Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 15 November 2023

Council

15 November 2023

5. Destination Management Plans
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1723372
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Loren Aberhart, General Manager, Destination and Attraction, ChristchurchNZ (loren.aberhart@christchurchnz.com) Tracey Wilson, Special Projects Manager, ChristchurchNZ (tracey.wilson@christchurchnz.com)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report seeks the Council's endorsement of the 2023-2030 Destination Management Plans (DMP) for Ōtautahi Christchurch Waitaha Canterbury, and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

1.2 This report has been generated on behalf of ChristchurchNZ.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Notes receipt of the final Destination Management Plans (DMP) for Ōtautahi Christchurch Waitaha Canterbury, Te Pātaka o Rakaihautū Banks Peninsula.

2. Notes that there is no implementation budget associated with the plans, however the recommendations within it help guide any existing fund expenditure and prioritisation desired by the community in the future. Community expectations will therefore need to be closely managed.

3. Endorses the 2023-2030 final Destination Management Plans (DMP) for Ōtautahi Christchurch Waitaha Canterbury, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula and confirm that ChristchurchNZ, in their role as the Canterbury Regional Tourism Organisation, should adopt the plans for the Canterbury region.

3. Background

3.1 The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) provided funding for the development of Destination Management Plans across New Zealand, and ChristchurchNZ led the development of the local plans on behalf of the Canterbury RTO region (Christchurch, Waimakariri, Selwyn and Ashburton). The completed plans are due to MBIE by end of November 2023.

3.2 Commencing with a thorough tender process undertaken in April 2022, development and extensive research commenced for the development of a Destination Management Plan for the Canterbury Regional Tourism Region, plus an additional plan for the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula region (due to their specific requirements, including cruise visitation).

3.3 A leadership advisory group was established to guide the development of the plans, comprising of mana whenua, industry experts, key stakeholders and governance specialists. Community surveys, visitor surveys, an online social comment board for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula specifically (available for six months), and local stakeholder workshops were held to inform the development of the plan. From these insights draft plans were prepared.

3.4 In June 2023, feedback on the draft plan was received from Waimakariri, Selwyn and Ashburton Districts and Christchurch City Council. Plus the Banks Peninsula community through a separate, significant engagement process. Expert peer reviews of the plans were then also completed. From that, consolidated, updated plans have been developed. These final plans were shared for review by the districts, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Advisory Group plus Council at the start of October.

3.5 Final feedback was received by 13^th October 2023 and we have now completed final versions for endorsement by each district, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board and Christchurch City Council. A briefing was provided to Christchurch City Council on October 18 to allow Councillors to ask any questions about the plans. Full plans have now been provided to Council and we will be seeking endorsement of these plans.

4. Key Information

4.1 The Ōtautahi Christchurch Waitaha Canterbury and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Destination Management Plans reflect the community and stakeholder intentions for visitation for the time period 2023-2030. At the heart of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Waitaha Canterbury plan is the desire for growth to win back our region’s previous market share of visitor spend. And to utilise the significant infrastructure that has been built following the earthquakes.

4.2 The plan clearly acknowledges that any growth must be sustainable and focused on regenerative tourism development for the future. It recognises what is important for all is that our success comes from working together across the region to promote this place as a destination to visit - not just a gateway to elsewhere.

4.3 The Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Destination Management Plan is underpinned by 10 pillars that seek to guide decision making and prioritisation of the many agencies and communities that work in this beautiful, unique and fragile place. This mahi leads towards achieving the vision: “We welcome manuhiri to come and learn about and explore our unique culture, history and geography in a way that delivers benefits for our taiao (environment), our people, and our visitors.”

4.4 While these Destination Management Plans seek to address the opportunities, challenges, and future aspirations of the region, they are constrained by being strategic frameworks with no future funding currently associated.

4.5 Additionally, across Aotearoa there is a lack of clarity about an equitable model and system for future tourism funding, with local government bearing much of the costs without adequate revenue streams.

4.6 For successful implementation of these 2023-2030 Destination Management Plans, we will need the buy-in, collaboration and support of those acknowledged within it. Whilst resources and lack of legislative mandate may constrain, we also recognise that a motivated group of people, with a shared vision, and clear actions to take have the ability to make amazing things happen.

4.7 Ehara tāku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini. My strength is not as an individual, but as a collective.

4.8 Finally, ChristchurchNZ will champion the destination management plans and look forward to upcoming workshops and discussions with stakeholders about taking the next steps on implementation in partnership with other key agencies and partners. Expectations within the community will need to be closely managed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Ōtautahi Waitaha Canterbury Destination Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)	23/1770465
b	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Destination Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)	23/1770466

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	Katie Matheis - Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support
Approved By	Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

15 November 2023

6. Applications to the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1710717
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding (Joshua.Wharton@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider three applications for funding from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund (CEF).

1.2 The Capital Endowment Fund is avaliable for not-for-profit organisations who require support for capital projects. They must demonstrate significant benefits for the City and its residents. Benefits must be experienced both now and in the future.

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 number of people affected and/or with strong interest in the outcome of the result. Engagement has centred around the applicant, relevant staff and where appropriate other stakeholders.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Makes a grant of $100,000 from its 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to Table Tennis Canterbury towards building remediation at its facility at 294 Blenheim Road, conditional upon Table Tennis Canterbury:

a. Demonstrating that it has the resources and capacity to complete the project prior to funds being drawn down.

b. Agreeing that final reporting will be submitted within 6 months of project completion.

2. Makes a grant of $86,000 from its 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Lyttelton Recreation Centre Trust towards the purchase of Gym Equipment, conditional upon the Lyttelton Recreation Centre Trust.

a. Demonstrating that it has the resources and capacity to complete the project and operate the gym prior to funds being drawn down.

b. Agreeing that final reporting will be submitted when the grant has been fully expended or 12 months from the payment of the funds.

3. Makes a grant of $50,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Diamond Harbour & Districts Health Support Group Inc. specifically for site works and/or community-focused elements of the Diamond Harbour Health Centre new build extension, conditional upon the Diamond Harbour & Districts Health Support Group Inc.

a. Demonstrating that it has the resources and capacity to complete Stage 1 of the project (New Build Extension) prior to funds being drawn down.

b. Agreeing that final reporting will be submitted within 6 months of the completion of Stage 1 (New Build Extension).

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Attachments A to C contain decision matrices which provide detailed information on each of the applications. This includes project details, financial information, strategic alignment and a succinct rationale for each recommendation.

4. Detail Te Whakamahuki

4.1 In April 2001, the Council set up a Capital Endowment Fund of $75 million. This fund was established using a share of the proceeds from the sale of Orion's investment in a gas company. The Fund provides an ongoing income stream which can be applied to specific projects.

4.2 On 12 April 2018 the Council resolved to establish criteria for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) (CNCL/2018/00057).

4.3 On 13 December 2018 the Council published eligibility and assessment criteria for the CEF and a standard application process. Assessment criteria are as follows:

4.3.1 That the value of the application is greater than $50,000.

4.3.2 That the proposal is for something specific and new.

4.3.3 That this project is a one off with no expectation of future Council funding.

4.3.4 That the project is not already underway but has run out of funding.

4.3.5 That the project has not already received Council funding through rates revenue, or other funding sources available from Council.

4.3.6 That the project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

4.3.7 That the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

4.4 As this fund is generated through the interest of the sum generated from sale of Orion’s investment, the funding available will change annually.

4.4.1 As per Annual Plan 2023/24 the fund had generated $1.289m, which when added to the carry-forward from the previous year allows for an available balance of 1.612m. A detailed breakdown of the allocation is attached to this report as Attachment D.

4.4.2 Any unallocated balance at year-end will carry forward to 2024/25.

4.5 If the recommendations in this report are accepted the available balance of the Capital Endowment Fund going forward will be $1,376,000.

5. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

5.2 Citizens and communities

5.2.1 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

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.2 Build volunteer participation through the effective administration of the community grant schemes. - Strengthening Communities Fund supports 2,185,000 volunteer hours annually, subject to eligible applications

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.4 The decision 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.

5.5 The decision relates to the allocation of an existing Council community fundas such it 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

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

5.7 These projects are consistent with Council’s Equity and Access Policy.

5.8 The Lyttelton Recreation Centre Equipment will provide a local community operated, and accessible gym for the people of Lyttelton and the wider Harbour basin, with no other recreation centre of its kind on the Peninsula.

5.9 The Diamond Harbour Health Centre upgrades will improve access to health services from Port Levy to Teddington by allowing for multiple doctors, nurses and student doctors to work concurrently in the area, including health outreach services for those with particular geographical isolation.

6. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. All funding agreements are drafted by Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Team.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Table Tennis Canterbury - Capital Endowment Fund Application)	23/1838263	15
b ⇩	Lyttelton Recreation Centre - Capital Endowment Fund Application)	23/1844509	16
c ⇩	Diamond Harbour & Districts Health Support Group Inc. - Capital Endowment Fund Application)	23/1838393	17
d ⇩	Capital Endowment Fund - Funds Available For Allocation - November 2023)	23/1735825	18

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	Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding
Approved By	John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Council

15 November 2023

7. 2023-24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund - Kairos Trust, The Loft, Christchurch Resettlement Services & Pacific Peoples Trust
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1716757
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding (Joshua.Wharton@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report - Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider four applications for funding from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for the organisations listed in 3.1 below.

2. Officer Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Makes a grant of $90,000 to Kairos Trust from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund towards its Food Rescue, Food Distribution project.

2. Makes a grant of $13,300 to the Pacific Peoples Trust from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund towards their Financial Literacy and Youth Development Programme.

3. Makes a grant of $25,000 to Christchurch Resettlement Services Inc. from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund towards a Bilingual Community Worker position.

4. Declines the application from The Loft/Ki Te Tihi Charitable Trust to its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for its Social Emergency Response Service and Shared Workspace positions.

3. Key Points - Ngā Take Matua

3.1 As outlined in the Decision Matrix (Attachment A), the below applications are being recommended to the Council for consideration for funding from the 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund:

Funding Request Number	Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
00066803	Kairos Trust	Food Rescue, Food Distribution	$90,000	$90,000
00066317	Pacific People’s Trust	Financial Literacy & Youth Development Programme	$46,000	$13,300
00066704	Christchurch Resettlement Services Inc.	Bilingual Community Worker	$45,000	$25,000
00066792	The Loft/Ki Te Tihi Charitable Trust	Social Emergency Response Service (SERS) & Shared Workspace	$360,000	$0

3.2 There is currently a balance of $396,750 remaining in the fund.

Strategic Alignment - Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.3 The recommendations are aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of managing ratepayers' money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community and addressing the issues that are important to our residents. It will contribute to the community outcome of a collaborative confident city and is consistent with Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority - Te Mana Whakatau

3.4 Council can determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community.

3.5 Allocations must be consistent with any policies, standards or criteria adopted by the Council.

3.6 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal challenges or Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled Organisations or Community Board decisions.

· Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement - Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

3.7 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.8 The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest. It is also due to the decision required being the allocation of an existing funs using approved criteria.

3.9 Due to the assessment of low significance the applications have been discussed with the applicants and other stakeholders in the course of providing an assessment, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion - Kōrerorero

3.10 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2023-24 Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2023-24	Granted to Date	Returns made to the DRF	Available for allocation	Balance if Staff Recommendation adopted
$585,679	$189,029	$0.00	$396,750	$268,350

3.11 $86,029 of the Metropolitan DRF funding pool this financial year has been approved to 13 organisations under delegation of the Head of the Community Governance and Partnerships Unit.

3.12 Based on current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications recommended above are eligible for funding.

3.13 The Decision Matrixes in Attachment A provide detailed information regarding each application. This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrices	23/1837866	22

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

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Council

15 November 2023

8. Council submission on Proposed National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1575416
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning (Mark.Stevenson@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, Head of Planning & Consents (John.Higgins@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the draft Council submission on the proposed National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making.

1.2 The Ministry for Environment has released the proposed National Policy Statement on Natural Hazards Decision-making for consultation. A draft Council submission has been prepared for consideration.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves lodging the attached draft submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry for the Environment on the proposed National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The alternative option would be to not submit on the proposed National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making (NPS-NHD). This course of action is not recommended as making a submission is a valuable opportunity to influence central government direction on proposals that have significant implications for Council and the community.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Overview of the proposed National Policy Statement on Natural Hazard Decision-making

5.1 The Government has proposed a phased work programme to improve the management of natural hazard risks under the RMA. This programme involves:

· the proposed NPS-NHD (the focus of this consultation process and the draft submission), which is an interim measure intended to be developed and implemented by early 2024;

· the proposed comprehensive National Direction for Natural Hazards, to be developed over the next one-to-two years.

5.2 The intention of the proposed NPS-NHD is to direct decision-makers, such as the Council, to take a risk-based approach to natural hazards when making planning decisions relating to new development.

5.3 Based on a decision-maker’s assessment of natural hazard risk and the tolerance to the risk, the proposed NPS-NHD will direct the decision-maker to:

· in high natural hazard risk areas, avoid new development unless the level of risk can be reduced to at least a tolerable level;

· in moderate natural hazard risk areas, reduce risk to as low as reasonably practicable;

· in low natural hazard risk areas, enable new development.

5.4 In terms of timeframes, the NPS-NHD would have an immediate effect upon being gazetted, meaning that the Council would need to have regard to the NPS-NHD when making decisions on resource consents or designations and give effect to the NPS-NHD in making decisions on private plan change requests on and from the commencement date of the NPS-NHD. The Council would also need to give effect to the NPS-NHD through updating planning instruments as soon as reasonably practicable.

Summary of submission

5.5 The submission supports the overall direction of the NPS-NHS. It welcomes the focus on adopting a risk-based and precautionary approach, and avoiding new development in high-risk areas, particularly hazard-sensitive development such as residential activities.

5.6 To improve the workability of the proposed NPS-NHD and enable effective implementation, the submission does seek further consideration and amendments to specific provisions.

5.7 The following details key points and amendments sought in the Council’s draft submission (Attachment A):

5.7.1 Determining natural hazard risks – in determining risk the NPS-NHD requires consideration of the tolerance of the people subject to the risk, including their willingness and capability to cope. The submission details the difficulty with this approach in that communities do not share a common view of risk, but rather have a spectrum of risk tolerance. It also provides examples on the impracticability and risks associated with this approach. The submission urges that the inclusion of ‘willingness and capability to cope’ in determining tolerance is reconsidered.

5.7.2 Relationship with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement – the submission seeks that the risk-based approach of the NPS-NHD should be incorporated into the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to ensure alignment across national direction.

5.7.3 Decision-making in the face of uncertainty – the submission supports that decision-making should not be delayed due to uncertainty. However, it does raise concern around the requirement for decision-makers to take “all practicable steps” to reduce uncertainty. The submission details how this could be interpreted to place an onus on the Council to undertake considerable modelling work and be very costly.

5.7.4 Clarification on technical definitions – the submission seeks further clarification and amendments on specific definitions in the proposed NPS-NHD to reduce complexity and provide clarity.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This decision aligns with the Council’s Strategic Framework.

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: 17.2.34 Provide policy and advice for Council on climate resilience - Council teams receive advice enabling action on climate change

6.3.2 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.5 Staff have also endeavoured to ensure the content of the draft submission is consistent with previous Council submissions on related matters such as the Council submission on the inquiry into climate adaptation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 The decision to lodge a Council submission on the proposed NPS-NH is not a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.7 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua, however the decision to submit on the proposed NPS-NH will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.8 Of particularly interest, Policy 7 of the NPS-NHD is for Maori, and in particular, tangata whenua values, interests and aspirations to be recognised and provided for, including through early engagement, when making decisions.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 There are no direct climate change implications associated with the decision to approve this submission. However, the submission itself, being on providing national direction on natural hazard decision-making, considers implications regarding impacts from climate change induced hazards.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.10 There are no direct accessibility implications associated with the decision to approve this submission.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - the cost of making this submission will be met from existing operational budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - as above.

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 consultation on the proposed NPS-NH is public and open to any person or organisation.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. A review has been carried out of the draft submission.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no significant risks associated with this decision to lodge submission.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Council Submission on Proposed National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-making 2023	23/1650705	31

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

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Helaina Gregg - Principal Advisor Policy

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Council

15 November 2023

9. Freedom Camping Bylaw amendments due to legislative changes
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1031467
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst (Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz) Naomi Soper, Senior Legal Counsel (Naomi.Soper@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 updates the Council on changes to freedom camping legislation and recommends that the Council amends its freedom camping bylaw in response to the changes.

1.2 This report is staff generated and has been prepared in response to the legislative changes.

1.3 The Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act 2023 (SMVL Act) made changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act). These changes impact on how freedom camping is regulated across the country and require amendments to freedom camping bylaws.

1.4 The SMVL Act requires councils to amend freedom camping bylaws to remove inconsistencies with the amended Act and enables this to be done by resolution, publicly notified (without the usual procedural steps including consultation). We recommend that the Council amend the Council's Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021 by accepting the recommendations in this report.

1.5 A transitional provision in the SMVL Act allows a new bylaw to be made, with certain requirements and limitations, to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, but staff do not recommend proceeding with this option.

1.6 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Consultation is not required, as above, and the amendments are required in response to the changes to legislation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Amends the Christchurch City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021 to comply with clause 10 of Schedule 1AA of the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act 2023 (SMVL Act), as indicated in the attached bylaw, and in the following ways:

a. Revoking and replacing terms and definitions in clause 3 of the bylaw (Interpretation), and amending clauses throughout the bylaw that use the terms with amended definitions;

b. Revoking clause 4 of the bylaw (Local authority areas where freedom camping is permitted) and replacing it with a new clause to align with the amended Act (Application of the Act on local authority areas);

c. Amending the explanatory note to clause 9 of the bylaw (Prior permission from the Council for an organised event) to make it clear that permission under this clause can no longer be given to freedom camp in vehicles that are not self-contained);

d. Amending clause 12 of the bylaw (Offence and penalty), and its explanatory note, to reflect changes to infringement offences and fees in the amended Act and in the new regulations made under the Act; and

e. Updating the administrative information in and associated with the bylaw to reflect these amendments.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The SMVL Act made changes to how freedom camping is regulated across the country and requires councils to change their freedom camping bylaws in response. This report will enable the Council to update its freedom camping bylaw to align with these changes.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The SMVL Act contains some transitional provisions in relation to freedom camping bylaws:

· clause 10 of Schedule 1AA requires councils to amend bylaws that are inconsistent with the amended Act; and

· clause 11 of Schedule 1AA enables councils to choose whether or not to make a new bylaw (clause) to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, within certain parameters.^{^[1]}

4.2 There is only one clause of the bylaw where the option of making a new bylaw may have relevance - clause 9: Prior permission from the Council for an organised event. This clause enables the Chief Executive to temporarily waive or modify the freedom camping restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw to allow camping for an organised event - which could include giving permission for a group to freedom camp in vehicles that are not self-contained.

4.3 We do not recommend using the transitional provisions to proceed with the option of making a new bylaw (clause) to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, as set out in more detail in the Legal Implications section.

4.4 The effect of this will be minor. The clause has rarely been used. No applications have been received for this type of camping event since the replacement bylaw was adopted in 2021.

4.5 If the Council accepts the recommendations in this report, the clause on temporary permission for organised events:

· will no longer be able to permit camping in vehicles that are not self-contained; and

· will continue to provide for the waiving or modifying of other restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw, such as camping in tents, to allow for the possibility of organised events.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 This section of the report summarises the wider legislative changes and impacts, and then sets out a summary of the required changes to our bylaw.

Legislative changes

5.2 The SMVL Act made changes in three key areas:

· how people can camp on council (and other) land;

· the system for certifying freedom camping vehicles; and

· the types of penalties and infringement amounts.

How people can camp on council land (and other land) has changed

5.3 The amended Act has changed the default from allowing all forms of freedom camping on council land (unless a bylaw restricts or prohibits it), to allowing freedom camping on council land only in self-contained vehicles or in tents^{^[2]}.

5.4 It created a new default, prohibiting freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, and created a corresponding new bylaw-making power to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.

5.5 Councils can continue to have bylaws to otherwise restrict or prohibit freedom camping (such as prohibiting camping in tents, prohibiting camping in a specific location, or limiting how long campers can stay).

5.6 Our bylaw has prohibited any form of freedom camping other than in self-contained vehicles since 2016, so this change to the default does not constitute a major change for our district. It will mean greater consistency across the country for freedom camping in vehicles, which will be helpful.

5.7 The changes to legislation also provided a new power for councils to regulate camping activities on Waka Kotahi land using a bylaw (with Waka Kotahi’s agreement). A full bylaw amendment process would be required to include Waka Kotahi land in our bylaw (which would include public consultation). We are not aware of any areas of concern in our district at the moment that would require this approach.

5.8 Changes have been made to support camping controls on Land Information New Zealand land - Department of Conservation land is already covered by the Act. The land is regulated differently, as follows:

Waka Kotahi land

Can be declared “local authority area land” and be included in a bylaw

DOC land

Permitted

A notice can restrict or prohibit freedom camping

Other legislation may prohibit or restrict it

LINZ land

Prohibited

A notice can permit freedom camping in a defined area (and specify any restrictions or conditions)

The system for certifying freedom camping vehicles has changed and has a two-year transition period

5.9 There is a two-year transition period for all camping vehicles to transition to the new system, with six monthly incremental changes. This is to enable the new system of certification authorities and certifiers to establish and meet the demand for vehicle inspection and certification, and for vehicle owners to modify or upgrade any non-compliant vehicles.

5.10 Self-containment of vehicles requires appropriate plumbing and other facilities to enable the vehicle to be used for camping. A warrant card is accompanied by a certificate of self-containment and together these demonstrate self-containment for a vehicle. The warrant card must be displayed in a vehicle (near the vehicle registration card on a front windscreen).

5.11 The old system involved blue warrant cards to demonstrate compliance with the New Zealand Standard: NZS 5465:2001 Self containment of motor caravans and caravans. The Standard has been updated so that portable or cassette toilets are no longer compliant, and instead fixed toilets are required. Blue warrant cards continue to be valid for a limited time (see table below).

5.12 The new system involves green warrant cards to demonstrate compliance. The technical requirements for self-containment are set out in new regulations, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers (Self-Contained Vehicles) Regulations 2023, which were adopted on 28 August 2023. Green warrant cards will be issued in relation to the requirements set out in these new regulations.

5.13 The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board has responsibility for certification authorities and certifiers to ensure consistency in the certification of vehicles as self-contained. The Board is a statutory board appointed under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006, and is responsible for regulating people who carry out sanitary plumbing services (such as those required in a self-contained camping vehicle).

5.14 A register of self-contained vehicles will be established to enable verification of certification (to address concerns about inadequate, inconsistent or fake certification). This is being developed and is due to be released by 7 December 2023.

Date	Implementation steps from MBIE
7 June 2023	Only vehicles with a fixed toilet can be certified under the updated NZ Standard (blue warrant) Existing blue warrant holders (certified under the old NZ Standard / with a portable toilet) can continue to freedom camp until their warrant expires, or until 7 June 2025 (whichever is first)
7 December 2023	New regulations are in place, setting the requirements for self-contained vehicles, demonstrated with a green warrant card. New green warrants can be issued and will be valid for four years.
7 June 2024	Only green warrants can be issued by certifiers (no new blue warrants)
7 December 2024	Rental vehicles must hold and display green warrants
7 June 2025	All camping vehicles must have and display green warrants to demonstrate self-containment. Any blue warrants expire and are no longer valid.

The types of penalties have changed, and the infringement amounts have changed

5.15 Some new offences were added to the Freedom Camping Act, and a new set of regulations was adopted by the Minister of Tourism under the amended Act - the Freedom Camping (Penalties for Infringement Offences) Regulations 2023. These came into effect on 13 July 2023 and set the infringement fees for a range of offences, including some in relation bylaws.

5.16 The following offences and infringement fees relate to local authority area land (land under council control). There are similar offences in relation to land administered by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand:

Offence	Infringement fee	Comment
Freedom camping in local authority area in breach of prohibition or restriction in bylaw	$400	Increased from $200
Freedom camping in local authority area using a motor vehicle that is not self-contained, other than where permitted	$400	New offence
Failing to display a warrant card when freedom camping in a motor vehicle in a local authority area, other than where permitted	$200	New offence
Freedom camping in a local authority area in a self-contained motor vehicle with more people than the vehicle is certified for	$400	New offence
Interfering with or damaging a local authority area, its flora or fauna, or any structure in the area while freedom camping or depositing waste in or on the area while freedom camping	$800	Increased from $200 Amended to add damage to structures
Making preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area in breach of prohibition or restriction in bylaw	$400	Increased from $200
Making preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area using a motor vehicle that is not self-contained, other than where permitted	$400	New offence
Making preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area in a self-contained motor vehicle with more people than the vehicle is certified for	$400	New offence
Failing or refusing to leave a local authority area when required to do so by an enforcement officer	$600	Increased from $200
Displaying an altered or fraudulent warrant card	$600	New offence
Presenting an altered or fraudulent certificate of self-containment	$600	New offence
Refusing to give information when required to do so or giving false or misleading information	$600	Increased from $200

5.17 Work is underway in the Regulatory Compliance Team to update staff and contractors involved in freedom camping enforcement activities, and to update administrative processes in relation to infringement notices, etc.

5.18 These offence and penalty changes will be reflected in the amended bylaw, which states the amount of the bylaw breach penalties and summarises some of the offences under the Act.

Homelessness

5.19 One other change is in relation to homelessness. In response to concerns that the Act could unintentionally apply to people who are experiencing homelessness, the definition of “freedom camp” was changed. The change excludes people who are unable to live in appropriate residential accommodation, and that live in a tent, temporary structure or motor vehicle, from needing to comply with freedom camping rules. This exclusion does not apply to someone on a visitor visa.

5.20 This aligns with the approach that has been taken in our district for some time. People experiencing homelessness are not treated in the same way as recreational campers.

6. Implications and bylaw changes

Freedom camping bylaw background

6.1 Tourism and freedom camping in New Zealand have changed significantly since the Freedom Camping Act was adopted over a decade ago. The following table sets out some of these changes and how they relate to our district and our bylaw.

2011	Parliament enacted the Freedom Camping Act 2011, allowing freedom camping on council land, and enabling councils to create freedom camping bylaws in some situations
2011-2015	The Council monitored freedom camping activities to establish whether a bylaw was needed, and decided a bylaw should be developed to address issues
2015	The Council adopted its first freedom camping bylaw
2016	The Council amended its bylaw to prohibit freedom camping in anything other than certified self-contained vehicles, and prohibited freedom camping in five new areas, largely due to overcrowding and environmental damage
2018	The Council amended its bylaw to prohibit freedom camping in Akaroa township, except within a designated freedom camping area
2020	The Council completed the first stage of the bylaw’s required five-year review
2021	The Council adopted a replacement bylaw as a result of the review, and after consultation (the current Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021)
2021	MBIE consulted on policy proposals to support a more sustainable model for freedom camping, which formed the basis for subsequent legislative changes The Council made a submission to MBIE
2022	The Self-contained Vehicles Legislation Bill was introduced to Parliament The Council made a submission to the select committee
2023	Parliament enacted the Self-contained Vehicles Legislation Act 2023, which amended the Freedom Camping Act. It also amended the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to better regulate camping vehicles, and made minor changes to the Privacy Act 2020 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

Changes to the default and impact on bylaws

6.2 The SMVL Act made changes that affect how councils can manage freedom camping through their bylaws. One key change was to the default permissions for freedom camping on local authority area land - from allowing all forms of freedom camping, to allowing freedom camping only in self-contained vehicles or in tents, or other temporary structures (removing the entitlement to camp in vehicles that are not self-contained).

6.3 Councils can continue to make bylaws to otherwise restrict or prohibit freedom camping, and the SMVL Act has added a new bylaw-making power which must be used to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained in a local authority area.

	Old Act & bylaws	Amended Act & bylaws	Our bylaw – following the recommendations in this report
Default rules	All forms of freedom camping on council land are allowed (unless a bylaw restricts or prohibits it)	Freedom camping on council land in self-contained vehicles or tents is allowed (unless a bylaw restricts or prohibits it) Freedom camping on council land in vehicles that are not self-contained is prohibited (unless a bylaw permits it).	Freedom camping in self-contained vehicles continues to be allowed (except in prohibited areas). Freedom camping in tents continues to be prohibited (unless temporary permission has been given in relation to an organised event). The Act now prohibits camping in vehicles that are not self-contained vehicles.
Modes of camping	A bylaw can prohibit camping in tents. A bylaw can prohibit camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.	A bylaw can prohibit camping in tents. The Act now prohibits camping in vehicles that are not self-contained. A new bylaw can be made to permit camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.
Locations	A bylaw can restrict or prohibit camping in specific locations		Restricted and prohibited areas in our bylaw remain unchanged.
Activities	A bylaw can restrict or prohibit certain activities (eg limiting duration of stay, one camping vehicle per marked parking space, no blocking thoroughfares with camping set-ups, etc)		Restricted and prohibited activities in our bylaw remain unchanged.

Amending the bylaw to remove inconsistencies

6.4 Clause 10 of Schedule 1AA of the SMVL Act requires councils to remove any inconsistencies between freedom camping bylaws and the amended Act. As the Council’s freedom camping bylaw was made under the previous version of the Act, it needs to be amended.

6.5 The changes to the Act altered or added definitions which are also used in our bylaw. This means we must amend our bylaw to replace or otherwise alter definitions that are now out-of-step with the amended legislation. This involves both updating the definitions or any inconsistent terms, as well as amending the bylaw throughout (wherever the words are used) along with any consequential amendments that are required.

6.6 We also need to amend our bylaw to update the change in default, to reflect that it is now the Act and not our bylaw that prohibits freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained. The bylaw will continue to prohibit camping in tents or other temporary structures.

6.7 A small change to the explanatory note of the organised events clause has been included to make it clear that permission cannot be given to freedom camp in vehicles that are not self-contained. The clause enables the Chief Executive to temporarily waive or modify the freedom camping restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw to enable camping for an organised event. As freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained is now prohibited under the Act (and not under the bylaw), this clause in the bylaw cannot override the Act.

6.8 Another area of inconsistency is in the offences and penalties clauses in the bylaw. The offences and penalties in the Act were changed by the SMVL Act, and new infringement amounts were set in regulations. The references in the bylaw to infringement offences and fees need to be amended to remove these inconsistencies.

6.9 Clause 10 of Schedule 1AA of the SMVL Act requires councils to remove inconsistencies, and Clause 10(2) enables this to be done by resolution, publicly notified, without the usual need for public consultation.

The option of making a new bylaw to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained

6.10 We cover this is more detail in the Legal Implications section, below.

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

7.2 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The decision in this report will update the Council’s bylaw so it is consistent with newly amended legislation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.4 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.7 There are no accessibility considerations relevant to the decisions in this report.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement – The decisions in this report relate to administrative changes to the Council’s freedom camping bylaw which are required by legislation.

8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – no change.

8.3 Funding Source – business as usual.

Other He mea anō

8.4 There may be some additional costs to communicate or promote the changes to how freedom camping is managed in New Zealand over the coming summer, but these do not relate to the decisions in this report.

8.5 The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has a contestable $5 million fund that councils can apply to, for funding to cover activities associated with transitioning to the new freedom camping system. We recently learned that our funding application has been successful. Funding from the MBIE Freedom Camping Transition Fund will contribute to updating the “Know Where to Camp” campaign, training for compliance and enforcement activities, and some updates to freedom camping signs.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

Changes triggered by the SMVL Act

9.1 The SMVL Act requires councils to remove inconsistencies between existing bylaws and the amended Act. It also prohibited freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, and created a new bylaw-making power that councils can use to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.

9.2 It created some transitional provisions to enable councils to update their bylaws administratively. The transitional provisions generally require that bylaws are updated to align with the amended Act and to retain current regulatory settings (i.e. anything wider than this would require a full amendment or review process, including consultation).

Required: Removing inconsistencies

9.3 The amendments recommended in this report are required, and are empowered by the transitional provisions in the SMVL Act: clause 10 of Schedule 1AA Local authority must amend inconsistent bylaws.

9.4 Staff have assessed the alignment between the bylaw and amended Act and recommend a number of changes to remove inconsistencies. The requirement to remove inconsistencies can be met by accepting the recommendations in this report, which include:

· revoking and replacing definitions and amending clauses that use the terms with new definitions;

· revoking and replacing a clause that sets out the effect of legislation on freedom camping in the district;

· amending an explanatory note relating to organised events to reflect the change in the default (ie permission can no longer be given to freedom camp vehicles that are not self-contained under this clause);

· amending clauses and explanatory notes to reflect changes to infringement offences and fees; and

· updating administrative information in the bylaw to reflect the amendments.

9.5 These amendments meet the criteria for removing inconsistencies in the SMVL Act, and are empowered by clause 10 of Schedule 1AA. This allows the changes to be undertaken by resolution, publicly notified, without the usual analysis and consultation requirements.

Optional: Making a new bylaw to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained

9.6 The SMVL Act gives councils the option of transferring any existing areas specified in a bylaw as permitted areas for freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained to the new regime.

9.7 This effectively requires that any existing permissions are revoked and remade under new empowering provisions. This is needed because the Act now prohibits freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained, so in order for it to be permitted, a new bylaw must be made.

9.8 The SMVL Act gives the following option: clause 11 of Schedule 1AA Local authority may make bylaw permitting freedom camping in motor vehicles that are not self-contained.

9.9 We do not recommend utilising the transitional provisions in the SMVL Act that relate to permitting freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.

9.10 In order to utilise the transitional provisions, the SMVL Act requires that freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained is already permitted in an existing bylaw, and a local authority area has been designated in a bylaw as suitable for this form of freedom camping.^{^[3]}

9.11 The Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021 currently prohibits freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained (and has done so since 2016) - other than in one clause that may have relevance to this transitional provision. The clause:

· is clause 9 Prior permission from the Council for an organised event;

· enables the Chief Executive to temporarily waive or modify the freedom camping restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw to allow camping for an organised event; and

· could currently result in permission being given for a group to freedom camp in vehicles that are not self-contained - anywhere in the district, depending on the application and discretion the Chief Executive to give permission or decline any application.

9.12 The transitional provisions in the SMVL Act do not align well with this clause because:

· the clause could apply anywhere in the district (ie it provides discretion to permit it on a case-by-case basis in any location);

· no specific area has been designated; and

· the clause does not specifically permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained – rather, it allows for the temporary waiving or modifying of any of restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw (which is widely drafted, so it could involve permission to freedom camp in vehicles that are not self-contained).

9.13 The prohibition on freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained is now in the Act, rather than in our bylaw. The current bylaw clause allows for the temporary waiving or modifying of any of restrictions or prohibitions in the bylaw – so because freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained is now prohibited under the Act, the current clause in the bylaw cannot give permission for freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained.

9.14 For all of these reasons, we do not consider clause 9 of our bylaw falls in scope of the transitional provision.

9.15 For completeness, even if we considered that it was within scope, we would not recommend using the transitional provisions to make a new bylaw (clause) because it would be difficult to give effect to the intent of clause 9 (discretionary power to permit) and meet the bylaw-making requirements in the SMVL Act (that the area is defined and applies to the same area as the old bylaw).

Effect of removing inconsistencies on clause 9: Prior permission from the Council for an organised event

9.16 The SMVL Act requires councils to remove inconsistencies. In amending the bylaw to achieve this, we have reflected the change to the Act that prohibits freedom camping on local authority area land in vehicles that are not self-contained (unless a new bylaw is made).

9.17 This means permission can no longer be given under clause 9 of the bylaw to allow freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained for an organised event.

9.18 This will only have a minor effect as the clause has rarely been used. No applications have been received for this type of camping event since the replacement bylaw was adopted in 2021.

Permitting freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained

9.19 If the Council wants to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained in a designated location in the future, it can do so by following the normal amendment process, including consultation.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 The amendments to freedom camping bylaws that can be undertaken by resolution, publicly notified, must be within the scope of the powers in the SMVL Act. All of the recommended amendments to the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw in this report are within the scope of allowable changes.

10.2 Further changes to any existing right or entitlement would be outside of scope and require the usual bylaw amendment process, including public consultation.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	AMENDED Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021 (for adoption 15 November 2023)	23/1265487	48

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Council

15 November 2023

11. Transport Choices (CERF) - Programme Reduction
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1736834
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Jacob Bradbury, Manager Planning & Delivery Transport
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to select the projects that will be delivered through the Transport Choices programme.

1.2 This report is generated by staff in response to information from Waka Kotahi about an expected reduction in funding through the Transport Choices programme.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined as the Transport Choices programme is of Metropolitan Significance, and this represents a material change to the overall funding allowances expected.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Note the financial constraints on the Transport Choices programme, and the impact of this on Council’s programme of works.

Transport Choices projects to progress (subject to funding agreements)

2. Approves the following projects (or sections thereof) to progress, subject to signed Transport Choices programme funding agreements, and in line with the scheme designs approved by the Council at its meeting on 21 September 2023:

a. Linwood Village Streetscape Enhancements (S1) (#34094).

b. Te Aratai College Cycle Connection (#72755).

c. Richmond Neighbourhood Greenway (#72758).

d. Linwood & Woolston Roading and Transport Improvements (#72764).

e. Slow Speed Neighbourhoods Linwood (#72776).

f. Improving Bromley’s Roads (#74469).

g. School Safety Linwood (#72777), noting that that this project has a funding agreement in place and can progress immediately.

h. Little River Link Cycle Connections (#72760) – The following two sections, which includes works south of the intersection with Coronation Street:

i. Aidenfield section.

ii. Nga Puna Wai section, noting that this section has a funding agreement in place and can progress immediately.

Transport Choices projects not to progress (absent funding agreements)

3. Agrees that the following project is not progressed, unless a signed Transport Choices programme funding agreement is obtained, noting that the expectation is that funding will not be made available:

a. Westmorland Cycle Connection (#72759) (in line with the scheme designs approved by the Council at its meeting on 21 September 2023).

Transport Choices project sections to progress (subject to funding agreements and further work)

4. Approves the sections of the following projects to progress in part, subject to signed Transport Choices programme funding agreements:

a. Little River Link Cycle Connections (#72760) - Simeon Steet:

i. Notes this section includes works north of the intersection with Coronation Street; and;

ii. Instructs staff to develop a low cost, low intervention solution north of intersection at Coronation Street, and report back to the Council for approval.

b. Linwood Bus Stop Improvements (#72779):

i. As identified within the priority list provided in Attachment A.

ii. Requests staff to scale the delivery scope to fit within the remaining Transport Choices project budget and in consideration of future Council decisions, community feedback, and construction risks and costings.

iii. Delegates authority to the Head of Transport & Waste to select the specific Bus Stops, and associated improvements, as listed in Attachment A, subject to any consultation and Council approval requirements.

5. Approves that any projects listed in resolutions 1, 2 and 3 above that do not receive funding agreements from Waka Kotahi by 30 June 2024, are not further progressed and removed from the Council’s Transport Capital Programme.

6. Requests that staff report to the 13 December 2023 Finance and Performance Committee meeting, with information on the impact of the decisions within this report and funding delay on Council’s current and proposed capital programme.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Staff received an email from Waka Kotahi on 19^th October 2023, which indicated that the level of funding that Council would receive through the Transport Choices programme had reduced from that which had been expected.

3.2 Waka Kotahi has advised that the Council can choose how this reduction in funding is managed, and suggested a number of ways in which this could achieved:

3.2.1 Reducing the amount already claimed for pre-implementation or foregoing this entirely

3.2.2 Reducing the scope of projects

3.2.3 Removing of full projects

3.2.4 Finding savings on projects already approved for Schedule 2 (Implementation)

3.2.5 Increasing the local share contribution to a project thus reducing Waka Kotahi’s overall contribution

3.3 The email also confirmed that: “Projects will still be required to meet the established Transport Choices criteria to ensure alignment with programme outcomes”.

3.4 Waka Kotahi originally asked the Council to confirm how this would be achieved by 27^th October 2023. As this is a change to the scope of an established programme, Waka Kotahi were advised the Council would need to approve any changes, and therefore that this date could not be met.

3.5 Waka Kotahi must prepare funding agreements for Ministers to sign and therefore warned that delays in confirming changes to the programme may put funding at risk. To reduce the risk of further reductions, it is important that the Council provide clear direction to staff.

3.6 Staff have recommended ways in which the reduction could be achieved, which focuses on scope reduction to maintain the 90% external funding/10% local share.

3.6.1 Westmorland Cycle Connection has been recommended for deferral (pending-removal) for the following reasons:

· Residual risks remain around drainage that could impact time/cost.

· Some stakeholders raised issues with the fundamentals of the design and its impacts on local businesses.

· It has a significantly higher cost than originally budgeted.

· It had the lowest level of support of all projects presented to Elected Members during the 21/22^nd September Council meeting.

· However, deferral means Council misses the opportunity to tie this work in with upcoming maintenance works, does not provide links to communities with poor active transport links that have been requested by the Community Board, and misses an opportunity to future proof an area expected to see growth.

3.6.2 The northern section of Simeon Street has been recommended for a change of scope for the following reasons:

· Low current traffic numbers mean greenway treatment is possible. This removes expensive deep dish removal and drainage changes.

· Expected closure of Simeon Street->Brougham Street egress by Waka Kotahi means the nature of this section of Simeon Street would change. Staff of both organisations are working together to see whether this can brought forward.

· Waka Kotahi’s expected bridge construction means there may be heavy vehicles using this route, potentially causing damage to any new infrastructure installed.

· However, changing the scope of this means missing the opportunity to provide a complete off-road route between Quarrymans Trail and Little River Link MCRs, along a route already well used by commuters and students, which would align with a complementary Waka Kotahi project on Brougham Street.

3.6.3 The Linwood Bus Stops project has been recommended for scaling to fit the available budget for the following reasons:

· By delivering some of this project, Council is able to deliver some work against each of the four categories under Transport Choices.

· The project is made up of a number of discreet parts, where not delivering some parts does not impact the effectiveness of other parts.

· The project can act as a low-risk learning mechanism for the “Public Transport Futures” programme expected in the next Long Term Plan (LTP).

· Council received early funding to purchase infrastructure, so has set an expectation that some delivery will occur (noting that any unused infrastructure can be re-directed to other Council projects).

· Any parts designed but not delivered could be delivered through other Council budgets, such as the Bus Stop Infrastructure project, and potential future projects in the next LTP. Therefore, continuing to develop and approve designs – even where they are not delivered here - is of wider benefit to Council.

3.7 Waka Kotahi has also indicated that Christchurch City Council is likely to be favoured for additional funding through the programme should funding become available. Staff have therefore recommended a time-bound deferral, rather than removal of projects. This is even where it is anticipated that the projects will not receive external funding, and will therefore not be delivered as part of the Transport Choices programme.

3.8 During a briefing to Council on 31^st October 2023, staff were given guidance on potential other options that Councillors may want to explore. Where possible, these are included in the “Alternative Options Considered” section below.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Council inform Waka Kotahi of desire to progress all 10 approved Transport Choices projects, but continue to pause on progressing any further projects until funding agreements have been signed. This would result in Council funding the gap between originally anticipated funding and current expected funding.

4.1.1 Advantages

· Would allow Council to proceed with projects at a higher Funding Assistance Rate than would normally be expected (~73% FAR)

· Would mean Council meets expectations set with communities through the engagement process

4.1.2 Disadvantages:

· Increased Council contribution (10% vs 27%) would have larger rating impact than assumed during Annual Plan (impact of ~$5m of additional CAPEX). However, due to delay this would likely not impact Council until at least FY25

· Potential for cost liabilities caused by delays

4.2 Council continues with all 10 approved Transport Choices projects, and begin immediately (ahead of the funding agreements being signed).

4.2.1 Advantages:

· Would mean Council meets expectations set with communities through the engagement process

· Would continue momentum set through design stage with minimal loss of efficiency and focus

· Would eliminate potential for costs caused by delay

4.2.2 Disadvantages

· Rating impact if Transport Choices funding agreement not signed, or not signed this financial year (potential impact of up to $26m of additional CAPEX)

· Even if funding agreements are signed, there is a risk that work progressed ahead of the signed agreement may become ineligible for subsidy

4.3 Council accept staff recommendations on projects to be delivered, and pause most projects until funding agreements signed; except Linwood Village Streetscape which would progress ahead of the funding agreement being signed

4.3.1 Advantages

· Allow Council to deliver a project which was originally on budget for FY24 originally

· Project has strong community support as one of the post-earthquake suburban regeneration Masterplans

· Would partially continue momentum set through design stage – project is tendered and ready to construct

· Would mitigate potential for costs caused by delay

· Had significant budget before Transport Choices, and was a major contributor to local share: Budget in December 2022 was $2.1m.

· Limited rating impact on FY24 assuming delay on signing funding agreements will last until early 2024: Linwood Village will cost $4.9m to deliver, but budgeted local share across Transport Choices is about $2.8m (impact of up to ~$2.1m of additional CAPEX in FY24)

4.3.2 Disadvantages

· Waka Kotahi consider this project the least aligned with Transport Choices aims – if there are further cuts to the funding pot it is likely to impact this project

4.4 Council offsets additional CAPEX costs in FY24 from other alternative options, by transferring budget from Wheels to Wings Major Cycleway Route. Noting that this would require a resolution to halt all work on Wheels to Wings.

4.4.1 Advantages

· Would reduce unfunded rating impact

4.4.2 Disadvantages

· Would delay a project with significant momentum, causing further cost to Council and disruption to communities

· Effect would be small: total FY24 budget for Wheels to Wings is just $1.8 million, of which ~$200k is already spent or committed

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 The Transport Choices programme aims to aid the transition towards a low emission and climate resilient future, by funding projects that make it easier to travel in ways that are good for the environment. This is funded from the Climate Emergency Response Fund, and is aimed at improving public transport, creating walkable neighbourhoods, supporting healthy school travel, and developing strategic cycle and micro-mobility networks.

5.1.1 Christchurch City Council was initially successful in attracting funding for 14 projects.

5.1.2 At the Finance and Performance Committee meeting of 22 February 2023, staff were instructed to progress with 11 of these projects.

5.1.3 Council and Waka Kotahi had also discussed delivering a number of complementary projects. This included supplying bikes, and facilities such as bike tracks and secure storage, to a number of low-decile schools at a 100% externally funded rate. While Council’s financial exposure in the event of cancellation is fairly low, expectations have been set with these school communities that these would be delivered over the Summer 2023/2024 holidays.

5.1.4 Due to issues with deliverability, one further project was halted by mutual consent between Council and Waka Kotahi (#72756 Gloucester Street Central City East-West Connection). Staff informed Councillors of this via Memo on 1 June 2023.

5.2 The conditions associated with the Transport Choices funding were onerous: Waka Kotahi initially stated that design was to be completed by September 2023 to allow construction funding to be released, and all construction work was to be completed by end June 2024.

5.3 Council has developed designs for these projects through an iterative process involving Waka Kotahi’s design team, and then conducted an extensive consultation process through the “Way Safer Streets” campaign.

5.3.1 Of the 10 projects, 9 had designs and detailed traffic resolutions approved at a special Council meeting held over the 21^st and 22^nd September.

5.3.2 The designs and detailed traffic resolutions for the remaining project (#72779 Linwood Bus Stop Improvements) have been split into tranches. The first batch of sites was approved at Council on 1^st November 2023; the remaining sites are expected to be presented to Council in early-2024.

5.4 On the 22^nd September 2023, Waka Kotahi informed Council that the end dates for designs and applications for construction funding had moved by four weeks to 27^th October 2023, and that the end date for construction had moved by 12 months to end June 2025. This communication also informed Council that the overall funding pot for Transport Choices had reduced. Staff made Council aware of this through a Memo on 25^th September 2023.

5.5 In late October 2023, Waka Kotahi sent two communications which changed the nature and timing of Council’s Transport Choices programme. Staff made Councillors aware of this at a briefing on 31^st October 2023, followed by a memo on 7^th November 2023.

5.5.1 On 19^th October 2023, Waka Kotahi officially communicated how this reduction would affect Council. This asked Council to decide how it would respond to this so that funding agreements nationally could be decided upon. This included the suggestions and guidance shown in points 3.2 and 3.3 of this report, and forms the reason for bringing this report to Council. This also clearly stated that any changes to scope must remain aligned with Transport Choices design principles.

5.5.2 On 27^th October 2023, Waka Kotahi informed Councils that no further funding agreements would be signed until they “receive clear direction from the incoming government”. However, this also reiterated the need for Councils to confirm how they would deal with the expected funding reduction.

5.5.3 At this time, staff have not been given any indication of when Waka Kotahi would hope to get direction.

5.6 Council already have signed Schedule 2 funding agreements for two projects, so these are able to progress to construction immediately if selected by Council in this report:

· #72760 Little River Link Cycle Connections (Nga Puna Wai)

· #72777 School Safety Linwood

5.7 Staff have planned to meet the original timelines set through the programme. This means that internal structures have been developed, and external resources procured, to meet a significant ramp up of work in the second half of FY24.

5.7.1 During the pause, internal staff will be re-directed to other projects. However, this is likely to result in a loss of efficiency across the Transport capital programme. This, with options to mitigate this, will be presented to the Finance & Performance Committee.

5.7.2 Council has made obligations with cost implications. While staff expect many of these can be mitigated, there is a risk that a delay could result in costs to Council. These could either be direct costs to Council for works agreed, or indirect costs, for example, by tendered rates no longer being valid if the pause is significant.

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

5.8.1 The Transport Choices programme is of Metropolitan Significance, so the delegated decision-maker is Council

5.8.2 Community Board areas affected by projects directly referenced in this report are:

· Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

· Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

· Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central

· Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

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 Transport

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=37% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.08 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

· Level of Service: 10.4.4 Improve user satisfaction of public transport facilities (number and quality of shelters and quality of bus stop) - >=73% resident satisfaction

· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city - >=67% resident satisfaction

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 600 kilometres (total combined length)

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, particularly the FY24 Annual Plan funding decisions and Long Term Plan objectives.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.6.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.7 The projects proposed to be delivered in the Transport Choices programme are designed to encourage the use of low-emissions and low-cost transport modes, reducing vehicle kilometres travelled and therefore carbon emissions.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 The projects proposed to be delivered in the Transport Choices programme are designed to encourage the use of low-emissions and low-cost transport modes, and therefore improve accessibility for all modes.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The current budget allowance for the Transport Choices programme is $26.8m, of which $24.7m is in the current financial year (FY24).

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The expected operational costs as a result of each of the projects was reported to Council post-consultation. For most of the Transport Choices projects this was in the report to Council for 21^st September 2023.

7.3 Funding Source – The projects were to be funded by Waka Kotahi through the Transport Choices programme at 90%, with the remaining 10% as ratepayer funded “local share”. The current recommendations aim to retain that funding split.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council have the delegation to make changes to the capital programme.

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 The risk of not supplying a pathway to a reduced external funding contribution, are that even the reduced funding level may not be achievable.

9.2 Further risks to the programme will be identified and brought to Councillors in a follow up report to the Finance & Performance Committee.

10. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

10.1 When Council have made their decision, staff will report back to the Finance and Performance Committee on the impacts of this. This will include:

10.1.1 Impact on CAPEX overall and in FY24, and the rating impact of the same

10.1.2 Any impact this may have on FY25+, and how this could affect the next LTP period

10.1.3 Changes to budgets of directly impacted projects

10.1.4 Any obligations and liabilities caused by the delay and/or reduction

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Linwood Bus Stop Priorities	23/1829191	132

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Transport Choices Programme (Waka Kotahi): https://www.nzta.govt.nz/about-us/about-waka-kotahi-nz-transport-agency/environmental-and-social-responsibility/cerf-programme/cerf-delivery-programmes/transport-choices/

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

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Dan Lucas - Programme Manger (CO)

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 November 2023

12. Process for changing approved design - MCR Nor'West Arc
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1439556
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Thomas, Project Manager Transport Luke.Thomas@ccc.govt.nz) Jacob Bradbury, Manager Planning & Delivery Transport (Jacob.Bradbury@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide advice on the Notice of Motion relating to the Nor’West Arc MCR (section 3) along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace, to enable the Council to make a decision on which option to proceed with.

1.2 The Notice of Motion agreed by the Council on 6 September 2023 requested that staff report back to Council by 15 November 2023.

1.3 The Notice of Motion included:

Request a report from staff by 15 November 2023 on the process for adopting design ‘Option B’ for the Nor’ West Arc MCR section along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace which includes the:

a. Process for amending the existing design to adopt design ‘Option B’ for an on-berm cycleway alongside the footpath;

b. Options for removal and replacement of existing silver birch trees; and

c. Impacts of any change on the delivery of the Nor’ West Arc MCR.

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 level of media and community interest in cycleways and availability of Government funding, balanced with the relatively low impact on the city as a whole.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Notes the information provided on the process for changing the design of for the Nor’West Arc Major Cycleway Route (section 3) along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace as requested by a Notice of Motion at the 6 September 2023 Council meeting.

2. Agrees to progress with one of the following options for the Nor’West Arc Major Cycleway Route (section 3) along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace:

a. Option A - Separated cycleway on the carriageway (the current approved design).

i. Agrees to retain Option A under the previous decision made by the Urban Development and Transport Committee of 3 February 2022 meeting (Item 9 resolution 1d) and continue with the current approved design; and

ii. Notes that staff will bring a report to Council in early-2024 to agree to the detailed traffic resolutions prior to tender for construction.

b. Option B - Shared path:

i. Revokes the previous decision made by the Urban Development and Transport Committee of 3 February 2022 meeting (Item 9 resolution 1d), having considered the report of the Hearings Panel; and

ii. Approves the scheme design of the Nor’West Arc section 3 between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace as a shared path (Attachment A).

iii. Notes that staff will bring a report to the Council to agree to the detailed traffic resolutions prior to tender for construction.

iv. Notes that this option has associated design, budget, resource and delivery impacts and risks (as described in section 5.31-5.38 of this report).

c. Option C – Separated cycleway and footpath on the existing berm:

i. Agrees to pause any further work on the Nor’ West Arc Major Cycleway Route Section 3 along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace, as commenced under Option A.

ii. Directs staff to create a scheme design for a separated cycleway and footpath on the existing berm.

iii. Notes that this option has associated design, budget, resource and delivery impacts and risks (as described in section 5.39 – 5.48 of this report).

iv. Notes that this option is likely to require additional consultation and Hearings Panel process.

3. Notes the project is currently forecasting a $6 million shortfall that would need to be addressed in the 2024-2034 Long-Term Plan.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Council officers are providing advice on the Notice of Motion approved by the Council 6 September 2023.

3.2 A decision is required as the Nor’West Arc MCR (section 3) along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace cannot progress until a decision is made by the Council.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 This report presents the three options available.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

BACKGROUND

5.1 The Nor’West Arc Cycleway is a Shovel Ready funded project that will provide a Major Cycleway standard design from Cashmere to Papanui.

5.2 The Notice of Motion relates specifically to the section on Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace intersections (610m). This is the section that will be discussed through the report.

5.3 As detailed in paragraph 1.3, the Council requested a report from staff on the process for adopting an ‘amended Option B’, described as an on-berm cycleway alongside the footpath. For clarity this ‘amended’ option will be referred to as Option C.

5.4 The three options referred to in this report are:

· Option A – Separated cycleway on the carriageway (current design).

· Option B – Shared path on the existing berm.

· Option C – Separated cycleway on the existing berm, adjacent to the footpath.

5.5 The Major Cycleway Programme was declared a Metropolitan Programme on 29 January 2015 and it was agreed that the Council would make the final decisions.

5.6 At the beginning of the project two options for this section of the cycleway were considered. A greenway and a separated cycleway in the road corridor. A greenway option was ruled out by the Transport Steering Group on 5 March 2021 due to the traffic volume and limited opportunities to reduce volumes.

5.7 The project team then took the separated cycleway option (Option A) to non-resident stakeholders for early engagement. As a result of the early stakeholder engagement, further analysis was undertaken on alternative options, including both an on berm shared path and an on berm separated footpath and cycleway options. An on berm shared path option was included for wider public consultation (as Option B).

5.8 The existing berm varies from 5.1m to 5.8m and includes a 1.6m wide footpath against the property boundaries with a wide grass berm that includes trees and power poles. A shared path was considered the most practical option given the space available and minimum dimensions for footpath, separators, and cycleway. Additionally, the project team wanted to maintain the existing kerb and channel to reduce cost to the project.

5.9 The identified benefits of a shared path compared to a separated footpath and cycleway included:

· A 1m offset from property boundaries.

· A 3.5m wide shared path.

· Retained power poles.

· Retained existing kerb and channel.

· Allows users to choose how they use the space.

5.10 A Scheme Design Safety and Network Functionality (SANF) review was undertaken on both options. Option A was endorsed by the review primarily due to concerns relating to Option B’s shared path proximity to driveways and risk of conflict between reversing vehicles, and users of the shared path, due to a lack of intervisibility.

5.11 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes, Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton and Waimaero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Boards were briefed on the full Nor’West Arc Section 3 to be taken to consultation. This included the two options:

· Option A – A separated cycleway on the carriageway. This retained the existing kerb, berm and footpath and located a 3-metre cycleway in the existing road space. This option resulted in the removal of the on-street parking (about 113 parks) and included new indented parking bays to make up for some of the lost parking. Currently the design includes 51 car parks (Attachment B).

· Option B – An on berm shared path – retained the existing road carriageway and on-street parking and located a 3.5m shared path on the existing berm. It includes a 1m offset from the property boundary and 0.7m offset from the kerb. This option resulted in the removal of all trees and removal of the existing footpath (Attachment A).

· Note both options included the speed limit reduction from 50kmh to 40kmh. This was later changed to a reduction to 30kmh under the Safer Speeds Plan.

5.12 On 3 August 2021 the Council was briefed on the full Nor’West Arc Section 3 to be taken to consultation.

5.13 Consultation was conducted from 14 September 2021 to 12 October 2021. Below are the links to the maps used during consultation.

· Map 6 - Aorangi Road (Ilam to Clyde)

· Map 7 – Aorangi Road (Clyde to Brookside)

5.14 424 submissions were received. 339 selected a preferred option.

· Option A (262, 62%).

· Option B (129, 38%).

5.15 When reviewing the submission from those who live on the route and relevant organisations, the Option B (15) was preferred over Option A (1).

Submitters’ reasons for supporting Option A:

· Safer (40).

· Poor user behaviour on shared paths (14).

· Consistent with the rest of Aorangi Rd (10).

· Cyclist priority at intersections (3).

· No tree loss (3).

Submitters’ reasons for supporting Option B:

· Maintains on-road car parking (30).

· Safer (5).

· Removes trees (3).

5.16 The two options were then assessed against a multi-criteria analysis that considered the major cycleway standard design criteria, public submissions, and cost.

· Option A was considered to be the better option under design aspects of safety, comfort, attractiveness, and directness. It also received the greatest support by submitters (62%). Refer to section 5.10 of this report.

· Option B was considered to be the better option under stakeholder impact and cost.

5.17 After consultation Option A was chosen by the project team as the preferred option due to a) safety concerns with Option B which were raised in the SANF review and b) most of the public (62%) preferred Option A.

5.18 After consultation the below actions/revisions were made to the preferred Option A:

· A separated cycleway was replaced with a shared path from Ilam Road to Truman Road (70m). The purpose of this was to give cyclists a clear priority over Truman Road.

· Additional parking introduced on the southern side of Aorangi Road.

· Provision of two P10 parking spaces on the northern side of Aorangi Road.

· Five additional trees were removed due to the introduction of the shared path between Ilam Road and Truman Road.

· Ongoing work during detailed design phase with the Village Church on the shared area at Ilam Road and Aorangi Road Intersection (now completed).

· Measures to further improve safety at the Aorangi Road Ilam Road intersection be considered during detailed design (now completed).

5.19 A Hearings Panel process was conducted on 15 November 2023 via video link due to COVID -19 restrictions. The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillors Melanie Coker (Chair), Catherine Chu, Mike Davidson, Jake McLellan, and Community Board Member Simon Britten.

5.20 426 written submissions were received, and the Hearings Panel heard from 28 submitters.

5.21 At the end of the hearing, Panel Members asked 60 questions. The questions and Council Officer responses were recorded in the 15 November 2021 meeting minutes.

5.22 The Hearings Panel accepted the Officer Recommendations of a revised Option A - a shared path from Ilam Road to Truman Road and a separated cycleway in the existing carriageway from Truman Road to Brookside Terrace. The Hearings Panel also requested staff investigate additional parking on the Aorangi Road corner by Clyde Road as a result of submissions from the New Generation Church.

5.23 The design was amended at the Aorangi Road Corner by Clyde Road to include an additional eight car parks resulting in the removal of two trees.

5.24 The Hearings Panel report and recommendations were then adopted by the Urban Development and Transport Committee on 3 February 2022 with 11 votes in favour and 4 against.

5.25 Following the resolution by the Urban Development and Transport Committee to adopt the recommended Option A the project entered the detailed design phase.

5.26 Four notable changes were made during the detailed design process.

5.26.1 The project team identified additional opportunities to add indented parking bays. The project team worked with the Council arborists identifying another three trees scheduled for removal as part of their Orion/Tree Compliance Project. This resulted in an additional 2 silverbirch trees being removed and 5 car parks added.

5.26.2 The proposed speed limit reduction from 50kph to 40kph was further reduced to 30kph to align with the Safer Speeds Plan.

5.26.3 The design at Clyde Road intersection has changed to a shared path crossing design. A shared path design removed the pedestrian versus cycle lane cross conflicts and encouraged cyclists to be more careful on the approach to Clyde Road. Additionally, the design more clearly indicates to cyclists that they must give way to vehicles on Clyde Road.

5.26.4 The scope is to include replacement of the kerb and channel and reseal the carriageway due to poor condition.

5.27 This section of the cycleway is now at the end of detailed design and construction was planned to start before Christmas 2023.

PROCESS TO CHANGE DESIGN

5.28 The below describes the process requirements to progress the three options:

5.28.1 Option A – No further action. The project is at the end of detailed design and will continue to the procurement phase, and therefore has no implications.

5.28.2 Option B – Based on the information contained in the previous Hearings Panel report (Urban Development and Transport Committee 3 February 2022), the Council could make a resolution at this meeting to revoke the previous decision and progress with Option B (Attachment A).

5.28.3 The Council should put itself in as good a position as the original Hearings Panel having heard all parties. It can do so by considering the Hearings Panel report which includes all submissions, a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.

5.28.4 Option C – It is recommended that should the Council wish to proceed with the development of Option C:

a) Council pass a resolution to pause any further work on the Nor’ West Arc MCR Section 3 along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace, as the current resolution has only paused the work until this report.

b) It is recommended that work not continue which may prejudice any future Council decisions until it has schemed Option C and consulted on this design.

5.28.5 To meet the requirements of the Local Government Act, including our Significance and Engagement Policy, we consider consultation will be required to develop and approve a new design (Option C).

IMPACTS & RISKS

5.29 Below is a summary of implications associated to each of the options in the above section.

Option A

5.30 The project is at the end of detailed design and will continue to the procurement phase. No implications.

Option B

5.31 Resource to be sought for detailed design.

5.32 Technical Approvals – Will need to be reviewed. This includes Orion, Connetics, Enable, One.nz (formally Vodafone), CCC Three Waters, Chorus, landscaping, and safety auditing.

5.33 Design implications - Stormwater infrastructure to be reviewed due to increased impermeable space. Other potential design implications due to underground services not yet surveyed.

5.34 Lighting review and upgrade likely required (based on previous review). Poles and power connection would be installed against property boundary.

5.35 All trees to be removed from the berm. Two trees to be planted in place of every one removed as per the Council Tree Policy. These will likely be planted away from this section of Aorangi Road due to a lack of green space. This number will be offset by the trees not needing to be removed as per the Option A requirements.

5.36 Additional costs compared to Option A: Option B has a rough estimate of being $2.5 million more than Option A. Key contributors to the increase in cost for Option B relate to potential service relocations, additional street lighting, additional stormwater, intersection changes, tree removals and design costs.

5.37 Time – A 4 month delay due to additional survey, design work and approvals. Some time may be absorbed through the prioritisation of other work, such as the construction of other parts of the cycleway.

5.38 Risks:

5.38.1 Underground service clashes in berm add cost/time to project. Services will need to be confirmed via survey.

5.38.2 The scheme retains the power poles however there is a risk that during detailed design new information may determine the power lines may need to be undergrounded.

5.38.3 The project is currently forecasting a $6 million shortfall and changes to scope will impact this shortfall. An independent estimate has been requested and this may change this amount.

Option C

5.39 Professional services to be procured for scheming design, detailed design, consultation and project management and associated cost.

5.40 Hearings Panel to be formed and process followed.

5.41 Additional reports to the Council for approval to consultation; and approval to design and construction.

5.42 Technical approvals will need to be revisited - This includes Orion, Connetics, Enable, One.nz (formally Vodafone), CCC Three Waters, Chorus, landscaping, and safety auditing.

5.43 Lighting review and upgrade likely required (based on previous review). Poles and power connection would be installed against property boundary.

5.44 Design implications - Footpath to be replaced due to fragile asphalt. Power poles to be undergrounded. Stormwater infrastructure to be reviewed due to increased impermeable space. Other potential design implications due to underground services not yet surveyed.

5.45 All trees to be removed from the berm. Two trees to be planted in place of every one removed as per the Council Tree Policy. These will likely be planted away from this section of Aorangi Road due to a lack of green space. This number will be offset by the trees not needing to be removed as per the Option A requirements.

5.46 Additional Costs compared to Option A: Option C has a rough estimate of being $4 million more than Option A. The key contributors to increase in cost to Option C are the same as Option B with the addition of scheme and consultation fees, undergrounding of power lines to private properties and adjusting the kerb alignment.

5.47 Time – 11 months delay to programme.

· 1 month - Procure resources.

· 3 months - Scheme Design and approvals.

· 3 months – Consultation and approvals.

· 4 months – Detailed Design and approvals.

· Some time may be absorbed through the prioritisation of other work, such as the construction of other parts of the cycleway.

5.48 Risks:

5.48.1 Underground service clashes in berm add cost/time to project. Services will need to be confirmed via survey.

5.48.2 There is a risk that during consultation the public are not supportive of Option C and Option A, or B are preferred.

5.48.3 The scheme may result in a loss of on-street parking due to minimum widths and offsets. It is noted that the retention of parking has been a driver for this option.

5.48.4 The project is currently forecasting a $6 million shortfall and changes will impact this shortfall. An independent estimate has been requested and this may change this amount.

PROCESS TO REMOVE TREES

5.49 The below sections outlines the process to remove the silver birch trees associated with option B and C.

· Neighbouring properties would be informed of the tree removals.

· A request to remove the trees would be included in a transport resolution report to the Council.

· Removal of the trees would be subject to the Council’s Tree Policy requiring two new trees in replacement of every one tree removed.

· Due to location constraints, it is likely that some of the trees would have to be located away from the project site.

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

· Waimaero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

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

6.3 Governance

6.3.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

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

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.7.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.8 For each tree removed, two replacement trees will be planted within a local reserve as per CCC Tree Policy.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 No submissions were received regarding accessibility on either option. However, Waka Kotahi’s advice regarding shared paths states “Some pedestrians will avoid using shared paths because of anxiety about interactions with cyclists, so their installation should be limited. Some people (for example people who are blind or have low vision) can find it difficult to use shared paths as markings do not provide suitable guidance as to where they should walk. In all cases, options to provide a full separated path should be considered first.”

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The whole of life project costs is estimated to cost $22,500,000, however there will be specific additional costs for each options B and C described below:

7.1.1 Option B:

· Professional services fees for detailed design.

· Possible relocation of underground services.

· Additional lighting.

7.1.2 Option C:

· Professional services fees for scheme design, consultation, and detailed design.

· Possible relocation of underground services.

· Additional lighting.

· Undergrounding of power lines.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – All options are expected to have similar maintenance costs.

7.3 Funding Source – Is from #23101 Major Cycleway – Nor’West Arc Route (Section 3) University to Harewood. Although this is the budget source for the section of cycleway discussed in this report (Aorangi Road from Ilam Road to Brookside Terrace) it is also to fund the rest of Section 3 from Brookside Terrace to Harewood Road.

Other He mea anō

7.4 Not Applicable.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

8.4 The decisions within this report falls within the Councils Terms of Reference.

8.5 Note: Under Clause 12.9 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2022, if a road controlling authority has, before 19 May 2022 (commencement of the Rule), called for submissions on a proposal to set a speed limit under the previous Rule, the road controlling authority may in the interim period set the speed limit under the previous Rule under an existing Bylaw.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.6 The legal consideration is ensuring procedural obligations are met should Council revisit the design, by considering the new design Option C.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Legal Risk – Ensure adequate engagement is undertaken if Option C is considered. As stated in paragraph 5.26.3 of this report.

9.2 Reputational Risk – Public criticism due to a previous Council decision being reconsidered.

9.3 Financial Risk – The project is forecasting a $6 million shortfall. An independent estimate has been requested and this may change this amount. A change from Option A will lead to an increase in costs.

9.4 Delivery Risk – Delivery date likely to be extended if Option B or C is progressed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Option B - As previously consulted	23/1855857	146
b ⇩	Option A - As previously approved	23/1855584	150
c	Supporting Memo from Legal & Democratic Services (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	23/1817892

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

Luke Thomas - Project Manager

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Tessa Zant - Manager Engagement

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Megan Pearce - Manager Hearings and Council Support

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

15 November 2023

13. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1332938
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor McLellan, Hearings Panel Chairperson
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 (the Proposed Bylaw).

1.2 The Hearings Panel recommends that the Council adopts the Proposed Bylaw largely as consulted on. However, the Hearings Panel recommends some clarifications and improvements based on submissions received.

1.3 If the Council accepts the Hearings Panel recommendations and adopts the Proposed Bylaw as attached, it will need to determine when the Bylaw should come into force.

2. Decision making matters

2.1 The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the Proposed Bylaw and is now making recommendations to the Council. The Council can accept or reject these recommendations as it sees fit, bearing in mind that the section 82(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA 2002) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

2.2 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering this report - which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations. The volume of submissions is available as part of the Agenda and Agenda attachments under separate cover.

2.2.1 Hearing – Agenda

2.2.2 Hearing –Agenda attachments under separate cover

2.2.3 Hearing – Minutes

3. Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Adopt the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023, in its final form (Attachment A).

a. Note the changes to the clauses of the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 are shown in Attachment B as follows:

i. Staff recommendations following submissions received (yellow highlighting)

ii. Hearing Panel recommendations following Hearing (blue highlighting).

2. Determine, in accordance with section 155(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. Approve the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 coming into force on a date to be determined by Council.

4. Approve that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 comes into force.

5. Give public notice as soon as practicable that the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on a date to be determined by Council and that copies of the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

6. Delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2023 as the case may be, and that this power may be sub-delegated.

7. Requests a Staff Report after a period of one year from the bylaw coming into force as to whether further amendments to the bylaw are required regarding the management of shopping trolleys in public places.

4. Background / Context Te Horopaki

4.1 There are currently two bylaws for solid waste:

· the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 regulates the Council’s waste collection services to prevent the contamination of recoverable resources, maximise the recovery of recyclable resources and ensure that waste is collected safely and efficiently and does not cause a nuisance; and

· the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw 2015 regulates commercial waste handling operations, including ‘clean’ landfill.

4.2 The Council was required to review these bylaws by 26 November 2025. In line with the Council’s ongoing bylaw review programme, the review was brought forward to enable the Council to respond to recent changes to regulations for landfills under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the WMA 2008).

4.3 Following review, staff recommended to the Council that the two current bylaws be revoked and replaced with one integrated bylaw, thereby providing consistent licencing requirements across all waste operations and reducing the administrative burden of bylaw reviews.

4.4 In addition to integration, staff recommended changes to the Proposed Bylaw to:

4.4.1 make it consistent with recent changes to the WMA 2008;

4.4.2 assist in achieving the Council’s 2020 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, including the zero waste goal;

4.4.3 align it with the Council’s Climate Resilience Strategy; and

4.4.4 provide flexibility to adapt to anticipated future changes to the WMA 2008.

4.5 The key changes are:

a. To allow the Chief Executive to make changes to terms and conditions.

b. To allow multi-unit residential developments to opt out of, and not pay for, Council’s kerbside collection services in certain circumstances.

c. More flexible rules to allow for a wider range of bin options.

d. New requirements for waste management plans (WMPs):

· for multi-unit residential developments;

· demolition and construction activities; and

· large scale events.

e. New rules for:

· unaddressed mail and advertising material; and

· litter around donation boxes for clothing and household goods.

f. Allowing the Council to the set standards for the collection points for recycling and diverted materials.

g. Changes to the rules for waste handling and disposal facilities including landfills.

h. Changes to definitions.

4.6 Further details of the review, the staff recommendation - including the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw and Terms and Conditions - and proposed consultation are contained in the Council Officers’ Report to Council on 14 December 2022.

4.7 On 14 December 2022, the Council considered and approved the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw and Terms and Conditions for consultation (CNCL/2022/00212). The draft Terms and Conditions are attached (Attachment C).

5. Legislative requirements

5.1 The LGA 2002 sets out the authorising provisions for bylaws, as well as the process, considerations and requirements for making a new bylaw, or proposing changes to a bylaw. The Act requires a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to be undertaken when proposing significant changes to a bylaw or making a new bylaw.

5.2 The Proposed Bylaw is made under section 56 of the WMA 2008, sections 145 and 146 of the LGA 2002, section 64 of the Health Act 1956 and section 12 of the Litter Act 1979. Together, these sections form the scope of matters the Proposed Bylaw can regulate.

5.2.1 Section 56 of the WMA 2008 provides that the Council can make bylaws in relation to certain aspects of waste management and minimisation.

5.2.2 Section 145 of the LGA 2002 is a general bylaw-making power and enables the Council to make bylaws to: protect the public from nuisance; protect, promote and maintain public health and safety; and minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

5.2.3 Section 146(a) of the LGA 2002 is an activity specific bylaw-making power. It enables bylaws to be made to regulate certain matters including waste management, trade wastes and solid wastes.

5.2.4 Section 64 of the Health Act 1956 provides that the Council can make bylaws for matters that include: improving, promoting, or protecting public health, and preventing or abating nuisances; regulating the handling and storage of goods which are or are likely to become offensive; preventing the outbreak or spread of disease by the agency of flies, mosquitoes, or other insects, or of rats, mice or other vermin; and providing for the inspect of any land or premises for the purposes of that Act.

5.2.5 Section 12 of the Litter Act 1979 enables the Council to make bylaws to give effect to the provisions of that Act.

5.3 There are legal determinations which the Council must consider when reviewing and making bylaws. These are set out under section 155 of the LGA 2002. As required, the Council determined that the Proposed Bylaw (CNCL/2022/00212):

· is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem;

· is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

· gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero / Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.1 Consultation was open from 30 January to 26 February 2023. In addition to asking for submissions on the Proposed Bylaw, the consultation asked submitters their views on the issue of shopping trolleys abandoned on public land.

6.1.1 Consultation information was made available on the Council’ Have Your Say website.

6.1.2 Emails were sent to 93 stakeholders, inviting submissions.

6.1.3 A Newsline story on our website on 30 January 2023 was viewed 1,051 times.

6.1.4 Our newsfeed post on 30 January reached 15,159 people and received 31 reactions, 107 comments and 17 shares.

6.2 73 submissions were received.^{^[4]}

6.2.1 16 submissions were received from organisations: one from Te Mana Ora; five from community boards; three from residents’/neighbourhood associations; one from a not-for-profit marketing association; one from a charitable trust; one from a community project; one from a provider of education on sustainability; and three from businesses.

6.2.2 57 submissions were received from individuals.

6.2.3 17 submitters said they would like to speak to the Hearings Panel.

6.3 The Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel contains an analysis of the submissions including responses to the key themes. However, a summary of the feedback and staff comment on the key proposed changes is provided below:

Proposal a: allow the Chief Executive to make changes to the terms and conditions

6.4 Two community boards submitted on this proposal: one in support and one suggesting such changes require the agreement of the full Council.

6.5 Currently, any change to the terms and conditions requires a decision of the (full) Council even if the change is minor, very localised in its effect or otherwise required e.g., to bring the terms and conditions into line with new central government regulation. The proposed change to allow the Chief Executive to make decisions does not remove the requirements for engagement/consultation under the LGA 2002, which may include consulting community boards and any other interested parties.

Proposal b: allow residents to opt out of and not pay for Council’s kerbside collection services

6.6 Three community boards, one residents’ association and two individuals commented on this proposal. The individual submitters generally supported the proposed change. The community boards and residents’ association raised concerns that this could enable a more widespread adoption of user-pays services and lead to substandard services for some residents.

6.7 The proposed change is intended to allow multi-unit developments, which present access problems for the Council’s collection service provider, to opt out conditional on the approval of a WMP for the property. After considering submissions, staff suggested the Hearing Panel consider adding the following explanatory note be added under Clause 5(5):

Explanatory note: Properties would need to meet specific requirements including, completing a waste management plan that meets the objectives of the Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and demonstrating that there is ongoing provision, through a private contractor, of a service equivalent to the Council’s three bin (rubbish, recycling and organics) service.

Proposal c: more flexible rules to allow for a wider range of bin options

6.8 Thirty submissions referenced this proposed change. No submitters were opposed to it, with many specifying the changes they would like to see made to the range of bin options.

6.9 The proposed change does not make any changes to the bin options available. It provides the framework for such changes to be made. Considerable work would be required before staff made any recommendations in relation to such changes. This work could be undertaken as part of preparing a bid for inclusion in the Long-Term Plan.

Proposal d: new requirements for WMPs

6.10 All submissions supported the proposed new requirements, though some believed the Council should go further in terms of their requirements.

6.11 More guidance, including WMP templates, will be provided on the Council’s website as part of the implementation of the Proposed Bylaw.

Proposal e: new rules for unaddressed mail and advertising material

6.12 Four community boards, three community associations, the NZ Marketing Association and three individuals commented on this proposal and the drafting of clause 21 of the Proposed Bylaw. Although submitters supported the intent of the proposed change, they were concerned that, as drafted, Clause 21 would prevent delivery of valuable communications such as community newsletters, election material and notices for utility operators.

6.13 After considering submissions, staff recommended the Hearing Panel consider the following new subclause 21(2) being added to the Proposed Bylaw:

(2) Except that Clause 21(1) does not apply to the following materials which are permitted to be deposited in any letterbox:

(a) material or public notices from any government department or agency, crown entity, local authority, or material from a network utility relating to the maintenance, repair, servicing or administration of that network utility;

(b) communications or fund-raising material from local community organisations, charities or charitable institutions;

(d) a community newspaper or newsletter, unless the letterbox is clearly marked “no community newspapers” or with words of similar effect.”

Proposal f: allow the Council to set standards for the collection points for recycling and diverted materials

6.14 One community board supported the proposed change. No submitters opposed it.

Proposals g. and h: changes to the rules for waste operations including landfills and changes to definitions

6.15 Three submitters commented on the proposed changes. One submitter believed the Proposed Bylaw improperly ‘captured’ its manufacturing operation as a waste operation. The other submitters raised concerns about lack of clarity in the definition of Cleanfill and of the Proposed Bylaw when compared with the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw 2015.

6.16 Staff believe such concerns can be addressed by explanatory notes and the provision of guidance on the Council’s website.

Other issues

6.17 Submitters raised a variety of other issues not directly related to the Proposed Bylaw or terms and conditions, including the need for incentives for residents and businesses to manage waste more sustainably, provision for the recycling of a wider range of plastics and submissions (in relation to ‘bin flexibility’) which want the Council to make improvements to the current levels of service.

Shopping trolleys

6.18 69 submitters responded to the question on shopping trolleys. 43 submitters (63%) thought that shopping trolleys on public land are an issue that needs further addressing. 25 (37%) of submitters did not regard this as an issue.

6.19 When developing the Proposed Bylaw staff considered how other councils dealt with shopping trolleys on public land. They found most councils use non-regulatory means. Auckland and Marlborough do include abandoned shopping trolleys in their waste bylaw. Staff considered a clause modelled on Auckland’s bylaw as a potential solution. However, they concluded that a bylaw solution was potentially expensive and likely to be ineffective and did not recommend shopping trolleys be included in the Proposed Bylaw.

6.20 The Memo to the Hearings Panel on shopping trolleys is attached (Attachment D).

7. The Hearing Te Hui

7.1 The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor McLellan (Chairperson) and Councillors Henstock and Peters. The Hearings Panel convened on 17 August 2023.

7.2 Prior to hearing oral submissions, Council officers presented a brief overview of the Proposed Bylaw and the submissions received. Council Officers spoke to the Hearings Panel agenda report Submissions on the Proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw, particularly the attachments which provided a summary of submissions, staff advice in relation to the submissions, and suggested changes to the Bylaw because of the submissions received. Council Officers also spoke to the issue of shopping trolleys.

7.3 During the Hearing, Officers tabled the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw with their suggested changes following consultation (Attachment E).

7.4 Throughout the process, Hearings Panel Members asked questions about the Council Officers’ report and submissions. Council Officers responded at the Hearings Panel meeting to assist the Hearings Panel with its considerations and deliberations.

8. Oral submissions

8.1 The Hearing Panel received oral presentations from the following submitters:

· Kier Leslie, Deputy Chair Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

· Emma Norrish, Chair, Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

· Paul McMahon, Chair, Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board.

· Chrys Horne, Halswell Community Project / Manuka Cottage Addington Community House.

· John Miller.

8.2 The issues canvassed in the oral presentations matched those in the submitters’ original written submissions. The Council Officers’ responses to those written submissions are detailed in the Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel. Below are the key points raised during oral submissions:

8.2.1 Allowing ratepayers to opt out of the Council’s kerbside collection service could undermine the Council’s service and be used to switch to cheaper, substandard services.

8.2.2 Unaddressed mail provisions were too broad and would prevent dissemination of valuable communications. There was general support for the new subclause 21(2) suggested by staff in response to written submissions.

8.2.3 Support for enabling greater flexibility in kerbside collection services.

8.2.4 The Chief Executive’s ability to make changes to the terms and conditions could bypass engagement with affected communities or community boards.

8.2.5 Illegal dumping is not covered by the Proposed Bylaw.

8.2.6 Council enforcement action should be proportionate to the harm and those who offend due to lack of funds or ill-health should not be disproportionately punished.

8.3 Murray Dempsey also made an oral submission to the Panel on behalf of Metropol Magazine Limited, having missed the opportunity to make a written submission. Metropol’s concerns centred on the provisions relating to unaddressed mail preventing the delivery of the Metropol Magazine. Metropol currently delivers approximately 27,000 magazines to letterboxes every fortnight.

9. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

9.1 The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the Proposed Bylaw as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. The main issues addressed by the Hearings Panel are reported below.

Clause 3: Interpretation - definition of “cleanfill”

9.2 The definition of “cleanfill” in the Proposed Bylaw has changed from that given in Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw 2015. Cleanfill under the proposed Bylaw has a narrower definition, comprising only Class 5 landfill.

9.3 The Panel queried whether, given submissions from Teddington Quarry Limited on the new definition, the new wording had been widely circulated to relevant stakeholders.

9.4 Staff advised that the definition in the Proposed Bylaw is consistent with the WMA 2008 and regulations under the WMA 2008. Staff agreed to liaise directly with Teddington Quarry Limited to clarify the situation with them.

9.5 The Panel concluded that no further action was required in relation to the definition of cleanfill.

Clause 3: Interpretation – definition of “Multi-unit residential development” and Clause 10: Waste Management for Multi-unit residential development

9.6 Clause 3 of the Proposed Bylaw provides that a multi-unit residential development means “… a multiple occupancy residential property comprising 10 or more separately occupied units …”.

9.7 Clause 10 of the Proposed Bylaw provides that owners and/or managers of multi-unit residential developments must make adequate provision for the management of all household waste generated on the premises and that the Council may require a WMP to be developed for any new proposed multi-unit residential development or for an existing multi-unit residential development where current arrangements are considered inadequate.

9.8 The Panel queried staff on why 10 units were settled on as being the trigger for being deemed a multi-unit residential development.

9.9 Staff advised that 10 units was in line with practice elsewhere. Staff would monitor its effectiveness and report to the Council in the future if a change was deemed desirable.

9.10 The Panel agreed this was a practical approach.

Clause 5(2): Kerbside collection services – Chief Executive’s power to determine terms and conditions

9.11 Clause 5(2) of the Proposed Bylaw gives the Chief Executive the power to make changes to the terms and conditions of kerbside collection service.

9.12 The Panel noted that several submitters had raised concerns regarding the Chief Executive determining the terms and conditions. The Panel queried why this power was deemed necessary.

9.13 Staff advised that currently any changes to the terms and conditions required a Council resolution, even when the change was minor or prescribed by Central Government legislation. Empowering the Chief Executive to make such changes was to allow the process to be streamlined and avoid the unnecessary delay that requiring a Council resolution had caused previously.

9.14 Officers confirmed that empowering the Chief Executive in no way altered the requirement for engagement and consultation under the Act for significant changes, including consulting with community boards in their capacity as community advocates.

9.15 The Panel queried whether the delegation ought to be limited to minor changes and those prescribed by legislation. Staff did not recommend this due to the difficulty of defining “minor changes”.

9.16 The Panel concluded that they were satisfied with clause 5(2) of the Proposed Bylaw as drafted but that the explanatory note should be amended to clarify that consultation required under section 82 of the LGA included consultation with community boards and other interested or affected parties.

9.17 The Panel did not recommend any changes to the draft Terms and Conditions consulted on.

Clause 5(5) – opting out of Council’s kerbside collection service

9.18 Clause 5(5) provides that eligible properties may opt out of the Council’s kerbside collection service if the Council approves a WMP for those properties. The explanatory note clarifies that subsequent rates relief is dependent on the Council’s Funding Impact Statement and Rates Remission Policy.

9.19 They Panel noted that several submitters had expressed concerns that the ability to opt out would be used to switch to cheaper, substandard service providers or to dispense with the service altogether. The Panel raised concerns that the ability to opt out could, if taken up by enough people, undermine the feasibility of the Council’s kerbside collection service.

9.20 Staff confirmed that opt out would be conditional upon the approval of a WMP and that the WMP approval would need to demonstrate the ability to provide at least an equivalent level of service as that provided by the Council. This would preclude opting out based on cheaper but less comprehensive service or of entirely dispensing with a collection service. Given the economies of scale under the Council’s collection service, staff were of the view that the risk of a high number of opt outs was minimal.

9.21 That Panel was satisfied with the staff assessment and did not recommend any changes regarding the opt out provisions.

Clauses 7 and 9: Non-compliance with conditions for kerbside collection or community collection points

9.22 Clause 7 of the proposed bylaw provides that non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the kerbside collection service may result in non-collection, withdrawal or suspension of service, enforcement action or any other legal steps the Council can take.

9.23 Clause 9 of the proposed bylaw provides that non-compliance with the conditions of community collection points may lead to a trespass notice, enforcement action or any other legal steps available to the Council.

9.24 The Panel queried how the discretion given to the Council by the word “may” would be applied in practice, particularly where there were legitimate reasons for non-compliance. For example, some people fail to comply with the conditions of kerbside collection for mental health reasons.

9.25 Staff advised that their preferred approach would be to work with anyone who was not complying with the terms and conditions to understand the cause of non-compliance and identify appropriate solutions given the circumstances. Education was the preferred first step, followed by identifying non-punitive solutions, such as relevant support and help if necessary. Punitive action was viewed as a last resort.

9.26 The Panel considered whether the Council’s approach to Clauses 7 and 9 should be documented via an explanatory note but concluded this was not necessary.

Clause 18 – Controls on the operation of waste deposit points in public spaces

9.27 The Panel queried how charity donation bins such as those for clothing were regulated under the Proposed Bylaw.

9.28 Staff advised that regulation depended on whether they were on or near a public place. A public place is an area that is open to or used by the public, and which is owned, managed, maintained or controlled by the Council. The Proposed Bylaw allows the Chief Executive to develop controls for the safe and efficient operation of waste deposit points in or near public places (Clause 18). Clothing donation bins were considered waste deposit points.

9.29 The Panel considered that the explanatory note in relation to Clause 18 should make it clear that donation points for clothing and household goods were considered waste deposit points.

Clause 20 – Event WMP

9.30 Clause 20 of the Proposed Bylaw provides that events that are sponsored, funded or partially funded by the Council, or take place in a public place, and which cater for more than 1000 people may be required to produce an Events WMP.

9.31 The Hearing Panel queried whether events catering for less than 1000 people were likely to cause waste management issues and should also be captured by the Events WMP provision.

9.32 Staff advised that historically smaller events had not been an issue and the Events Team were of the view that the clause was correctly calibrated. As with all such aspects of the Proposed Bylaw, staff would continue to monitor relevant events and report to Council if any changes to the bylaw were deemed necessary in the future.

9.33 The Panel concluded that no change was required to Clause 20.

Clause 21 – unaddressed mail and advertising material

9.34 Clause 21 of the Proposed Bylaw deals with unaddressed mail and advertising material. It states that:

(1) No person may deposit, cause, permit or authorise the deposit of any unaddressed mail or advertising material in any letterbox which is clearly marked "no circulars", "no junk mail", "addressed mail only" or with words of similar effect as well as the following areas:

(a) Around or near any such letterbox or associated vehicle access-way;

(b) On any vehicle parked in a public place; or

(c) In a letterbox that is already full of mail and/or advertising materials.

9.35 In response to points raised by submitters staff recommended that following subclause be added:

(2) Except that Clause 21(1) does not apply to the following materials which are permitted to be deposited in any letterbox:

(a) Material or public notices from any government department or agency, crown entity, local authority, or material from a network utility relating to the maintenance, repair, servicing or administration of that network utility;

(b) communications or fund-raising material from local community organisations, charities or charitable institutions;

(c) material from a political party, political candidate or elected member; or

(d) a community, newspaper or newsletter unless the letterbox is clearly marked “no community newspapers” or with words of similar effect.

9.36 The Hearing Panel noted that this addition dealt with the concerns of most submitters but that, in light of the oral submission by Metropol Magazine Limited, subclause (2) should make it clear that community magazines were also exempted.

WMP compliance, monitoring and enforcement

9.37 The Proposed Bylaw provides that a Council approved WMP will be required for properties wishing to opt out of kerbside collection (Clause 5(5)).

9.38 Additionally, the Council may require an approved WMP for:

· any new proposed multi-unit residential development (Clause 10(2));

· existing multi-unit residential developments where the existing management arrangements are considered inadequate (Clause 10(3)):

· projects involving demolition, site works and/ or construction (Clause 19(1));

· events catering for more than 1000 people (Clause 20(2));

9.39 The Panel queried how adherence to any required WMPs would be monitored and enforced.

9.40 Staff advised that the Proposed Bylaw provides that the Council may carry out monitoring and inspections to determine compliance (Clause 24). The Council will develop internal processes for monitoring WMPs. Clause 26 confirms that it is an offence to breach the bylaw (including the terms and conditions made under it). Where enforcement action is deemed necessary, this would be undertaken in accordance with the LGA 2002, the WMA 2008 or the Litter Act 1979 as appropriate.

Illegal dumping

9.41 The Panel noted that some submitters had raised concerns that the Proposed Bylaw did not cover illegal dumping and queried how this issue is dealt with.

9.42 Staff advised that illegal dumping is dealt with under the Litter Act 1979. Staff noted that there are issues with proving wrongdoing under that Act and that the Ministry for the Environment has indicated the Act is under review with a view to replacement.

Shopping trolleys

9.43 The Hearing Panel considered submissions regarding shopping trolleys and the staff advice contained in the Memo to the Hearings Panel on shopping trolleys is attached (Attachment D).

9.44 The Panel accepted staff advice that a bylaw was likely to be a relatively ineffective solution to the issue of shopping trolleys and, given the significant resources that would be required to implement and enforce any provisions relating to shopping trolleys, the Panel concluded that the Proposed Bylaw was not the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem.

9.45 However, the Panel considered the situation should continue to be monitored and recommended that staff report to Council after a period of one year of the Proposed Bylaw coming into force on whether any amendments are required regarding the management of shopping trolleys in public spaces.

10. Recommendations

10.1 Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations. The Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw, as recommended by the Hearings Panel, is attached to this report (Attachment A). Changes from draft consulted on are shown in Attachment B as follows:

10.1.1 Officer changes on the basis of submissions received are highlighted yellow; and

10.1.2 Hearings Panel changes after consideration and deliberation are highlighted blue.

10.2 The changes to the Proposed Bylaw recommended by the Hearing Panel are:

10.2.1 Amendment to the wording of the definition of “Construction and demolition waste”.

10.2.2 Explanatory note regarding the definition of “Construction and demolition waste”.

10.2.3 Hyperlink to the definition of “waste” in the WMA 2008.

10.2.4 Explanatory note regarding the definition of “Waste operation”.

10.2.5 Addition to explanatory note regarding amendments to the terms and conditions of Kerbside collection services to clarify that consultation under section 82 of the LGA 2002 includes consulting community boards and other interested or affected parties.

10.2.6 Addition to the explanatory note regarding waste deposit points to clarify that these include charity recycling points for clothing and household goods.

10.2.7 Addition of clause 21(2) providing for exemptions to the prohibitions on unaddressed mail and advertising material.

10.3 The Legal Services Unit has reviewed the changes proposed to ensure:

10.3.1 they comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, including that they are the most appropriate and proportionate ways of addressing the perceived problems;

10.3.2 they are appropriate refinements of the proposal that was consulted on; and

10.3.3 that further consultation is not required because of the changes recommended by the Hearings Panel.

11. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda, including all submissions	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/08/BHPCC_20230817_AGN_9608_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Attachments Under Separate Cover	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/08/BHPCC_20230817_ATT_9608_EXCLUDED.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/08/BHPCC_20230817_MIN_9608_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/08/BHPCC_20230817_MAT_9608.PDF
Have Your Say Webpage	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/haveyoursay/show/568
Newline story 30 January 2023	https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/consultation-opens-on-new-waste-bylaw
Council Agenda 14 December 2022	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/12/CNCL_20221214_AGN_8234_AT.PDF
Council Minutes 14 December 2022	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/12/CNCL_20221214_MIN_8234_AT.PDF
2020 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan	https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/Waste-Management-and-Minimisation-Plan-2020.pdf
Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/strategies/climate-change-strategy/

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Cathy Harlow - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Jake McLellan - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Waste Management Minimisation Bylaw 2023	23/1446372	168
b ⇩	Draft Waste Management Minimisation Bylaw 2023 - tracked changes	23/1446400	189
c ⇩	Draft Terms and Conditions	22/1339050	210
d ⇩	Memo to Hearings Panel on shopping trolleys	23/820560	220
e ⇩	Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw - staff recommended changes	23/1453582	224

Council

15 November 2023

14. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the proposed Naming Policy
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1668980
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Kelly Barber, Hearings Panel Chairperson
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the proposed Naming Policy.

1.2 The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council. The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel. It can do so by viewing all written submissions (In the Volumes of Submissions attached to the Hearing Agenda), by considering this report, which includes a summary of both the written and verbal submissions that were presented to the hearings panel, by considering, any additional information received and by having regard to the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.

1.3.1 Hearing - Agenda

1.3.2 Hearing – Minutes

1.3.3 Hearing – Minutes Attachments

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Adopts the Naming Policy 2023 in its final form (Attachment A) coming into force on 1 December 2023.

2. Revokes the Roads and Rights-of-way Naming Policy 1993 and the Naming of Reserves and Facilities Policy 1993.

3. Requests that staff update the Christchurch City Library’s ‘Christchurch Street and Place Names’ records.

4. Approves that staff are otherwise authorised to correct any typographical errors and to make minor changes to the policy.

5. Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the policy.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The authority for giving official names to settlements, suburbs, localities and geographic features sits with Toitū Te Whenua/LINZ and the Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa/New Zealand Geographic Board. However, the Council is responsible for the naming of public and private roads in the Christchurch district, parks under the Council’s control and Council-owned facilities.

3.2 The Council’s current policy for naming places can be found in two policies from 1993: the Roads and Rights of Way Naming Policy and the Naming of Reserves and Facilities Policy. These policies provide little guidance on the future naming of roads, parks and facilities, with shortcomings including:

· a lack of criteria for the assessment of names;

· an absence of guidance on the appropriate use of Māori names, including gifted or dual names;

· a lack of guidance for changing or altering names and where this is appropriate;

· a lack of alignment with the Council’s strategy framework, including the Council’s Multicultural and Heritage strategies.

3.3 Community Boards, which hold delegations from Council for naming roads, parks and facilities within their areas, have sought better guidance for their decisions on naming places and have supported the review of the current policies.

3.4 The proposed policy has been developed with the involvement of the Tiriti Relationships team and staff from Legal, Parks, Planning (resource consents), Transport Operations, the facilities establishment team of the Recreation Sports and Events unit and the Community Support and Partnership unit.

3.5 The proposed replacement naming policy was approved for consultation by Council on 5 July 2023. The draft policy reflects current Council naming practices and addresses shortcomings in the existing policies by:

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

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

· incorporating guidance from mana whenua;

· providing for acceptance of gifted names without further consultation;

· allowing dual names (Māori and English) for parks and facilities (without being directive as to when dual names should be adopted); and,

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

3.6 Alongside the Naming Policy, staff have prepared a draft guide to naming procedures for applicants and other interested parties, including outlining the steps for the naming of roads, parks and facilities (to be tabled). In addition, staff have provided advice about the Naming Policy and its application to metropolitan facilities that have existing permanent names and are potentially subject to commercial sponsorship deals (Attachment B).

4. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero / Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.1 Consultation on the Naming Policy ran from 7 August until 27 August 2023. 108 key stakeholders were contacted directly by email: this included Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, businesses, relevant government agencies and key stakeholders for our parks, transport and heritage units. Online submissions were invited by email and phone through the Social Pinpoint platform. A printed copy of the draft Naming Policy was made available at Christchurch City Council Service Centres and printed submission forms for those wanting to make handwritten submissions were available upon request.

4.2 The consultation was featured on Newsline (30 June 2023 & 7 August 2023), reshared on the Otago Daily Times website on 7 August 2023, and shared on Council social media sites, such as Facebook and Reddit Ōtautahi/Christchurch.

4.3 Supplementary to the submission form, the online platform also sought engagement through Social Pinpoint Quick Poll. This engagement tool provided a quick ‘pulse check’ on opinions and preferences in the community, posing the simple question, What is important to you when it comes to naming an entity? The public were then able to answer from a set of pre-defined response options based on the main elements of the draft policy. These elements are: Have a meaningful connection to locality, Local identity, Acknowledge mana whenua, and Cultural heritage. A total of 142 visitors left feedback.

4.4 Over a third of voters 45.77% (65) thought having a meaningful connection to locality was the most important factor when naming an entity, followed by Local identity at 33.1% (47), and Acknowledge mana whenua at 15.49% (22). Cultural heritage came in last with 5.63% (8) of votes.

A graph with blue squares

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.5 34 submissions were received, with 17 submitters (50%) fully supporting the proposal. There were four submissions (12%) which were ‘somewhat in support’, four submitters (12%) who were ‘not sure’ about the policy while nine submitters (26%) opposed the proposed updated policy. Eight submitters indicated that they wished to be heard in relation to their submission.

4.6 Submissions were received from four Community Boards, two residents’ associations (Cass Bay and Halswell), the Disabled Persons Assembly and Te Mana Ora. The submissions from these eight organisations fully support the proposed policy as do submissions from nine individual submitters.

4.7 While submissions in support of the proposed policy referred to the provisions of the policy, the opposing submissions generally do not relate to the content of the policy. The submitters opposing the policy generally considered any alteration to the current policy framework was unnecessary and were concerned about name changes and use of Te Reo Māori.

4.8 In addition to supporting the policy provisions, submitters raised concerns which suggested that the clarity of the policy could be improved e.g., through the inclusion of additional explanatory notes. These concerns will be addressed by staff through minor amendments to the Policy and to the guidance material which will sit alongside the Policy.

4.9 A number of submission points related to matters outside the scope of the Naming Policy. These submissions discussed the process for naming, delegations for naming and concerns about names for which the Council has no authority, e.g., a name given to a suburb.

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Hearings Panel convened on 6 October 2023 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on both the proposed Naming Policy and the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy. The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillors Kelly Barber, Aaron Keown and Mark Peters. At the beginning of the Hearing, it was decided that Councillor Barber would chair the meeting.

5.2 Prior to hearing oral submissions on the proposed Naming Policy, Council officers presented an overview of development of the proposed policy, setting out policy scope, issues with current Council policies for naming and key features of the proposed replacement policy.

5.3 The Hearings Panel heard the following seven oral submissions on the proposed Naming Policy, with submitters taking the opportunity to emphasise the key concerns raised in their written submissions. For the original submissions and subsequent documents tabled at the hearing, refer to Section 7: Reference Documents:

· Marie Pollisco, on behalf of Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

· Noted that naming of parks and roads should acknowledge mana whenua, cultural heritage, local identity and location and have a meaningful connection to the locality as well as being unique. The Board also noted that the use of dual names (Māori and English) should be used for facilities as a rule.

· Emma Norrish, on behalf of Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

· Supported the Policy, but suggested that new developments with laneway access, such as business parks, should be considered on a case-by-case basis as to whether a name is appropriate or not.

· Callum Ward, on behalf of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

· Supported the purpose of the policy, and asked Council to defer to mana whenua and accept names when gifted and also to use te reo in the naming of things other than significant sites.

· Paul McMahon, on behalf of Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Submissions Committee

· Supported the policy but suggested that the onus should be placed on developers to engage with mana whenua when naming roads.

· David Hawke, on behalf of Halswell Residents’ Association

· Noted that naming should take into account an area-wide perspective to ensure that developers do not use names associated with themselves.

· Jenny Healey, on behalf of Cass Bay Residents’ Association

· Noted the need for consistency of naming conventions and the importance of dual naming to ensure ease of access.

· Chris Ford, on behalf of Disabled Persons Assembly

· Supported the policy and recommended that deceased disabled people be recognised more in the naming of streets, buildings and parks and reserves.

6. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

6.1 The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposed Naming Policy as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. The key issues that were addressed by the Hearings Panel are as follows:

6.1.1 Criteria for giving parks Māori names – the Hearings Panel discussed the criteria for giving parks a Māori name. Parks staff suggested that such names should be based on significance and not the size of the park. Policy staff clarified that any park, regardless of size, can be given a Māori name but that the policy is focused on the gifted Māori name process.

6.1.2 Use of Māori names – the Hearings Panel discussed the use of Māori names, including whether all Council facilities were gifted Māori names and whether it was Council policy to always give dual names to facilities. Staff provided feedback that not all facilities were gifted Māori names and that while the proposed policy allows for dual naming, it is not a policy ‘requirement’, but a matter for the decision-maker, e.g., the community board holding the naming delegation). In terms of implementation, staff also clarified (that section 5 of the policy relating to dual names does relate to gifted Māori names.

6.1.3 Ways of showing provenance of street names - the Hearings Panel suggested that Council should have the Christchurch City Library’s ‘Christchurch Street and Place Names’ records, as this was last done in 2016. The Panel also requested staff provide advice to Council around the possibility of incorporating provenance into some street signs.

6.2 Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations. The Hearings Panel approved the Naming Policy 2023 in its final form for final approval by the Council.

6.3 The Hearings Panel recommended that Council approve staff to make changes to the policy’s introduction and to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors in the Policy and delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes of the Policy.

7. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda, including all submissions	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_AGN_9655_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_MIN_9655_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_MAT_9655.PDF
Kōrero mai/Let’s Talk Webpage	https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/draft-naming-policy

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Andrew Campbell - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Kelly Barber - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Naming Policy (final form)	23/1041349	249
b ⇩	Additional advice on facilities	23/1777819	257

Council

15 November 2023

15. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1706435
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Kelly Barber, Hearings Panel Chairperson
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy (or ‘the Policy’ hereafter).

1.2 The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council. The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations. A link to the written submissions is also available should you want to review them:

1.3.1 Hearing – Agenda

1.3.2 Hearing – Minutes

1.3.3 Hearing – Minutes Attachments

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Adopts the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy in its final form (Attachment A) to come into force on [date to be decided] subject to the following changes to Clause 6.6.3. shown underlined:

a. “Every licensee of an outdoor dining area is ~~required~~, encouraged to display smoke-free and vape-free signage. No Ashtrays or other receptacles for smoking or vaping litter are ~~permitted~~ discouraged in an outdoor dining area.”

2. Revokes the Footpath Extensions to Expand Cafes onto the Roadway Policy 1998 and the Public Street Enclosures Policy 2006, effective on the day that the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy comes into force.

3. Approves that staff are otherwise authorised to correct any typographical errors and to make minor changes to the policy.

4. Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the policy.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Council currently manages outdoor dining using two dated and overlapping policies: the Footpath Extensions to Expand Cafes onto the Roadway Policy 1998 and the Public Street Enclosures Policy 2006.

3.2 Neither of these policies is well aligned with the Public Places Bylaw under which outdoor dining licences are issued, nor with other relevant policies such as the Structures on Roads Policy. The conclusions of the review of the 1998 and 2006 policies above were that the current policies are difficult for the business community to understand, hard for staff to apply, and do not adequately address important issues such as making footpaths and outdoor dining areas accessible for all pedestrians and/or help to achieve the goals of the Smokefree and Vapefree Public Places Policy.

3.3 The Council approved the draft Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy for public consultation on 7 June 2023. The replacement policy aims to:

· enable outdoor dining in public places;

· balance public and private interests in use of the road;

· protect essential public interests such as accessibility of footpaths consistent with the Council’s Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy 2001;

· help give effect to the Council’s 2020 Smokefree and Vapefree Policy which identifies licenced footpaths for outdoor dining as key areas to make smokefree and vapefree;

· provide a clear management framework for outdoor dining as a form of trading in a public place under the Public Places Bylaw; and,

· ensure businesses operating outdoor dining areas on private or leased land are not disadvantaged in comparison with licensed outdoor dining operations in public places.

3.4 The draft Policy introduced new requirements for licensees:

· to display smokefree and vapefree signage and to remove ashtrays or other receptacles for smoking or vaping litter from the outdoor dining area;

· to ensure that their outdoor dining areas are accessible for all pedestrians including users of wheelchairs and mobility devices;

· to provide an accessible pathway alongside outdoor dining areas on the footpath consistent with Waka Kotahi guidance. This is a more flexible requirement than the equivalent 2006 policy provision and recognises that appropriate standards can vary depending on location and conditions including the volume of pedestrian traffic on a road; and,

· to manage all waste and litter associated with the outdoor dining activity; licensees are not to use the Council’s (street) rubbish bins for disposing of waste and litter.

· In addition, the Policy provides for licences to have a defined term (of up to three years) rather than the current open-ended term. This allows for the regular review of licences to address changes in circumstances, to address any complaints about the operation of an outdoor dining area and to cater for changes to the licensee’s business itself, e.g. alteration of the layout, furniture, and hours of operation.

3.5 Alongside the Policy, staff will prepare clear guidance material for the design and operation of outdoor dining areas to assist applicants and licence-holders.

4. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero / Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.1 Early engagement with disability, accessibility and business groups started in April 2023.

4.2 At early meetings, staff shared the draft policy for initial feedback. Stakeholder feedback was generally positive from disability and accessibility groups and in this initial consultation period business groups did not raise concerns about the draft.

4.3 Formal consultation started on 7 August and ran until 28 August 2023. Direct email contact was made with over 300 key stakeholders, including licence holders, business associations, residents’ associations, accessibility groups and disability groups. Current licence holders also received a notification letter about consultation.

4.4 The consultation was posted on the Council Facebook page (7,190 views) and Newsline (349 views) inviting submissions on the Let’s Talk webpage. The Let’s Talk consultation page has been viewed over 970 times. Consultation on the policy featured in the Akaroa Mail and in the Banks Peninsula Community board newsletter. Consultation documents were made available in local service centres and libraries.

4.5 A webinar on the draft Policy took place on August 16, 2023, with 12 attendees. The webinar recording and Q&A document were shared online and with attendees, and the recording has since been viewed 24 more times.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.6 A total of 61 submissions were received on the Policy. There were eight submissions made by organisations, 41 submissions from individual submitters and 12 made on behalf of hospitality businesses. In response to the question “Do you support the draft policy” in the “Let’sTalk” consultation, 56 of these submitters answered with more than 80% of these supporting the draft Policy (33 fully; and 14 somewhat), eight opposing the Policy and one neither supporting nor opposing the proposed Policy.

A pie chart with text

Description automatically generated

Submissions on ‘smoke and vape free’.

4.7 The proposal to require all outdoor dining areas to display ‘smoke and vape free’ signage and remove ashtrays from outdoor dining areas, received the most support (48 submissions). Seven of eight submissions received from organisations supported the ‘smoke and vape free’ requirements and there was also a high level of support among individual submitters, with (36 of 41) 87% of individual submitters either supporting the outdoor dining policy in its entirety or expressing no concerns regarding the specific ‘smoke and vape free’ provision. The smokefree and vapefree topic also drew the largest number of additional positive comments from 16 submitters. There was less support for ‘smoke and vape free’ from the submitters who made submissions on behalf of hospitality premises, with less than half (5 of 12) of this group of submitters supporting the ‘smoke and vape free’ requirements.

4.8 The submitters opposing the ‘smoke and vape free’ requirements were particularly concerned about the effect of this proposal on the viability of hospitality businesses; some submitters considered the requirement was over-regulation which would have negative impacts on the operation of their businesses and some submitters opposed the removal of choice for licensees and for smokers/vapers.

Submissions on requirements for accessibility, waste management and defined licence term

4.9 Submitters provided feedback on all the key changes in the draft Policy. The proposal for more accessible footpaths and for outdoor dining areas to be fully accessible gained 12 positive comments, four submitters specifically supported the requirements for management of waste and four submitters identified their support for the defined term for licences. The proposal for a three-year licence term was however concern of some eight submitters who expressed their concerns about unnecessary additional administration and expense for licensees; these submitters preferred either an open-ended licence term (the current situation) or a longer term, e.g. 5 years.

Submissions from organisations

4.10 Submissions in support of the proposed Policy were made by the Waihoro and Waipuna community boards, the Cancer Society, Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand), Living Streets Aotearoa, the Victoria Neighbourhood Association, and the Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA). These organisations supported all the key changes in the draft policy in particular the requirements for ‘smoke and vape free’ dining areas and for footpaths and outdoor dining areas to be accessible for all. For example, the submission from the DPA states that “it is vital to ensure that this (outdoor dining) experience is enjoyable and accessible for everyone including disabled people” and which endorses smokefree and vapefree dining environments “given that many disabled people and people with health conditions experience respiratory issues…”

4.11 The submission from Hospitality NZ outlines the concerns of its members about key features of the Policy; Hospitality NZ is opposed to a compulsory requirement for the display of smoke and vape free signage and removal of ashtrays and considers that it should remain the voluntary choice of operators as to whether or not they provide ‘smoke and vape free’ outdoor dining areas.

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Hearings Panel convened on 6 October 2023 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on both the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy and the proposed Naming Policy. The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillors Kelly Barber, Aaron Keown and Mark Peters. At the beginning of the Hearing, it was decided that Councillor Barber would chair the meeting.

5.2 Prior to hearing oral submissions, Council officers provided a brief presentation on the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy, and provided further information in relation to:

5.2.1 Policy scope (outdoor dining in public places, including footpaths and parks), clarifying what was out of scope (outdoor dining on private or leased land).

5.2.2 Issues with the current policies (Footpath Extensions to Expand Cafes onto the Roadway Policy 1998 and Public Street Enclosures Policy 2006), namely: the language being confusing and not in plain English; not being aligned with current policies; no review date for licences; and no requirement for outdoor dining areas to be accessible.

5.2.3 Key features of the proposed replacement policy, including:

· Guidance on outdoor dining license applications (section 6), how an application will be assessed and the notification of applicants.

· Key requirements for licences. Outdoor dining areas are to:

· Be accessible and provide accessible clear pathways alongside the areas.

· Be clean, tidy and clear of litter. No litter to be deposited in Council bins.

· Display smoke-free and vape-free signage and not to have ashtrays; and,

· To have a defined term (not exceeding 3 years), which provides for regular license reviews and renewal of licenses.

5.2.4 Early engagement and consultation, including clarification regarding the number of submissions received.

5.2.5 Next steps once the Hearings Panel had made its recommendations to Council, including staff actions in order to implement the policy.

5.3 The Hearings Panel heard the following seven oral submissions on the proposed Policy, with submitters taking the opportunity to emphasise the key concerns raised in their written submissions. While some submitters focussed on matters outside the Policy (see paragraph 6. below), they also reiterated the content of their written submissions and raised a number of other issues in relation to implementation of the new outdoor dining policy. For the original submissions and subsequent documents tabled at the hearing, refer to Section 7: Reference Documents:

· Marie Pollisco, on behalf of Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, emphasised that:

· Applications should be assessed by an Urban Design Planner and applicants should be able to amend their application and reapply;

· Accessibility should be a priority especially when considering furniture on footpaths.

· Callum Ward, on behalf of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board reiterated the Board’s submission including that,

· Outdoor dining should be accessible.

· Amanda Dodd, on behalf of Cancer Society Canterbury West Coast Division

· Outlined the successful pilot ‘Clean Air Project’ initiated in Christchurch in 2016 and 2017 for smoke-free outdoor dining areas.

· Identified that since that time, some Councils had incorporated compulsory smokefree and vape free signage in their requirements for public outdoor dining areas including Palmerston North (2016), Ashburton (2017), Auckland (2018) and Wellington(2021).

· That the Cancer Society fully supported the draft Policy as the next step to support the de-normalisation of smoking and vaping in public spaces.

· Carina Duke, on behalf of Living Streets Aotearoa

· Spoke to the need for footpaths alongside outdoor dining areas to be fully accessible for all pedestrians.

· Kirsty Jacomb, on behalf of Terrace Hospitality Group, and Tim Swete, on behalf of Vieceli Hospitality Limited

· Spoke to the practical difficulties they perceived with adopting ‘smoke and vape free’ including in getting patrons to comply with a voluntary policy and in supervising patrons who leave the licenced area to smoke and then wish to re-enter the licenced area.

· Outlined their current situation where they had separate smoking and non-smoking areas within their outdoor dining area. Their view was that this arrangement worked well.

· Put forward the view that should the current draft policy provision be adopted, that there is likely to be an increase of smoking related litter outside the dining area, and that,

· Noted businesses operating on public land are likely to suffer a potential loss of custom in comparison with some premises operating outdoor dining areas on private land where the restrictions would not apply.

· Marjorie Manthei, on behalf of Victoria Neighbourhood Association.

· Spoke to the Association’s submission which supports the draft policy. She said the provisions in relation to accessibility, requiring ‘smoke and vape free’ signage, management of waste and litter in and around outdoor dining areas and limits on licence term all seemed appropriate to the Association members and did address issues previously raised by Association members.

· Raised the issue that effective monitoring of outdoor dining areas was needed, and that Council should ensure that licence conditions are complied with, especially with regards to noise.

6. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

6.1 The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. The following matters were considered by the Hearings Panel:

The requirement for vapefree and smokefree signage, etc. in outdoor dining areas:

6.1.1 Staff explained that this new requirement will contribute to progressing the objectives of the Council’s 2020 Smokefree and Vapefree Policy and that outdoor dining spaces are identified as key areas to make smokefree and vapefree.

6.1.2 However, the Hearings Panel were inclined to agree with the points raised by some submitters on behalf of hospitality premises. The Panel was not comfortable with the wording of the clause 6.6.3 in the notified policy and have therefore made the recommendation to the Council that the word ‘required’ be deleted. The Panel is of the view that the decision as to whether outdoor dining areas should display smoke free and vape free signage etc should remain a voluntary decision for the licensee to make.

The requirement for outdoor dining spaces to be accessible and for accessible pathways.

6.1.3 The Panel considered the submissions on this matter including some ‘practical’ concerns raised in the hearing by representatives of hospitality businesses; the panel concluded that the current notified draft policy is reasonable in this regard and should not be altered.

The proposed requirements for waste management.

6.1.4 The Panel considered the submissions on this matter and concluded that the current notified draft policy is reasonable in this regard and should not be altered.

Proposal for a defined term for licences (not exceeding 3 years), which provides for regular licence reviews and renewal of licenses.

6.1.5 The Panel considered whether a three-year term for a licence is reasonable and decided that it was appropriate having regard to the fact that the review of the outdoor dining licence could align with other licences e.g., an alcohol licence which also has a three-year term.

Other matters outside the Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy

6.1.6 The Panel asked staff to identify how other matters raised by submitters outside the policy would be addressed, e.g., the concern raised about a draft condition on licences preventing the playing of amplified music. 25 submitters had provided feedback through the ‘Let’s Talk’ consultation on draft guidance material including draft ‘standard’ conditions for licences. A copy of the draft guidance which went out with the consultation can be found at Attachment B. Staff have collated this feedback and will take it into account in finalising the guidelines/guidance material. Staff will report back to these submitters on the guidance /guidelines that will accompany the new Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy.

6.1.7 A number of submitters also shared their views on other related matters, e.g., some raised concerns about a lack of consistency in the monitoring and compliance of outdoor dining areas.

6.2 Upon considering all the information put before it, the Hearings Panel formulated its recommendations. The Hearings Panel approved the draft Policy document and have included additional recommendations based on submitter and staff feedback as below:

6.2.1 Amending the explanatory note for the definition of Outdoor dining licence in clause 4.1 to include the words “except where other restrictions apply, e.g., under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.”

6.2.2 Amending the title of section 6 of the Policy from “Application for outdoor dining” to “Application for an outdoor dining licence”.

6.2.3 Clause 6.6.3 changed to “Every licensee of an outdoor dining area is encouraged to display smoke-free and vape-free signage. Ashtrays or other receptacles for smoking or vaping litter are discouraged in an outdoor dining area” as shown in the tracked change version of the policy attached to this report.

7. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda, including all submissions	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_AGN_9655_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_MIN_9655_AT.PDF
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/10/BLHP_20231006_MAT_9655.PDF
Kōrero mai/Let’s Talk Webpage	https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/outdoor-dining-policy-review
Newsline Story 2 June 2023	https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/refresh-for-christchurchs-outdoor-dining-rules
Newsline Story 7 August 2023	https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/consultation-opens-on-outdoor-dining-and-naming-policies
Footpath Extensions to Expand Cafes onto the Roadway Policy 1998	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/licensing-and-commercial-activities-policies/footpath-extensions-to-expand-cafes-onto-the-roadway-policy
Public Street Enclosures Policy 2006	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/licensing-and-commercial-activities-policies/public-streets-enclosures-policy-and-fees-charged
Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy 2001	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/accessibility-policies/equity-and-access-for-people-with-disabilities-policy
Public Places Bylaw 2018	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/bylaws/public-places-bylaw-2018
Structures on Roads Policy 2020	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/roads-and-footpaths-policies/structures-on-roads-policy
Smokefree and Vapefree Public Places Policy 2020	https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/health-policies/smokefree-public-places-policy

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Andrew Campbell - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Kelly Barber - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Outdoor Dining in Public Places Policy (final form)	23/1770453	268
b ⇩	Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines	23/1770454	274

Council

15 November 2023

16. Climate Change Portfolio Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1825452
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Sara Templeton, Climate Change Portfolio Lead (Sara.Templeton@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 Second six-monthly climate portfolio report back to Council.

1.1 This report has been prepared by Councillor Sara Templeton. Administrative support has been provided by Council staff to upload this report to Infocouncil.

2. Climate Portfolio Lead Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this report.

2. Notes that the Council decision on 12 September 2023 (CNCL/2019/00228) includes assessing the impact of Council decisions on our climate change targets, including the impacts of the draft Long Term Plan on those targets, and request an update on what assessments are being done for the draft Long Term Plan to help inform community feedback.

3. Requests six monthly reporting to the Council on the implementation of Kia Tūroa te Ao: Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

4. Writes to Waka Kotahi and the incoming government to express our concern at the suggested pause in Climate Emergency Response Fund funding for our Transport Choices projects.

3. Introduction

3.1 As the portfolio system has bedded in it has become clear that the original terms of reference that included the portfolio holders reporting on the work of the organisation were not workable and so, like my first report, this focuses on my mahi as portfolio holder on behalf of council and address the key issues that I see for us as a Council.

3.2 However, it is crucial that the work of Council on climate change is reported publicly so that now only Councillors, but our residents, can see what we are doing and hold us to account for that planning we are doing for the long-term future of our city.

4. Key Issues

4.1 The global news on climate matters has been confronting reading since my last report. Along with the impacts on locals of record heatwaves in Europe and the US and extensive flooding across Asia, our global food systems are being disrupted and in July India banned the export of non-basmati rice, which has impacted global markets. The Pacific cyclone season has also started early, with Cyclone Lola the first category five storm to be recorded in October and large bushfires are burning early in Australia.

4.2 The constant news cycle of unprecedented events can be demotivating and there’s an increasing risk that the focus starts to move away from mitigation, instead of motivating us to double our efforts to reduce the impacts by lowering emissions. And we need to talk about this openly, as extreme weather events will continue in spite of our efforts and it is difficult to communicate that all of the changes we are making are helping us avoid the worst impacts.

4.3 In June this year global average temperatures briefly hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial average for the first time. Global averages are proving to be problematic however, as our planet is over 70% oceans and the land temperatures are higher. Many areas are heating at twice the global average and by 2050 Dubai is expected to have 40 days a year above 55 degrees. The latest research in Antarctica also shows that we are likely to have passed the tipping point for the melting of the West Antarctic icesheet, bringing with it a potential five metres of sea level rise.

4.4 New Zealanders are aware of these impacts and the challenges we face. An international Ipsos survey published by Newsroom in July shows that eight out of ten New Zealanders said that they were concerned about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand and that two thirds said we would be failing future generations if we failed to act. However, our knowledge of what actions would make the most difference was disappointing, with most saying recycling as the top issue when it only ranks 60th. Transport was acknowledged to have a high emissions profile, but only 12% of people picked it as the top way to reduce personal emissions. "Our understanding of many of these high-impact actions are a lot lower than the global average so clearly more education is required."

4.5 A cost-share buy-out offer between local councils and central government for properties following Cyclone Gabrielle has now been agreed and the recent Issues and Options paper from MfE indicates that this is a preferred way of dealing with private property following severe weather events. With around $14b of private property at risk in the Christchurch District on top of $3b of public infrastructure, this will be unaffordable for us and we have submitted feedback outlining our concerns. It also highlights the importance of the Coastal Adaptation Programme and in speeding up that work across the city. We will also need to expand the scope of the current programme in the next few years to include other hazards including pluvial flooding (ie our river catchments), rising groundwater and fire. We simply cannot afford not to do this work.

4.6 There is, however, a lot to be hopeful for and Dr Rod Carr recently briefed the Council on climate matters and the opportunities that we have before us as a city and a nation to transition to a more sustainable economy. ‘The transition is underway,” he said, “and if we do not act now, in our own interests, we will be left behind.” There are opportunities for us to lead and take advantage of the transition to a low carbon, sustainable economy and to help our communities.

4.7 This is also shown in the Tātaki Unlimited Auckland report on the economic impacts of climate change where the benefits to Auckland of both decisive climate action, or inaction, have been quantified and the opportunity for the region is clear.

4.8 New Zealand’s gross emissions have reduced for the last two years and our fossil fuel sales in Ōtautahi have been decreasing since 2018, in spite of our growing population, though not at a fast enough rate to meet our target of halving our emissions by 2030.

4.9 The third annual conference for adaptation practitioners took place in Ōtautahi in October and in October 2025 the eighth UN Conference on Adaptation Futures has been awarded to us as well, with the University of Canterbury taking the lead.

4.10 Our upcoming Long Term Plan 2024-34 takes us well past our target year of 2030 for halving our emissions as a city and it was heartening to see the What Matters Most engagement clearly showing that residents see climate change as a key priority for the city. It will be important for our Draft LTP to clearly indicate whether the projects and programmes of work within it will enable us to meet that target.

4.11 Ahead of that the Office of the Auditor General has selected four councils across the country to assess for climate change planning (need to check the wording of this with Lynn) and this work is underway at Christchurch City Council at the moment. It is important work and I look forward to seeing the assessment and learning where we, and others, are doing well and where we need to improve.

5. Actions taken as Climate Portfolio Lead in the last six months

Advocacy, Awareness and Building Relationships

· Attended the School Strike for Climate (SS4C) Protest (May 2023)

· The Climate Challenge (a 15m presentation + Q&A)

· Marion College (June 2023)

· Greater Hornby Residents Assn (July 2023)

· Cracroft Residents Assn AGM (September 2023)

· UC School of Mathematics and Statistics (Sept 2023)

· Future Sumner meeting (Nov 2023)

· Ferrymead Rotary (Nov 2023)

· Climate Commission workshop at University of Canterbury (May 2023)

· Forest and Bird North Canterbury Branch AGM and Lawrence MacAskill Memorial address by Nicola Toki (May 2023)

· Ōtākaro Living Laboratory workshop with Prof Charles Levkoe, Director of the Lake Superior Living Labs Network (June 2023)

· Sustainable Ōtautahi Christchurch AGM (June 2023)

· Envirohub Annual Hui (June 2023)

· National Walking Summit 24-25 July at Tūranga.

· Chaired the session on the National Walking Strategy

· Speech: Walking the Talk – Rebuilding the City with People at Heart

· University of Canterbury workshop with Sophie Howe, former Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations, hearing from student participants. (July 2023)

· Smart Seeds 2023 Presentations and Awards (July 2023)

· PhD student interview on climate adaptation communications. (July 2023)

· Te Putahi Christchurch Conversations Public Transport Futures - Welcome speaker (Sept 2023)

· Ngai Tahu 25^th Anniversary of Settlement and Climate Change Hui - speaker on the CCC Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning programme (Sept 2023).

Council Mahi

· Supported the Mayor in meeting with Italian Ambassador visiting Antarctic institutions (May 2023)

· CMF Climate Change Action Planning Reference Group meeting (June and October 2023)

· Attended Whakaraupō/Koukourārata Coastal Adaptation Panel meeting with Cr Fields. (Aug 2023)

· Supported the Mayor in meeting with Climate Minister James Shaw (Aug 2023)

· Met with staff to discuss issues and timing for Plan Change 12 on Coastal Hazards (Sept 2023)

· Antarctic Season Opening events: Business and Diplomatic session and Mayoral morning tea, MC at the Civic Reception for the Season Opening, wreath laying on behalf of the city at the Scott statue. (Oct 2023)

· Dr Rod Carr briefing to Council (Oct 2023)

Key Council decisions since last report:

· Urban Forest Plan

· Annual Plan

· Park Terrace

· South Library

· Activity management plan

· Sustainability Fund

· Submission on Adaptation Issues and Options paper

· Endorsement of the CMF Climate Action Plan

Upcoming decisions with climate implications:

· Christchurch Speed Management Plan

· Christchurch Transport Plan

· Organics Processing Plant

· 2024-34 Long Term Plan

· Whakaraupō and Koukourarata Adaptation Plan

6. Information of Interest

· Kiwis Don't Understand How To Fight Climate Change – Poll | Newsroom

· Climate change's financial impacts hugely underestimated - Kiwi researchers | RNZ News

· Managed retreat compensation packages recommended | BusinessDesk

· Minister calls for inquiry into community-led climate funding - Inside Government NZ

· $2 billion in claims paid after Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle | Stuff.co.nz

· Rapid ice melt in west Antarctica now inevitable, research shows | Polar regions | The Guardian

· Effects of climate change increasing in Asia, WMO says | Reuters

· Global rice supplies tighten after India's July export ban | Reuters

· Christchurch will host major climate conference in 2025 | RNZ News

· Tātaki Unlimited Auckland report on the economic impacts of climate change: “Modelling in the report shows that decisive climate action could deliver $22 billion to the Auckland region’s economy by 2050 and more than 19,000 additional jobs, whereas climate inaction could cost the Auckland region’s economy $800 million and more than 1200 job opportunities by 2050.” Climate_Change_and_Sustainability_Insights_Report_0.pdf (aucklandnz.com)

· Statistics show that fuel use in Ōtautahi Christchurch is trending down although not at a fast enough rate to meet our targets (see below image). Land based transport makes up 36% of our city’s emissions.

A graph with a line going down

Description automatically generated

· Discourses of Delay: With Climate Change impacts upon us, delaying action has the same impact on our ability to mitigate and adapt as the denial of the science does. There are now models which help show these efforts to delay action and they are often used instead of outright denial as an excuse to do nothing.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

15 November 2023

17. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1607329
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 Office of Mayor and Chief Executive staff.

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

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in this report.

2. Adopt the updated terms of reference for Portfolio Holders (Attachment A).

3. Appoint Councillor Moore as the Arts & Creative Industries Portfolio Holder.

4. Appoint the following as delegates to the Local Government New Zealand Special General meeting on 11 December:

a. Mayor as the primary delegate; and

b. Deputy Mayor as the alternative delegate; and

c. Up to two further delegates appointed jointly by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

3. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Portfolio Review

Background

3.1 In December 2022, the Council agreed to allow nine months for portfolios to bed in and for other proposals to be received (CNCL/2022/00215 refers).

3.2 In August 2023, the Mayor asked staff to undertake a review of portfolios and identify potential changes to portfolios. Views were sought from current portfolio holders, executive leadership and those Council staff who work directly with portfolio holders.

Current Status

3.3 There are currently five portfolios held by four councillors. They are operating under Terms of Reference adopted in December 2022 (CNCL/2022/00214 refers).

3.4 Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive (OMCE) staff have reviewed the terms of reference and presented a draft proposal to the Mayor. This is included in Attachment A for consideration by Council.

Summary of Changes

3.5 The draft proposal clarifies the objective of Portfolio Holders as:

Portfolio Holders focus on areas that cut across different functions of Council and champion those portfolio areas. They engage with community groups interested in their portfolio area and help bring their views to Council. They also represent or speak on behalf of the Council on external bodies that focus of their area as required.

3.6 Following the review, OMCE staff propose the following additional changes to the terms of reference:

3.6.1 Adopted the term “Portfolio Holder” as the title.

3.6.2 Clarified the role of Portfolio Holders to align with the clarified objective (see 3.5 above).

3.6.3 Amended the responsibilities to remove any responsibility for Council communications.

3.6.4 Clarified the relationship between Portfolio Holders and Council staff.

3.6.5 Included a schedule of portfolios and the staff member assigned to support each Portfolio Holder.

3.6.6 Clarified six monthly reporting requirements, and the purpose of those reports as information reports.

Alternative Models

3.7 During this review, it was strongly suggested that the original Council Committee structure was a better system because:

3.7.1 It was more accountable to Council with reporting through minutes.

3.7.2 Business units reported to committees with updates on their performance.

3.7.3 The community felt better represented and connected to a committee.

3.8 These suggestions have merit and there is a debate between the portfolio versus committee models. But on balance, it is proposed to retain portfolios for the remainder of the term as people are becoming more familiar with the new system over time and the resourcing to change systems is not currently available within Council.

3.9 However, some improvements need to be made to this system for the remainder of the term. These include:

3.9.1 Providing information about portfolios and Portfolio Holder on the Council’s website.

3.9.2 Recognising that Portfolio Holders as champions for their areas, and that those areas cut across different Council business units.

3.9.3 Updating the Terms of Reference to better reflect the role and avoid confusion.

Additional Portfolios

3.10 The Mayor and Deputy Mayor have agreed to establish one further portfolio for the term to cover Arts and Creative Industries to be held by Councillor Moore.

3.11 Councillor Moore approached the Mayor and outlined a strong case for this role. Upon review it was found that it fits the new objective, namely that it is an area which cuts across different business units at Council.

3.12 The Mayor has advised that no future portfolios are planned for proposal this term.

Next Steps

3.13 The proposal includes updated terms of reference and the creation of the Arts and Creative Industries portfolio for Councillor Moore. If accepted, this will come into effect at the conclusion of this meeting.

3.14 If adopted, the new Terms of Reference empower the Chief Executive to assign staff members to support Portfolio Holders throughout the term.

Local Government New Zealand SGM

3.15 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is planning to host a special general meeting (SGM) to consider their consensus on Future by Local Government.

3.16 Following the release of the Future for Local Government Review Panel’s Final Report, LGNZ members created a mandate at this year’s AGM to come to a consensus on the report’s 17 recommendations. This was done through the creation of the LGNZ Future for Local Government Advisory Group who created the Future By Local Government workshops for establishing consensus.

3.17 The first meeting on 18 September which the Mayor attended acted as a discussion session of signalling where elected members sat on the recommendations through a priority setting exercise. This was to figure what recommendations could be ruled in, ruled out, and what needed further discussion to reach consensus.

3.18 The second meeting which was held on 2 November and was attended by the Deputy Mayor was about reaching a consensus on those recommendations identified as needing further discussion from the first meeting.

3.19 The advisory group has since pitched to the National Council an SGM to endorse the consensus reached at the second workshop. This is so LGNZ has a collective view to advocate to the incoming government in the new year.

3.20 This SGM requires four delegates from our elected members. The presiding member will have 8 votes at the meeting. It is recommended these delegates are selected at this council meeting.

3.21 The mayor and Deputy Mayor will attend and are proposed as delegates. Due to the need to appoint delegates by the end of November, it is proposed that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor is delegated the power to appoint two additional delegates should any other councillors like to attend.

Greater Christchurch Partnership

3.22 The most recent Greater Christchurch Partnership (GCP) meeting was held 20 October.

3.23 The primary agenda item was an update on the Development of the Greater Christchurch component of the Canterbury Regional Public Transport Policy (RPTP). Environment Canterbury will lead this programme as part of their wider RPTP. Councillor Templeton will represent the Council on the hearings panel for this component.

3.24 The agenda also included updates on the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan and Housing Action Plans which are being progressed. Councillor Henstock has been the Council’s representative on the Spatial Plan Hearings Panel.

Other Meetings

3.25 The next Canterbury Mayoral Forum will be held on 24 November.

3.26 The next Canterbury Regional Transport Committee will be held on 27 November.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Terms of Reference for Portfolio Holders	23/1850457	289

[1] Where a designated area suitable for freedom camping in a vehicle that is not self-contained is already part of a bylaw, a council can revoke and replace a bylaw (clause) to permit freedom camping in vehicles that are not self-contained - provided the new bylaw will cover the same area.

[2] Throughout this report, tent should be taken to mean “tent or other temporary structure” in accordance with section 5 of the amended Act.

[3] Clause 11 of Schedule 1AA of the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act 2023 (Transitional, savings, and related provisions)

[4] The Council Officers’ Report to the Hearings Panel recorded 74 submissions received. However, one submission was spam.

18. Notice of Motion - Open Briefings and Workshops
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1780547
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Johanson (Yani.Johanson@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE REVIEWED FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE
12.	Process for changing approved design - MCR Nor'West Arc
	Attachment c - Supporting Memo from Legal & Democratic Services	s7(2)(g)	Maintain Legal Professional Privilege	To maintain legal privilege	At the authorisation of the head of legal services.
20.	PAP - 129 Gloucester St RFP - Result and Preferred Respondent	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The Council must negotiate and communicate with affected parties, which includes commercials discussions	31 December 2024 The report can be released if/when any development agreement with the preferred respondent becomes unconditional.

10. Three Waters Activities Report - July, August and September 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1585795
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Brent Smith, Head of Three Waters Unit (Brent.Smith@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)