoked. The Minister (of Conservation) at his discretion may by notice in the Gazette revoke the reservation of the whole or part of the land as reserve.

ii. Public Notice Requirements under Reserves Act 1977
Subsection (2) (a) of Section 24(1) provides that the administering body (Council)
after consulting the Commissioner (Director General of Conservation) shall
(mandatory) publicly notify the proposed revocation of the reservation specifying the reasons.

iii. Right of Objection

Subsection (2) (b) of Section 24(1) provides that every person claiming to be affected by the proposal to revocation shall have a right of objection and may at any time within one month after the date of the first publication of the notice of the proposal, give notice in writing of his objections to the proposed revocation to the Principal Administrative Officer. A copy of the objections along with a copy of the resolution, after the administering body (the Council) has considered those objections, is sent to the Minister of Conservation.
Note: that any person who does not lodge an objection shall be deemed to have
assented to the revocation.

iv. Consideration of Revocation by Minister of Conservation

Subsection (2) (e) of Section 24(1) provides that the Minister shall as soon as practicable consider the proposed revocation and all objections received and the resolution of the administering body (the Council) and the attitude of the administering body.
The Minister shall have power to receive such submissions and make enquiries as he thinks fit on the proposal. The Minister may follow such procedures as he determines.

v. Approval to Reserve Revocation
Once approved then Gazettal of the Revocation over the Local Purpose Reserve (road) would result in the uplifting of the reserve status and provide Council with a freehold title (subject to the legal interests) i.e. the easement.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The legal consideration for Council is that it also has to take into account its statutory duty to consult with the community in its decision making under the Local Government Act 2002 (sections 78, 81 to 83 and 93) and in terms of its Significance & Engagement Policy 2019.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no significant risks associated with this decision.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Plan of Road to Vest	21/126803
b	Review of Properties for Disposal	18/578152
c	Report on Revocation of Reserve Status	22/1626493
d	Resolution for Revocation of Reserve Status	22/1751981
e	Public Notice	23/190244
f	Map and Locations of Mail Out	23/1164031
g	Letter delivered to Residents	23/703351
h	Precis of Objections with Comment	23/691420

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

Colin Windleborn - Property Consultant

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Council

06 September 2023

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 189R Worselys Road
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/817840
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant, stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services (jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 This report seeks a resolution under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 dedicating the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve described as Lot 603 DP 550047 as road.

1.2 This report is a result resource consent RMA/2015/3550 that required Lot 603 DP 550047 to vest in Council as Local Purpose (Road) Reserve. The road is now formed over the Local Purpose (Road) reserve and it can be dedicated as a road.

A picture containing map, aerial photography, bird's-eye view, aerial

Description automatically generated A picture containing outdoor, sky, cloud, grass

Description automatically generated

1.3 This is a procedural matter and the decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the benefits to road users and rate payers of dedicating this land as road to ensure the road corridor can remain open.

1.4 Once this Local Purpose (Road) Reserve is dedicated as road.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board recommends to Council that it

1. Resolves pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve containing 69m² described as Lot 603 DP 550047 as road and

2. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to complete all necessary documentation to conclude the dedication of Lot 603 DP 550047 as road.

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

3.1 This in an enabling decision that provides continuity of the realigned Worsleys Road by ensuring all parts of the formed road are recognised as a “legal” road.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do nothing.

4.1.1 Advantages

· There are no advantages with this option.

4.1.2 Disadvantages

· Creates reputational risk because it is contrary to the long term intended outcome of the resource consent.

· The road has been formed and is in use, to do nothing would create a nonsense.

· In theory the land would not be a road and cannot be used as such by members of the public.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Cashmere Estates is a consented long running multistage subdivision creating in excess of 350 residential allotments. One of the consent conditions was to realign Worsleys Road to better enable traffic movement and safety.

5.2 Part of the realigned road crosses over an historic drainage easement created by Deed of Conveyance 125411 (198 D 131). Under normal circumstance this easement would have been surrendered to enable Lot 603 DP 550047 (Plan attached) to vest in Council as road freed of all encumbrances.

5.3 Due to commercial pressures and operational restrictions caused by the Covid 19 pandemic in 2020/21, to enable the subdivision to progress in a timely manner it was decided to vest this portion of land in Council as a Local Purposes (Road) Reserve subject to the above easement.

5.4 At the time this provided a practical solution allowing the staged subdivision to proceed and the road to be formed, it also necessitated the creation of additional service easements over the reserve of that will now be surrendered, namely;

5.4.1 A right to convey water, drain water and sewage over Lot 603 in favour of the Christchurch City Council and

5.4.2 A right to convey telephonic communications in favour of Enable Networks Limited and

5.4.3 A right to convey electricity in favour of Orion New Zealand Limited

5.5 Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the Council to pass a resolution dedicating a road reserve as road, the process to dedicate Lot 603 as road can now be completed.

5.6 The surrender of the easements over the reserve will be dealt with under an existing delegation to the Head of Sustainable City Growth and Property and the Manager Property Consultancy. Page 69 Delegation Register

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

5.7.1 Cashmere Ward – Waihoro - Spreydon Cashmere Heathcote Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Aligns with the Councils Transport Strategy in the draft Christchurch Transport Plan by providing consistent and safe street design and connecting communities through the road network.

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

6.3 Transport

6.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 16.0.2 Improve roadway condition, to an appropriate national standard, measured by smooth travel exposure (STE) - >=75% of the sealed local road network meets the appropriate national standard

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s draft Christchurch Transport Plan and Policies by enabling safe streets and growth.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.7 There is no impact on Mana Whenua. Any impact on Mana Whenua would have been considered in the resource consent application and addressed. That application has been approved and the resource consent granted.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The decisions in this report do not impact on climate change. Environmental effects were considered as part of the resource consent and were found to be less than minor. The development has already occurred and was not contrary to the relevant provisions set out in the District Plan or the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 Accessibility was considered as part of the design standards for road corridors and footpaths. There is a share pedestrian cycleway on the newly formed road.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – Minor, costs are limited to staff time and disbursements.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Minimal as the road is newly formed.

7.3 Funding Source – Transport – Growth

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no other considerations.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises local authorities to dedicate Local Purpose (Road) Reserves as Road.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no significant risks associated with the decisions in this report. Conversely there is reputational risk if a decision is not made. Lot 603 would remain a reserve and would not be a legal road.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	304/6616 DP 550047 Title Plan.pdf	22/1264539

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Milne - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

06 September 2023

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board – 10 August 2023

14. Athol/Waimairi Safety Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1297348
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer (Gemma.Dioni@ccc.govt.nz) Kiran Skelton, Engagement Advisor (Kiran.Skelton@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management (Lynette.Ellis@ccc.govt.nz)

Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider approval of cycle lanes on Waimairi Road and bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathways on Athol and Waimairi Roads. The proposals are in addition to: road layout changes; the installation of a pedestrian crossing on Waimairi Road; parking and stopping restrictions and the installation of a bus passenger shelter on Waimairi Road approved by the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.
The scheme is designed to improve safety for people travelling on foot and increase accessibility to public transport by having a safe priority crossing.

1.2 The report presented to the Board was in response to a request from Environment Canterbury following the decision in September 2022 to make Waimairi Road the permanent route for the Orbiter bus service.

1. Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

(Officer recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

Road Layout changes

1. Approves the scheme design as detailed on planTG135679 in Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

2. Approves that a pedestrian crossing be installed on Waimairi Road, located three metres south of its intersection with Athol Terrace, in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 and as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda. Cycle precedence over a roadway at a crossing is achieved by placing give-way controls against the roadway approaches (Land Transport (Traffic Control Devices) Rule Clause 11.4(5).

Parking and stopping restrictions

3. Approves pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 that:

a. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Athol Terrace commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

b. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Athol Terrace commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17.5 metres.

c. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

d. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

e. A Bus Stop be installed on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 35 metres south of its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

f. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 49 metres south of its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

g. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

h. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 31 metres north of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

i. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 80 metres north of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

j. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

k. A Bus Stop be installed on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 38 metres south of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

l. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 52 metres south of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

Bus passenger shelter resolution

4. Approves pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 the installation of a bus passenger shelter on the west side of Waimairi Road (beside 52 Athol Terrace) commencing at a point 32 metres southwest of its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

5. Revoke s any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in resolutions 7-9 above.

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

Tyla Harrison-Hunt/Gamal Fouda

2. Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

(Officer recommendations accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

7. Resolves that the pathway on the west side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres be a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

8. Resolves that the pathway on the south side of Athol Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres be a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

9. Resolves that the pathway on the east side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 27 metres be a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

10. Resolves that the pathway on the south side of Homestead Lane, commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 5 metres be a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

11. Resolves that a special vehicle (cycle) lane be installed on the west side of Waimairi Road for northbound cyclists only, starting from a point 67 metres south of the intersection of Athol Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 96 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

12. Resolves that a special vehicle (cycle) lane be installed on the east side of Waimari Road for southbound cyclists only, starting from a point 17 metres north of the intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 77 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Athol/Waimairi Safety Improvements	23/831039	143

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Athol/Waimairi - Plan For Approval	23/1113204	153
b ⇩	Athol/Waimairi - Submission Table	23/1113203	154

Council

06 September 2023

Athol/Waimairi Safety Improvements
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/831039
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transportation Engineer (Gemma.Dioni@ccc.govt.nz) Kiran Skelton, Engagement Advisor (Kiran.Skelton@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management (Lynette.Ellis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider approval of safety improvements and bus stop changes on Waimairi Road. The scheme will improve safety for people travelling on foot and increase accessibility to public transport by having a safe priority crossing.

1.2 The report has been written in response to a request from Environment Canterbury following the decision in September 2022 to make Waimairi Road the permanent route for the Orbiter bus service.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of potential affected parties (bus users, car users, cyclists, pedestrians - including a large amount of University of Canterbury students). The benefits of the project are medium to high because it lowers the speed of vehicles using Waimairi Road but also because it provides a significant benefit to pedestrian and cyclist commuters from University of Canterbury and from the surrounding area.

1.4 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

1.5 The recommended option is to construct a raised zebra crossing, build outs, and new road markings in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

Road Layout changes

1. Approves the scheme design as detailed on planTG135679 in Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

Parking and stopping restrictions

3. Approves pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

a. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Athol Terrace commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

b. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Athol Terrace commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17.5 metres.

c. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

d. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

e. that a Bus Stop be installed on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 35 metres south of its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

f. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 49 metres south of its intersection with Athol Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

g. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

h. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 31 metres north of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

i. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 80 metres north of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

j. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

k. that a Bus Stop be installed on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 38 metres south of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

l. that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 52 metres south of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

Bus passenger shelter resolution

5. Revoke s any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in resolutions 7-9 above.

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

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 In 2022, Environment Canterbury (ECan) undertook community consultation to seek residents' feedback on the possibility of rerouting the Orbiter Route from Waimairi Road to Ilam Road. However, after reviewing and considering the feedback, ECan’s Council decided, in early September 2022 to make the Waimairi Road route permanent.

3.2 As part of this decision, ECan requested that Christchurch City Council (CCC) explore the feasibility of establishing a new northbound bus stop on Waimairi Road, close to Athol Terrace. This proposed stop aims to improve access to the Orbiter Route and cater to the existing bus patronage, especially among the large number of university students and residents at the Parkstone Retirement Village accessing the Orbiter Route.

3.3 To address the crossing demands at this location, ECan have also asked Council to explore pedestrian improvements, such as a safe crossing facility. The aim is to make this area safer and more convenient for pedestrians, particularly those who rely on the bus service.

3.4 Further opportunities to improve general safety and cycling facilities at the intersection were identified by staff, and an external consultant was engaged to develop a solution for this location.

3.5 The recommendations in this report will help to improve safety and access by:

· Installing a new northbound bus stop on Waimairi Road south of Athol Terrace with a shelter.

· Implementing kerb changes on both sides of Waimairi Road and Athol Terrace at the intersection to narrow the roads and reduce crossing distances.

· Relocating the existing southbound bus stop and shelter slightly south as a result of the kerb realignment on the east side of Waimairi Road.

· Constructing a raised safety platform on Waimairi Road south of Athol Terrace, accommodating dual pedestrian and cycle priority crossings.

· Implementing localised sections of cycle lanes on Waimairi Road through the intersection.

· Establishing a shared path on the southwest corner of the Waimairi Road – Athol Terrace intersection that enables cyclists to safely access the crossing facility.

· Creating a shared path on the east side of Waimairi Road between the proposed crossing and Homestead Lane. The scheme plan also indicates the shared path extending into Homestead Lane, however this is subject to University of Canterbury approval.

· Requiring the removal of approximately seven on-street parking spaces.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Maintain the status quo

4.1 The advantages of this option include:

4.2.1 Retains on-street parking spaces.

4.2 The disadvantages of the option include:

4.3.1 Does not address the pedestrian crossing improvements requested by Environment Canterbury.

Implementation of a pedestrian refuge island

4.3 The advantages of this option include:

4.3.1 Lower cost option.

4.4 The disadvantages of the option include:

4.4.1 Requires removal of approximately 13 on-street parking spaces.

4.4.2 Would not provide priority for people crossing and needing to access the bus stops. The platform will provide for a level crossing, making it easier for people who use assisted devices or are pushing prams etc to cross at this location.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Waimairi Road between Peer Street and Riccarton Road provides access to the University of Canterbury, residential properties and the Bush Inn/Church Corner Town Centre.

5.2 Under the Waka Kotahi One Network Framework Classification, Waimairi Road is an urban connector. It has one lane in each direction and on street parking. There are no dedicated cycling facilities on Waimairi Road, however the Puari ki Pū-taringa-motu Uni-Cycle route is accessible to the east via Homestead Lane.

5.3 Christchurch City Council’s traffic count database shows that in May 2023, Waimairi Road had approximately 8700 vehicles per day, with 4.7% classified as heavy vehicles. The 85^th percentile speed is 52.4 km/h for northbound vehicles and 51.5km/h for southbound vehicles. The mean speed is approximately 45.5km/h in each direction.

5.4 There are no midblock pedestrian crossings on Waimairi Road. There is one crossing to the north at the intersection of Peer Street/Waimairi Road. This is approximately 180 metres away from Athol Terrace.

5.5 The Waka Kotahi Crash Analysis System (CAS) was used to gain an understanding of any underlying safety issues on Waimairi Road at the crossing location and on the approaches. Six crashes were recorded, including five at the intersection of Waimairi Road/Athol Terrace, and one to the south, between 2013 and 2022 (inclusive). There were two minor injury crashes recorded and four non-injury crashes.

5.6 The University, School, Retirement village and people commuting through this area means that there is medium to high pedestrian and cycle activity on Waimairi Road depending on the time of day. So, although the crash history does not show any underlying safety concerns, the current road layout is not conducive to a safe pedestrian and cyclist environment due to the width of the road and size of the intersection particularly with Athol Terrace.

5.7 In response to submissions, staff revised the landscape plan to relocate the proposed position of the bus shelter. Letters were sent to the property owner of 52 Athol Terrace, but no response was received. The property was also visited, and the tenants expressed their satisfaction with the changes.

5.8 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within the current financial year.

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

5.9.1 Riccarton Ward

5.9.2 Halswell/Hornby/Riccarton Community Board

6. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.1 Early engagement commenced in March 2023 with the following key stakeholders: University of Canterbury, Ilam Apartments, Tupuanuku, Arcady Hall (formerly Bishop Julius), College Hall, University of Canterbury Students Association (UCSA), and Bupa Parkstone Retirement Village.

6.1.1 Meetings were held with the directly affected halls, Arcady Hall and Ilam Apartments. Two concept design options were presented: option 1 proposed a pedestrian refuge island, and option 2 proposed a dual raised safety platform. Both affected halls expressed a preference for option 2.

6.1.2 A round table meeting was organised with University of Canterbury, Ilam Apartments, Tupuanuku, Arcady Hall, College Hall and UCSA to gather their feedback on the two options mentioned earlier, all stakeholders unanimously preferred option 2.

6.1.3 Bupa Parkstone Retirement Village was engaged by phone and email conversations and preferred option 2.

6.1.4 Considering the feedback received, option 2 became the preferred. This also aligned with staff preferences.

6.2 On 23 March 2023, early engagement information was presented to the Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board in a briefing. The board accepted the staff advice to proceed with consultation on the preferred option.

6.3 Consultation began on 3 May 2023 and concluded on 31 May 2023. Residents affected by the new bus stop and shelter on the west side of Waimairi Road were personally visited, provided with a letter, and given a copy of the proposed plan. An email was sent to 23 key stakeholders, including St Johns, SPOKES, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), Metro ECan, Canterbury / West Coast Automobile Association, and NZ Police, informing them of the project. Community organisations were provided with information to share on their social media channels. These communities included:

· Riccarton Neighbourhood Updates

· Avonhead / Burnside / Bishopdale / Ilam Community Page

· Bishopdale/Papanui/Bryndwr & Surroundings Community

· Hornby Community Group

· Russley/Avonhead/Yaldhurst Community Group

Communication with stakeholders, the community and affected residents invited submissions on the Have Your Say webpage https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/587.

6.4 FENZ responded to the key stakeholder email, stating that they believed the raised safety platform would have a negligible impact on their response times.

6.5 Some residents directly affected by the proposed bus stop and shelter submitted requests to move the bus shelter slightly north, aligning it with the boundary of 52 Athol Terrace and 73 Waimairi Road, due to privacy concerns.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.6 Submissions were made by nine recognised organisations as well as 182 individuals. These organisations include:

· University of Canterbury

· Unilodge – Tupuanuku and Ilam Apartments

· Bupa Parkstone Retirement Village

· Spokes

· Wednesday Wheelie Bike Group

· Canterbury/West Coast Automobile Association District Council

· Disabled Persons Assembly

· Generation Zero

· Environment Canterbury

All submissions are available in Attachment B.

6.6.1 All organisations submitted in support of the proposed changes.

6.7 Two questions were asked during consultation. Submitters also had the opportunity to give general comments on the plan.

6.7.1 Do you think the proposed bus stops are in the best place?

· 161 submitters responded ‘Yes’ to this question.

· 10 submitters responded ‘No’ to this question.

· 20 submitters responded, ‘Don’t know’

6.7.2 Do you think a raised safety platform in this location will make it safer?

· 181 submitters responded ‘Yes’ to this question.

· 4 submitters responded ‘No’ to this question.

· 6 submitters responded ‘Don’t know’ to this question. The information provided in some comments suggested that these submitters were unsure of the effectiveness of raised safety platforms.

6.8 Main themes that staff received during consultation from the general comments:

6.8.1 A significant amount of feedback (43) indicated that the suggested improvements are a well-designed solution for all road users, particularly university students who frequently travel between the University and local shops.

6.8.2 A minority of the feedback expressed concerns (4) that the proposed changes would result in a reduction of available parking spaces, which could make the area less appealing for residents who would struggle to find parking for their personal vehicles.

6.8.3 Additionally, some individuals mentioned that relying solely on painted cycle lanes may not be sufficient to ensure the safety of cyclists (3).

6.8.4 22 submitters explicitly shared their personal experiences of encountering dangerous incidents at this intersection and acknowledged that the proposed improvements effectively address these safety issues, aiming to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

6.8.5 Furthermore, certain feedback included information that falls outside the project's scope, such as safety concerns related to the Peer Street to New World crossing for commuters, as well as the need to address safety issues concerning the zebra crossing outside 71 Ilam Road.

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here (Do not delete any of the following headings, if any are not applicable state why this is the case. The page includes guidance material for completing this section)

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

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

7.3 Transport

7.3.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 585 kilometres (total combined length)

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.5 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.

7.6 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

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.8 This proposal improves accessibility for pedestrians wanting to access the bus stops by providing a raised zebra crossing.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement - $300k approximately. This is an estimated cost not a priced contract cost.

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

8.3 Funding Source –Delivery Package - Public Transport Stops, Shelters & Seatings Installation.

Other He mea anō

8.4 None identified.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

9.2 The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 None identified.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Athol/Waimairi - Plan For Approval	23/1113204
b	Athol/Waimairi - Submission Table	23/1113203

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

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Assistant

Approved By

Katie Smith - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

06 September 2023

Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Terms of Reference and Delegations
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1111978
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Democratic Services Advisor (ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an opportunity to review the Terms of Reference and report back any proposed amendments to Council for consideration.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Recommends that the following amendments to the Terms of Reference be referred to Council for consideration:

a. Delete the delegations under clause 8 “on street” and “off street” parking charges.

b. Delete the delegation under clause 10 relating to specifying parking place or places as residents only parking area for the exclusive use of persons who resident in the vicinity.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 On 17 May 2023, the Council resolved to reactivate the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee and adopted the Terms of Reference that were in operation during the previous Council term 2019 – 2022.

3.2 The Council resolved that the Committee report back any proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference to the Council, for consideration. This report summarises the proposed amendments (shown in Attachment A).

4. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

4.1 The Central City Parking Restrictions Committee has specific delegations relating to parts of clauses 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Parking and Traffic Bylaw 2017. A copy of these sections of the Bylaw is attached to this report (Attachment B).

Discretion to prescribe “on street’ and “off street” parking charges

4.2 The Terms of Reference includes the discretion to prescribe “on street” and “off-street” parking charges, under clause 8 of the Parking and Traffic Bylaw 2017, which is subject to limits set out in the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

4.3 The fees set in the 2023/24 Annual Plan are expressed as a fixed charge, rather than providing a range (as has been done in the past) or indicating that they are a maximum limit. There is no discretion for this Committee to set or modify the fees.

4.4 It is therefore recommended that this section of the Terms of Reference be removed. It can be resolved to be included in the Terms of Reference of the Committee for any subsequent Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan depending upon the approach taken as the case may require.

Central City Parking Policy

4.5 The Central City Parking Policy (2021) provides a framework to manage and address parking related issues in the central city. Policy 6 (Attachment C) provides that the Council will retain existing residents’ only parking areas and not permit new resident only parking areas. It is therefore recommended that the delegation associated with reserving residents’ only parking be removed from the Terms of Reference to align with this policy.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Proposed Amendments to Central City Parking Restrictions Terms of Reference	23/1140797
b	Sections 7 -11 Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017	23/1143429
c	Central City Parking Policy - Policy 6	23/1140934

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

Ann Fitzgerald - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Megan Pearce - Manager Hearings and Council Support

Steffan Thomas - Head of Technical Services & Design

Council

06 September 2023

Report from Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee – 20 June 2023

16. Monitoring of Water Quality for Contact Recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1090323
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Democratic Services Advisor
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Acting General Manager – Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services

Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee input into improving water quality for contact recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula.

1.2 Water Management Zone Committee recommendations to Council. Staff have provided additional advice on the Committee recommendations to Council in Attachment A.

1. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

Secretarial Note: The Committee accepted staff recommendations, with the following additions:

1. Recommendation 1 –The Committee decided to add “Akaroa”, after Banks Peninsula.

2. Recommendation 3(b) – The Committee decided to add “audits existing signage”.

3. Recommendation 3(e) – The Committee decided to replace “Banks Peninsula” with “Canterbury”, and “in Whakaraupō” with “Banks Peninsula”.

2. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Receives the information provided on the faecal source tracking analysis of the 2022-2023 monitoring of water quality for contact recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula and Akaroa.

2. Agrees to hold another workshop later in the year once the results of the faecal source tracking are public to discuss how the Zone Committee may add value to community engagement and finding solutions to pollution.

3. Recommends that:

a. Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury identify the sources of the faecal contamination, and work with others to find solutions.

b. Christchurch City Council, in collaboration with Environment Canterbury and Te Whatu Ora audits existing signage and creates new signage that effectively communicates the risk after rain to end-users.

c. Environment Canterbury, in collaboration with Christchurch City Council and Te Whatu Ora requests changes to the LAWA (Land, Air Water Aotearoa) website.

d. Christchurch City Council investigates and quantifies the sources of pollution to stormwater in Corsair Bay.

e. Environment Canterbury considers removing some testing sites around Canterbury so that testing can be increased at the most popular recreation sites on Banks Peninsula.

4. Develops a proposal for running a stormwater superhero engagement campaign.

5. Works with Whaka-Ora to engage with the rural sector to support solutions to ruminant and avian sources, with support from Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury.

3. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Recommendation to Council

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

That the Council:

1. Work with Environment Canterbury to identify the sources of the faecal contamination, and work with others to find solutions.

2. In collaboration with Environment Canterbury and Te Whatu Ora, audit existing signage and create new signage that effectively communicates the risk after rain to end-users.

3. In collaboration with Environment Canterbury and Te Whatu Ora, request changes to the LAWA (Land, Air Water Aotearoa) website.

4. Investigate and quantify the sources of pollution to stormwater in Corsair Bay.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Monitoring of Water Quality for Contact Recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula	23/906918	193

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Staff Memo - Monitoring of Water Quality for Contact Recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula	23/1174412	195

Council

06 September 2023

18. Central Plains Water Trust - Presentation of the Annual Sustainability Report 2021/22
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1024052
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources (linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Information Update and Report Origin

1.1 Receiving a presentation from the Chair of the Central Plains Water Trust (the Trust) supported by the Chief Executive of Central Plains Water Ltd (CPW Ltd) on the environmental impacts from the irrigation activities in Canterbury's Central Plains.

1.2 Requested by Councillors when decisions were taken about retaining the Council's ownership interest in the Trust (FPCO/2023/00042 refers).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the Annual Sustainability Report 2022 presentation from the Chair of the Central Plains Water Trust and Chief Executive of Central Plains Water Ltd.

3. Brief Summary

3.1 The Annual Sustainability Report (ASR), commissioned by the Trust for 2021/22 is at Attachment A. A CCC staff report reviewing the ASR is at Attachment B. The Trust, CPW Ltd and Selwyn District Council (SDC) (50% shareholder of the Trust) have been provided with copies of the CCC staff review report.

3.2 The Trust’s Chairman, Mr Pat McEvedy, and Central Plains Water Ltd’s (CPW Ltd’s) Chief Executive, Ms Susan Goodfellow will present the ASR at the Council meeting.

3.3 The ASR reports on the impacts of CPW Ltd’s irrigation activities with respect to the Trust’s objectives to “promote the development of agriculture in the Central Canterbury Plains area of New Zealand for the benefit of all of the inhabitants of the Canterbury region, by:

· encouraging, supporting and facilitating the sustainable development of the water resources of the region, agricultural and horticultural diversity and an appropriate balance of the benefits of agricultural development with the enhancement of ecological, social and recreational values in the Central Plains area; and

· providing and facilitating education in relation to water issues and sustainable agricultural development”.

3.4 At its meeting on 28 June 2023, the Finance and Performance Committee received the ASR for 2022 and noted CCC staff commentary as follows (FPCO/2023/00054 refers):

One of the most complex issues is the relationship between the activities in a given period and the impact on environmental outcomes, particularly the quality of the groundwater source of Christchurch’s drinking water supplies. Uncertainty with respect to the degree of risk to Christchurch’s drinking water sources from the Central Plains irrigation activities arises as the following are unknown:

· the speed at which groundwater in the Selwyn Waihora sub-region travels;

· the likely increase in nitrate concentration in Christchurch drinking water wells in the flow path of groundwater travelling from the Selwyn Waihora region; and

· the extent to which any increase in nitrate concentration in Christchurch drinking water wells, in the flow path of groundwater travelling from the Selwyn Waihora region, can be attributed to activities within the Scheme area.

The staff analysis of the ASR reveals some initial concerns, particularly the issue of trigger levels being exceeded in 12 of the 20 groundwater quality monitoring wells, with 10 of the wells also exceeding the New Zealand Drinking Water Standard. However, we need to understand the results in more detail before reaching any conclusions. The ASR advises that the results were less than peak values in the 2017-18 year (i.e. just prior to the irrigation scheme commencing). The appropriateness of these settings needs to be discussed with the Trust.

3.5 Understanding the appropriateness of the settings and what, if anything the company is or could be doing to improve groundwater quality in the near future are the key questions to address at this stage.

Statement of Intent 2023/24

3.6 The Trust’s Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2023/24 has been adopted following the Finance and Performance Committee’s review at its meeting on 28 June 2023 (FPCO/2023/00054 refers).

3.7 It includes new commitments to (at the request of the councils):

· review the ASR’s reporting framework and to provide any additional information that would assist the councils to be well-informed of the risks of contaminants reaching drinking water supplies; and

· engage with the councils’ environmental staff on the ASR’s findings, after which the Trust will present the ASR to the councils in an open public meeting each year.

3.8 At a recent meeting between the Trust and the Central Plains Water Joint Committee, the Trust agreed to test whether there are ways in which information can be provided by CPW Ltd on a) independent water quality monitoring plans and results; and b) how the impacts of climate change might create additional risks to the quality of drinking water supplies for the councils and its methodology for managing risk.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Annual Sustainability Report 2022	23/956415	218
b ⇩	Christchurch City Council staff review of Annual Sustainability Report	23/956468	277

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO

Diane Shelander - Senior Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

06 September 2023

20. Amendment to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 - Permanent Alcohol Ban in Woolston Village
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1057298
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Evangeline Dispo, Policy Analyst (evangeline.dispo@ccc.govt.nz) Jenna Marsden, Senior Policy Analyst (jenna.marsden@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 This report summarises feedback received on the proposed permanent alcohol ban in Woolston Village consultation. From the submissions, staff recommend the Council amends Schedule 1 of the Bylaw to include Woolston Village as a Permanent Alcohol Ban Area.

1.2 This is in response to the Council decision (CNCL/2023/00066) to consult on an amendment to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018, making the ban in the Woolston Village area permanent.

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:

1.3.1 the nature of the amendment to the Bylaw – while it does affect a small group of people drinking in public in Woolston, it does not adversely impact on the wider community.

1.3.2 the fact a decision to introduce a permanent alcohol ban area can be reversed or amended by a further decision of Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the analysis of submissions received (see Attachment A Summary analysis of submissions received).

2. Agree to amend Schedule 1 (Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas) of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018, as set out in Attachment B, to make a permanent alcohol ban in Woolston Village in the area bounded by Hargood Street, Glenroy Street, Glenroy Reserve, St. Johns Street, Ferry Road, Rutherford Street, Heathcote River (running along Radley Park), Cumnor Terrace, Riley Crescent, Laura Kent Park walkway, Radley Street, and back to Hargood Street, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and applying to both sides of the streets named.

3. Note the change to the boundary of the alcohol ban to include Glenroy Reserve in the light of submissions received.

4. Approve the amendment to Schedule 1 as set out in Attachment B coming into force immediately, on adoption of the amendment.

5. Give public notice as soon as practicable that Schedule 1 to the Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 has been amended, effective immediately.

6. Authorise staff to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors or omissions before the amended Bylaw is published.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Staff recommend Schedule 1 of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 is amended to make the temporary alcohol ban in Woolston Village permanent and extend the ban area to include Glenroy Reserve. This is recommended because:

3.1.1 Most submitters support a permanent alcohol ban in Woolston Village.

3.1.2 The Police support permanent restrictions on public consumption of alcohol in the Village. They consider the ban an effective tool in addressing and managing unacceptable behaviour caused by people drinking, enabling them to intervene in public drinking before serious crimes are committed.

3.1.3 Residents report that the alcohol ban has successfully decreased the occurrence of antisocial behaviour caused by public drinking and improved community safety in Woolston Village.

3.1.4 During consultations, Glenroy Reserve was identified as an area next to the temporary ban area where people were observed congregating to drink alcohol. The Police, Council Parks Team and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board support including Glenroy Reserve in the Woolston Village alcohol ban area.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Do not amend the Bylaw so there is no permanent alcohol ban in Woolston Village. This option is not supported by the community based on submissions received. Staff consider that the level of disorder caused or made worse by drinking in public places is likely to increase in Woolston Village if the ban is not continued.

4.2 Amend the Bylaw to make the ban permanent but retain the current boundaries of the temporary ban excluding Glenroy Reserve. Staff do not recommend this option as it would not address issues with Glenroy Reserve - a community park on the outer edge of the alcohol ban area - being used as alternative venue for drinking. Both the Police and the Community Board support inclusion of Glenroy Reserve as it is directly connected to streets bordering the ban area and staff support this inclusion as appropriate and reasonable given legislative requirements for imposing a ban.

4.3 Amend the Bylaw and extend the ban to include other public areas. Other public areas suggested in submissions were Portman Street, Thistledown Reserve, Te Waka Unua School area, Linwood Avenue and Woolston Park. The Police do not support the inclusion of Portman Street, Thistledown Reserve, Te Waka Unua School area and Linwood Avenue into the ban area because they do not consider these areas problematic. Accordingly, staff do not support including these areas as this would not meet the legal requirements for an alcohol ban. Staff advise that Woolston Park is already covered by an existing alcohol ban area, applicable to rugby league playing fields, under Schedule 1 of the Bylaw.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 prohibits the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places within the designated alcohol ban areas. The Bylaw is an important tool for local communities to reduce alcohol-related harm and improve community safety by placing restrictions on alcohol in some areas.

5.2 A temporary alcohol ban in Woolston Village was introduced on 14 December 2022 to address alcohol-related antisocial behaviour occurring in the Village (see staff report agenda item 6). The temporary ban was initially applied until 13 June 2023 and the Council asked that staff review the effectiveness of the temporary ban in mid-2023.

5.3 On 17 May 2023 staff presented the results of the temporary ban review to Council (see staff report agenda item 9). The ban was found to have improved the social environment in the Village and reduced alcohol-related litter in the ban area. Having considered the staff report on the matter and the overwhelming support to keep the ban in place, the Council decided to extend the temporary alcohol ban for another six months and asked staff to consult the public on making the ban permanent.

The consultation process

5.4 Feedback on the proposed amendment of the Bylaw was sought in accordance with section 156 (b) of the Local Government Act 2002 which requires local councils to consult when amending a bylaw in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Act that relate to consultation.

5.5 The consultation opened for submissions on 14 June 2023 and closed on 27 June 2023. Prior to consultations, staff engaged directly with local businesses and community groups. One week post-consultation was allowed for late submissions, meaning community engagement and consultation took place over one month.

5.6 The opportunity to make submissions was available:

· online via ‘Have Your Say’ on the Council’s website

· via email direct to identified stakeholders

· in hard copy at the Woolston Community Library and

· via consultation posters with a QR code link displayed on windows of local businesses.

Summary of submissions received

5.7 47 submissions were received. 94% (44 submissions) expressed support for amending the Bylaw to make the alcohol ban permanent. 6% (three submissions) opposed the proposal.

5.8 Submissions were made by the Police, Te Mana Ora Waitaha (on behalf of Te Whatu Ora), Kainga Ora, two schools, nine businesses, 32 individuals, and the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board.

5.9 A number of those supporting a permanent alcohol ban in Woolston Village requested the ban be extended to cover the following:

5.9.1 Glenroy Reserve

· Glenroy Reserve is a community park on the corner of Glenroy Street and St. Johns Street. Staff recently received information that people have been gathering together in the park and drinking alcohol. The local community board submission suggested extending the alcohol ban to include Glenroy Reserve.

· Parks staff and Police support the inclusion of Glenroy Reserve, noting the park adjoins the boundary of the current temporary ban area. An alcohol ban on Glenroy Reserve would discourage people from using the park as alternative venue for consuming alcohol and will prevent occurrence of antisocial behaviour associated with drinking.

5.9.2 Woolston Park

· The Police consider that issues associated with drinking in Woolston Park tend to arise in connection with rugby league fixtures when supporters occasionally become problematic, and that there is not a wider issue of drinking there.

· In 2020 the Council introduced a permanent alcohol ban on Council sport fields allocated for the playing of rugby league in various parks including Woolston Park, to be applied from April to August each year. The ban applies to rugby league playing fields and adjoining areas to address problems caused by supporters drinking on the sidelines during games and training sessions.

5.9.3 Other areas (Portman Street and adjoining streets, Thistledown Reserve, Ferry Road to cover Te Waka Unua School area and Linwood Avenue)

· The Police confirm that their data does not support the assertion that these additional areas have been problematic. They do not support further extension of alcohol ban into these areas.

· No information of recurring alcohol-related incidents in these additional areas has been received. In the absence of any evidence, staff advise that we do not meet Local Government Act requirements for an alcohol ban in these areas.

5.10 Further analysis of submissions received is in Attachment A.

5.11 The decision affects the Woolston ward. The Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board support a permanent alcohol ban in the Woolston Village area to help ‘clean up’ the streets and create a welcoming and safer environment for local residents and visitors.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This report is aligned to the priorities of the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan which seeks to create safer public spaces in the city.

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

6.3 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.3.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision is consistent with the Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018. The Council and staff have worked with the community in developing this approach to a local issue, supporting the Council’s strategic priority on building trust and confidence in the Council through meaningful partnerships and communication, listening to and working with residents.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 This decision does not relate to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, and does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 Not applicable.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 The decision does not raise accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – If the Council decides to include Glenroy Reserve in the alcohol ban area, there will be a one-off additional cost of $597. This is required to update the existing alcohol ban signs and to install one additional alcohol ban sign at Glenroy Reserve.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Enforcement of the bylaw rests with the Police under sections 169 -170 of the Local Government Act 2002.

7.3 Funding Source – The funding required to cover the additional alcohol ban sign and to update the existing ban signs will be sourced from Parks and Transport Teams existing budgets.

Other He mea anō

7.4 None identified.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) enables the Council to regulate the possession and consumption of alcohol in public places through a bylaw. Schedule 1 of this Bylaw lists the areas in which alcohol restrictions are permanently in place.

8.2 Before the Council can amend the Bylaw to include a permanent ban, it must be satisfied that an alcohol ban in Woolston Village is an appropriate and proportionate response to alcohol related harm and disorder. This was established in the 17 May 2023 report to Council (agenda item 9).

8.3 Clause 4(2) of the Bylaw notes the Council can add, remove or alter any part of Schedule 1 of the Bylaw in accordance with section 156 of the Act. Section 156 outlines the requirements when making, amending or revoking a bylaw made under the Act. Section 156(b) of the Act requires that Council consult the public in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Act.

8.4 The Legal Services Unit is satisfied legislative requirements have been met as set out in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.11.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.5 Alcohol bans do not apply to areas or activities that are covered by an alcohol licence issued under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This includes any public place which is part of a licenced premises’ outdoor area, where permission to occupy that area has been granted by the Council.

8.6 The Police are empowered by the Local Government Act 2002 to enforce the provisions of the Bylaw made for controlling the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places. Section 169 of the Act gives the Police powers of arrest, search, and seizure in relation to enforcing the alcohol bylaw, and section 170 sets out the conditions applicable to the power of search.

8.7 Under the Local Government Act 2002, the Police can also issue ‘instant fines’ of $250 for individuals breaching the bylaw.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 As Te Mana Ora noted in their submission, an alcohol ban may displace people public drinking to other public spaces less visible to the Police. To help mitigate this, Council community development staff will continue to work with local partner organisations on a range of community-focused initiatives to discourage public drinking and keep the community engaged in safe and positive activities.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Summary analysis of submissions received	23/1274244	325
b ⇩	Attachment B Draft amendment to Schedule 1 (Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas) of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018	23/1277797	326
c ⇩	Attachment C - Feedback received on the Proposed Woolston Village Permanent Alcohol Ban	23/1450597	328

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

Evangeline Dispo - Policy Analyst

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

06 September 2023

21. Streets for People - Gloucester Street
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1256851
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Torin Smith, Transport Network Planner Torin.Smith@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management (Lynette.Ellis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Issue and Report Origin

1.1 Council to decide whether to proceed or withdraw from the Streets for People - Gloucester St trial.

1.2 This report is staff generated following a briefing with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) on 3 August 2023.

1.3 The decision in this report medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

1.4 The level of significance was determined using the significance assessment sheet and has been classified as medium due to the number of people affected, the level of impact on those affected, the high level of key stakeholder interest and the potential impacts on future social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the city.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Instruct staff not to proceed to delivery of the Streets for People - Gloucester Street Shared Space project (#71599).

2. Instruct staff to formally notify Waka Kotahi of this decision, and report back to the Finance & Performance Committee on the Council liability for costs incurred and committed to date.

3. Request staff to investigate the re-use of purchased assets on other projects.

4. Approve staff to use $100,000 from the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) project (#18371) in FY24 to carry out minor improvements to the kerbs and footpaths to improve access to the Court Theatre prior to opening.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Gloucester Street Shared Space trial project has been on pause since April 2023 due to concerns from Central City stakeholders surrounding the proposal to trial a one-way slow street environment along the project corridor. With the June 2024 deadline for funding support from Waka Kotahi rapidly approaching, Council must make a decision on the future of the project to provide certainty to government funding partners.

3.2 There are considerations for and against proceeding with the trial (discussed in Section 5), however, while the project would likely bring benefits to the central city, given the uncertainty and ongoing construction activity on adjacent sites, the timing is currently not appropriate. It was therefore recommended that Council not proceed with the project.

3.3 Around $214,000 in costs have been incurred to date, particularly for the design of the one-way trial layout, the procurement of some street furniture (seats, planters, etc), and for costs to occupy a piece of private land on Gloucester Street. Staff believe that Council may become solely liable for these costs under the terms of the funding agreement so may have to repay Waka Kotahi for funds already recovered, however, it may be possible to mitigate this through the re-use of some elements on other live projects.

3.4 Approval is sought to spend some funding from the Gloucester Street permanent works budget to repair and reinstate the kerbs and footpath on the corner of Gloucester and Colombo Street outside the proposed Court Theatre that is currently in construction. The footpath in this location is currently in very poor condition, and therefore has the potential to be hazardous for a site that will generate significant pedestrian activity. The poor state of the adjacent infrastructure may also pose a reputational risk as it does reflect the investment made in the Performing Arts Precinct.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 To proceed with the Gloucester Street shared space trial as planned. This could be amended to include a design incorporating two-way traffic flows along the corridor.

4.1.1 This option has the advantage of Council being able to continue accessing Waka Kotahi funding support to trial pedestrian-friendly street layouts that are supported by many local stakeholders. A two-way option is likely to, at least in part, alleviate some stakeholder concerns as two-way traffic could be retained.

4.1.2 Ongoing disadvantages include a lack of certainty surrounding future land uses along Gloucester Street and the potential for construction activity jeopardising the success of the project. A more detailed summary of advantages and disadvantages is presented in Section 5.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In February 2022, Christchurch City Council were successful in an application for Streets for People funding from Waka Kotahi to trial a variety of transitional improvements to Gloucester Street between Colombo and Manchester Street. The trial would promote a shared space and low speed environment reflecting the emerging land uses along the corridor, its identity as the boundary of a Performing Arts Precinct with high pedestrian demands, and the strategic location linking a number of popular Christchurch attractions.

5.2 Waka Kotahi approved funding the trial at a higher assistance rate of 90%. This comes with conditions, most notably that the trial must be completed, and data gathered and analysed, by the end of June 2024.

5.3 An initial design for the trial was prepared and shared with a number of affected stakeholders. Changes to the design were made based on feedback, and then the physical trial was scheduled to be begin in March 2023 to tie in with other events in the city. The design included a conversion of the street to one-way westbound traffic and provision made for cycle and pedestrian amenity, through widened footpaths, planting, gathering and performing spaces and outdoor dining.

5.4 In the run-up to the trial starting, concerns were raised with Council. These concerns related to the trial being one way, claims of lack of notice, perceptions that the proposed changes were inconsistent with existing plans, and the cost of the temporary works. Some Councillors also requested clarity on the intended use of staff Traffic Management delegations to deliver the project. The trial commencement was therefore delayed while these concerns were addressed.

5.5 Given the window for project delivery and Waka Kotahi funding support is rapidly closing, a decision on whether to continue this project is needed. There are several valid considerations both for and against the trial progressing as outlined below.

5.6 Considerations for the project proceeding:

5.6.1 Streets for people funding provides an opportunity to reimagine the layout of Gloucester Street, using temporary and flexible interventions at low cost to council and ahead of any permanent works being delivered in future.

5.6.2 The trial will allow for Council to test what a future Gloucester Street may look like to support a thriving and people-focussed central city. This is particularly important given the nature of Gloucester Street is changing, with new and existing developments such as the Court Theatre and Isaac Theatre Royal, which will have significant pedestrian demands, forming a link from New Regent Street through to Cathedral Square.

5.6.3 While the timing of the trial may be sub-optimal, given the status of various developments along Gloucester Street, it is out of Council’s control when the project can be delivered. June 2024 is a hard deadline for the Streets for People programme, at which point, government funding support will cease and any future trials in the area will potentially need to be funded fully at Council’s expense.

5.6.4 The nature of Streets for People projects is to be tactical and adaptive to the needs of key stakeholders. The design can be adapted in response to observed behaviours and patters.

5.6.5 Prior engagement with businesses along Gloucester Street indicated that they were largely in favour of the design and supportive of the vision for the corridor, some concerns had been raised. Council staff are in the process of designing an option with two-way traffic flows which is anticipated to, at least in-part, alleviate some concerns.

5.6.6 The project is not permanent and would be rolled out as a trial for an agreed time-period, during summer when there is elevated pedestrian activity in the Central City. Council staff will seek opportunities to tie the trial in with upcoming events, such as Bread and Circus World Buskers Festival, to ensure the project is activated to its full potential. Following the conclusion of the trial, the street will return to its original function, with outcomes evaluated and reported back to council to inform any permanent works in future.

5.7 Considerations against the project proceeding:

5.7.1 Due to the current status of developments in the vicinity of Gloucester Street (Performing Arts Precinct (PAP) projects, Catholic Diocese precinct on Armagh Street, Balance Te Pae), we lack knowledge of future destinations and pedestrian paths of travel. The trial will respond to current use and behaviour, as modified by construction, so it may not be predictive of future use and behaviour. It would therefore be preferrable to carry out a trial in the future when we have more certainty about future developments and when there are less construction effects.

5.7.2 Construction activity occurring on and around Gloucester Street is likely to skew the results of any trial. The uncertain needs of future development, and the need to retain space for heavy construction vehicles, has the potential to conflict with people-focussed spaces.

5.7.3 There are existing concerns about parking and access to the Court Theatre, so the proposed changes have the potential to add to these concerns. Current stakeholder feedback indicates a need for continued focus on access to surrounding properties, particularly for the disabled and elderly.

5.7.4 The first iteration of the trial proposed a change to one way. This change could be interpreted as being inconsistent with the broader transport plan for the Central City Core in that this section of Gloucester Street is designated as a local distributor. Local distributors serve as the preferred access routes to parking precincts. Taking a network view then this section needs to allow for traffic movements both east and west. This issue has been addressed in the latest iteration of the proposal.

5.7.5 Council’s vision, which is likely to be supported by others, is:

· Central Christchurch will become the thriving heart of an international city.

· It will be a vibrant people-focused place – day and night – with liveable Central City neighbourhoods.

5.7.6 Undertaking a worthwhile, but potentially controversial trial at this time, may undermine confidence in the Central City. A change in narrative is needed to help build confidence and achieve this vision. Cancelling this project, implementing different forms of engagement, and focusing on broader needs of an evolving precinct and network, may be a better alternative than the proposed trial.

5.8 On balance officers recommend that while trialing traffic changes before permanent changes are made is worthwhile, and that consideration of how safety and amenity of this section of Gloucester Street could be improved, now is not the time to do this. We therefore recommend that the Gloucester Street Streets for People project not proceed.

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

5.9.1 Central Ward/ Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This decision relates to approval to discontinue with the Gloucester Street shared space trial. The trial was to be funded through Waka Kotahi’s Streets for People Programme, which supports councils to partner with their communities to evolve their streets together and create people friendly spaces in a timely and responsive way.

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

6.3 Transport

6.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 16.0.8 Maintain the condition of footpaths - >=81% footpaths rated 1,2 or 3

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. While the recommendation does not support change to enhance transport objectives it does not restrict the opportunity for change in future.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.7 Impact on Mana Whenua is expected to be minimal. The scope of the project is limited to a single block of Gloucester Street between Colombo and Manchester Street. Should the trial proceed, any changes will be limited to a designated trial period which is yet to be confirmed, at which point the street will revert back to its original function.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The proposed decision is unlikely to have a significant impact the ability of the transport network adapting to climate change or emissions reduction.

6.9 While the purpose of Streets for people funding is to accelerate the uptake of sustainable transport modes, the project itself is unlikely to significantly contribute to a reduction in transport emissions due to the limited scope and timeframe of the trial. Therefore, the decision to not proceed with the trial is not inconsistent with the Council’s climate change considerations.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10 The decision to not proceed with the project means the improved safety and amenity for pedestrians and cyclists envisaged by the trial will not be realised.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The total project budget is $1.4 million, of which 90% is funded by Waka Kotahi.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – N/A – The project will be delivered as a trial, which will need to be completed by June 2024 to qualify for Waka Kotahi funding. It is therefore unlikely the project will incur any significant ongoing maintenance costs.

7.3 Funding Source – The project is 90% funded by the Waka Kotahi Streets for People programme. Remaining funding comes from transport capital improvements budgets. However, should it not proceed any costs incurred may not be eligible for this external funding.

Other He mea anō

7.4 To date, $214,000 of costs have been incurred by the project. These costs relate to design development as well as procurement of materials to support the trial delivery. Materials include planters, paint and other tactical street furniture, which have either already been acquired or are committed and under construction. Should the decision be made not to proceed, additional costs will be incurred associated with project closeout, which is likely to be between $30k and $40k, which takes the total project commitment to approximately $240,000 - $250,000. There is risk that Council will have to cover 100% of these costs should the decision be taken to withdraw from the project.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Concerns have been raised surrounding the legality of implementing the trial under staff Temporary Traffic Management delegations. Legal advice has been sought, which states that staff Temporary Traffic Management delegations are appropriate, provided it is for a limited and defined period. This is deemed to allow for the trial, collation and analysis of the results, and presentation of a report to Council.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 If the project proceeds (against the recommendation), there are likely to be concerns raised by local developers and stakeholders due to the perceived impact on their respective developments. This is a significant reputational risk to Council.

9.2 If the project proceeds there is a risk that the information obtained from the trial will be skewed by ongoing construction work and uncertainty in future land uses. This means data may not accurately reflect the area’s future pedestrian and cycle demands.

9.3 If the project is cancelled, as per the recommendation, there is a risk that Council will have to cover 100% of the costs already incurred on the project, although this is yet to be confirmed by Waka Kotahi.

9.4 If the project is cancelled there is a reputational risk to Council due to loss of trust from Waka Kotahi in our ability to deliver similar projects in the future.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Memo (Additional Documents - Circulated Separately) - Confidential	23/1353291

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

Lauren Boyce - Project Manager

Torin Smith - Transport Network Planner

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Council

06 September 2023

22. Draft Equity and Inclusion Policy - for consultation
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/347205
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Claire Appleby Phillips, Manager Community Planning & Projects (Claire.ApplebyPhillips@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships (John.Filsell@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The Council has a number of old, outdated community facing external policies that have been reviewed by staff to determine potential next steps.

1.2 Five of these policies have been incorporated into one equity-focussed policy framework, which is currently in draft. The Council will be asked to approve the draft Equity and Inclusion Policy (Policy) for community consultation.

1.3 The draft Policy is the result of work signalled as part of the Te Haumako Te Whitingia; Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022 (Strategy). The implementation plan for the Strategy noted that the youth, children, older persons, disability and other community facing policies would be reviewed and replaced with a single policy document. Extensive engagement with the community (including in the development phase) was conducted as part of the review of the Strategy which has informed the initial drafting of the Policy.

1.4 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 number of people and groups represented by the existing policies and the number of people with interest in the draft replacement policy.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve the draft Equity and Inclusion Policy for consultation (Attachment A).

2. Note that staff will prepare a consultation document for the proposal and that as part of the consultation process:

a. the consultation document and draft Policy will be available online and upon request at libraries and service desks,

b. submitters will be able to share their views through the ‘Have Your Say’ function,

c. submitters will have the opportunity to be heard on their views.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council has a number of community-facing policies that have been overdue for review for some time. Many are now outdated or obsolete and do not accurately speak to the Council’s role in the community partnership space. These policies were initially identified for review as part of a review of the Council’s external policy register [CNCL/2018/00048]. A subsequent review of the external policy register recommended these policies were considered in the review of the Strengthening Communities Strategy 2007.

3.2 The implementation plan for the 2022 Strengthening Communities Together Strategy identified that the youth, children, older persons, disability and other community facing policies would be reviewed and replaced with a single policy document.

3.3 Following review of the identified community facing policies, staff propose the Ageing Together Policy 2007, Children’s Policy 1998, Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy 2001, Social Wellbeing Policy 2000 and Youth Policy 1998 be incorporated into one overarching, high-level policy. This is in line with the policy work identified in the Strategy.

3.4 Staff have also identified three existing policies that are now outdated and obsolete and will propose they be revoked when the Equity and Inclusion Policy is presented to Council for adoption following consultation. These policies are the Community Van Policy 1990, Early Childhood Education Policy 1998 and Winning Women Charter Policy 1995.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Retain the current policies and do not consult on replacement.

4.1 An alternative option is for the Council to resolve to retain the current policies following their review and not consult on a replacement policy. This is not recommended as the policies are no longer fit for purpose and need to be updated. This option is also not aligned with the work that was proposed in the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Revoke the policies and do not replace them.

4.2 Alternatively, the Council could resolve to revoke the current policies and not replace them. This is not the preferred option as this is not aligned with the work that was proposed as part of the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy and would leave a policy gap with respect to the affected communities.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

The Council has several community-facing policies that are long overdue for review.

5.1 The Council has a number of community-facing policies on the external register that are now considerably outdated. Staff have undertaken a review of the following policies:

5.1.1 Ageing Together Policy 2007: outlined the Council’s commitment to meeting the needs of older people and encouraging their full participation and wellbeing in Christchurch.

5.1.2 Children’s Policy 1998, outlined the Council’s commitment to healthy, happy children.

5.1.3 Community Van Policy 1990: provided for the Council to make a van available for community groups to hire.

5.1.4 Early Childhood Education Policy 1998 set out the Council’s commitment to promoting equitable access for all children and their families/ whānau to quality early childhood education.

5.1.5 Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy 2001: set out the Council’s commitment to removing barriers to participation for people with disabilities and their whānau.

5.1.6 Social Wellbeing Policy 2000: framework policy that set out the high-level social outcomes for citizens and community the Council is committed to enhancing.

5.1.7 Winning Women Charter Policy 1995: adopted the Hillary Commission Charter and aimed to improve women’s participation in sport.

5.1.8 Youth Policy 1998: one sentence policy which outlined the Council’s commitment to the safety and wellbeing of young people.

Equity and Inclusion Policy

5.2 With the exception of the Community Van Policy, Early Childhood Education Policy and Winning Women Charter Policy, the principles of these policies are broadly covered by the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

5.3 Staff have considered the intent behind the abovementioned policies as part of this review and looked to create a high-level policy framework that facilitates an equity and inclusion lens being put across Council decision-making. A policy framework is a high-level statement of intent and is intended to influence how and what Council activities are delivered, as well as influence other policy and strategy documents.

5.4 A new policy has been created which recognises the Council’s responsibility to ensure that decision-making reflects our commitment to foster equity and inclusion for all our residents. The draft Policy describes the Council’s approach to enabling people from all communities and areas of the city to have equitable access to our services.

5.5 While this policy review sits outside the development of LTP 2024-34, it is aligned with the work underway to bring an equity lens to LTP decision making.

Proposed engagement with stakeholders

5.6 Staff propose to undertake targeted engagement with key stakeholders most affected by the proposed policy changes including Council’s Multicultural Advisory Group and Accessibility Advisory group (previously known as Disability Advisory Group).

5.7 A limited ‘Have Your Say’ campaign will provide submitters with an opportunity to share their feedback on the draft Policy.

5.8 Staff will use feedback gathered, drawing on the development of the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022 and associated engagements/feedback opportunities.

5.9 Community Board staff will be asked to engage their local networks to provide feedback on the proposed Policy. Community Boards will also have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Policy.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The draft Policy is aligned with new Strategic Framework priority to ‘be an inclusive and equitable city which puts people at the centre of developing our city and district, prioritising wellbeing, accessibility and connection’.

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: 4.1.27.4 Community development and recreational initiatives identified through Key Council Strategies are prioritised and delivered, primarily, Strengthening Communities, Multicultural, youth, safety and Alcohol harm. - 80% of the targets in the agreed implementation plan are delivered and reported

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 involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. The draft Policy acknowledges the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as New Zealand’s founding document, which requires councils to establish, maintain and improve opportunities for involvement Māori in local government decision making processes.

6.7 The draft Policy is a statement of intent, in line with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy. The Strategy is underpinned by the relationship between the Council and Ngāi Tahu and incorporates the core values of Whanaungatanga, Manaakitanga, Kaitiakitanga, Tohungatanga, and Kotahitanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 This decision does not have any direct climate change implications but does facilitate decisions that support the Kia tūroa te ao, Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy 2021 aspirations with respect to just transition.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 This report signals the replacement of the Council’s Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy. This policy sets out the Council’s commitment to removing barriers to participation for people with disabilities and their whānau. This is policy is lengthy, with nine broad goal areas and 76 specific provisions for Council activities/services under each goal.

6.10 Staff have undertaken clause-by-clause review of the above-mentioned policy to confirm which provisions are covered by other Council documents, which provisions are covered by legislation, and which should be included in a guideline document(s) which can be updated as best practice evolves.

6.11 Feedback from the disability community will be sought as part of consultation.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – public consultation for the draft Policy will be met from existing budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - existing operational budgets.

7.3 Funding Source - Existing operational budgets.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has not delegated the authority to a sub-committee of Council to consider draft policies. The Council has also retained the authority to adopt policies, strategies and bylaws.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is risk the draft Policy will not be acceptable to stakeholder groups. This will be mitigated by consulting on the draft and making changes to reflect feedback received.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	DRAFT Equity and Inclusion Policy	23/1134978	352

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

· Ageing Together Policy 2007: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Children's Policy 1998: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Community Van Policy 1990: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Early Childhood Education Policy 1998: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy 2001: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Social Wellbeing Policy 2000: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Winning Women Charter Policy 1995: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Youth Policy 1998: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

· Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022: Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz)

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

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Irene MacArthur - Engagement Advisor

Abraham Larsen - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Council

06 September 2023

23. Endorsing the Strategic Framework for the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1254417
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Jessica Allison-Batt, Jessica.AllisonBatt@ccc.govt.nz & Tony Moore, Tony.Moore@ccc.govt.nz, Principal Advisors Climate Resilience
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 Council endorsement is sought of the Strategic Framework for the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan being developed under the Canterbury Mayoral Forum.

1.2 The Reference Group to the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan endorsed the Strategic Framework. They invited Canterbury Councils to endorse the Framework ahead of public engagement on the plan by the Environment Canterbury Secretariat in October 2023.

1.3 The decision in this report is low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the limited nature of the decision which is to endorse a Strategic Framework. This decision will not bind Council to specific actions or investments in regional climate action.

1.4 Future decisions that may be made by Council, including funding and prioritisation of initiatives under the Partnership Plan, will have a more substantive impact and be of medium significance when assessed against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. These decisions will be made following Environment Canterbury’s public engagement on the Partnership Plan and will be built into the Council’s 2024 Long Term Plan and related public consultation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Note the information provided on the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan being developed under the Canterbury Mayoral Forum.

2. Endorse the Strategic Framework for the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

The Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan

3.1 In November 2022 the Canterbury Mayoral Forum endorsed a scope and approach for regional collaboration on climate action planning. The Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan (Partnership Plan) will outline the collaborative effort of Canterbury councils towards mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change on Canterbury’s communities and ecosystems.

3.2 The agreed approach to developing this Partnership Plan recognises councils are at different stages of implementing strategies and responses to climate change. The Partnership Plan will include developing a shared strategic front end (vision and outcomes) and developing joint actions and approaches to funding, monitoring, and evaluation to support implementation. Individual councils will also set their own goals, targets and actions through their respective Long Term Plan processes, as indicated in the figure below.

Governance arrangements

3.3 The Mayoral Forum established two groups to develop the Partnership Plan: 1. a Reference Group (elected representatives) to provide input into the Plan prior to final adoption by the Mayoral Forum; and 2. a Climate Change Working Group (staff group) that sits under the Policy Forum.

3.4 The Reference Group includes elected members from Canterbury councils and is chaired by Mayor Dan Gordon (Waimakariri District Council) and supported by the convenor of the Canterbury Climate Change Working Group (Dr Tim Davie, Environment Canterbury). Membership also includes a member of the Chief Executives Forum (Hamish Dobbie, Chief Executive Hurunui District Council). Councillor Templeton is the Christchurch City Council representative on the Reference Group.

A computer screen shot of a diagram

Description automatically generated

Progress and next steps

3.1 The Climate Change Working Group has supported development of a draft Strategic Framework which sets out a vision for collective action. It is currently developing draft goals, targets, and actions, as well as communications and engagement, funding and implementation, and monitoring and evaluation approaches. Each partner council is also considering how to best incorporate climate actions and funding into their respective Long Term Plans. The elected member Reference Group continues to guide this work.

3.2 At its June meeting, the Reference Group agreed it would be valuable to provide an update on the project to all councils involved, to raise awareness of the work and ensure there was endorsement for it across the region. Members of the Climate Change Working Group were asked to seek endorsement of the draft Strategic Framework for the Partnership Plan by September 2023. This timeframe is intended to align with final endorsement of the Strategic Framework by the Mayoral Forum in October 2023.

3.3 At its June meeting, the Reference Group also endorsed the need for community engagement during the development of the Partnership Plan and agreed to leverage Environment Canterbury’s 2023 engagement programme to do so. This will mean using existing budgets and Environment Canterbury processes to engage with papatipu rūnanga, communities and key stakeholders across the region and gain diverse perspectives on climate action in Canterbury. To implement this direction, the Environment Canterbury Secretariat to the Partnership Plan will develop and implement a communications and engagement plan. Individual Councils may undertake any additional engagement and communications they deem appropriate.

3.4 Council decisions will be sought on funding and prioritisation of the Partnership Plan through the 2024 Long Term Plan co-development process in late 2023.

3.5 Following public engagement led by Environment Canterbury, the Partnership Plan is due to be finalised in line with Long Term Plan timeframes by June 2024. A draft Partnership Plan will be presented to Council prior to approval by the Mayoral Forum.

Benefits to Christchurch City Council

3.6 The key benefits achieved by jointly planning climate actions with territorial authorities across the Canterbury Region include:

· Efficient use of resources and rate payer money – many councils are facing similar challenges and opportunities, so sharing and collaborating on actions will provide economies of scale and be more cost effective.

· More consistent, aligned and joined-up responses – having Canterbury-wide approaches can help reduce friction between the policies of each local authority, providing greater consistency and certainty for the community.

· Accelerate climate action – sharing best practice and growing capacity across the region will speed up and broaden the delivery of agreed climate actions. This is especially important given the pace and scale of change needed to adequately respond to climate change.

· Strengthen our voice – uniting through a regional climate partnership will boost the voices of each council, especially important when advocating to central government and influencing local businesses and communities. Responses to a range of legislative reforms would benefit from a joined-up regional approach.

· Leadership - as a larger council, Christchurch city can help build regional capacity and share knowledge supporting greater climate action across Canterbury.

3.7 The specific benefits of the Partnership Plan will depend on the final list of actions that are agreed by the Mayoral Forum in 2024. The Working Group has identified a long list of potential actions that will be further refined and prioritised through engagement with governance to support an enduring partnership. The approach to developing these actions reflects international best practice under the C40 framework.

3.8 To illustrate the potential benefits of a partnership, examples of projects which could add value within the long list of actions are provided as Attachment B.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The alternative not to endorse the Strategic Framework was discounted. Such a decision would not align with Council’s leadership role on climate action under our Climate Resilience Strategy and the commitments made to undertake work on a Partnership Plan by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and elected member Reference Group.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 A consultation process is planned, led by Environment Canterbury in October, that will gather feedback from the community. Existing evidence indicates strong support for Council taking action on climate change as outlined below.

5.2 Climate change is an area of significant concern to residents. The Council’s 2022 Climate Change survey^{^[1]} heard from around 3400 people. Of those surveyed, 97 per cent of respondents are already taking some form of action to try and reduce their emissions.

5.3 In addition, 76 per cent agreed that they are prepared to change their own behaviour in order to reduce their emissions.

5.4 Climate change was seen as important, or very important, by 79 per cent of respondents, which mirrors results from previous Council surveys.

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

5.5.1 All of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula will be impacted by regional collaboration on climate action.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 17.0.23.1 Develop a comprehensive climate change strategy that will guide policy development, planning and decision making - Embed climate change into organisational reporting and work with community on implementation of climate change action plans

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. This includes alignment with the Council’s Climate Resilience Strategy, including Workstream One: Partnerships, and Council’s strategic priorities and community outcomes which specifically target lowering greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6 Mana Whenua are deeply impacted by climate change and are a key stakeholder that will be engaged by Environment Canterbury as part of developing the Partnership Plan and as it transitions to implementation. Alignment with the Treaty of Waitangi is a key principle of the draft Partnership Plan. Consequently, many of the actions proposed are likely to benefit issues of interest to Mana Whenua. Mana Whenua will also be engaged as part of development of the Council’s Long Term Plan which will include any required funding for regional climate action.

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.

6.8 Developing a regional approach to climate action provides an opportunity to leverage the combined resources of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. This is likely to create efficiencies and economies of scale in the delivery of actions including research and analysis, strategies, policies and advice on climate change and options to respond. For detailed information on the potential benefits of this approach refer to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 There are no accessibility considerations relevant to the decision to endorse the Strategic Framework.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 There are no costs associated with a decision to endorse the Strategic Framework of the Partnership Plan.

Other He mea anō

7.2 The implementation of any agreed action plan will have financial implications for the Council and each of the partners in the region. Total costs for implementation are likely to be distributed according to the existing Canterbury Mayoral Forum funding splits^{^[2]}.

7.3 Because the partnership is at an early stage in its action planning, there is considerable uncertainty about the financial contribution needed from each of the partner councils. The total costs are not yet known and will depend on:

· The set of regional climate actions that are agreed by the Mayoral Forum when the Partnership Plan is finalised in June 2024.

· The appetite of the Mayoral Forum to fund regional climate action.

· Decisions by Council to allocate funding to agreed initiatives through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans.

· The outcome of work on a regional funding plan, including consideration of alternative funding sources.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council can make the endorsement requested.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There are no legal risks associated with a decision to endorse the draft Strategic Framework for the Partnership Plan.

8.3 Under the Canterbury Triennial Agreement 2022-25 and Mayoral Forum Terms of Reference, the Canterbury Mayoral Forum does not have the power to legally bind any council to any act or decision unless that act or decision has been agreed to by decision of that council. Final decisions in 2024 on funding and implementation of the Climate Action Plan will rest with respective Councils.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Limited risks are anticipated with the endorsement of the Strategic Framework which only provides a high-level direction for regional collaboration and aligns well with Council’s existing approach to climate change.

9.2 However, timely implementation of the Partnership Plan will require appropriate consideration of funding and partnership design arrangements. This includes ensuring that councils incorporate placeholder bids within their Long Term Plans as they are developed so funding is available in June 2024. Implementation is also likely to require project management and delivery focused resource which may be additional to the current Secretariat arrangements under the Mayoral Forum. These matters are being considered as part of finalising the Partnership Plan for adoption by the Mayoral Forum.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Climate Partnership Plan Strategic Framework	23/1092749	364
b ⇩	Examples of long list actions under the Partnership Plan	23/1092986	365

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

Jessica Allison-Batt - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Lisa Early - Team Leader Climate Resilience

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

06 September 2023

24. Christchurch Heritage Trust Loan Application
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1231523
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support & Partnerships, john.filsell@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships (John.Filsell@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider a request by The Christchurch Heritage Trust (the Trust) for a loan of $500,000 to complete the restoration of the Trinity Congregational Church.

1.2 This report is staff generated following a request by the Trust.

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 dollar value of the implications of the decision, the number of people affected and/or with an interest and the fact that Loans are a level of service in the 2021/31 LTP. Staff have discussed the application with stakeholders and all recommendations have been moderated.

1.4 The Trust is dedicated to saving two NZ Category 1 and Council Group 1 heritage buildings, Shand’s and Trinity. To enable this outcome Council granted two loans in March 2021, $850,000 from the Historic Buildings Fund and $350,000 from the Community Loan Pool respectively (SARC/2021/00012 – Attachment A). The business case provides for both loans to be repaid from the rental paid by the existing tenant. Shand’s is open for business. Trinity is partially open. Christchurch Heritage Limited is 100% owned by the Trust which has charitable status.

1.5 In June 2023 the Trust advised they are $700,000 short of funds necessary to complete the restoration to a point where Trinity will be fully operational and attracting the rent needed to cover operating expenses including loan repayment. The Trust have raised $200,000 of the shortfall and actively explored options to secure the remainder, to no avail. The remaining option is to request a Council special loan of $500,000 enable the works to be completed and open the facility.

1.6 As security for previous loans Council currently holds a first registered mortgage over the land and buildings, currently valued at $2,975,000 (July 2023) and a general security agreement with the Trust over its personal property. The valuation is attached to this report as publicly excluded Attachment B.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a special loan to Christchurch Heritage Ltd of up to $500,000 for ten years at an interest rate of 5.4% per annum or 20 basis points above Council’s cost of borrowing, whichever is higher, and conditional upon:

a. The loan funds being used to complete the restoration of the Trinity Congregational Church buildings to a level where they can be tenanted and open for their intended use.

b. The interest being capitalised until the building is tenanted at full rental, then quarterly repayments of interest and principal being made over the remainder of the loan period.

c. The Shands Building and Trinity Congregational Church being fully insured with a building replacement value exceeding $6,000,000.

d. Written confirmation from Christchurch Heritage Ltd that there is no expectation that any Council loan in respect of the Shands and Trinity Congregational Church Buildings will be forgiven; and that all loans will be repaid at the end of the loan term or on the sale of the property, for which the Christchurch Heritage Ltd will be a full-willing seller.

2. 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 prepared and reviewed by Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Unit.

3. Note that Council already holds:

a. A first registered mortgage over the land and buildings as security for the borrowing.

b. A general security agreement with The Christchurch Heritage Trust over its personal property, which includes the shares currently held in Christchurch Heritage Ltd and any further acquired personal property.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Advantages include:

3.1.1 Council’s goals in respect of Shand’s and Trinity will be fulfilled in that the buildings are saved, protected, and enjoy a meaningful ongoing contribution to everyday life in the central city. It will also secure two prominent, attractive buildings and entertainment facilities near Te Kaha. The heritage value of both buildings is summarised in Attachment C.

3.1.2 Trinity will be completed, opened and the rental received will be used to cover operating expenses and repay all loans.

3.1.3 The proposed interest rate of 5.4% will cover Council’s cost of borrowing plus 20 basis points, there will be no additional cost to rates.

3.1.4 The value of Council’s existing security as an open business with a tenant is increased.

3.1.5 Council will be the only organisation holding a security interest over the buildings and will not be compelled to lower its priority sum to allow a second-tier lender security.

3.1.6 Should the Trust be in a position they cannot repay the Councils loans, totalling $1,700,000 Council can exercise its right to sell the buildings and land valued at $2,950,000 as a going concern.

3.1.7 Council has updated documentation on the sustainability of an additional loan:

· A recent peer reviewed valuation of the buildings and land, as security.

· A peer-reviewed and costed schedule of works needed for completion, please see Attachment D.

· Two years Trust Cashflow P&L demonstrating how Council’s loans will be repaid in the context of the trust making a modest surplus.

· Confirmation of current building insurance with a replacement value exceeding $6,000,000. Please see publicly excluded Attachment F.

3.2 Disadvantages include:

3.2.1 There are insufficient funds in the Community Loan Pool meaning that the loan will be a special loan and unanticipated borrowing, albeit at no additional cost to rates.

3.2.2 There will be increased operational pressure on the Trust and less ability to withstand a future business interruption.

3.2.3 Council will need to be prepared to call in the loans and compel Christchurch Heritage Ltd to sell the buildings should Christchurch Heritage Ltd be in a position where they are unable to service the loans. As the buildings are Category 1 Heritage Buildings there may well be lobbying to dissuade Council from doing this.

3.2.4 Council will need to borrow an additional $500,000.

3.2.5 Other community partners and worthy causes will see this as a precedent.

3.2.6 Council may incur negative publicity given the quantum of the loans and an opinion that the shortfall could have been anticipated and measures to mitigate put in earlier.

3.3 Having considered the risks and mitigations staff recommend Council granting a special loan. This is primarily to complete the project, secure the heritage and economic benefits as well as protecting Council’s existing security interest.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Lower the priority sum, currently at $4,600,000, on the existing first mortgage to allow Christchurch Heritage Ltd to secure funds from another lender with a second mortgage as security.

4.1.1 The advantage of this option is that Council will not be loaning any further funds and exposing themselves to the risk of a failure by Christchurch Heritage Ltd to repay the additional loan.

4.1.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Funds acquired through another lender secured by a second mortgage will be at a substantially higher interest rate, 11% to 12% p.a. and potentially beyond the means of Christchurch Heritage Ltd to service sustainably. This may also impact on the ability of the Trust to repay its existing Council loans.

· The intent of the priority sum is to ensure that Council is the only entity with a security interest over the land and buildings.

4.2 Decline the request.

4.2.1 The advantage of this option is that the Council will not be loaning any further funds.

4.2.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Having explored all options, and having already raised $200,000, it is highly unlikely that the Trust can raise more in the timeframe needed to complete the works required for the tenant to move in. The project will stall.

· The income from the tenant, who has a signed lease, is needed to operate the building, and repay Council Loans. The tenant cannot start trading until the building is completed. If the project stalls for too long the tenant may have to look elsewhere. There is a consequential risk that Christchurch Heritage Ltd will be unable to repay the existing Council loan.

· In the worst-case scenario if Christchurch Heritage Ltd defaults and Council exercises its right to compel the Trust to sell the building it will be selling a partially completed building with no established and trading tenant.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 To support the recommendations of this report the Trust have provided the following:

5.1.1 A recent valuation dated July 2023. This is to confirm the value of Council’s security.

5.1.2 A peer reviewed schedule of works detailing the scope and cost of work needed to complete the project to allow the tenant to trade. This is to assure Council there will be no further request of this nature and all costs are calculated in today’s market.

5.1.3 Two years Trust Cashflow P&L. This is to demonstrate how Council’s loans will be repaid in the context of Christchurch Heritage Ltd making a modest surplus.

5.1.4 Confirmation of current building insurance with a replacement value exceeding $6,000,000. Please see publicly excluded Attachment F.

5.1.5 A statement confirming that the Trust and Christchurch Heritage Ltd will not seek to convert any portion of Council’s loans into a grant; and Christchurch Heritage Ltd will be full-willing to sell the buildings and land if needed to repay all Council’s loans in full.

5.2 The decision primarily affects the following the Central Ward of the Waipapa Community Board area although the two heritage buildings have a National and City-wide historical context.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Communities and Citizens

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

6.2.2 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”.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is Council's Heritage Strategy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 There is no climate change impact because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether the benefited projects proceed or not.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 Accessibility considerations apply to the projects themselves rather than a loan application as such there are no accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $400 primarily staff time provided for within existing budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – None other than monitoring the loan as interest repayments will cover Council’s cost of borrowing plus 20 basis points.

7.3 Funding Source – This will be funded from additional borrowing at no additional cost to rates.

Other He mea anō

7.4 The balance of the Community Loan Pool (which is also funded through borrowing) is $30,000. Therefore, a loan of $500,000 will be a special loan funded through additional borrowing. As all of Council’s borrowing costs will be covered by repayments there is no additional cost to Council and no impact on rates.

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 and Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Unit has provided advice in support of this recommendation including the implications of lowering the priority sum. The Legal and Democratic Services Unit and will prepare all loan agreement documentation.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The principal risk to Council is that Christchurch Heritage Ltd fail to repay their loans.

9.1.1 This risk is substantially mitigated because:

· The market valuation provided by Telfer Young assessed the properties on completion as $2,950,000, which sets the loan to value ratio at 55%.

· Council has a first registered mortgage over the land and buildings as security for the borrowing and additional security of an unlimited guarantee and indemnity from the Trust. Council also has a general security agreement from the Trust.

· Council has a peer-reviewed and costed schedule of works needed for completion and an updated business case demonstrating how the loans will be repaid.

· The trust has confirmed current building insurance with a replacement value exceeding $6,000,000. This protects Council’s security interest in the event of an unforeseen event.

· The Trust have provided Council an assurance in public confirming that the Trust will not seek to convert any portion of Council’s loans into a grant; and the Trust will be full-willing to sell the buildings and land if needed to repay all Council’s loans in full. Please see Attachment G.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Appendix A Council's Previous Resolution	23/1284787	374
b	Appendix B Current Valuation (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	23/1284788
c ⇩	Appendix C Heritage Value Statement	23/1284789	377
d ⇩	Appendix D Peer Reviewed Costed Schedule of Works	23/1284790	381
e	Appendix E Trust Cashflow P&L (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	23/1284792
f	Appendix F Confirmation of insurance cover (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	23/1284794
g ⇩	Appendix G Shands Trinity Loan Trust Statement	23/1284922	385

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

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Council

06 September 2023

25. Central City Biannual Report: January to June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/764272
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Laura Quaid, Planner, Urban Regeneration (laura.quaid@ccc.govt.nz) Robbie Schmidt, Assistant Planner Urban Regeneration (robbie.schmidt@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Bruce Rendall, Head of City Growth & Property (bruce.rendall@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Information Update and Report Origin

1.1 For information only, this latest biannual update provides elected members with information and statistics about Council funded regeneration activity within the Central City for the period January to June 2023.

1.2 Staff have been reporting on such activity within the Central City via a biannual report since 2015, as previously agreed with elected members.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Central City Biannual Report.

3. Brief Summary

3.1 Attachment A summarises activity that responds to the themes set out in the Central City Action Plan. Highlights from January – June 2023 include:

3.1.1 Engagement commenced on a neighbourhood plan for the South-East of the Central City, and amenity improvements were delivered on Southwark Street.

3.1.2 Alongside potential District Plan changes, non-regulatory initiatives are being explored related to the challenges of live music venues close to residential mixed use areas.

3.1.3 Strong development progress is apparent at Te Kaha, the Performing Arts Precinct, One Central and Cathedral Square.

3.1.4 159 new Central City homes were completed during the first half of 2023.

3.1.5 Progress continues for Barrier Sites as consent has been granted for the demolition of the car park next to the former Noahs/Rydges Hotel (170 Oxford Tce). Repair works continue at 92 Lichfield St adjacent to the bus exchange.

3.1.6 Latest data from the Vacant Sites Programme highlight a significant drop in the extent of vacant land in the Central City, due to the strong development progress mentioned above.

3.1.7 Further compliance action and the newly introduced City Vacant Differential rate are resulting in action by vacant site owners – particularly in amenity and landscaping improvements on temporary car parks.

3.1.8 Central City projector lighting has been updated with new content on the ‘gobos’ depicting street art, and the nine Matariki stars being projected at 110 Cashel Street.

3.1.9 A strong tourist season drew on events, cruise ships visits and the easing impacts of COVID-19, with notable benefits for businesses, contributing to record spending levels.

3.1.10 An opening event was held in March for the new temporary basketball court and mural at 207 St Asaph Street - a partnership with ECAN, Watch this Space and Basketball NZ.

3.1.11 Council grant funding has supported events, activations and engagement delivered by Gap Filler, The Green Lab, Life in Vacant Spaces and the Central City Business Association.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Central City Biannual update (attachment)- January - June 2023	23/1323880	389

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Central City Progress - ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/central-city-christchurch/our-progress/

Southeast Neighbourhoods - ccc.govt.nz/se-central-neighbourhood-plan/

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

Robbie Schmidt - Assistant Planner Urban Regeneration

Laura Quaid - Planner Urban Regeneration

John Meeker - Principal Advisor Urban Regeneration

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Council

06 September 2023

26. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/609508
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to report on external activities he undertakes in his city and community leadership role; and to report on outcomes and key decisions of the external bodies he attends on behalf of the Council.

1.2 This report is compiled by the Mayor’s office.

2. Mayor’s Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in this report.

2. Note that the review of Councillor Portfolios will be reported back to Council in October 2023.

3. Detail Te Whakamahuki

3.1 This is the first Mayor’s Report since June and covers several key matters which have arisen since then:

3.1.1 Seattle Sister City Delegation

3.1.2 Review of Councillor Portfolios

3.1.3 August Canterbury Mayoral Forum

3.1.4 Greater Christchurch Partnership

Seattle Sister City Delegation

3.2 The Mayor led a delegation of local businesses and members of the Christchurch-Seattle Sister City Committee on visit to Seattle and Los Angeles in July 2023.

3.3 The delegation was led by the Christchurch City Council’s Civic & International Team with support from the Sister City Committee and ChristchurchNZ.

3.4 The delegation comprised of the Mayor, local businesspeople, staff from the Council and ChristchurchNZ and Councillors Gough, Johanson and MacDonald.

3.5 More information on the delegation’s travel is outlined in Attachment A.

Review of Councillor Portfolios

3.6 In December 2022, the Council agreed to assess Councillor Portfolios after nine months (CNCL/2022/00215) and to receive proposals for additional portfolios (CNCL/2022/00216).

3.7 In August 2023, the Mayor instructed Council staff from the Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive to undertake a review of portfolios in accordance with the December 2022 Council decision.

3.8 Staff will work with existing portfolio holders, councillors who have submitted a proposal and the relevant Council staff before a report is submitted to Council in October 2023 for consideration.

August Canterbury Mayoral Forum

3.9 The quarterly Canterbury Mayoral Forum meeting was held on Friday 25 August, and included the following:

3.9.1 Discussion of possible regional approaches for responding to any future changes to local government.

3.9.2 Received the start date of 1 July 2025 for the three waters Entity I (Canterbury-Westland) for from the Minister of Local Government should the reforms progress as planned.

3.9.3 Received an update from ECan on the review of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which is due to be concluded in 2025.

3.9.4 Received an update on the Forum’s Climate Change Action Planning Reference Group, including their strategic priorities.

3.9.5 Received an update on the regional biodiversity monitoring plan from ECan.

3.10 The Forum also heard from the Act Party’s Climate Change spokesperson, Simon Court MP and the Regional Public Service Commissioner.

3.11 The Forum had intended to hear from Climate Change Minister, Hon James Shaw MP, but he was unable to attend due to a flight cancellation.

3.12 More information on the Forum’s work and minutes from meetings can be found online at: Home - Canterbury Mayoral Forum (canterburymayors.org.nz)

Greater Christchurch Partnership

3.13 The Greater Christchurch Partnership met on Friday 11 August to discuss the Greater Christchurch Joint Housing Action Plan.

3.14 The Partnership also received updates on the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan and Greater Christchurch Transport Plan.

3.15 It was agreed that a project group be established with representatives from the members of the Partnership to assess the draft plan before its formal consideration in December 2023.

3.16 More information on the Partnership’s work and minutes from meetings can be found online at: Greater Christchurch Partnership : Greater Christchurch

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Mayor's Monthly Report - July, August and September 2023	23/1401188	403

[2] Christchurch City Council’s contribution to the Forum is currently set at 21 percent of costs. The Secretariat is funded separately by Environment Canterbury from its general rates.

5. Council Minutes - 2 August 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1200158
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)

11. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - August 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1276058
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

15. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Terms of Reference and Delegations
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1263059
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Democratic Services Advisor, ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Acting GM Planning & Regulatory Services, Infrastructure Services

Monitoring of Water Quality for Contact Recreation around Whakaraupō and Banks Peninsula
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/906918
Presenter(s) Te Kaipāhō :	Shelley Washington, Zone Facilitator shelley.washington@ecan.govt.nz

6. Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Governance Oversight for Projects Subcommittee Minutes - 10 May 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1341538
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor Luke.Smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

7. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1257828
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 25 May 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1258405
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

9. Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 10 July 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1302046
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Committee and Hearings Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

10. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 7 August 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1399436
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Democratic Services Advisor (ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

13. Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as road - 189R Worselys Road
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1293141
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant (Stuart.McLeod@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

17. Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1066607
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gina Waibl, Chairperson, and Trudi Bishop, Deputy Chairperson, Banks Peninsula Zone Committee Annabelle Hasselman, Chairperson, and Mike Patchett, Deputy Chairperson, Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee Les Wanhalla, Chairperson, and Matt Dodson, Deputy Chairperson, Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

19. Three Waters Activities - March, April, May, and June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1300072
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Brent Smith, Head of Three Waters
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED
21.	Streets for People - Gloucester Street
	Attachment a - Memo	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Information that could impact Council's negotiating position.	Once a new funding agreement is agreed and signed by all parties.
24.	Christchurch Heritage Trust Loan Application
	Attachment b - Appendix B Current Valuation	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Confidential Valuation of Land and Building Assets being commercially sensitive and the private property of the Trust.	12 August 2033 This information will not be released as it is comercially sensitive and the private property of the Trust.
	Attachment e - Appendix E Trust Cashflow P&L	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Trusts Cashflow P&L which is commercially sensitive and the private property of the Trust	12 August 2033 This will not be released as it is commercially sensitive confidential business information.
	Attachment f - Appendix F Confirmation of insurance cover	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Details of Building Insurance Cover which are the private property of the Trust.	12 August 2033 Information will not be released is it is commercially sensitive and the private property of the Trust.
28.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 June 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
29.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 2 August 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.