Christchurch City Council
Agenda
Notice of Meeting:
An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:
Date: Wednesday 1 May 2024
Time: 9.30 am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Membership
Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Members |
Mayor Phil Mauger Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter Councillor Kelly Barber Councillor Melanie Coker Councillor Celeste Donovan Councillor Tyrone Fields Councillor James Gough Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt Councillor Victoria Henstock Councillor Yani Johanson Councillor Aaron Keown Councillor Sam MacDonald Councillor Jake McLellan Councillor Andrei Moore Councillor Mark Peters Councillor Tim Scandrett Councillor Sara Templeton |
24 April 2024
|
|
Principal Advisor Mary Richardson Interim Chief Executive Tel: 941 8999 |
|
Katie Matheis
Democratic Services Advisor
941 5643
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
01 May 2024 |
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS NGĀ IHIRANGI
Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 4
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................. 4
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga.................................................. 4
3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui............................................................ 4
3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.......................................................................................... 4
3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga...................................................... 4
4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga............................................................ 4
Committee Minutes Reports
5. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 27 November 2023................ 7
Council
6. Council Minutes - 3 April 2024............................................................................ 15
7. Council Minutes - 10 April 2024.......................................................................... 23
8. Council Minutes - 16 April 2024.......................................................................... 35
Community Board Monthly Reports
9. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2024...................................... 41
Community Board Part A Reports
10. Worsleys Road Realignment - Legalisation.......................................................... 95
11. Former Opawa Children's Library Building - Expression of Interest, Results and Recommendation.......................................................................................... 105
Staff Reports
12. Plan Change 14 Staging of Decision.................................................................. 159
13. Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period................ 169
14. Transport Choices - School Safety Linwood - Pedestrian crossing Worcester McLeans 177
15. Capital Endowment Fund Application Eastern Relationship Project...................... 197
16. Chief Executive Recruitment - Approval of the Position Description...................... 253
17. Revoking Superseded External Policies............................................................. 261
18. Wastewater overflow improvement status........................................................ 281
19. Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 290
Karakia Whakamutunga
Whakataka te hau ki te uru
Whakataka te hau ki te tonga
Kia mākinakina ki uta
Kia mātaratara ki tai
E hī ake ana te atakura
He tio, he huka, he hau hū
Tihei mauri ora
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui
3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui
A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.
There were no public forum requests received at the time the agenda was prepared.
3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.
There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared.
4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga
Claude Tellick will present a petition regarding the installation of a rainbow crossing in central Ōtautahi Christchurch:
LGBTQIA+ people across Aotearoa are currently under threat from increased abuse, hate crimes and attacks like we haven't seen for decades. In the past week, two rainbow crossings have been painted over by religious extremists in clear and direct hate crimes in Tāmaki Makaurau (Auckland) and Tairāwhiti (Gisborne). These examples of hate-fuelled vandalism cause the queer, takatāpui community significant emotional and mental stress and make our streets less safe for our community's most vulnerable people. This must end, and Ōtautahi is in a position to come out strongly in support of our city's queer whānau and show that we will not give in to hate. For decades, queer people have been marginalised and felt unsafe around our central city, and it's time for change. We cannot continue to tolerate these acts of hate and discrimination. A Rainbow crossing in Central Christchurch would not only be a symbol of inclusivity and acceptance but also a tangible (and cost-effective) step towards creating a safer and more welcoming environment for LGBTQIA+ individuals in our community. It's crucial that we stand together and send a powerful message to the Christchurch City Council that we demand action against hate crimes and for the protection of our queer whānau. Please sign this petition and join together in advocating for a Rainbow crossing in Central Christchurch, because everyone deserves to feel safe and respected in their own city. Link to the petition: Petition · Let's get a Rainbow Crossing for Ōtautahi! - New Zealand · Change.org |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
The Central City Parking Restrictions Committee held a meeting on 27 November 2023 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
2. Recommendation Te Tūtohu Council
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held 27 November 2023.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
A⇩ |
Minutes Central City Parking Restrictions Committee - 27 November 2023 |
23/1921774 |
8 |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Simone Gordon - Democratic Services Advisor |
01 May 2024 |
|
Central City Parking Restrictions Committee
Open Minutes
Date: Monday 27 November 2023
Time: 11am
Venue: Committee Room 2, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Present
Chairperson Members |
Councillor Jake McLellan Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter Stephen Wright |
|
|
Principal Advisor Steffan Thomas Head of Technical Services & Design Tel: 941 6255 |
Ann Fitzgerald
Democratic Services Advisor
941 5989
Ann.Fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz
Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision
Part B Reports for Information
Part C Decisions Under Delegation
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
Part C
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00006
That the apology for absence from Lynette Ellis be accepted. Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried |
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
Part B
There were no declarations of interest recorded.
3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua
Part C
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00007 That the minutes of the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 29 August 2023 be confirmed. Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried |
4. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
Part B
There were no deputations by appointment.
5. Proposed Motorcycle Park - 29 Walker Street |
|
|
Committee Comment 1. The Committee noted that parking restrictions in the whole Walker Street area, which is currently unrestricted parking despite being close to the CBD, is scheduled for review. 2. Officers confirmed that carparking buildings generally have provision for motorcycle parking. 3. Officers confirmed that employees of the nearby Motorcycle business have their own off street parking. |
|
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00008 Officer recommendations accepted without change Part C That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee: 1. Approves that in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, any previous resolutions pertaining to parking or stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking restriction described in recommendation 2 below, be revoked. 2. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking be reserved for motorcycles and mopeds only on the north side of Walker Street, commencing at a point 143 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of five metres. This parking restriction is to apply at any time. 3. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations). Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried |
8. Gloucester Street (Montreal Street and Durham St North) - Proposed No Stopping Restriction |
|
|
Committee Comment 1. The Committee noted that recommendations 1. b - e are confirming current practice based on Council decisions prior to 2002. Confirmation at this meeting will provide a digital record. |
|
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00009 Officer recommendations accepted without change Part C That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee: 1. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and as shown on Attachment A: a. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Gloucester Street from its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres. b. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and subject to payment at Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment) on the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 89 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Sunday. c. That a Cycle Stand be installed, on the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 117 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 2.5 metres. This restriction is to apply at any time. d. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and subject to payment at Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment) on the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 132.5 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 45 metres. This restriction is to apply 9:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Sunday. e. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 177.5 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Durham Street North. 2. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking and stopping restrictions described in recommendation 1 above. 3. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations). Councillor McLellan/Member Wright Carried Secretarial Note: 1. The Committee requested that although the decision is not removing an existing parking space, the affected homeowners are specifically consulted about the changes. 2. The Committee requested an estimate of the net revenue loss as a result of introducing the no stopping restrictions. |
6. Tour coaches in the West End |
|
|
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00010 Part C That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee: Cashel Street (east of Montreal Street) 1. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the parking of vehicles be restricted to Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers, at any time, on the north side of Cashel Street, commencing at a point 56 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 46 metres. 2. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the parking of vehicles be restricted to Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers, between the times of 6am to 10pm, Monday to Sunday, on the north side of Cashel Street, commencing at a point 116 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 32 metres. 3. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 and in accordance with Sections 12.4 (8) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, that a Taxi Stand be installed on the north side of Cashel Street commencing at a point 116 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 32 metres. This restriction is to apply 10:00pm to 6:00am, Monday to Sunday. 4. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes, at any time, on the south side of Cashel Street commencing at a point 98 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres. Montreal Street 5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the parking of vehicles be restricted to Passenger Service Vehicles only, for a maximum period of 120 minutes, on any day on the west side of Montreal Street, commencing at a point 7 metres north of its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 83 metres. 6. Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in resolutions 1-5 above. 7. Approves that resolutions 1-6, take effect when parking signage that evidence the restriction described in this staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).
Member Wright/Councillor McLellan Carried |
7. Replacement of a redundant bus stop with 60 minutes parking restriction on Moorhouse Avenue near Manchester Street |
|
|
Committee Resolved CCPRC/2023/00011 Part C That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee approves: 1. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017: a. That all existing parking and stopping restrictions associated with the bus stop on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres, be revoked, as shown on Attachment A b. That parking be restricted to 60 minutes on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres, as shown on Attachment A.
Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried |
The meeting concluded at 11.28am
CONFIRMED THIS 1st DAY OF MARCH 2024
Councillor Jake McLellan
Chairperson
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/533115 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Mary Richardson, Interim Chief Executive |
1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 3 April 2024.
2. Recommendation Te Tūtohu Council
That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 3 April 2024.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
A⇩ |
Minutes Council - 3 April 2024 |
24/513642 |
16 |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support |
01 May 2024 |
|
Christchurch City Council
Minutes
Date: Wednesday 3 April 2024
Time: 9.35 am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Present
Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Members |
Mayor Phil Mauger Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter Councillor Kelly Barber Councillor Melanie Coker Councillor Celeste Donovan Councillor Tyrone Fields Councillor James Gough – via audio/visual link Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt – via audio/visual link Councillor Victoria Henstock Councillor Yani Johanson Councillor Aaron Keown - via audio/visual link Councillor Sam MacDonald – via audio/visual link Councillor Jake McLellan Councillor Andrei Moore Councillor Mark Peters Councillor Tim Scandrett Councillor Sara Templeton |
|
|
Principal Advisor Mary Richardson Interim Chief Executive Tel: 941 8999 |
Samantha Kelly
Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support
941 6227
Samantha.Kelly@ccc.govt.nz
Karakia Tīmatanga: Given by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and all Councillors.
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00035 That the apologies received from Councillor Harrison-Hunt for lateness be accepted. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried |
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
There were no declarations of interest recorded.
3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui
3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui
There were no public forum presentations.
3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
There were no deputations by appointment.
4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga
There was no presentation of petitions.
5. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 8 December 2023 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00036 That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 8 December 2023. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Johanson Carried |
6. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 23 November 2023 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00037 That the Council receives the Minutes from the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 23 November 2023. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Johanson Carried |
7. Council Minutes - 6 March 2024 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00038 That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 6 March 2024. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Johanson Carried |
8. Council - Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034 Minutes - 14 February 2024 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00039 That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council - Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034 meeting held 14 February 2024. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Johanson Carried |
9. Council Minutes - 20 March 2024 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00040 That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 20 March 2024. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Johanson Carried |
Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 9.55am and returned at 10.04am during consideration of Item 10.
Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.00am and returned at 10.09am during consideration of Item 10.
Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.01am during consideration of Item 10.
Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.08am and returned at 10.10am during consideration of Item 10.
10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2024 |
|
|
Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Keir Leslie, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.
Bridget Williams, Chairperson, and Jason Middlemiss, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report.
Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report.
Helen Broughton, Chairperson, and Marie Pollisco, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report.
Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Nigel Harrison, Deputy Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report.
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00041 Officer Recommendations accepted without changed That the Council: 1. Receive the Monthly Report from the Community Boards March 2024. Councillor Peters/Councillor Henstock Carried
|
|
Attachments a Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council f Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council |
Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - 11 March 2024 |
|
11. Marine Parade - Car Parking Formalisation |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00042 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Approves, pursuant to Clause 16 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that vehicles must travel in one specified direction only within the council owned car park in accordance with that shown on the plan provided as Attachment A to this report (Drawing TG146820, issue 1 dated 23/1/2024) and detailed in recommendations 1a-1f below: a. Bay 1 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 168.0 metres south of the prolongation of the southern kerb of Bowhill Road. b. Bay 2 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 274.0 metres south of the prolongation of the southern kerb of Bowhill Road. c. Bay 3 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 341.0 metres of the prolongation of the southern kerb of Bowhill Road. d. Bay 4 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 137.0 metres north of the prolongation of the northern kerb of Rawhiti Avenue. e. Bay 5 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 36.0 metres north of the prolongation of the northern kerb of Rawhiti Avenue. f. Bay 6 Plan, on the eastern side of Marine Parade 49.0 metres south of the prolongation of the northern kerb of Rawhiti Avenue. Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried |
Deputy Mayor Cotter returned to the meeting at 10.21am during consideration of Item 12.
12. Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update |
|
|
1.1 Matt Dodson, Chairperson, joined the meeting for the presentation of the Selwyn-Waihora Water Management Zone Committee report and also provided a PowerPoint presentation. 1.2 Oscar Bloom, Chairperson, and Murray Griffin, Zone Facilitator, joined the meeting for the presentation of the Christchurch-West Melton Water Management Zone Committee report. 1.3 Gina Waibl, Chairperson, and Trudi Bishop, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for the presentation of the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee report. 1.4 The Council received the information in the Triannual Report and also requested for staff to liaise with Environment Canterbury regarding the possibility of completing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy progress report earlier than 2025, and for the Council to receive a copy of the report when it is available (refer to resolution 2).
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00043 That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Triannual Report and note the work of each Water Management Zone Committee. 2. Requests staff to liaise with Environment Canterbury regarding the possibility of completing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy progress report earlier than 2025, and for the Council to receive a copy of the report when it is available. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Johanson Carried
|
|
Attachments a Selwyn-Waihora Water Management Zone Committee - Presentation to Council |
13. Revocation of speed limit setting parts of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00044 Officer Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Notes the following in relation to the revocation of speed limit setting parts of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017: a. National changes to the regulatory system for setting speed limits mean bylaw clauses are no longer needed and should be revoked. b. The revocation can be undertaken by resolution, without consultation, authorised by section 168AAA(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998. 2. Revokes the speed limit setting parts of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, specifically: a. Part 4 Speed limits (which includes clause 27, Speed limits, and its explanatory notes); and b. The associated definitions in clause 5, Interpretation: “designated location”; “speed limit”; “speed limits rule”; and “urban traffic area”. 3. Authorises Council Officers to make the changes to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, as detailed in Recommendation 2, and republish the amended version of the bylaw on the Council’s website, where it can be accessed by the public. Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried |
Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 10.33am and returned at 10.34am during consideration of item 14.
Councillor Harrison-Hunt joined the meeting at 10.33am via audio/visual link during consideration of item 14.
14. Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund - Light of all Nations Hope Ministries Trust |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00045 Officer Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Declines the application from the Light of all Nations Hope Ministries Trust to its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund towards the Community Service project. Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried Councillors Barber and Keown requested that their votes against the resolution be recorded. |
15. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00046 That at 10.38am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 176 to 177 of the agenda be adopted. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried |
The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 10.51am.
Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and all Councillors.
Meeting concluded at 10.52am.
CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF MAY 2024
Mayor Phil Mauger
Chairperson
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/602608 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Katie Matheis, Democratic Services Advisor (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz) |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services |
1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 10 April 2024.
2. Recommendation Te Tūtohu Council
That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 April 2024.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
A⇩ |
Minutes Council - 10 April 2024 |
23/1915167 |
24 |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Katie Matheis - Democratic Services Advisor |
01 May 2024 |
|
Christchurch City Council
Minutes
Date: Wednesday 10 April 2024
Time: 9.34 am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Present
Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Members |
Mayor Phil Mauger Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter Councillor Kelly Barber Councillor Melanie Coker Councillor Celeste Donovan Councillor Tyrone Fields Councillor James Gough Councillor Victoria Henstock Councillor Yani Johanson Councillor Aaron Keown Councillor Sam MacDonald Councillor Jake McLellan Councillor Andrei Moore – via audio / visual link Councillor Mark Peters Councillor Tim Scandrett |
|
|
Principal Advisor Mary Richardson Interim Chief Executive Tel: 941 8999 |
Katie Matheis
Democratic Services Advisor
941 5643
Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz
Karakia Tīmatanga: All Councillors
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
Deputy Mayor Cotter assumed the Chair at the commencement of the meeting.
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00031 That the apologies received from the Mayor and Councillor McLellan for lateness and the apology from Councillor Templeton for absence be accepted.
That an apology be recorded for Councillor Harrison-Hunt due to a leave of absence. Councillor Coker/Councillor Peters Carried |
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
There were no declarations of interest recorded.
3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui
3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui
3.1.1 |
Ōtautahi Creative Spaces Kim Morton and Henni Read spoke on behalf of Ōtautahi Creative Spaces regarding arts and mental health work and the impact on communities. |
|
Attachments a Ōtautahi Creative Spaces - Presentation to Council |
3.1.2 Jake Mokomoko |
Jake Mokomoko spoke regarding an initiative for a community safety model to help reduce response times in emergency events. |
Attachments a Jake Mokomoko - Presentation to Council |
3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
3.2.1 Christchurch Civic Trust |
Anne Dingwall spoke on behalf of the Christchurch Civic Trust regarding Item 6. |
4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga
There was no presentation of petitions.
Councillor Fields left the meeting at 9.54am and returned at 9.56am during consideration of Item 5.
Councillor McLellan joined the meeting via audio/ visual link at 10.10am during the vote by division on Item 5 and left the meeting via audio / visual link at the conclusion of Item 5.
Report from Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards - 13 February 2024 |
|
5. Shirley/Marshland/New Brighton/North Parade Intersection Safety Improvement |
|
|
Council Officers Stephen Wright, Gemma Dioni, and Lachlan Beban joined the table to present Item 5 and answer questions from elected members. In consideration of the update provided by Council Officers, the meeting requested that an additional Recommendation be added noting that there would be ongoing monitoring of traffic changes by Council and Environment Canterbury staff (refer Recommendation 8).
At the conclusion of questions, the Officer Recommendations as amended by the meeting were Moved by Councillor Donovan and Seconded by Councillor Coker.
At the conclusion of debate, the meeting voted by division on the Motion which was declared lost.
|
|
Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards Recommendation to Council That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommend that the Council: 1. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the north side of Shirley Road, commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 71 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004. 2. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at its intersection with Shirley Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004. That the Council: 7. Approves that the bus lane on the north side of Shirley Road operating at any time to the right of the left turn lane commencing at a point 10.5 metres west of its signalised intersection with Marshland Road/New Brighton Road/North Parade and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 9.5 metres be revoked.
|
|
Council Decision That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommend that the Council: 1. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the north side of Shirley Road, commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 71 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004. 2. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the west side of Marshland Road, commencing at its intersection with Shirley Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004. That the Council: 7. Approves that the bus lane on the north side of Shirley Road operating at any time to the right of the left turn lane commencing at a point 10.5 metres west of its signalised intersection with Marshland Road/New Brighton Road/North Parade and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 9.5 metres be revoked. 8. Notes that both the Council and Environment Canterbury will be monitoring the changes and work to mitigate any issues that arise. The division was declared a tie the voting being as follows: For: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Scandrett Against: Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Peters Councillor Donovan/Councillor Coker Lost |
11. Resolution to Include Supplementary Report |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00032 That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Wednesday, 10 April 2024. Open Items 12. Council submission on Fast-Track Approvals Bill Public Excluded Items 14. Appointments to the New Zealand Agricultural Show Investment Trust Councillor Scandrett/Councillor MacDonald Carried |
6. Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00033 Officer recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Approve pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 the granting of an easement for utilities to service the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre over Rural Section 41181 (formerly part Reserve 24) (South Hagley Park) SO Plan 15236 contained in Record of Title CB30A/95 and shown on Attachment C to this report (the plans showing the cable route and easement), noting that: a. Public Notification of the Council’s intention to grant an easement in this case is not required as the land will not be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the land will not be permanently affected; and b. The utility operator will liaise with the Council’s Parks Unit regarding access, protection of trees, health and safety, pre-work site assessment, and remediation activities associated with the installation of the utility in the park along with any change in route of fibre if necessary. 2. Approve the Chief Executive, on behalf of the Council, to exercise the powers of the Minister of Conservation referred to in the Reserves Act 1977 and further referenced in the Schedule attached to the Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013 pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, and in exercising those powers consent to the granting of the easement as shown in Attachment D to this report. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried |
7. Social Housing and Sydenham Yard Development: Proposed Change in Parameters |
|
|
Council Officer Bruce Rendall joined the table to present Item 7 and answer questions from elected members. An additional Officer Recommendation (refer Resolution 3) was also tabled at this time.
Councillor Scandrett Moved and Councillor Gough Seconded the updated Officers Recommendations. At the conclusion of debate the substantive Motion was voted on and declared carried.
|
|
Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Agree to alter the existing resolution as resolved at the Council meeting on 7 July 2022 [CNCL/2022/00051], to as follows: a. Approve the use of the Barnett Avenue
Housing Complex land to facilitate the development of a mixed tenure housing
development 2. Agree to alter the existing delegation to the Head of City Growth and Property as resolved at the Council meeting on 7 July 2022 [CNCL/2022/00051], as follows: a. Delegate authority to the Head of City
Growth and Property to enter into such agreements as required to facilitate
the development of a mixed tenure housing development |
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00034 That the Council: 1. Agree to alter the existing resolution as resolved at the Council meeting on 7 July 2022 [CNCL/2022/00051], to as follows: a. Approve the use of the Barnett Avenue
Housing Complex land to facilitate the development of a mixed tenure housing
development 2. Agree to alter the existing delegation to the Head of City Growth and Property as resolved at the Council meeting on 7 July 2022 [CNCL/2022/00051], as follows: a. Delegate authority to the Head of City
Growth and Property to enter into such agreements as required to facilitate
the development of a mixed tenure housing development 3. Note that alteration of the existing resolution does not change the Council’s objective, which is to facilitate the replacement of the previous social housing units with at least 10 community homes (minimum 22 bedrooms comprising of a mix of two- and three-bedrooms). Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Gough Carried Councillor Johanson requested his vote against the resolution be recorded. |
Councillor McLellan joined the meeting in Chambers at 10.23am during consideration of Item 8.
Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 10.23am and returned at 10.24am during consideration of Item 8.
8. Draft submission Environment Canterbury's draft Long Term Plan 2024-34 |
|
|
Council Officers David Griffiths and Ellen Cavanagh joined the table to present Item 8 and answer questions from elected members. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Fields and Seconded by Councillor Coker. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the meeting included an additional Recommendation (refer Resolution 2) delegating authority to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to approve the Council’s final draft submission.
During debate, Councillor Gough Moved an amendment (refer Recommendation 3), which was Seconded by Councillor Keown. The amendment was voted on by division and declared lost.
The meeting then voted on the substantive Motion, which was declared carried.
|
|
Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Approve the draft submission to Environment Canterbury on their draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (Attachment A to this report). |
|
Amended Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded That the Council: 1. Approve the draft submission to Environment Canterbury on their draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (Attachment A to this report). 2. Delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to finalise and approve the Council submission on Environment Canterbury's draft Long Term Plan 2024-34, to be submitted by Friday 12 April 2024. Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Moved/Seconded
|
|
Council Decision 3. Express its concern at the level of proposed rates rises and urge Environment Canterbury to find ways to reduce it. The division was declared a tie the voting being as follows: For: Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters Against: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett Councillor Gough/Councillor Keown Lost |
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00035 That the Council: 1. Approve the draft submission to Environment Canterbury on their draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (Attachment A to this report). 2. Delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to finalise and approve the Council submission on Environment Canterbury's draft Long Term Plan 2024-34, to be submitted by Friday 12 April 2024. Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried Councillors Gough and Keown requested their vote against the resolution be recorded. |
9. Amendments to Delegations |
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00036 Officer recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Amendments to Delegations Report. 2. Note that the decision in this report is of low significance concerning the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business and any other applicable statutory authority: a. Delegate the responsibilities, duties and powers to the persons as set out in Attachment A to this report, and revoke or amend any other delegations as shown in Attachment A. 4. Note that the changes to the delegations as shown in Attachment A will come into force on 14 April 2024. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Carried |
Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.50am and returned at 10.52am during consideration of Item 10.
Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.50am and returned at 10.53am during consideration of Item 10.
Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.53am and returned at 10.55am during consideration of Item 10.
10. Mayor's Monthly Report |
|
|
Council Officer Boyd Becker joined the table to present Item 10 and answer questions from elected members. An additional Mayor’s Recommendation regarding the possible installation of a rainbow crossing (refer Resolution 5) was also tabled at this time.
During discussion of Recommendation 2, additional elected members requested their names be put forward as attendees for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting (see italicised text in Resolution 2).
The meeting further agreed to the addition of a Recommendation (refer Resolution 6) regarding the Water Management Strategy targets being met by Environment Canterbury.
The Mayor’s Recommendations as amended were then Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett. The meeting then voted on the Motion as amended which was declared carried.
|
|
Mayor’s Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Mayor’s Monthly report. 2. Note that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors Gough, MacDonald and Moore have indicated that they will be attending as delegates representing the Christchurch City Council for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting to be held between 21-23 August. 3. Appoint the following for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting: a. The Mayor as voting delegate; and b. The Deputy Mayor as the alternate delegate. 4. Note that Council staff will provide further information on the remit process for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting. |
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00037 That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Mayor’s Monthly report. 2. Note that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors Donovan, Gough, Harrison-Hunt, MacDonald, Moore, Peters and Templeton have indicated that they will be attending as delegates representing the Christchurch City Council for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting to be held between 21-23 August. 3. Appoint the following for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting: a. The Mayor as voting delegate; and b. The Deputy Mayor as the alternate delegate. 4. Note that Council staff will provide further information on the remit process for the 2024 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting. 5. Request staff advice on the cost, potential sites and the process for installation of a rainbow crossing or similar in the city and report back in time for consideration in the Long Term Plan 2024-34. 6. Request that the Mayor raise the issue of Environment Canterbury meeting the targets of the Water Management Strategy through the Zone Committee review process. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried |
The Mayor joined the meeting at 11.11am during consideration of Item 12.
12. Council submission on Fast-Track Approvals Bill |
|
|||
|
Council Officers Mark Stevenson, Helaina Gregg, and Brent Pizzey joined the table to present Item 12 and answer questions from elected members. An additional Officer Recommendation (refer Resolution 2) was also tabled at this time.
Deputy Mayor Cotter Moved and Councillor Barber Seconded the Officers Recommendations as amended. The substantive Motion was then voted on and declared carried.
|
|
||
|
Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Delegate authority to [insert named Councillors] to approve any further changes to the draft Council submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill (Attachment A and Attachment B to this report). 2. Note that the decision in this report is of low significance concerning the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
|
||
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00038 That the Council: 1. Delegate authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor Cotter, and Councillor Henstock to approve any further changes to the draft Council submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill (Attachment A and Attachment B to this report). 2. Approve lodging an application to the Minister for Environment for the Council’s development of network infrastructure and green spaces within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor to be included in Schedule 2A (Projects listed for direct referral to expert panel) of the Fast Track Approvals Bill. 3. Note that the decision in this report is of low significance concerning the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried |
|
||
|
11. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui |
|||
|
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00039 That at 11.12am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 19 to 20 of the supplementary agenda be adopted. Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried |
||
The Mayor resumed the Chair in the Public Excluded segment of the meeting.
The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.14am.
Karakia Whakamutunga: All Councillors
Meeting concluded at 11.14am.
CONFIRMED THIS 1st DAY OF MAY 2024
Mayor Phil Mauger
Chairperson
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/647342 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Katie Matheis, Democratic Services Advisor (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz) |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services |
1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 16 April 2024.
2. Recommendation Te Tūtohu Council
That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 16 April 2024.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
A⇩ |
Minutes Council - 16 April 2024 |
24/577805 |
36 |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Katie Matheis - Democratic Services Advisor |
01 May 2024 |
|
Christchurch City Council
Minutes
Date: Tuesday 16 April 2024
Time: 9.32 am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Present
Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Members |
Mayor Phil Mauger Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter Councillor Kelly Barber Councillor Melanie Coker Councillor Celeste Donovan Councillor Tyrone Fields Councillor James Gough – via audio / visual link Councillor Harrison-Hunt – via audio / visual link Councillor Victoria Henstock Councillor Yani Johanson Councillor Aaron Keown Councillor Sam MacDonald Councillor Jake McLellan Councillor Andrei Moore Councillor Mark Peters Councillor Tim Scandrett Councillor Sara Templeton |
|
|
Principal Advisor Jane Parfitt General Manager City Infrastructure Tel: 941 8999 |
Katie Matheis
Democratic Services Advisor
941 5643
Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz
Karakia Tīmatanga: All Councillors
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00033 That the apology from Councillor Harrison-Hunt for lateness be accepted.
Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried |
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
There were no declarations of interest recorded.
3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui
3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui
There were no public forum presentations.
3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
Councillor Harrison-Hunt joined the meeting via audio / video link at 9.54am during consideration of Item 3.2.5.
Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.04am and returned at 10.06am during consideration of Item 3.2.7.
Councillor Fields left the meeting at 10.05am and returned at 10.07am during consideration of Item 3.2.7.
3.2.1 – 3.2.8 |
Decision-making process for the Speed Management Pan Deputations The following presenters spoke regarding Item 5 - Decision-making process for the Speed Management Plan: |
Item 3.2.1 |
Fiona Bennetts |
Item 3.2.2 |
David McCormick |
Item 3.2.3 |
Bronte Barber |
Item 3.2.4 |
John Lieswyn, Chair, on behalf of Transportation Group New Zealand |
Item 3.2.5 |
Shane Binder |
Item 3.2.6 |
Harrison McEvoy and Jack Halliday on behalf of Greater Ōtautahi |
Item 3.2.7 |
Fiona Bennetts on behalf of Simon Kingham |
Item 3.2.8 |
Jonty Coulson on behalf of the UC Climate Action Club |
|
Attachments a 3.2.7 - Simon Kingham - Presentation to Council |
4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga
There was no presentation of petitions.
Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.16am and returned at 10.17am during consideration of Item 5.
Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at 10.36am and returned at 11.11am via audio / video link during consideration of Item 5.
The meeting adjourned at 10.36am and reconvened at 10.49am.
|
Council Officers Lynette Ellis, Stephen Wright, and Gemma Dioni joined the table to present Item 5 and answer questions from elected members.
The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor MacDonald. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder an additional provision was added to Resolution 1 (refer to italicised text below) regarding a commitment to proceed with a Hearings Panel before the end of the year.
The modified Officer Recommendations were then voted on by division and declared carried.
|
|
Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Proceed with Option 3 to pause the Hearings Panel process until the Government provides further guidance on any new Land Transport Rule relating to the setting of speed limits. 2. Note that a report will come back to Council for its consideration of next steps once staff have assessed the scope and impacts of any such new Land Transport Rule. 3. Note that the decision in this report is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
|
Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00034 That the Council: 1. Proceed with Option 3 to pause the Hearings Panel process until the Government provides further guidance on any new Land Transport Rule relating to the setting of speed limits and commit to a Hearings Panel proceeding before the end of the year. 2. Note that a report will come back to Council for its consideration of next steps once staff have assessed the scope and impacts of any such new Land Transport Rule. 3. Note that the decision in this report is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The division was declared carried by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows: For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett Against: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Templeton Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried |
Karakia Whakamutunga: All Councillors
Meeting concluded at 11.19am.
CONFIRMED THIS 1st DAY OF MAY 2024
Mayor Phil Mauger
Chairperson
01 May 2024 |
|
9. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/602439 |
Report of Te Pou Matua: |
The Chairpersons of all Community Boards |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community |
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of initiatives and issues recently considered by the Community Boards. This report attaches the most recent Community Board Area Report included in each Board's public meeting. Please see the individual agendas for the attachments to each report.
1.2 Each Board will present important matters from their respective areas during the consideration of this report and these presentations will be published with the Council minutes after the meeting.
2. Community Board Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu a te Poari Hapori
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2024 Report.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603756 |
42 |
b ⇩ |
Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603757 |
48 |
c ⇩ |
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603758 |
61 |
d ⇩ |
Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603759 |
70 |
e ⇩ |
Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603760 |
82 |
f ⇩ |
Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report April 2024 |
24/603761 |
87 |
01 May 2024 |
|
Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 11 April 2024
10. Worsleys Road Realignment - Legalisation |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/622894 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Stuart
McLeod, Property Consultant |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Jane Parfitt, General Manager City Infrastructure |
2. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council |
|
|
That the Council: 1. Pursuant to Sections 116 and 117(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 the Council resolves to make application to the Minister of Lands to stop that parcel road identified as Section 1 on SO Plan 585685, as detailed on Attachment A to the report (Worsleys Road Realignment – Legalisation, Title Plan SO 585685) on the meeting agenda, containing 0.3871ha and to declare it to be a local purpose (utility) reserve vested in the Christchurch City Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977. |
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Report Title |
Reference |
Page |
Worsleys Road Realignment - Legalisation |
22/1671200 |
97 |
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Section 1 Survey Office Plan 585685 |
24/534898 |
103 |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro: |
22/1671200 |
Report of / Te Pou Matua: |
Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant (stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz) |
General Manager / Pouwhakarae: |
Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management |
1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin
1.1 A Council Resolution is required to request the Minister of Lands to stop the part of Worsleys Road shown as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 585685 and to declare it to be a Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve.
1.2 This report is a result of Resource Consent conditions in Resource Consent RMA/2015/3550/F approving the Cashmere Estates subdivision. The consent requires the realignment of Worsleys Road for better traffic management and pedestrian safety reasons.
1.3 This report also seeks Community Board approval to grant easements over the newly declared reserve to protect existing infrastructure.
1.4 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the advantages of the new road alignment against the impact of the stopping the old road that is now grassed and bisects two Local Purpose (Utility) Reserves.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:
1. That pursuant to Sections 116 and 117(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 the Council resolves to make application to the Minister of Lands to stop that parcel road identified as Section 1 on SO Plan 585685, as detailed on Attachment A, containing 0.3871ha and to declare it to be a local purpose (utility) reserve vested in the Christchurch City Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and
2. Subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation, approves pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, the grant of
a. a right to convey telecommunications in gross to Enable New Zealand Limited over the parts shown “A” and “C” on SO 585685 and
b. a right to convey water in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council over the parts shown “B” and “C” on SO 585685
3. Recommends that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consent to the granting of the easement.
4. Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to finalise all documentation to implement the above resolutions numbered 1, 2a and 2b.
3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau
3.1 The above recommendations are to ensure there is consistency between the Outline Development Plan in District Plan and the way Council owns and manages its land holdings.
4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
4.1 Continue to hold the land as road, this option has the following
4.2 Advantages –
· Easements are not required over road.
4.3 Disadvantages –
· Does not reflect the intent of the District Plan.
· Does not provide continuity to the reserve land between the new Worsleys Road alignment and Cashmere Stream.
5. Detail Te Whakamahuki
5.1 Nearby land to the east of Worsleys Road is the subject of the Cashmere Estates multistage subdivision. Resource consent for this subdivision RMA/2015/3550 has been granted by the Council through the Resource Management Act 1991 process.
5.2 The
realignment of Worsleys Road is anticipated in Part 14 of the City Plan,
Subdivisions, (see below diagram). This road realignment helps mitigate the
effects of traffic movements from the Cashmere Estates subdivision and provides
a new shared cycle and pedestrian path. Once the old Worsleys Road is stopped
it will provide a continuous utility reserve from the new Worsleys Road
alignment to Cashmere Stream.
5.3 As
can be seen from the below photograph the road has now been grassed over and
for all intents and purposes forms part of the adjoining local purpose
(utility) reserve and is managed and maintained by the Parks Unit. To leave it as road creates adminstrative difficulties because it
would remain a road asset.
5.4 The stopping of the old road and declaration that it is held as local purpose (utility) reserve provides consistency with the adjoining reserve status and provides a contiguous area of open space not bisected by the legal Road.
5.5 A Council water main and an Enable telecommunications cable have been identified as being within the old Worsley Road alignment.
5.6 Once the road is stopped and declared to be Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve a right to drain water easement in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council and a telecommunications easement in gross in favour of Enable Services Limited will be granted.
5.7 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the granting of easements over reserves. If the reserve is not materially altered or permanently damage such advertising is not required, this is the case here.
5.8 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
5.8.1 Cashmere Ward, Waihoro Spreydon–Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board
6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro
6.1 The decisions in this report align with Section 14 of the District Plan.
6.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.3 Internal Activities
6.3.1 Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning
· Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes.
Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here
6.4 The decisions in this report are consistent with Council’s Road Stopping Policy and District Plan. They:
· Reflect the intent of the District Plan and
· Are consistent with the Councils Road Stopping Policy
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.5 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.
6.6 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga
6.7 The affected land has not been identified as being of cultural significance to Ngai Tahu. Any relevant cultural matters would have been considered in the Resource Consent Application and subsequent assessment by Councils planning staff.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.8 The decisions in this report are procedural in nature and do not impact on climate change.
Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
6.9 Accessibility has been improved with the new road corridor making provision for a shared footpath and cycle way.
7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 Cost to Implement - Staff time and legal fees for processing.
7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Ongoing maintenance (mowing).
7.3 Funding Source – Parks Operational budget.
Other He mea anō
7.4 None
8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa
8.1 There are two statutory processes under which road stoppings can be enacted. The authority to determine which statutory procedure should be employed to undertake a particular road stopping (either under the Local Government Act 1974 or under the Public Works Act 1981) is delegated to staff. The Policy establishes:
4.5 The following criteria have been established to ensure that the appropriate statutory procedure is consistently adopted by the Council, and to avoid, as much as is practicable, such decisions being successfully contested by any party.
Local Government Act 1974 process
4.6 The Local Government Act 1974 road-stopping procedure will be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
a. Where any public right of access to any public space could be removed or materially limited or extinguished as a result of the road being stopped; or
b. If it is found through the review process that the road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or
c. The road stopping is, in the judgment of the Council, likely to be controversial; or
d. If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road; or
e. The Public Works Act 1981 process is not able to be used, or is not used.
Public Works Act 1981 process
4.7 The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted only if all of the following circumstances apply:
a. Where there are no more than two properties, other than the applicant’s property, adjoining the road proposed to be stopped;
b. Where the written consent to the proposed road stopping of all adjoining landowners (other than the applicant) to the proposed road-stopping is obtained;
c. Where no other persons, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;
d. Where the road proposed to be stopped is to be amalgamated with the adjoining property or properties (as appropriate); and
e. Where other reasonable access exists or will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the road proposed to be stopped (i.e. by the construction of a new road); and
f. Where the use of the Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure is approved by the relevant Government department or Minister.
4.8 If any one of the circumstances referred to in clause 4.7 does not apply, then the Local
Government Act 1974 process must be used.
8.2 In this instance staff have determined that the proposed road stopping meets the Public Works act criteria.
8.3 Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981 authorises the Minister of Lands to stop roads and section 117(7) allows the Minister to declare any stopped road to be added to adjoining reserve land.
8.4 The authority for council to grant easements over reserves sits within section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, Council has subdelegated this authority to the local Community Boards, Delegations Register Part D – Sub Part 1 page 96
8.5 The consent of the Minister of Conservation is also required for the grant of easements over reserves, the Minister has delegated this requirement to the Council who have subsequently delegated it to the Chief Executive. The Board can recommend the Chief Executive to exercise his/her delegation on behalf of the Minster.
Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture
8.6 There is no other legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.
9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
9.1 There are no identified significant risks in the decisions requested in this report. There is a minor risk the Minister of Lands will not stop the road and vest it as reserve or the Minister of Conservation will not consent to the easements.
9.2 If that were to be the case the Council could either do nothing in which case the land status would remain as legal road or it could consider using the Local Government 1974 procedure to stop the road and the Reserves Act procedures to declare the land to be a reserve and grant easements over it.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a |
Section 1 Survey Office Plan 585685 |
24/534898 |
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture
Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002). (a) This report contains: (i) sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and (ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement. (b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy. |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant |
Approved By |
Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy Andrew Milne - Team Leader Asset Planning Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management |
01 May 2024 |
|
Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 11 April 2024
11. Former Opawa Children's Library Building - Expression of Interest, Results and Recommendation |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/623066 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Barry
Woodland, Property Consultant |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community |
1. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu |
|
|
That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receive the report and acknowledge the staff summary and outcomes from the EOI process. Recommend to Council that Council: 2. Approve the removal of the building and subsequent remediation of the site to its natural state. 3. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the removal of the building and remediation of the site. |
2. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna |
|
|
That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receives the report and notes that, as per staff’s verbal update to the meeting, no viable proposals to take ownership of and relocate the Building have been received. 2. Notes that Staff will progress options to relocate the building and remediate the site to its natural state with other interested parties.
|
3. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council |
|
|
That the Council: 3. Notes: a. The existing Council resolution (CNCL/2022/00076) to approve the removal of the Building from its current flood prone location if no purchase or relocation options arise from an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process. b. That the proposal from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust to take ownership of and relocate the Building to the Smith Street community garden was withdrawn after the report on the Community Board agenda. 4. Requires staff to further explore relocation options as a preference prior to demolition. 5. Any relocation option is conditional upon: a. An achievable option being established within three months of this resolution. b. The cost of any relocation being within the $40,000 council budget provision including remediation of the current site. 6. Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to make all decisions, enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary at their sole discretion to implement the demolition or relocation of the building and remediation of the site, without further formal reporting back to the Community Board or Council.
|
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Report Title |
Reference |
Page |
Former Opawa Children's Library Building - Expression of Interest, Results and Recommendation |
23/2108074 |
107 |
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
EOI Document |
22/1246824 |
116 |
b ⇩ |
Smith Street Community Farm Trust EOI Proposal - December 2023 |
24/535107 |
144 |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin
1.1 The purpose of the report is to seek a delegation, for the Manager Property Consultancy, to implement the removal of the former Opawa Children’s Library building and remediation of the site.
1.2 In
July 2023, the Community Board resolved (SCBCC/2023/00055)
that staff make further attempts to find a new owner for the former Opawa
Children’s Library and report back to the Community Board if a viable
option is found.
1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the limited number of people affected by the decision given that no substantive or sustainable proposals to purchase and relocate the building were received during the EOI process.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:
1. Receive the report and acknowledge the staff summary and outcomes from the EOI process.
Recommend to Council that Council:
2. Approve the removal of the building and subsequent remediation of the site to its natural state.
3. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the removal of the building and remediation of the site.
3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau
3.1 The former Opawa Children’s Library (the Building) has been closed since 2020.
3.2 The building is no longer required for operational use and needs to be removed from its current site.
3.3
![]() |
3.4 Following the expression of interest process, no viable options emerged.
3.5 In July 2023, the Community Board resolved (SCBCC/2023/00055) that staff make further attempts to find a new owner for the former Opawa Children’s Library and report back to the Community Board if a viable option is found.
3.6 One viable proposal to take ownership of and relocate the Building has been received from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust (the Trust).
3.7 This report recommends that the Board delegate, to the Manager Property Consultancy, the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the removal of the building and remediation of the site with the Trust.
4. Preferred Option
4.1 A proposal to take ownership of the Building has been received from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust (the Trust).
4.2 The Trust’s formal EOI proposal, appended as Attachment B, demonstrates their capacity to decommission and remove the Building from the site, remediate the site, establish the Building on a new site and continue to own and use the Building as a community asset.
4.3 The Trust propose that the Building is relocated to the Smith Street Gardens site, 180 Smith Street. The Trust have recently been granted a lease for this site by Christchurch City Council.
4.4 The Trust’s kaupapa is to develop local food resilience. They do this by providing a thriving urban garden where people can come together to grow, learn and share their knowledge and skills.
4.5 The Trust’s mission is to facilitate access to healthy food and to provide education on sustainable agriculture. Their community farm provides a space for the community people to participate in, and benefit from, this.
4.6 The Trust plan to continue to develop the garden site with the addition of the Building, in such a way that it is an asset to the community and a prime example of how sustainable good food resilience is being achieved and developed in an urban setting.
4.7 In addition to providing further opportunities for the local community it will enable the Trust to further develop its existing ‘partnerships’ with the Biological Husbandry Unit / Lincoln University, Woolston Development Project, Land Based Training Limited and other like-minded organisations.
4.8 For not-for-profit, incorporated, community organisations, a key element of the EOI process required the successful respondent to remove and relocate the Building for a sustainable community use at no cost to Council.
4.9 The Trust estimate the costs of removing and relocating the Building are around $50,000. A sum of $40,000 is available from Christchurch City Council (representing the estimated cost to Council to demolish the Building and remediate the site).
4.10 The Trust estimate that an additional $20,000 to $50,000 will be needed to recommission the Building once it is relocated. This includes relevant consents, electrics, installation of suitable ablutions and accessible ramps for access. The Trust propose to cover these costs through applications to funders and through pro bono support from volunteers.
4.11 The Trust are discussing options for additional funding support with relevant staff and local funding entities.
4.12 Staff have assessed the Trust’s proposal and are confident that, with continued support of local community development staff, the Trust have the capacity and capability to implement their plans and relocate the Building.
5. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
5.1 Status quo – leave the building insitu and vacant.
5.2 From a reputational perspective it is not ideal to hold on to a building in a high hazard flood zone where Council rules say we should not have any structures at all.
5.3 The Building will continue to deteriorate, be subject to potential inundation if a significant flood event occurs and prone to vandalism / arson. There are no advantages with this option.
Not a practical or sustainable option.
5.4 Re-issue the EOI – the original EOI was well distributed across various mediums without any tangible, sustainable, interest from private operators or community groups.
5.5 Following a community board resolution, staff have been working with the community for a further six-months to find a solution (which is the subject of this report).
5.6 Re-issuing the EOI would incur further staff time and costs without any certainty of a positive outcome.
Not recommended.
5.7 Relocate and store the building on a CCC site
5.8 This option would incur costs to remove the Building, remediate the existing site and relocate the Building to an alternative CCC owned site.
5.9 If a suitable site could be identified (there are no sites known currently), the Building would remain vacant and subject to deterioration, vandalism and arson for an indeterminate period of time.
5.10 Should a use for the Building be identified in the future, Council would incur additional relocation, holding, commissioning and set up costs.
Not recommended.
5.11 Demolition
5.12 Staff sought a recommendation for demolition in July 2023 and, while a future community use for the building has been found, demolition remains a viable option.
5.13 There is no allocated LTP funding specifically assigned to the maintenance and repair of the Building which will continue to deteriorate if left insitu (having been vacant since 2020).
5.14 Demolition and removal of the vacant Building from the site will remove the ongoing risk (and cost) of vandalism and arson and the increasing risk from flooding and inundation. It will also enable Council to remove itself from land which has no title and over which it has no occupation agreement. Remediating the land will help to enhance the natural river-bank ecology of the site.
5.15 Should the Board wish to pursue this option they could recommend to Council that Council:
a. Approve the immediate demolition of the building and subsequent remediation of the site to its natural state.
b. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the demolition of the building and remediation of the site.
6. Detail Te Whakamahuki
Future Use
6.1 The single storey Opawa Children’s Library building was originally the social hall on the upper storey of the New Brighton Fire Station from c1930 to 1965 and was relocated to the banks of the Heathcote River in 1965.
6.2 The Building has been closed since 2020 and is no longer required for operational purposes by the asset owner, Community Support and Partnerships.
6.3 Furthermore, the Building is:
· located in a High Flood Hazard Management Area;
· susceptible to coastal inundation;
· within the orange tsunami evacuation zone;
· situated in a ‘hydro parcel’ between legal road and the Heathcote River; and is
· situated on the land which has no title and for which no occupation agreement exists.
6.4 With a view to determining its future use the Council resolved at its meeting on 11 August 2022 as follows:
6.5 In context the Community Board’s preference was, where possible, to identify a community group prepared, and financially able, to relocate, recommission and operate the building.
6.6 Short to medium term use of the building (pending relocation or demolition) is an option but would involve further administrative, management and maintenance costs for Council on a building which needs to be removed from its high flood zone location.
6.7 The following text (paragraphs 6.8 to 6.28) summarising the outcome of this EOI process was reported to the Community Board’s July 2023 meeting.
Expression of Interest
6.9 In broad terms Private Operators and Community Organisations were required to:
· decommission and remove the building from the site;
· remediate the site;
· establish the building on a new site (leased or owned by the applicant);
· provide evidence of the financial capability and resources, and;
· in the case of Community Organisations, provide details of the proposed community use for the building – all at no cost to Council.
6.10 A Council contribution of $40,000 was available to prospective respondents, being the estimated equivalent cost to Council of demolishing the building and remediating the site.
Expression of Interest - Outcomes
Applications from Private Operators or Community Groups
6.11 Only one completed, formal, EOI application was received by the closing date for submissions. Three other informal enquiries were received. These were followed up by staff and reported as follows.
Formal EOI Application
6.12 Glenys Crompton: the respondent proposed to relocate the building for private residential use. However, after undertaking due diligence the proposal was withdrawn on 29 March 2022. The reasoning cited the significant costs required to decommission, relocate and re-establish the building and services on a new site together with the associated consenting and compliance costs and the cost to remediate the existing site.
Informal EOI Enquiries
6.13 Immediately prior to the closing date for applications staff received two other informal enquiries from two community- based organisations.
6.14 Ferrymead Trust: contemplated the use of the building within the Ferrymead Heritage Park. The Trust were granted an extension until 31 January 2023 to submit a completed EOI. This was not forthcoming.
6.15 Based on the discussions with, and general feedback provided by, the Trust before and after 31 January, staff advised the Trust on 1 March that it would be recommending to the Board not to proceed with the Trust’s informal interest for the following reasons:
· Ferrymead Trust has insufficient existing funds to facilitate this opportunity in this current economic climate.
· Staff are of the opinion that the minimum requirements under Option 1 of the EOI cannot be met by Ferrymead Trust given their current financial position.
· The Trust are not in a position to consider the proposal further without significant Council investment and undertakings regarding consenting and engineering requirements and costs associated with the relocation of the building.
· Ferrymead Trust has confirmed that it does not have spare funds and have indicated that it is not prepared to divert funds in a hasty speculative course of action which could come to nothing.
6.16 Riverlution Tiny House Village (RTHV): contemplated the use of the building as a community building associated with the proposed Riverlution eco-village on residential red zoned land in Richmond.
6.17 Following further correspondence and consideration RTHV withdrew their interest on 7 March 2023 confirming that “our RTHV team have considered the opportunity to apply, but decided that we don’t have enough certainty of a future lease to go forward with an application and the risk of taking on a building. We’re still in the situation that RTHV have a licence for investigative works for a Richmond RRZ edge housing site, and we can’t apply for a lease for this site (which will be a significant process) until we’ve completed more due diligence and until LINZ complete handover for this RRZ tranche and CCC have co-governance lease application model in place. It’s unlikely all these factors will come together for at least another 6+ months”.
6.18 It is noted that the edge housing superlot has now been transferred to Council and a co-governance is in place. However, a framework for agreeing how third-party proposals (including housing) will be assessed is still being worked through together with the terms and conditions associated with that process. A decision to deal unilaterally with RTHV would then be required which would likely be associated with a lengthy LGA consultation and Council approvals process. Aligned to this RTHV would need to undertake its own due diligence and demonstrate a financially sustainable business case. This process could take in excess of 6 months to complete.
Post EOI Proposal
6.19 Staff worked extensively with a private individual who, after expressing interest during the EOI timeframe, then presented a formal proposal on 14 June 2023 to relocate the building.
6.20 Tina von Pien: proposed to adapt the building for residential purposes as a Tiny Home subject to securing a suitable residential section. Unfortunately, following an extensive search, her proposal was subsequently withdrawn due to new sections generally having covenants against relocatable buildings and the paucity of older sections (with no covenants) and their tendency to be snapped up by developers.
EOI Enquiries for Short Term Use
6.21 Although we received a number of general enquiries regarding temporary short to medium use of the building no detailed EOI applications were received.
6.22 The enquiries included use for the display of artworks, storage hire and art classes/workshops.
6.23 These were not pursued in any detail pending the outcome of the EOI and potential building relocation options from private or community-based operators.
Proposed Next Steps
6.24 In the absence of any substantive proposals to purchase and relocate the building staff propose to initiate a process to demolish the building and remediate the site in line with the general intent of the prior Council resolution referred to in paragraph 5.4.
Community Views and Preferences
6.25 As outlined in the initial report to the previous Board the building has been vacant for several years, is situated in an undefined land parcel and occupies a high hazard prone riverside location which is likely to become increasingly subject to climate change vulnerability at greater cost to Council and the ratepayer.
6.26 In this context, and given that we have received no substantive or sustainable interest in relocating the building, the demolition of the building is arguably the only financially prudent and practical option.
6.27 Although the views and preferences of the community have not been directly considered the response (or lack of it) to the EOI process has been informative. Prior to the EOI being released details of the building were circulated to all Heads of Service (and disseminated to their respective teams) and also to the Community Governance Managers representing the various community boards city-wide.
6.28 The decision affects the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area.
6.29 This report to the Community Board’s July 2023 meeting precipitated a request for staff to make further attempts to find a new owner for the library and to report back to the Community Board – which is the purpose of this report.
7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro
7.1 Disposal / demolition of the building is in keeping with the Council’s financial strategy of maintaining a policy of financial prudence through managing assets.
7.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
7.3 Communities and Citizens
7.3.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities
· Level of Service: 2.0.1.2 Review and identify community facilities surplus to requirement and recommend a course of action - All agreed actions implemented for 2021/22
Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here
7.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies regarding the disposal / demolition of the building following public tender in the open market.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
7.5 Previous advice from the Senior Advisor Treaty Relationships confirmed that the decision (to remove the building) does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.
7.6 However, the library setting is of archaeological significance for its location on the banks of the Heathcote River, a place of early Ngai Tahu activity, an important food gathering place and part of the interconnected network of travel routes that crossed the widespread wetland system of greater Christchurch.
7.7 As such the removal of the building and restoration of the river-bank will return the land to its original natural state.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
7.8 The removal of the building and concrete access path and footings will help to replenish and preserve the natural ecology of the site and reduce the Council’s carbon footprint.
7.9 In terms of responding positively to climate change vulnerability its removal will take away a potential impediment in the event of flooding and therefore improve the rivers capacity and ability to deal with future flood events.
7.10 The vacant building has recently been the subject of several break-in attempts. Its removal will remove the potential risk of further unsocial behaviours, vandalism and / or arson.
Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
7.11 N/A.
8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
8.1 Cost to Implement:
8.1.1 Demolition and site remediation: estimated cost to Council $35,000 to $40,000 plus GST.
8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs:
8.2.1 Interim costs prior to demolition: insurance, staff costs, repair and maintenance (if required).
8.3 Funding Source:
8.3.1 Demolition Costs: covered by the Community Facilities Tranche 2 Programme.
8.3.2 Interim costs prior to demolition: covered by existing Community Support and Partnerships operational budgets.
Other He mea anō
8.4 N/A.
9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa
9.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.
Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture
9.2 The legal consideration is that the Council does not own, or have an occupation agreement over, the land on which the building is situated.
10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
10.1 The Crown, as likely administrator of the land, could seek for the building to be removed at some future date if the Council does not do so in accordance with this report.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a |
EOI Document |
22/1246824 |
|
b |
Smith Street Community Farm Trust EOI Proposal - December 2023 |
24/535107 |
|
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 |
Barry Woodland - Property Consultant Matthew Pratt - Community Facilites & Activation Manager |
Approved By |
Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships |
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/543704 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Jane Parfitt, General Manager City Infrastructure |
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council resolution about what parts of Plan Change 14 (PC14) Council intends to decide on in September, and what parts it intends to delay deciding on until 2025.
1.2 The Council requested the Minister for the Environment to allow the Council to pause hearings on PC14 on 8 December 2023. Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for Resource Management Reform and Housing, in his response to Council, directed that decisions be made on those aspects of Plan Change 14 that implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by 12 September 2024. Decisions on those aspects that do not implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD are not required until December 2025. A Council resolution now about whether, and how, the Council intends to split its decision-making in September will enable the Council to request the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to issue its recommendations in a way that helps the Council to split its decision making.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Plan Change 14 Staging of Decision Report.
2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as Medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Agree that its decision by 12 September 2024 on the IHP’s recommendations on PC14 will be confined to (option 1 in this report):
a. Those parts of Plan Change 14 that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, including the rezoning of land in Sydenham to Mixed-use, and
b. Related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones within policy 3 and 4 areas; and
c. Financial contributions for tree canopy cover across all relevant zones (including beyond NPS-UD areas).
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 The Council is required to make decisions on those aspects of proposed Plan Change 14 (Housing and Business Choice) that implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by 12 September 2024. Beyond this, Council has until December 2025 to make decisions on the remainder of PC14.
3.2 Hearings resumed on Monday 15 April 2024 and ended on 24 April 2024 with the Council’s Right of Reply to be filed by 10 May 2024. The IHP intends to deliver a report with its recommendations to Council in July.
3.3 The Council’s decision-making process after it receives the IHP’s recommendation report will be more efficient and have reduced risks if the IHP structures its recommendations in a way that corresponds to the Council’s intended split in its decision-making. A Council resolution now about whether and how it intends to split that decision making will enable the Council’s Right of Reply to explain that intended to the IHP, so that the IHP can consider whether they want to structure their recommendations in a manner that assists the process.
3.4 Council staff do not know whether the IHP will be able to facilitate the Council’s decision-making process in that way. The IHP have issued a Minute in which they noted the challenges they face in separating their recommendations on the parts of the plan change that implement the NPS-UD from those parts that implement MDRS [1]; however, it is still appropriate that the Council ask the IHP to do that if they can. In order to request the IHP to do that, Council needs to indicate the manner in which it intends to split its decision-making.
3.5 This report describes several options for whether and how the Council could split its decision making in September. It recommends an option in which the Council’s September decision is to implement:
(a) Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD including the rezoning of land in Sydenham to Mixed-use; and
(b) The MDRS solely within the NPS-UD Policy 3 and Policy 4 areas; and
(c ) Related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones, that support or are consequential on implementing policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD within policy 3 and 4 areas; and
(d) Financial contributions for tree canopy cover across all relevant zones (including beyond NPS-UD areas).
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 Plan Change 14 is the Council’s response to national direction in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RM Amendment Act), by enabling intensification in and around commercial areas and permitting development in accordance with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in the District Plan except where a qualifying matter necessitates limiting that development.
4.2 In the Coalition Agreement, it was indicated that the government intends to make the MDRS optional for councils and thereafter, the Council resolved on 6 December 2023 to request the Minister to issue a gazette notice to enable a pause to the hearings and for an extension to the date for the Council to make a decision on the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel.
4.3 Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing and RM Reform, responded to the Council in two letters on 29 February 2024 and 26 March 2024. The Minister directed the Council to make decisions on implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development by September 2024 and that for those parts of the plan change not subject to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, the Council does not have to issues decisions until December 2025. Minister Bishop advised in his letter of 29 February 2024 -
"I do not support a further extension of time for the council to complete the [National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD)] aspects of PC14. As such, these aspects should be completed by the current deadline of 12 September 2024."
4.4 The subsequent letter of 26 March noted that “I (Minister Bishop) consider this extension request will still maintain an expeditious planning process, by the Resource Management Act, particularly in light of the additional development capacity that will be introduced this year through the implementation of the NPS-UD parts of Plan Change 14”.
4.5 After receipt of the first letter, the IHP signalled its intentions, subject to any further Ministerial directions and views of the Council or submitters, to issue a recommendations report on the whole of PC14. The IHP expressed concern that:
"there may be both legal and practical difficulties in being able to extract matters that are solely related to the MDRS and those matters solely related to the implementation of the NPS-UD given the Plan Change and much of the evidence and submissions address the issues as an integrated package" (Paragraph 9, Minute 34).
4.6 At paragraph [10] of Minute 34, the IHP advised, however, that in making its recommendations it "would still endeavour, wherever possible, to identify matters that are solely related to the implementation of the MDRS to assist the Council with its decision-making".
4.7 Council wants to present its proposed split in provisions to the IHP in the Council’s right of reply after the hearing in a way that shows the IHP the manner in which the Council would be splitting its decision-making process in September. A Council resolution now will provide the basis for that.
4.8 Policy 3 of the NPS-UD (as amended by the Amendment Act) directs the enablement of building heights and density that are differentiated according to a hierarchy of commercial centre zonings, or proximity to those centres. Plan Change 14 therefore proposes the following:
(a) in city centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification; and
(b) building heights of at least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of (relevantly) the edge of city centre zones; and
(c) within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activities and community services.
4.9 Policy 4 allows those requirements to be modified to reflect a qualifying matter, being those circumstances where the level of intensification directed by Policy 3 is inappropriate and allows for heights and densities to be reduced only to the extent necessary. Examples include coastal hazards and heritage.
4.10 In implementing policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, the Council has proposed greater height limits in and around the Central City and suburban centres with walkable distances used to inform the extent of areas enabled for higher densities. These are best expressed as catchments around each centre. Beyond the ‘catchments’, the application of MDRS zones areas as Medium Density Residential, enabling 3 houses per site up to 3 storeys, amongst other provisions.
4.11 On the basis that the catchments are the extent of the areas to implement the NPS-UD, decisions on these areas could be made by September 2024 to satisfy the Minister’s expectations.
4.12 MDRS applies as a baseline within the catchments i.e. the starting point has been 3 storeys within a walkable distance of centres. Despite the indication that MDRS will become optional, there is not time for the IHP or the Council to remove the baseline of MDRS by September 2024.
4.13 Accordingly, the sole option for the Council is to apply MDRS within the NPS-UD areas when the Council makes its decisions on the IHP recommendations in September 2024. It is beyond these areas that it can defer decisions until December 2025 or earlier, subject to legislative change. Once the MDRS is optional, Council may have the ability to start another plan change to review the MDRS b as a baseline in the NPS-UD areas.
4.14 Beyond implementing policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and MDRS, section 80E provides discretion for Council to also include the following in its plan change –
(i) Provisions relating to financial contributions …
(ii) Provisions to enable papakāinga housing in the district
(iii) related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones, that support or are consequential on—
(A) the MDRS; or
(B) policies 3, 4, and 5 of the NPS-UD, as applicable.
4.15 ”Related provisions” in sub-clause (2) includes (amongst others) district-wide matters; earthworks; fencing: infrastructure; qualifying matters identified in accordance with section 77I or 77O; storm water management (including permeability and hydraulic neutrality), and subdivision of land.
4.16 To summarise, Council had discretion to include additional matters in Plan Change 14, the most notable examples being:
· financial contributions for tree canopy cover
· amendments to policies and rules beyond MDRS and to implement policy 3. This includes changes to policies and rules in the earthworks and transport chapters.
4.17 The following related information session has taken place for the members of the meeting:
Date |
Subject |
9 April 2024 |
Information Session on Plan Change 14
process/ next steps
|
Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.18 The following reasonably practicable options for whether, and if so how, the Council splits its decision making on PC14 in September 2024 have been considered and are assessed in this report.
· Option 1: NPS-UD implementation and related matters (NPS areas only) and Financial Contributions (City-wide) - Decisions on those parts of Plan Change 14 that:
- Implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD (including MDRS as a baseline in policy 3 areas and the rezoning of Sydenham to Mixed-use);
- related provisions in areas that implement policies 3 and 4; and
- financial contributions across all relevant zones (including beyond NPS-UD areas).
· Option 2: NPS-UD implementation, related matters and Financial Contributions (NPS-UD areas only) - Decisions on those parts of Plan Change 14 as per option 1 but limiting the scope of financial contributions for tree canopy and related provisions to NPS-UD areas.
· Option 3: NPS-UD implementation, related matters only - Decisions on only those aspects that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and related provisions.
· Option 4: Whole of Plan Change 14 - Decisions by council on the whole of plan change 14.
4.19 The following options were considered but ruled out:
· No decision - The Council signal that it will not make decisions on any aspect of Plan Change 14 by September 2024. This would breach the Council’s legal obligation to make decisions by 12 September 2024.
Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa
(A) Option Description:
Those aspects that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. This includes (but is not limited to) rezoning of land within a walkable distance of the City Centre zone to mixed use to implement Policy 3 of the NPS-UD while achieving broader outcomes defined in Policy 1 of the NPS-UD (rezoning of Sydenham to Mixed-use);
Related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones, that support or are consequential on implementing policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and including MDRS within policy 3 areas; and
Financial contributions for tree canopy cover for all relevant zones as per Plan Change 14.
(B) Option Advantages
· Addresses Minister’s expectations for Council to implement the NPS-UD
· This option enables a later decision on those parts of the plan change outside areas defined to implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. In doing so, it enables consideration of changes to legislation to make MDRS optional before Council makes decisions on affected areas.
· The option enables more time to consider the appropriate provision made for intensification beyond areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. This is on the assumption that MDRS is made optional.
(C) Option Disadvantages
· The splitting of Plan Change 14 does not enable consideration of the outcomes for those areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD without MDRS beyond this i.e. it is not an integrated approach and may give rise to adverse effects at the interface between policy 3 areas and the adjoining environment in the intervening period before there is a response for non-Policy 3 area.
· Depending on how the IHP structures its recommendations to the Council, the Council’s decision making may need to resolve ambiguity as to the areas that recommendations relate to, being in part those areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD i.e. in and around centres while also introducing city-wide provisions i.e. Financial contributions for tree canopy cover.
· This option will further delay a Plan response for those areas outside of Policy 3 areas, potentially delaying or ending prospective development opportunities.
4.21 Option 2: NPS-UD implementation, related matters and Financial Contributions (NPS-UD areas only)
(A) Option Description: Same as Option 1 with provisions on financial contributions for tree canopy cover limited to those areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.
(B) Option Advantages
· Refer to Option 1
· In geographic terms, the plan change would be focussed on only those areas defined to implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD including the rezoning of Sydenham.
(C) Option Disadvantages
· Refer to Option 1
· It does not provide for retention of tree canopy cover in suburban areas beyond NPS-UD areas or payment of financial contributions towards tree canopy until a future date. In the interim period, it may give rise to the loss of tree canopy cover.
· There is also the risk that the Council lose the ability to introduce financial contributions and/or any reduced rights of appeal are removed through forthcoming changes to the RMA.
4.22 Option 3: NPS-UD implementation, related matters only:
(A) Option Description: This option is more narrowly defined than options 1 and 2 and proposes that Council’s September decision on the IHP recommendations is solely made on those aspects of Plan Change 14 that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and related matters.
(B) Option Advantages
· Addresses Minister’s expectations for Council to implement the NPS-UD
· This option enables a later decision on those parts of the plan change outside areas defined to implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. In doing so, it enables consideration of changes made to legislation to make MDRS optional before Council makes decisions on affected areas.
· The option enables more time to consider the appropriate provision made for intensification beyond areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. This is on the assumption that MDRS is made optional.
(C) Option Disadvantages
· The splitting of Plan Change 14 does not enable consideration of the outcomes for those areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD without MDRS beyond this i.e. it is not an integrated approach and may give rise to adverse effects at the interface between policy 3 areas and the adjoining environment.
· This option may not satisfy concerns of submitters about the implications of use of the MDRS as a baseline within areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.
4.23 Option 4: Whole of Plan Change 14
(A) Option Description: Council’s September 2024 decision on the IHP recommendations is on all of Plan Change 14 without any splitting of the decision-making.
(B) Option Advantages
· Addresses Minister’s expectations for Council to implement the NPS-UD.
· Recognition of the challenges in splitting the decision, having regard to the integrated nature of the plan change in implementing the NPS-UD and MDRS.
· Most efficient approach in the timeframes to enable decisions by 12 September 2024.
· The plan change remains as an integrated package, recognising the relationship between the different aspects e.g. interface between NPS-UD areas and the surrounding environment, zoned Medium Density.
· It would benefit from the advantages associated with use of a streamlined planning process introduced with MDRS i.e. reduced appeal rights.
(C) Option Disadvantages
· Council would be making MDRS operative outside NPS-UD areas prior to legislative changes that make MDRS optional and changes proposed to the NPS-UD. As a consequence, there could be inefficiencies if Council wants to amend the District Plan to undo aspects of Plan Change 14.
· Any future plan change to remove development rights established under this option could be a lengthy process with significant costs, for example, appeals of any decisions.
Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina
4.24 The evaluation of the options above has regard to the following criteria -
(A) Practicalities – The extent to which the option can be implemented, for example the extent to which plan change 14 can be split to only consider matters that implement the NPS-UD.
(B) Efficiencies – The efficiencies achieved in delivering each of the options, having regard to the benefits and costs.
(C) Effectiveness – The effectiveness of the option and whether it will provide an integrated package that manages effects particularly at the interface between areas that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and other areas.
(D) Outcomes – The extent to which the outcomes achieved are appropriate.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
Recommended Option NPS-UD + City-wide FCs |
Option 2 |
Option 3 NPS-UD areas only |
Option 4 All of Plan Change 14 |
Cost to Implement |
Decision potentially reduces costs before Council’s decision in September in enabling staged decision-making. |
Reduced costs in not necessitating the splitting of recommendations |
||
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Funding Source |
Within existing budget for Planning |
Within existing budget for Planning |
Within existing budget for Planning |
Within existing budget for Planning |
Funding Availability |
Funded in LTP |
Funded in LTP |
Funded in LTP |
Funded in LTP |
Impact on Rates |
No additional impact beyond LTP |
No additional impact beyond LTP |
No additional impact beyond LTP |
No additional impact beyond LTP |
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 One of the purposes of this report is to reduce the risk of costs, delays and inefficiencies following receipt of the IHP recommendations in converting them to enable staged decision-making by Council in September 2024 on the recommendations. The resolutions sought in this report are intended to help alleviate that risk, by enabling the IHP to structure its recommendations in a manner that helps reduce those risks, delays and inefficiencies.
6.2 However, the IHP are independent of Council and will make their own decision about whether and how they frame and partition their recommendations. If the IHP’s recommendations are not structured in a manner that facilitates the Council’s intended split of decision making in September, Council staff and consultants will be under significant time pressures to present recommendations to Council in a suitable way before the deadline of 12 September 2024.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
(A) The Minister for Resource Management Reform and Housing has directed that the Council is to decide on only part of PC14 by 12 September 2024 and decide on the balance of PC14 by December 2025.
(B) Central government’s indications are that it will be changing the RMA to make implementing the MDRS optional later in 2024. The Council’s 2025 decisions on the balance of PC14 would be in that context.
6.4 Other Legal Implications:
(A) Other legal considerations are described throughout this report.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
6.5 The required decision:
(A) Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.
(B) Is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the nature of the decision that is setting the parameters for Council’s position to the IHP. It is of a high level of interest to stakeholders and the public and will influence the timing of decisions on urban form outcomes for Ōtautahi Christchurch.
(C) Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
6.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy
(A) Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration
· Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan. - Maintain operative District Plan, including monitoring outcomes to inform changes, and giving effect to national and regional policy statements
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
6.8 The decisions in this report are of significant interest to the community. While the outcome of the IHP’s recommendation and Council’s decision will impact the communities affected, this report is about the matters that Council wishes to make decisions on by 12 September 2024.
6.9 The decision affects all of the Community Board areas. The views of the Community Boards are expressed in their submissions and verbal presentation to the Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.10 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.
6.11 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
6.12 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
6.13 The decision in this report is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions as it is a decision about process, not about the content of the District Plan.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 The Council will file its Right of Reply by the 10th May 2024, which will be informed by Council’s decision on this report. Thereafter, the IHP will prepare their recommendations, which are anticipated to be received by Council by 19th July. Thereafter, an Information Session is proposed and report to Council for a decision on Plan Change 14.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
There are no attachments to this report.
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel |
Approved By |
Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to decide on the future of the Gloucester Street trial between Manchester and Colombo Streets.
1.2 The report is created by staff.
1.3 The current resolution relating to the trial on Gloucester Street states that it must finish by 30 June 2024.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period Report.
2. Agree to retain the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) trial layout until 31 October 2024, to allow time for a Hearings Panel to review feedback from the trial and make a recommendation to Council regarding its long-term future.
3. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 The Gloucester Street Shared Space trial has been carried out under the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) “Streets for People” (SfP) programme, which covers 90% of the costs. However, the Streets for People funding window closes at the end of June 2024.
3.2 Monitoring and evaluation work carried out during the formal trial period, which finished on 18 March 2024, is currently being processed and analysed. Staff will be preparing reports with the results of both the public feedback and technical traffic data which will be made available to the Hearings Panel for its consideration when convened later this year.
3.3 Staff have been advised that a Hearing will likely not be possible until August 2024, therefore it is unlikely that a recommendation to the Council on the long-term future of the street could be made before October 2024.
3.4 With NZTA’s Streets for People funding window closing at the end of June 2024, a decision needs to be made on the future of the trial layout beyond June 2024.
3.5 Council staff have considered a range of options for Gloucester Street and have recommended that the trial layout remain in place beyond June 2024, while the decision-making process is taking place, until a final decision is made on whether to revert Gloucester Street to its original layout or retain the trial layout.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
Background
4.1 The current Gloucester Street project aims to trial a shared street to create a more people-focused environment.
4.1.1 The work is 90% funded through NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi’s (NZTA) Streets for People (SfP) programme. This programme does not have funding after June 2024, so any work after this date would be a Council liability.
4.1.2 The street was selected due to its strategic location as a link between many attractions and key locations within the Central City. The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan assumed this road had a key function as a vehicular access to two car parks, however, due to changes in development patterns the street will not fulfill this role.
4.1.3 After a decision by Council on 6 September 2023, the trial layout was installed in December 2023.
4.1.4 The formal trial period finished on 18 March 2024.
4.1.5 However, the decision included a clause to “Authorise the trial up until June 2024”, so the trial layout will remain until the end of the financial year.
4.2 In the lead up to, and throughout the trial, this project has been high-profile and polarising. A number of media stories have run, with Elected Members, Members of Parliament, newspaper columnists, local developers, renowned urban designers, and others expressing their views. The project has also been nominated for a placemaking award.
Trial and Feedback
4.3 During the trial period, various issues were observed by staff or reported to Council. A number of changes were made to mitigate these effects while retaining the underlying purpose of the trial. These are outlined on the consultation website: letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/Gloucester
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation of the street has been undertaken throughout the formal trial period. This has come in two forms:
4.4.1 Community views and preferences through traditional consultation feedback; and
4.4.2 Technical data: this allows staff and Elected Members to understand the changes to vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist behaviours and speeds, along with other relevant data.
4.5 The results of the consultation feedback and technical data will be provided to the Hearings Panel for its consideration regarding the long-term future of the street and inform its recommendation to the Council.
4.6 Due to the interest and potential high-level of feedback, a Hearings Panel will be required to consider feedback and advise on any decisions regarding the long-term future of the street.
4.6.1 Staff have been advised that this will likely not be possible until August 2024, due to prior Councillor commitments.
4.6.2 Based on an assessment of the likely time for Hearings, plus deliberations and report writing, it is therefore unlikely that a recommendation to Council could be made before October 2024.
Long Term Future
4.7 There is no project to develop a permanent change to the street in the draft 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.
4.8 Therefore, should the current layout be left in place, any maintenance or changes to the layout or infrastructure after June 2024 will come from operational budgets and will need to be fully funded by Council.
4.9 Any permanent design for the street would need to take into account current and future development on the street.
4.9.1 The new Court Theatre is currently scheduled for completion in early 2025.
4.9.2 Council undertook a Request for Proposals for 129 Gloucester Street, which closed in August 2023. There is currently no public information about the outcome of this. It is uncertain what the future use of this site will be, or of any specific access requirements this facility may have.
4.9.3 To manage the uncertainty around surrounding developments, staff would not recommend starting any work on the permanent design until at least FY26.
4.9.4 Should Council decide to fund a permanent project through a future Long Term Plan or Annual Plan - any physical works would not start until at least financial year 2026/27 or later.
4.10 Elected Members have received a large amount of information related to this project, explaining the rationale, design choices, and funding situation:
Date |
Subject |
February 2022 |
Briefing |
April 2022 |
Memo |
August 2022 |
Memo |
December 2022 |
Community Board Briefing |
February 2023 |
Briefing |
22 August 2023 |
Briefing to Council |
6 September 2023 |
Council meeting - Decision to proceed with trial |
27 September 2023 |
Memo |
26 October 2023 |
Community Board Briefing |
5. Reason for Report Recommendation Ngā Take mō te Whakatau
5.1 The recommended option is to:
· Continue decision making process with trial layout in place
5.1.2 Option Description: This would involve Council extending the trial until 31 October 2024. This would mean the current layout remains in place while a Hearing Panel reviews feedback from the trial and makes a recommendation to Council on the future of the street. The layout would continue to be administered under a Temporary Traffic Management Plan, with staff delegation to make minor amendments as required.
5.1.3 Option Advantages
· Allows for review of the trial feedback and data without any perception that Council has pre-determined the outcome.
· Retains the placemaking, pedestrian and cycling advantages of the current layout until a full review has been completed.
5.1.4 Option Disadvantages
· Any ongoing maintenance or alteration costs will be funded by Council (Streets for People funding will have closed).
· Misses the opportunity to add funding into the 2024-34 Long Term Plan for a permanent solution.
5.2 The recommended option has been selected by staff for the following reasons:
5.2.1 The decision removes any perception of pre-determination ahead of the Hearing Panel.
5.2.2 The placemaking elements are retained, particularly around the Theatre, so it is in line with the principles of the trial and Streets and Spaces Design Guide
5.2.3 Allows for a thorough review of the trial feedback and data.
6. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
6.1 Option 2: Continue decision making process without road markings or physical infrastructure.
6.1.1 Option Description: This would involve Council removing all infrastructure (such as planters, seating, speed humps, etc) to storage by end June 2024, and removing the painted road markings. The corridor will effectively return to the pre-trial layout while the Hearing Panel reviews feedback from the trial (Hearing in August 2024) and makes a recommendation to Council on whether the layout should be re-installed or not. A Council decision is anticipated to be made by 31 October 2024.
6.1.2 Option Advantages
· This ensures that removal of the infrastructure is covered by NZTA’s Streets for People programme funding.
· There would not be an ongoing operational and maintenance cost above standard business as usual.
· Would make the street more accessible for vehicle traffic.
· Is consistent with the principles of the draft 2024/34 Long Term Plan (no Gloucester Street upgrade).
6.1.3 Option Disadvantages
· Council would need to find storage facilities for the street infrastructure until a decision about the future state is made. This would involve a cost to Council.
· Should Council wish to return to the trial layout, this will require a further investment in road marking and installation of all physical infrastructure.
· Does not retain any of the placemaking, pedestrian and cycling advantages of the current layout.
· Does not “promote Gloucester Street as ‘a street of theatres’” in line with the Streets and Spaces Design Guide.
· NZTA have indicated they will not support an option to remove the trial layout without evidence to show the trial layout was not successful at achieving the trial objectives. As such, there is a risk that NZTA may not consent to funding the removal of the trial layout through the SfP programme.
6.2 Continue decision making process without physical infrastructure (retain road markings)
6.2.1 This option would involve Council removing all physical infrastructure (such as planters, seating, speed humps, etc) to storage by end June 2024, but retaining the painted road markings. Road markings that form part of the trial would not be entered onto Council’s Asset Management register, so would not be maintained.
6.2.2 This was not considered a viable therefore it was dropped as a potential option. The reasons it was not considered viable are as follows:
· Removing the physical infrastructure means finding place to store it until a decision is made, which may come at an additional cost to Council.
· Work will be required to make Gloucester Street safe during the interim period before a decision is made, as it is currently operating under a Temporary Traffic Management Plan (TMP) with a speed restriction of 10km/h. The physical infrastructure helps narrow the street and reduce vehicle speeds through the trial area so, with no physical infrastructure, additional work will be required to make Gloucester Street safe to travel through. This will come at additional cost to Council.
· With the current TMP finishing at the end of June 2024, the interim layout will either need to be legalised through traffic resolutions OR the TMP extended. However, if the physical infrastructure is removed the existing TMP cannot be extended so a completely new TMP would need to be approved.
6.3 Stop decision making process – remove trial layout
6.3.1 This would involve Council removing and disposing of all infrastructure and road markings before the end of June 2024 and stopping the decision-making process. This was excluded as a potential option for the follow reasons:
· No opportunity to fully review and analyse the public feedback and monitoring data obtained throughout the trial, which may give the impression that Council’s decision was pre-determined.
· Decision not reversable without significant cost, likely at Council expense
· Does not retain any of the placemaking, pedestrian and cycling advantages of the current layout.
· NZTA have indicated they will not support an option to remove the trial layout without evidence to show the trial layout was not successful at achieving the trial objectives. Removing the trial layout without following the decision-making process means the public feedback and monitoring data will not have been fully assessed to understand the impact of the trial. As such, there is a risk that NZTA may not consent to funding the removal of the trial layout through the SfP programme.
· NZTA approved the SfP funding based on Council indicating there were plans for a permanent project on Gloucester Street, so the trial would be used to guide the permanent design. Removing the layout completely, without evidence to justify the decision, may give NZTA the impression that no permanent project was planned – resulting in a lack of faith and trust in the relationship between NZTA and Council.
· The community has invested time and energy into the consultation process, and failing to finish the Hearings Panel process increases the risk that residents may lose confidence in the Council’s decision-making processes.
6.4 Stop decision making process – retain trialled layout permanently
6.4.1 This would involve Council retaining all infrastructure (such as planters, seating, speed humps, etc) and road markings and would require staff to bring Detailed Traffic Resolutions for Council approval ahead of the end of the trial (end June 2024). This was discounted as a viable option for the follow reasons:
· No opportunity to properly review and evaluate feedback and data ahead of decision – potential for the decision to be perceived as pre-determined.
· Would retain an ongoing operational and maintenance cost above BAU.
· Does not fit with the principles of the draft Long Term Plan (no Gloucester Street upgrade)
· The community has invested time and energy into the consultation process, and failing to finish the Hearings Panel process increases the risk that residents may lose confidence in the Council’s decision-making processes.
7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 The project is 90% funded by the NZTA Streets for People programme. The 10% Council contribution comes from transport capital improvements budgets.
7.2 The funding window for the SfP programme closes at the end of June 2024
7.2.1 All costs before this date are expected to be 90% NZTA vs 10% CCC cost share
7.2.2 All costs after this date will be funded by Council
7.3 The table below shows expected total costs up to the end of October 2024, plus the expected contribution from each party towards that cost.
7.3.1 Staff would expect a decision to be made about the future state before this date, and any report about this would include ongoing costs for each of the options considered.
|
Preferred Option (Leave in place) |
Option 2 (Remove in June) |
|
Estimated cost - Before end of June 2024 |
$40,000 |
$224,000 |
|
Estimated cost –June 2024 – Oct 2024* |
$30,000 |
$30,000 |
|
Total Cost |
$70,000 |
$254,000 |
|
Total cost contribution |
NZTA |
$36,000 |
$202,000 |
CCC |
$34,000 |
$52,000 |
*These are staff costs for Project Management, Hearings and Council decision. Ongoing maintenance costs to October are assumed to be negligible, based on recent experience and the age of the assets.
7.4 In any decision about the future state of Gloucester Street, the estimated cost for any changes to the layout are:
7.4.1 For Option 2, if the decision is made to re-install the layout it is estimated to be $470,000.
7.4.2 For the preferred option, if the decision is made to remove the trial layout it is estimated it would cost $215,000.
8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
8.1 Retaining all infrastructure and markings to allow the data and feedback to be thoroughly analysed means that any costs beyond June 2024 will need to be fully funded by Council.
8.2 The cost to remove the trial layout (after October) is less than the cost to re-install the layout (if the decision was to remove it before June while the decision-making process is taking place), so the recommended option provides a balance between limiting the cost to Council whilst providing flexibility to accommodate Council’s decision on the future of the trial layout.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
8.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
8.3.1 The trial was approved to be carried out under Temporary Traffic Management with staff delegations, which was considered appropriate given the defined period of the trial. The recommended option will require an extension to the trial, again delegating day-to-day decisions to staff under a Temporary Traffic Management Plan.
8.4 Other Legal Implications:
8.4.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
8.5 The required decision:
8.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The Strategic Framework prioritises managing ratepayers money well while also creating an inclusive an equitable city with people at the centre. It also prioritises building trust and confidence in the Council through meaningful communication and listening to residents. The recommended option strikes a balance between allowing sufficient time for Council staff to properly consider all the data and feedback collected through the trial period, while also seeking to limit Council spending.
8.5.2 Is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined using the significance assessment sheet and has been classified as medium due to the number of people affected, the level of impact on those affected, the high level of key stakeholder interest and the potential impacts on future social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the city.
8.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The recommended option continues to enhance the street environment in line with Council’s transport objectives.
8.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
8.7 Transport
8.7.1 Activity: Transport
· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - >=85% resident satisfaction
· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city - >=67% resident satisfaction
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
8.8 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
8.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
8.9 The Community Board will be briefed on this report via a memo prior to it being presented to the Council. The Community Board’s view on the information in the report was not known at the time the report was prepared, however it is expected that the Community Board will have considered the memo’s content and will present their view on the options to Council.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
8.10 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.
8.11 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.
8.12 Impact on Mana Whenua is expected to be minimal. The scope of the project is limited to a single block of Gloucester Street between Colombo and Manchester Street.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
8.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
8.16 While the purpose of Streets for People funding is to accelerate the uptake of sustainable transport modes, the project itself is unlikely to significantly contribute to a reduction in transport emissions due to the limited scope and timeframe of the trial.
9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
9.1 Feedback from the consultation and the technical traffic data will be made available to the Hearings Panel when convened later this year.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
There are no attachments to this report.
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport Lauren Boyce - Project Manager Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor |
Approved By |
Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is to request that the Council make changes to a previous decision on the Transport Choices Linwood School Safety project.
1.2 The report has been produced by staff to provide consultation feedback received because of community engagement regarding a Council approved pedestrian crossing facility on Worcester Street.
1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the small number of impacted residents, and the low level of impact.
1.4 This decision has come to Council as this is a CERF Transport Choices project that was declared of metropolitan significance and is being funded under the Transport Choices Programme.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Transport Choices - School Safety Linwood - Pedestrian crossing Worcester McLeans Report.
2. Note that the decision in this report is of assessed as low-level significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Revoke the road layout, including all traffic islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Worcester Street to the southwest of McLean Street as detailed on plan TG361601 dated 21/08/2023 in Attachment A to this report.
4. Relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, approve the road layout, including all traffic islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Worcester Street as detailed on plan TP361601a issue 2 dated 26/02/2024 in Attachment B to this report.
Parking and stopping restrictions to be revoked
5. Revoke that the:
a. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Mclean Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
b. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Mclean Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
c. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Mclean Street and extending in a southwest direction for a distance of 63 metres.
d. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 153 metres southwest from its intersection with Surrey Street and extending in a southwest direction for a distance of 67 metres be revoked.
Parking and stopping restrictions
6. Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in Recommendation 7 below.
7. Approve, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that:
a. the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 16 metres northeast from its intersection with Norwich Street and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.
b. the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 35 metres northeast from its intersection with Rochester Street and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 42 metres.
8. Approve that Recommendations 5 to 7 take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the report on the meeting agenda are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 A pedestrian Island on Worcester Street close to the intersection of McLeans Street was approved by council at the meeting of 21 September 2023.
3.2 Prior to construction in December 2023 the island was marked out and found to encroach over driveways. Staff engaged with the directly impacted residents which led to three options going out for consultation with those directly impacted.
3.3 Following the consultation feedback staff are recommending that the pedestrian island be moved approximately 50m southwest along Worcester Street.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 School Safety Linwood was one of the CERF Transport Choices projects that received schedule two funding prior to the cancellation of the programme in December 2023.
4.2 Construction of the pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures started in November 2023 and all locations are anticipated to be complete by June 2024.
4.3 In June and July 2023, residents had the opportunity to provide feedback on a series of pedestrian crossings and intersection upgrades as part of the Way Safer Streets consultation.
4.4 On 22 September 2023, after considering public feedback, the Council approved construction of this pedestrian crossing point on Worcester Street southwest of McLean Street.
4.5 Pre-construction investigations showed that the approved plan would impact residents’ driveways. This was also spotted by directly affected residents who requested to meet with staff.
4.6 Staff met with residents on Worcester Street on 20 December 2023, to discuss concerns about the pedestrian refuge island length, access issues, parking loss, and lighting.
4.7 In response to the issues raised, staff reconsulted on three options for a pedestrian refuge island in this location.
Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.8 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:
· Option 1 – A shorter island at the original location with the amount of no stopping reduced.
· Option 2 (preferred) – Relocate the island 50m southwest.
· Option 3 – A shorter island in the original location.
Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa
4.9 Preferred Option: Option 2 – relocate the island.
4.9.1 Option Description: A crossing facility and associated traffic calming measures are installed adjacent to 603 Worcester Street.
4.9.2 Option Advantages
· It received the greatest support.
· It impacts the least number of residents.
· It allows for the greatest separation between driveways and the nose of the island.
· It is the cheapest option as option 1 and 3 require a light column to be relocated.
4.9.3 Option Disadvantages
· This location has not been out for wider consultation.
Plan of option 2
4.10 Option 1
4.10.1 Option Description: A shorter island at the original location with the amount of no stopping reduced.
4.10.2 Option Advantages
· The originally approved location that went out for wider consultation is maintained while addressing the main impacts to adjacent residents.
4.10.3 Option Disadvantages
· The removal of parking while meeting current guidelines does not afford the same level of safety as the originally approved no stopping.
· Directly impacts a greater number of residents than the staff recommended option.
· Has a higher cost than the staff recommended option.
Plan of option 1
4.11 Option 3
4.11.1 Option Description: A shorter island in the original location.
4.11.2 Option Advantages
· The originally approved location that went out for wider consultation is maintained while addressing the impact to driveways.
4.11.3 Option Disadvantages
· Directly impacts a greater number of residents than the staff recommended option.
· Has a greater cost than the staff recommended option.
· Parking concerns raised by directly impacted residents of the originally approved location would not be addressed.
· Does not align with the preference of most submitters.
Plan of option 3
4.12 Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero
4.12.1 Consultation started on 30 January 2024 and ran until 15 February 2024. An email was sent to key transport stakeholders, including emergency services.
4.12.2 Consultation documents were delivered to 22 properties at the start of consultation whose residents were directly impacted by the three options developed by staff. Staff visited to prompt further in person feedback on 13 February.
4.13 Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga
4.13.1 Submissions were made by 14 individuals. Submissions are available in Attachment E.
4.13.2 Most submitters preferred option 2 (11 submitters, 78.6%) for the following reasons:
· Option 1 and 3 would make it hard to enter or exit driveways with cars and trailers.
· Concern around parking loss with option 1 and 3.
· Option 2 would impact fewer residents and driveways.
· Option 2 would capture more foot traffic heading to Eastgate / Buckley’s Road.
· Option 1 or 3 would result in shifting a streetlight.
4.13.3 A minority of submitters prefer option 1 (3 submitters, 21.4%) for the following reasons:
· Option 1 is the natural place that kids have been crossing.
· Concern around accessing property due to parking loss at front gate with option 2.
o The preferred option has subsequently reduced the no stopping to provide an additional parking space in front of this resident’s property.
4.13.4 Below is a map showing the properties from which responses were provided or not.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
Option 1 |
Option 2 Recomended |
Option 3 - |
Cost to Implement |
$45,000 |
$40,000 |
$45,000 |
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs |
$371 |
$319 |
$473 |
Funding Source |
CPMS ID 72777, Transport Choices 2022 – School Safety Linwood |
CPMS ID 72777, Transport Choices 2022 – School Safety Linwood |
CPMS ID 72777, Transport Choices 2022 – School Safety Linwood |
Funding Availability |
$70,000 |
$70,000 |
$70,000 |
Impact on Rates |
negligible |
negligible |
negligible |
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 If the recommendation in this report is not approved, then the package of work approved under the NZTA Waka Kotahi schedule 2 for Transport Choices 2022 – School Safety Linwood would not be completed.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Council resolved the Transport Choices programme as Metropolitan Significance when the programme was included in the draft Annual Plan in February 2023.
6.2.2 Council retains decision-making responsibilities that might otherwise be delegated in accordance with the Delegations Register when a project is determined as Metropolitan Significance.
6.2.3 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.
6.2.4 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no other legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
6.4 The required decision:
6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework
· The changes proposed align with road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).
· The changes proposed align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change Impact Considerations section below.
6.4.2 Is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the small number of impacted residents, and the low level of impact.
6.5 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.6 Transport
6.6.1 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: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - <=96 crashes
· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.08 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents
· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within 15 minutes to key destination types by walking - >=49% of residential land holdings with a 15- minute walking access
· 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
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
6.7 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.7.1 Linwood Ward.
6.8 The Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board is in support of three pedestrian crossings points being installed on Worcester Street as approved in the Transport Choices School Safety Linwood project. Feedback has not been provided on the preferred option in this report.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.9 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.
6.10 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.
6.11 This project makes a minor change within the road corridor to improve pedestrian safety.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.12 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
6.13 This project will promote walking and cycling by providing a safe place for pedestrians to cross Worcester Street on a school desire line, and will reduce traffic speed with traffic control devices, making it safer for cyclists. The impact will be localised and therefor will not make a significant impact to climate change or emissions reductions.
6.14 This project will promote walking and cycling by providing a safe place for pedestrians to cross Worcester Street on a school desire line, and will reduce traffic speed with traffic control devices, making it safer for cyclists. The impact will be localised and therefor will not make a significant impact to climate change or emissions reductions.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If approved construction would take place financial year 2024.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Plan TG361601 approved by council on 21 September 2023 |
24/353234 |
186 |
b ⇩ |
Plan TP361601a issue 2 - Preferred option 2 for council approval |
24/513806 |
187 |
c ⇩ |
Plan of option 1 for Consultation |
24/306541 |
188 |
d ⇩ |
Plan of Option 3 for consultation |
24/306542 |
189 |
e ⇩ |
Submission Table (Public) |
24/309774 |
190 |
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
Andrew Cameron - Project Manager Samantha Smith - Engagement Advisor Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety |
Approved By |
Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure |
01 May 2024 |
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an application for funding from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) to support the Eastern Relationship Project.
1.2 This report is staff generated in order to implement Council’s decision on 1 November 2023 (CNCL/2023/00140) in respect of the Council’s response to the independent review of the wastewater treatment plant fire, as follows:
That the Council:
5. Commit to work collaboratively with the affected communities, key partners and the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to co-develop a plan to regain trust and confidence and ensure effective communication and engagement. Staff will report back to the Council on progress in time to inform the Long Term Plan funding decisions.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Approve a grant of $130,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Council’s Community Support and Partnerships Unit to resource a project with the goal of improving the Council’s relationship with the Eastern Communities.
2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Following the fire at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, an independent review (Attachment A) of the Council’s response to and the recovery following the fire was undertaken. The review identified that even before the fire, the relationship between the communities of the eastern suburbs and the Council were strained. In particular that these communities don’t have the same depth of advocacy resources as others in Christchurch. This meant it took a long time for the Council to hear the message and understand just how badly these communities were suffering. This project will seek to begin repairing the Council’s relationship with the communities in the East of the City.
3.2 This project fits both categories of the CEF; Civic & Community and Economic, Innovation & Environment. If successful, it will make a lasting difference to how the eastern community views the Council and will improve civic participation, engagement and the economic environment for the East of the City. More details are available in the decision-making matrix attached to this report as Attachment B.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 In April 2001, the Council set up a CEF of $75m. 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 CEF (CNCL/2018/00057, refer Attachment C).
4.3 On 13 December 2018, the Council established eligibility and assessment criteria for the CEF and a standard application process. As part of this, two application categories were established for the fund, Civic & Community and Economic, Innovation & Environment.
4.4 The Eastern Communities Relationship Project in an organisational priority. A project plan based on the review recommendation has been discussed and developed with the Chief Executive, Chair and Deputy Chair off the Waitai Community Board and the Community Governance Manager. The draft project plan summary is attached in Attachment D.
4.5 Further detailed development and implementation of the Plan requires a financial commitment from the Council. This will be met from a combination of reprioritising existing resources and this application the CEF.
4.6 The following related memos/information were circulated to the members of the meeting:
Date |
Subject |
October 2023 |
Christchurch City Council Wastewater Treatment Plant Fire Response and Recovery Review. (Attachment A.) |
4.7 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:
Date |
Subject |
1 November 2023 |
Christchurch City Council Wastewater Treatment Plant Fire Response and Recovery Review. Council Report and resolution (section 1.2 of this report) |
Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.8 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:
· A CEF grant of $130,000. Preferred
· Decline the application.
Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa
4.9 Preferred Option: CEF grant of $130,000.
4.9.1 Option Description: Approve a grant of $130,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Council’s Community Support and Partnerships Unit to resource a project with the goal of improving the Council’s relationship with the Eastern Communities.
4.9.2 More specifically this will support the following additional resourcing:
· HR Costs for local Community Development Advisor 1.5 year, 0.5 FTE - $75k
· Independent Facilitator / contractor 300hrs @ $90/hr - $30K
· 5 quick-win interventions @ $5k - $25k
4.9.3 The outcomes delivered include:
· Implementation of recommendation one of the Review as follows:
That the Council prioritises strengthening and sustaining effective and respectful relationships with the affected communities, so as to regain their trust and confidence. This should include:
· An agreed relationship management strategy
· Appropriate mechanisms for monitoring the health of the relationship
· Effective and appropriate channels for communication and engagement
· Clear accountability for the Chief Executive to ensure this is implemented within the Council organisation
· Appointment of an external facilitator to work to understand the needs of the community and to build social cohesion/capital.
· Appointment of a project manager to facilitate and internal team within Council across various Council units in order to assist with understanding the community’s needs, rebuild trust with the community and prioritise what matters most to them.
· Appointment of a coordinator to assist with the Waste Water Treatment Plant Response in order to improve the reach of the Council to communities that we have not been able to engage with.
· Prioritise two FTE’s from the Civil Defence Team to focus on coastal response planning, community response planning for the Waitai Board Area, Tsunami warning and risk planning.
· Implement quick wins for the community to show that the Council is hearing and responding to their concerns.
4.9.4 Option Advantages
· Council is implementing its resolution dated 1 November 2023.
· Council is delivering on its “promise” to the Eastern Community.
· Will enable the project plan to be delivered.
· No additional cost to rates, through using the CEF.
· Supports a “joined-up” approach to providing a number of existing services in the East including but not limited to Transport, Parks, Community Development and Urban renewal.
· Complements the use of existing resources, particularly building community resilience and social capital through Tsunami preparedness. This includes, but is not limited to, the reprioritisation of an existing locally based support officer position and the local deployment of two Community Resilience Coordinators.
4.9.5 Option Disadvantages
· Council may have a higher use for the CEF.
4.10 Decline CEF application.
4.10.1 Option Advantages
· Lower commitment on the CEF.
4.10.2 Option Disadvantages
· Will be seen as a compromise perpetuating the view expressed in the independent review on how Council regards the East.
· Council’s decision of 1 November will not be implemented.
· The Plan will not be delivered.
Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina
4.11 Degree to which the application meets the criteria of the CEF – Aligns with the CEF Civic & Community fund outcomes.
4.12 Degree to which the application meets Council policy and decision making – Implements the previous Council resolution of 1 November 2023.
4.13 Degree to which the application meets verified community need – Community need validated by an independent review, supports the implementation of a Plan co-designed by locally based staff and the Waitai Community Board Chair.
4.14 Degree to which the application optimises the value of existing Council levels of service - Complements the use of existing resources, particularly building community resilience and social capital through Tsunami preparedness. Supports a “joined-up” approach to providing a number of existing services in the East including but not limited to Transport, Parks, Community Development and Urban renewal.
4.15 Degree of certainty on the use of the CEF funds and any expectation of ongoing financial support – The application provides for defined actions and outcomes (section 4.9. of this report.) The resourcing for the project plan is fixed and the Plan provides for future need to be morphed into existing levels of service.
4.16 Further information is included in the assessment matrix attached as Attachment B.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
Preferred Option - $130,000 Grant |
Option 2 – Decline Application |
Cost to Implement |
$130,000 |
$0 |
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs |
Provided within existing levels of service |
N/A – Existing levels of service continue |
Funding Source |
CEF |
N/A |
Funding Availability |
Full (Section 5.2) |
N/A |
Impact on Rates |
None, CEF is an existing budgeted level of service |
N/A |
5.1 As per the 2023/24 Annual Plan the CEF had generated $1.289m, which when added to the carry-forward from the previous year allowed for an available balance of $1.612m.
5.2 The current balance available for allocation is $1.060m.
5.3 If this application is approved the available balance going forward will be $930k.
5.4 In the draft 2024/34 draft LTP a sum of $3.555m is forecast be available for allocation from 1 July 2024 along with any unallocated portion of the Fund carried forward.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 A potential risk if funding is not granted is that the project cannot be delivered as there are no other resources available. This would mean that some of the recommendations from the Wastewater Treatment Plant Fire Response are unable to be implemented.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Applications to the CEF usually go to Council. Under its terms of reference, the Financial & Performance Committee may receive reports referred from Council.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. All funding agreements are supported by guidance from the Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Team.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
6.4 The required decision:
6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Particularly the following Community Outcome:
· A collaborative confident city. “Our residents have the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, have a strong sense of belonging and identity, and feel safe.”
6.4.2 Is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the fact that the CEF is an existing level of service and the decision asked of Council is the allocation of the Fund in accordance with agreed process.
6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
6.5 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.6 Citizens and communities
6.6.1 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
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
6.7 The decision affects the Eastern Community of Christchurch in that it potentially enables the Council to resource its prior commitment to work collaboratively with the affected communities, key partners and the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to co-develop a plan to regain trust and confidence and ensure effective communication and engagement.
6.8 The decision affects the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board who view this as a significantly important project and has made it part of its submissions to the Council and its Board Plan.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.9 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore these decisions do not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.
6.10 The decision relates to the allocation of an existing Council community fund, as 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
6.11 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 The project Plan will be updated and agreed with the Waitai Community Board Chair and the Chief Executive. Implementation will be phased and reported to the Waitai Community Board and the Chief Executive.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Response Review Report Final |
24/541908 |
203 |
b ⇩ |
Capital Endowment Fund Application - Eastern Relationship Project |
24/512626 |
248 |
c ⇩ |
Capital Endowment Fund Criteria |
24/523263 |
250 |
d ⇩ |
High Level Project Plan |
24/541974 |
252 |
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood-Linwood |
Approved By |
John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to formally approve the Chief Executive’s Position Description (PD) as presented by the Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee (the Committee).
1.2 At its meeting of 19 February 2024, the Committee resolved “that the final Position Description will be reviewed by the Committee and then formally approved by Council.” [CEPAE/2024/00004].
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Chief Executive Recruitment - Approval of the Position Description Report.
2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Approve the Position Description (Attachment A to this report) be used during the recruitment of a new Chief Executive.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Westlake Governance Ltd was commissioned to prepare a draft Position Description (PD) for the new Chief Executive.
3.2 Westlake facilitated a workshop with the full Council and prepared a draft Position Description. The Position Description has been reviewed by the Committee and is being presented to Council for formal approval.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
4.1 There is no direct cost associated with the acceptance of this Position Description or with requesting minor amendments prior to acceptance. There would be some costs if the Council wanted further consultancy work.
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
4.2 The appointment process should be reasonably straightforward if it is managed carefully and methodically and supported with appropriate advice.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
4.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
4.3.1 Local Government Act 2002 (clauses 33-36).
· Clause 33 Schedule 7, Appointment of Chief Executive
· Clause 34 Schedule 7, Terms of employment of chief executive
4.4 Other Legal Implications:
4.4.1 Employment Relations Act 2000
· As the employer, the local authority has a range of duties under general employment law, including the Employment Relations Act 2000 and common law.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
4.5 The required decisions
4.5.1 Is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by noting that the report only seeks the appointment of a recruitment company.
4.5.2 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
4.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
4.7 Governance
4.7.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making
· Level of Service: 4.1.25.2 Provide direct advice and support to the Chief Executive and administrative support to the Executive Leadership Team - Provide information, support and advice within 48 hours, or as priorities are agreed.
· 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.
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
4.8 The community has high expectations of the Chief Execuitve of Christchurch City Council. The process should provide the community with confidence that the appointee has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attributes to fulfil the requirements of the position.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
4.9 The Position Description reflects that the Chief Executive plays a key role in developing the partnership with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. It indicates that the Chief Executive will need to have a good understanding of the Council’s legislative obligations and policy commitments regarding Te Tiriti and the relationship with mana whenua.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
4.10 The Position Description reflects that the Chief Executive will need to have a good understanding of the Council’s Climate Change mitigation and adaptation obligations and commitments.
5. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
5.1 Subject to the Council’s formal approval, this Position Description will be used in the recruitment process for the new Chief Executive
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Chief Executive Position Description |
24/664672 |
256 |
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
Mary Richardson - Interim Chief Executive Megan Pearce - Manager Hearings and Council Support |
Approved By |
Mary Richardson - Interim Chief Executive |
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/472571 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Evangeline Dispo, Policy Analyst |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services |
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 This report recommends the Council revokes four superseded and redundant external policies.
1.2 Regular reviews of the Council’s suite of policies helps us to provide clear guidance to staff and to communicate clearly to the community.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Revoking Superseded External Policies report.
2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Approve the revocation of the following policies as they have been superseded by other Council documents and are no longer fit-for-purpose as further detailed in Attachment A to this report:
a. Arts Policy and Strategy 2001 (Attachment B), superseded by Tōi Ōtautahi – Arts and Creativity Strategy.
b. Footpath Battens Policy 1999 (Attachment C), superseded by the Christchurch City Council Construction Standard Specifications, Part 6.
c. Footpath Berms Policy 1999 (Attachment D), superseded by the Christchurch City Council Construction Standard Specifications, Part 6 and Chapter 9.
d. Heritage Conservation Policy 2007 (Attachment E), superseded by the Heritage Grants Guidelines and the ‘Our Heritage Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 The Council currently has 72 external policies which are approved by the Council and must be taken into account in Council decision-making. Staff undertake regular reviews of our policies to ensure they remain up to date and fit-for-purpose. The most recent review identified four policies that should be revoked. These policies have either been superseded or the matters the policy was established to resolve are now effectively dealt with under other Council policies or similar documents.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 The Strategic Policy Team maintains the External Policy Register which contains policies approved by the Council and published on the Council’s website. The register is updated by a periodic review programme. The regular review ensures the policies are fit-for-purpose and reliable documents that provide effective and consistent guidance for staff and the public on Council decision-making and process implementation.
4.2 The periodic reviews assess whether each policy remains operational, requires a full review or should be revoked.
4.3 Following our most recent review, staff identified four external policy documents that should be revoked. These policies have been superseded, or the issues addressed by the policy are covered by other relevant Council documents (see Attachment A).
Policies proposed to be revoked |
Reason/s
|
Arts Policy and Strategy 2001 |
No longer required as an updated approach to the issues addressed is provided by Toi Ōtautahi the Arts and Creativity Strategy adopted in 2019. |
Footpath Battens Policy 1999 |
No longer required as the Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (CSS) sets out guidance required. |
Footpath Berms Policy 1999 |
CCC Construction Standard Specifications provides technical requirements, so this policy is now redundant. |
Heritage Conservation Policy 2007 |
No longer required as the issues addressed in this policy have been incorporated into the Heritage Incentive Grant Guidelines following District Plan changes and the Our Heritage our Taonga, Heritage Strategy 2019. |
Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.4 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:
· revoke superseded or redundant policies.
· do not revoke superseded or redundant policies.
4.5 The following option was considered but ruled out:
· Do not revoke superseded or redundant policies. Not revoking superseded and/ or redundant policies is not recommended. The Council’s policy suite sets out important guidance for staff and for the community. Continued display of outdated information on the Council website creates difficulty in identifying whether documents are relevant or not. This also leads to a risk of non-compliance with Council requirements and expectations.
Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa
4.6 Preferred Option: revoke superseded and redundant policies.
4.6.1 Option Description: This option asks the Council to revoke the four superseded and/ or redundant policies. If approved, staff will remove these policies from the Council website and the Council’s External Policy Register.
4.6.2 Option Advantages
· Reduces confusion about whether a policy document is current or has been superseded.
· Makes it easier to locate the correct documents relevant to a certain topic.
· Ensures the Council’s website displays only up-to-date and relevant information as useful guidance to the public, elected members, and staff.
· Aligns with the Council’s transparency principles.
4.6.3 Option Disadvantages
· None identified.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
5.1 There are no financial implications. The cost of the periodic review is met from within existing operational budgets.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 There are no risks associated in revoking superseded and redundant policies. Regular review and updating of our External Policy Register is itself a risk management process, aimed at ensuring we are providing accurate, up to date guidance for staff and the public.
6.2 The review has been consulted on across the Council organisation including Legal Services. As such the residual risk is low.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.3.1 The Council has authority to formally revoke policies it has previously adopted.
6.4 Other Legal Implications:
6.4.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. The revocation and removal of policy documents from the Policy Register supports the obligation of local authorities to carry out duties and make decisions in a transparent manner.
6.4.2 In compliance with the Public Records Act 2005 requirements to maintain records, the revoked policies will be saved in the Council’s record management system as superseded documents to enable future referencing as required. The revoked policies will be removed from the Council website.
6.4.3 This report has been reviewed and approved by Legal Services.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here
6.5 The required decisions:
6.5.1 align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.
6.5.2 are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined based on the appropriate engagement processes being followed when Council adopted the documents that supersede the policies to be revoked.
6.5.3 are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
6.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy
6.7.1 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
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
6.8 None. The decisions in this report are administrative as they only relate to revoking redundant/superseded external policies.
6.9 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.9.1 All of district, so not relevant at the ward or board level.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.10 None. The decisions in this report are administrative as they only relate to revoking superseded/redundant external policies.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.11 None. The decisions in this report are administrative as they only relate to revoking superseded/redundant external policies.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations, staff will undertake the following:
· update the Council website by removing revoked policies;
· update the External Policy Register in the Council’s record management system;
· save revoked policies in the Council’s record management system.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
Attachment A - Proposed external policies to be revoked |
24/580070 |
266 |
b ⇩ |
Attachment B - Arts Policy and Strategy |
24/573829 |
268 |
c ⇩ |
Attachment C - Footpath Battens Policy |
24/573832 |
275 |
d ⇩ |
Attachment D - Footpath Berms Policy |
24/573834 |
276 |
e ⇩ |
Attachment E - Heritage Conservation Policy |
24/573836 |
277 |
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Authors |
Evangeline Dispo - Policy Analyst Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Policy Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation |
Approved By |
Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services |
01 May 2024 |
|
Reference Te Tohutoro: |
24/523407 |
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua: |
Michele McDonald, Team Leader Asset Planning Water and Wastewater |
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae: |
Jane Parfitt, General Manager City Infrastructure |
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is to update Council on improvements to date and work underway to reduce wet weather wastewater overflows as consented in terms of discharge consent CRC224552.
1.2 The report responds to Action Item 2.3 of the Council Briefing convened on the 29th of August 2023 which requests staff to ‘Show improvements over time post-earthquake’. This action follows a question on whether it would be useful to show over time what’s happened with the network, pre-earthquake and post earthquake (for waste water collection, treatment and disposal).
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receive the information in the Wastewater overflow improvement status Report.
3. Background/Context Te Horopaki
3.1 The Christchurch City Council is consented to discharge water and contaminants to water at selected constructed sewer overflow locations, termed Schedule 1 locations. There are 53 Schedule 1 locations of an available 135 overflow locations within the Avon River, Heathcote River, and Avon-Heathcote Estuary catchments. The consent provides targets for reducing both the frequency and volume of overflows at these locations over time.
3.2 Compliance to the wet weather discharge consent is measured by the response of the field-calibrated wastewater network model to the last 15 years of rainfall data (called the long-term time series rainfall analysis or LTS analysis).
4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
4.1 Because compliance to the wet weather discharge consent is measured by the response of the wastewater network model to the last 15 years of rainfall data, it is also appropriate to use the LTS analysis to monitor the improvements in the wastewater network over time.
4.2 Table 1 presents the status of the annual overflow frequency for each of the city’s catchments as measured for the rainfall period between 2000 and 2015 and between 2005 and 2020. It is confirmed that:
4.2.1 There have been significant improvements in reducing overflows in all the catchments as confirmed by comparing the 2015 LTS analysis with the 2020 LTS analysis for both similar and subsequent rainfall periods.
4.2.2 The 2020 compliance target for the Avon-Heathcote Estuary was met whilst the frequency for the Avon River catchment was within 2% of the target. Despite the improvements observed in the Heathcote River catchment, the 2020 compliance target was not met.
4.2.3 In all cases, the actual overflow frequency in the period 2005 to 2020 was less than the modelled event frequency. The 2020 compliance targets were therefore met in practice.
Table 1 – Modelled catchment-based overflow frequency comparison
4.3 Table 2 compares the modelled annual overflow volume between the 2015 and 2020 LTS analysis, showing that the reduction in overflow volume exceeded the compliance target.
Table 2 – Modelled catchment-based overflow volume comparison
4.4 An analysis of individual overflow frequencies explains why all the catchment targets have not been fully met. Rainfall analysis between 2005 and 2020, using the latest calibrated wastewater model, determined that two sites in the Avon River catchment and six sites in the Heathcote River catchments do not meet the individual site targets. Despite compliance achieved at other Schedule 1 sites, 8 of the 53 Schedule 1 locations (15%) are still susceptible to overflowing during rain events at a rate of more than twice per year.
4.5 Table 3 highlights that the targeted compliance years that were set in 2014 to meet the individual overflow compliance frequency has not been met. A recent variation of the discharge consent provides for Council to submit an Action Plan as aligned to the committed capital programme of works to be considered in lieu of the 2014 compliance target dates.
Table 3 – Modelled non-compliant individual sites
4.6 Table 4 provides a list of the committed capital projects that have been included in the Long-Term Plan to achieve overflow frequency compliance for the individual sites listed in Table 3.
Table 4 – Committed projects to achieve overflow compliance
4.7 Figure 1 reflects the actual number of overflows recorded over the past 20 years. It is noted that no data was available for the 2-year period post the earthquakes. Figure 1 also highlights the direct relationship between rainfall and overflows.
4.8 Despite the increase in overflows in 2023, that was caused by an increase in rain events and exacerbated by the fact that 4 of the 6 events occurred within a single month, none of the individual overflow locations exceeded the consented overflow frequency of twice per year when evaluating 5 years of data (2019 to 2023).
Figure 1 – Recorded wastewater overflows over past 20 years
4.9 The results of the 2020 LTS analysis were used to develop a representative design storm event. Attachment A shows the predicted overflows at constructed sewer overflow locations as well as from manholes.
4.10 The findings of the above assessment were used to optimise the solutions required to achieve consent compliance and to reduce the risk of manhole overflows. Attachment B reflects the completed WW Master Plan that prioritizes the projects to achieve overflow compliance, reduce the risk of manhole overflows and provide for growth. The prioritized project implementation schedule in Figure 2 reflects 2020 costs but illustrates how the implementation of projects will reduce wet weather overflows.
Figure 2 - WW Master Plan – Prioritized Project Implementation Schedule
4.11 The 2025 LTP contains funding to deliver all Priority 1 projects and all but one of the Priority 2 projects. The priority 2 project not currently funded in the 2025 LTP does not directly impact the non-compliant Schedule 1 overflow locations.
4.12 Over and above the funding outlined in Table 4, the LTP contains an additional $73 million of funding to deliver WW Master Plan projects, prioritized as Priority 3 to Priority 6 but targeted at providing capacity for growth. These projects include:
· CPMS 71996: WW Grassmere Wet Weather Storage Facility
· CPMS 45280: WW Highfield Wastewater Servicing Stage 2
· CPMS 30172: WW Riccarton (Upper Riccarton)
· CPMS 43216: WW Tyrone Street Pump Station Capacity Renewal (PS62)
· CPMS 42194 WW Halswell Pump Station (Stage 2) (PS60)
4.13 Where manhole overflows are predicted in the calibrated wastewater model, pipes that are earmarked for renewal and that have reached capacity, will be upsized as part of the renewals programme.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
No. |
Title |
Reference |
Page |
a ⇩ |
WW Existing Systems Performance |
24/569626 |
286 |
b ⇩ |
WW Master Plan |
24/569628 |
287 |
In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:
Document Name – Location / File Link |
Not applicable |
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
Author |
Michele McDonald - Team Leader Asset Planning |
Approved By |
Brent Smith - Head of Three Waters Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure |
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
Karakia Whakamutunga
Kia whakairia te tapu
Kia wātea ai te ara
Kia turuki whakataha ai
Kia turuki whakataha ai
Haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.
Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.
Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)
Note
Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:
“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):
(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and
(b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”
This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
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 |
|
20. |
Public Excluded Council Minutes - 3 April 2024 |
|
|
Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings. |
|
21. |
Public Excluded Council Minutes - 10 April 2024 |
|
|
Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings. |
|
Council 01 May 2024 |
|
Karakia Whakamutunga
Kia whakairia te tapu
Kia wātea ai te ara
Kia turuki whakataha ai
Kia turuki whakataha ai
Haumi e. Hui e. Tāiki e
[1] Paragraph 9 of Minute 34 from the Independent Hearings Panel - IHP-Minute-34-Directions-on-resumption-of-Hearings-and-Right-of-Reply-8-March-2024.pdf