Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 15 May 2024

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board – 15 February 2024

5. Church Corner and Waimairi Road Safety Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/431545
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation – Safety Ann Tomlinson, Project Manager Krystle Anderson, Engagement Advisor Georgia Greene, Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

At its meeting on 15 February 2024, the Board resolved the Part A Officer Recommendations 1 – 4 which included an additional Officer Recommendation 1(e) tabled at the meeting. These Recommendations were resolved without change.

The Board further resolved the Part C Officer Recommendations 5, 11 – 18, and 21 – 22 without change. The Part C Officer Recommendations 6 – 10 were put to the vote and declared lost. As such, the Part C Officer Recommendations 19 and 20 were not required to be considered.

At its meeting on 14 March 2024 and following the receipt of new information, the Board considered whether to revoke its 15 February 2024 decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6 – 10 and approve these recommendations as originally put forward by Council Officers. The Motion to revoke its previous decision and approve Officer Recommendations 6 – 10 was declared lost and the status quo upheld.

At its Extraordinary Meeting on 9 April 2024, the Board considered a Notice of Motion to revoke its 15 February 2024 decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6 – 10 and approve these recommendations as originally put forward by Council Officers. The Mover, with the agreement of the meeting, amended the original Notice of Motion which was then considered by the Board.

The Board resolved to revoke its previous decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6 – 10, delegate the authority to make a decision on these recommendations to the Council, and request staff to provide options to keep the right-hand turn and dual crossing, and to mitigate serious crash incidences.

In accordance with the Board’s resolution, Council Officers will put forward a report to the Council, likely in July, for its consideration of options regarding the Main South / Yaldhurst / Riccarton Road intersection safety improvements originally addressed in Officer Recommendations 6 – 10. The remaining Part A Recommendations 1 – 4 and Part C Recommendations 5, 11 – 18, and 21 – 22 remain intact.

The progression of the Board’s 15 February Part A Recommendations to Council was temporarily postponed until the Notice of Motion could be considered and resolved consistent with the Council’s Standing Orders - Section 19.4.

These Part A Recommendations 1 – 4 are now proceeding to the Council for its consideration via this Part A report. These recommendations and the previously resolved Part C recommendations will not be impacted by the forthcoming report to Council and can proceed pursuant to normal process.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of northbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the west side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Bowen Street.

b. That a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of southbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the east side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 149 metres south of its intersection with Hanrahan Street and extending in a southerly distance to its intersection with Riccarton Road.

c. That a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of south eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north-east side of Yaldhurst Road, commencing at a point 94 metres south-east of its intersection with Angela Street and extending in a south easterly direction to its intersection with Riccarton Road.

d. That a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Yaldhurst Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point located 105 metres west of its intersection with Waimairi Road, as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024 and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

2. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 that a signalised roadway crossing be installed on Waimairi Road, located 23 metres north from its intersection with Leslie Street, and as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024 and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A. This signalised crossing is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

3. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the west side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Leslie Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres be resolved as a 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.

4. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the east side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 165 metres south of its intersection with Hanrahan Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be resolved as a 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 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

General

5. Approves pursuant to Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, road surface treatments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Main South Road, Curletts Road, Yaldhurst Road, Riccarton Road, Angela Street, Brake Street, Leslie Street, Waimairi Road, and Hansons Lane, as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024 and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

Traffic Controls

6. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a Pedestrian Crossing be installed on Yaldhurst Road, located 65 metres south-east of its intersection with Brake Street, and as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024 and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

7. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a Pedestrian Crossing be installed on Main South Road, located 313 metres east of its intersection with Curletts Road, and as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024 and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

8. Approves, in accordance with Clause 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Main South Road, from its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 75 metres, be a one-way street, where vehicles must travel in a westerly direction only.

9. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that the west bound traffic on Main South Road at a point 295 metres east of its intersection with Curletts Road be controlled by a Give Way.

10. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(3) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that a No Entry control be placed against eastbound vehicles using the roadway on Main South Road at a point 295 metres east of its intersection with Curletts Road.

Bus Stops

11. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 158 metres west of its intersection with Waimairi Road, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres, be reserved for Large Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers only, as part of a Bus Service as defined in the Land Transport Management Act 2003, Section 5, - Bus Service, (a) (i), only.

12. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 the west side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 72 metres north of its intersection with Leslie Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres, be reserved for Large Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers only, as part of a Bus Service as defined in the Land Transport Management Act 2003, Section 5, - Bus Service, (a) (i), only.

13. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 the east side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 119 metres south of its intersection with Hanrahan Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, be reserved for Large Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers only, as part of a Bus Service as defined in the Land Transport Management Act 2003, Section 5, - Bus Service, (a) (i), only.

14. Approves that pursuant to Section 339(1) of the local Government Act:1974, that a bus shelter be installed on the east side of Waimairi Road, as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024, and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

Stopping and Parking restrictions

15. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 168 metres.

16. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-east side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at a point 48 metres south-east of its intersection with Brake Street and extending in a south easterly direction to its intersection with Riccarton Road.

17. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-west side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 200 metres south-east of its intersection with Curletts Road.

18. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-west side of Main South Road commencing at its intersection with Curletts Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 52 metres.

19. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north side of Main South Road commencing at a point 262 metres east of its intersection with Curletts Road, and extending in a easterly direction to its intersection with Riccarton Road, as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024, and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

20. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south side of Main South Road commencing at a point 286 metres east of its intersection with Curletts Road, and extending in a easterly direction to its intersection with Riccarton Road, as detailed on plan TG145701, dated 23/01/2024, and attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.

21. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the parking and /or stopping restrictions described in 1-21 above.

22. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that described in 1 to 21 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

General

5. Approves pursuant to Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, road surface treatments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Main South Road(west of Curletts Road), Curletts Road, Yaldhurst Road, Riccarton Road, Angela Street, Brake Street, Leslie Street, Bowen Street, Waimairi Road, and Hansons Lane, as detailed on plan TG145703, dated 20 February 2024 and attached to the minutes of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Meeting 15 February 2024 but excluding the changes shown at the Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection.

Bus Stops

Stopping and Parking restrictions

22. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings described in Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolutions HHRB/2024/00012, HHRB/2024/00013, HHRB/2024/00014 and HHRB/2024/00016 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

Part A

That the Council:

1. Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

e. That a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northwest side of Main South Road, commencing at its intersection with Curletts Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed on plan TG145703, dated 20/02/2024 and attached to the minutes of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Meeting 15 February 2024.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Church Corner and Waimairi Road Safety Improvements	23/1883677	13

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Church Corner Safety Improvements	24/95888	32
b ⇩	Waimairi Road Crossing Background Information	24/79397	33
c ⇩	Church Corner Ward and Pedestrian Information	24/79383	40
d	Church Corner safety improvements - all submissions (public) (Additional Documents - Circulated Separately)	Link to Submissions - starting on p. 56
e ⇩	Church Corner safety improvements - submission analysis	24/95777	48
f ⇩	Church Corner Safety Improvements - Plan TG145703 (Tabled at 15 February 2024 meeting)	24/290675	59

Church Corner and Waimairi Road Safety Improvements
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1883677
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety Ann Tomlinson, Project Manager Krystle Anderson, Engagement Advisor Georgia Greene, Traffic Engineer
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management (Lynette.Ellis@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 For the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve safety improvements to intersections around Church Corner and to make recommendations to Council for the items within the proposed design that rest with Council for decision making.

1.2 This report has been written in response to ongoing safety concerns in the area particularly for people travelling across the community by all different modes.

1.3 This intersections of Riccarton/Hansons/Waimairi and Curletts/Main South are both within the top 1% of intersections within the Christchurch District in terms of risk of being in a crash, compared to over 5700 Council controlled intersections citywide (Main South/Yaldhurst is in the top 3%). The intersection safety improvements were identified through a co-design process with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for the 2021-2024 National Land Transport Programme Funding Cycle. The Pipeline Development Tool (PDT) used in this process helps road controlling authorities and their funding partners plan road safety interventions, understand their benefits, including the expected reduction in death and serious injury, and identify the most effective interventions at a local, regional, and national level.

1.4 Church Corner and Waimairi Road are busy locations used by many people travelling to school, University or work, accessing the local shops and Bush Inn Centre, or moving across the community. Whether people are travelling through this intersection on foot, by bicycle, by bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely.

1.5 The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by this being a busy area used daily by people travelling to the local amenities, travelling to school and commuting to work. There is some community interest in the project due to existing safety concerns.

1.6 The recommended option is to construct a package of safety improvements in the vicinity of Church Corner, as show in Attachment A, and summarised below:

· Safe speed platforms on all approaches to the Riccarton Road, Hansons Lane, and Waimairi Road intersection.

· Removing the slip lane from Riccarton Road onto Waimairi Road.

· Reconfiguration of angle parking to parallel parking on Waimairi Road.

· Speed humps on Angela Street and Brake Street at their intersection with Yaldhurst Road, Leslie Street at its intersection with Waimairi Road and Bowen Street at its intersection with Peer Street.

· Making Main South Road (from Riccarton Road) entry only and removing vehicle access out of Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

· Installation of pedestrian zebra crossings on Yaldhurst Road and Main South Road.

· Removing the left turn slip lane from Main South Road into Curletts Road and providing a left turn lane at the signals.

· Raised signalised crossing on Waimairi Road (outside Bush Inn Centre).

· Cycle improvements and bus stop improvements.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

General

Traffic Controls

Bus Stops

Stopping and Parking restrictions

21. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the parking and /or stopping restrictions described in 1-21 above.

22. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that described in 1 to 21 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Church Corner area is busy with many people walking, cycling, accessing public transport and driving through, particularly at school times and when people are travelling to work. Whether people are travelling through this area on foot, by bicycle, bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely. If Council are to achieve its goal in reducing death and serios injuries on our roads, we need to create a safe transport system; one that recognises humans make mistakes and that these mistakes do not need to cost us our lives.

3.2 Options within this report have been assessed against relevant industry-standard guidance including the Standard Safety Intervention Toolkit Handbook produced by NZTA Waka Kotahi and Austroads design guides. Traffic signals are not typically identified and promoted as a Safe System solution, primarily due to the angle and impact speed of crashes at signalised intersections. Safe Speed Platforms (Raised Safety Platforms) are a vertical deflection device increasingly used to reduce the maximum comfortable operating speed for vehicles to Safe System collision speeds. The tolerable limit (survivable speed) for pedestrians and cyclists is 30 km/h.

3.3 Since the installation of the platform at the Lincoln/Barrington/Whiteleigh intersection, safer speeds by drivers entering the intersection have been achieved as shown in the chart below. In the preceding five-year period (2018-2022) there were 21 reported crashes at the Lincoln/Barrington/Whiteleigh intersection including two crashes resulting in serious injury. There have been no reported crashes at this intersection in 2023 (as of 16/01/2024).

A graph of numbers and a bar chart

Description automatically generated

Approach 85th percentile operating speeds at the Lincoln/Barrington/Whiteleigh intersection (vehicle speeds are at the bottom of the graph)

3.4 During consultation for Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) projects, a request was received from a local blind resident for improvements to the section of Waimairi Road from Riccarton Road to Peer Street to help improve safety and accessibility for vision-impaired, disabled and elderly people. This included a project to investigate the need for a signalised pedestrian crossing at the Bush Inn Centre.

3.5 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of having well-connected communities and neighbourhoods, so people can take fewer and shorter trips to access goods and services and have access to safe and reliable low-emission travel choices.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Main South Road/Yaldhurst/Riccarton

4.1 Three options were proposed by the design team for the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection:

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Speed humps on Riccarton Rd on approach to intersection (both east and west bound directions).	Cul de sac on Main South Road (9m radius) to remove entry from MSR onto Riccarton/Yaldhurst. Provide westbound entrance to Main South Rd with give way priority at the cul de sac to allow for bus route access.	Create left in left out T-intersection at Main South Rd/Yaldhurst.
Build out southern footpath at bus stop outside countdown by approx. 0.8m, west of Hansons Ln.	Build out southern footpath at bus stop outside countdown by approx. 0.8m, west of Hansons Ln.	Build out southern footpath at bus stop outside countdown by approx. 0.8m, west of Hansons Ln.
Keep existing left turn lane from Main South Road onto Yaldhurst and leave existing crossing point to medical centre.	Install raised ped and cyclist (dual) crossing opposite medical centre, with shared path connection towards southern shared path on Main South Road.	Install raised pedestrian crossing opposite medical centre.
Retain crossing point opposite countdown.	Build out northern footpath along shops by approx. 1.0m.	Build out northern footpath along shops by approx. 1.0m.
Provide eastbound 1.8m cycle lane on Yaldhurst/Riccarton Rd which ends just after the bus stop (cycle sharrow markings to be provided after this point).	Provide eastbound 1.8m cycle lane on Yaldhurst /Riccarton Rd which ends just after the bus stop.	Provide eastbound 1.8m cycle lane on Yaldhurst /Riccarton Rd which ends just after the bus stop.
Reduce right turn bay for Brake St.	Reduce right turn bay for Brake St.	Retain existing length of right turn bay to Brake St.
Reduce westbound lane on Riccarton Road to one lane. Provide cycle ramp to enter existing shared path on southern side.	Reduce westbound lane on Riccarton Road to one lane. Provide cycle ramp to enter existing shared path on southern side.	Reduce westbound lane on Riccarton Road to one lane. Provide cycle ramp to enter existing shared path on southern side.

4.2 The advantages and disadvantages for each option are presented below.

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Advantages	Slows traffic on the approach to the intersection to give people more time to react should a crash occur.	Simplifies layout by removing the turning movements from Main South/Yaldhurst/ Riccarton	Removes right turn from Main South/Yaldhurst/ Riccarton
	Increases footpath width outside Countdown	Increases footpath width outside Countdown	Increases footpath width outside Countdown
	Slight improvement at the crossing point outside the Medical Centre	Improves crossing opportunities outside the medical centre.	Improves crossing opportunities outside the medical centre.
		Increases footpath width on the northern side of Riccarton Road	Increases footpath width on the northern side of Riccarton Road
		Increases accessibility for people walking/cycling on Main South Road to access shops and services on the north side of Riccarton Road.	Increases accessibility for people walking/cycling on Main South Road to access shops and services on the north side of Riccarton Road.
	Improves westbound cycle access to the Major Cycleway on Ballantyne Ave.	Improves westbound cycle access to the Major Cycleway on Ballantyne Ave.	Improves westbound cycle access to the Major Cycleway on Ballantyne Ave.
Disadvantages	Right turn from Main South Road to Yaldhurst is retained. While the consequence of a crash may be reduced with the traffic calming, the likelihood of a crash remains.	Re-assignment of traffic on the network. Modelling would need to be undertaken to understand the effects on the network.	Re-assignment of traffic on the network. Modelling would need to be undertaken to understand the effects on the network.
	Cost to change kerblines on south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.	Cost to change kerblines on north and south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.	Cost to change kerblines on north and south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.
	No safer crossing points for people wanting to access shops and services on the north side of Riccarton Road.

Riccarton/Hansons/Waimairi

4.3 Three options were proposed by the design team for the Hanson/Waimairi/Riccarton intersection:

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Westbound cycle lane on Riccarton Rd – 1.5m	Raised intersection o Tapered down to kerblines so platforms do not affect existing stormwater. o New median islands on Waimairi Rd and Hansons Lane installed to allow for different length intersection ramps for the approach and departure side. o Unable to fit a median island on Riccarton Rd east so used a uniform 2m ramp across approach and departure lanes	Create a signalised Left-In-Left-Out intersection at Waimairi Road o Provide ‘reverse-seagull’ island on Riccarton Rd to allow busses only to turn right onto Waimairi and restrict right turn movement out of Waimairi. o Install median island on Riccarton Rd to physically remove right turn to/from Waimairi Rd o Green surfacing and bus only markings at right turn · Provide traffic island on Waimairi to reduce southbound traffic to 1 lane at the intersection. · Waimairi approach to stay signalised. · Staggered dual ped & cyclist signal crossing on Riccarton Rd between Waimairi and Hansons, linked with signals.
Build out southern kerb and footpath (Between Hansons Lane and Auburn Avenue). This removes one westbound through lane at the signalised intersection.	Build out southern kerb and footpath (Between Hansons Lane and Auburn Avenue). This removes one westbound through lane at the signalised intersection.	Build out southern kerb and footpath (Between Hansons Lane and Auburn Avenue). This removes one westbound through lane at the signalised intersection.
Provide parallel parking markings on Waimairi Rd (northbound lane) to remove angle parking.	Provide parallel parking markings on Waimairi Rd (northbound lane) to remove angle parking.	Provide parallel parking markings on Waimairi Rd (northbound lane) to remove angle parking.
Remove LT slip and slip island on Waimairi Road - build out kerb to combine LT/TH movement into signalised intersection.	Remove LT slip and slip island on Waimairi Road - build out kerb to combine LT/TH movement into signalised intersection.	Remove LT slip and slip island - build out kerb to combine LT/TH movement.
Cyclist advanced stop boxes on all approaches.	Cyclist advanced stop boxes on all approaches.	Cyclist advanced stop boxes on all approaches.
Remove filter right turns.	Remove filter right turns.	Remove filter right turns.

4.4 The advantages and disadvantages for each option are presented below.

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Advantages	Wider footpath on southern side.	Includes primary safe system treatment that physically controls speeds into the intersection. Likely to achieve safe system speeds for vulnerable users.	Restricts turn movements into and from Waimairi Road, prioritising bus movements only. New crossing installed between Hansons Lane and Waimairi Road to reduce the need for people to cross multiple approaches.
	Protected right turn from Riccarton Road to Hansons Lane.	Protected right turn from Riccarton Road to Hansons Lane.
	Slip lane removed at Riccarton/Waimairi, improving journeys for people walking.	Slip lane removed at Riccarton/Waimairi, improving journeys for people walking.	Slip lane removed at Riccarton/Waimairi, improving journeys for people walking.
	Advanced boxes provided for people riding. On-road cycle lane provided on Riccarton Road for westbound users.	Advanced boxes provided for people riding. On-road cycle lane provided on Riccarton Road for westbound users.	Advanced boxes provided for people riding.
Disadvantages	Cost to change kerblines on south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.	Cost to change kerblines on north and south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.	Cost to change kerblines on north and south side, which may need altering again in future for MRT.
		Small benefits to walking and cycling on Riccarton Road. Slowing of vehicles through the use of the safer speed platform.	Re-assignment of traffic on the network. Modelling undertaken to understand the effects on the network.
			Block back effects from right turn queuing overflowing onto adjacent through lanes.

Waimairi Road crossing

4.5 An independent assessment was undertaken to determine the most suitable and safest crossing type. This is provided in Attachment B.

Safe System Assessment

4.6 A Safe System Assessment was completed as part of the optioneering for the improvements. The Safe System Assessment is a formal examination of a road related program, project or initiative that assesses the safety of the existing intersection and the proposals. The process assesses if, and how, existing or future changes aligns with safe system principles with a focus on safer roads and safer speeds. The assessment provides a score for the existing arrangement and a score for the options from a total score of 448 (the lower score the safer the outcomes). A summary of the scores from the Safe System Assessment can be found below. Note that the lower the score, the safer the option.

A graph of different colored lines

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Chart 1: Summary safe system assessment collision type at Main South, Yaldhurst and Riccarton/Waimairi/Hansons (black is existing and orange is proposed)

Chart 2: Summary safe system assessment collision type at Waimairi Road (black is existing and orange is proposed)

4.7 Chart 1 summarises the assessment of the Riccarton Road changes, which demonstrates that the closure of Main South Road at Yaldhurst and the Safe Speed Platforms at Riccarton/Hansons/Waimairi reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes for the intersections making them more safe system aligned. The Standard Safety Intervention Toolkit assumes a death and serious injury reduction of 40% by implementing raised safety platforms at existing signalised intersection.

4.8 The signalised crossing on a raised platform on Waimairi Road has benefits for all road users as shown in Chart 2.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the Christchurch City Council. Providing safe infrastructure is key to ensure people get to where they are going safely irrespective of their mode of travel. Council has a Level of Service to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries from all crashes by 40% in 2030. That is a reduction of five or more per year, and for this to be under 71 crashes per year within the 10-year period. This is also a goal in the Road Safety Action Plan, which is a collaborative plan between Christchurch City Council, NZTA Waka Kotahi, ACC, FENZ and New Zealand Police.

5.2 Information was extracted from the Life in Christchurch Survey to understand how people, who selected Bush Inn-Church Corner as their mall of choice, travel to the centre:

5.2.1 The majority visit once a week (53.33%), with the next highest frequency being two to four times a week (26.67%).

5.2.2 Most travel by car (66.67%), with the next highest mode being walking (16.67%).

5.2.3 Of those travelling by car, 45% find it very easy, and 35% find it easy.

5.2.4 Of those walking, 21.43% find it easy, 19.64% find it very easy, and 17.86% find it very difficult. There is a fairly even spread of difficulty for walkers.

5.3 The Church Corner area includes the Bush Inn Centre, Church Corner Mall, St Peters Anglican Church, a medical centre, supermarkets, other local shops and businesses. The University of Canterbury and student accommodation is located to the north of Riccarton Road, and there are two large schools close by including Villa Maria and Kirkwood Intermediate. These all generate foot traffic, so it needs to be safer for people wanting to cross the road. Further information on pedestrian counts and ward data is provided in Attachment C.

5.4 There are signalised crossing facilities at the Riccarton/Hansons/Waimairi intersection and designated crossing points in the median island close to the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road intersection for people to cross.

5.5 It is proposed to provide improvements for people walking by providing additional crossing points and removing the slip lane from Riccarton Road into Waimairi Road. The primary reason for the removal of the slip lane is that it can make crossing a road feel unsafe for people walking, particularly children or vulnerable pedestrians. Drivers are focussing on what traffic may be coming from the right to see if they can pass through without stopping, which can sometimes lead to people speeding up to take the gap.

5.6 Many pedestrians have been observed crossing Riccarton Road using the median islands between the Hansons Lane intersection and the Main South Road intersection, but not at the designated crossing. This is an attractive place to cross given the location of bus stops, however pedestrians are required to cross two lanes of traffic in each direction in faster traffic.

5.7 There are no facilities for people riding bicycles through the Riccarton/Hansons/Waimairi intersection on Main South/Yaldhurst intersection. The South Express Cycleway provides a short local connection to Countdown entrance on the south side of Riccarton Road. The 2023 counts identified that there were 43 people riding bicycles through the intersection of Riccarton/Hansons in the morning peak hour, 72 in the afternoon peak hour and 17 during the off-peak lunchtime period. Some people were observed riding on the footpaths.

5.8 There are five bus routes that use the stops on Riccarton Road to the west of Hansons Lane including the numbers 5, 86, 100, 130 and 140. The Orbiter bus route turns right into Waimairi Road from Riccarton Road (and left out for return journey). The 5, 100 and 130 bus routes turn left into Main South Road for the outbound journey and use Curletts Road and the Peer/Yaldhurst intersection to travel east through Church Corner. There are bus stops located through the project area. There are no changes to bus routes, however there is a change to the stop outside Bush Inn on Waimairi Road to accommodate the signalised crossing.

5.9 There are approximately 2100 vehicles passing through the Riccarton/Hansons intersection in the morning peak and 2400 in the evening peak. There are approximately 1900 vehicles passing through at lunchtime.

5.10 There is little guidance given to drivers on the westbound approach to the Riccarton Road/Yaldhurst Road/Main South Road intersection, which can lead to late lane change decisions. There is nothing to prevent late lane changing, and this increases potential for vehicles giving way on Main South Road to be confused as to whether they need to give way to westbound traffic. Although the visibility of oncoming traffic on Main South Road is clear, it is possible that the combination of the curve of Riccarton Road and the two westbound lanes attributes to poor perception of vehicle speed and gap selection by traffic waiting to exit Main South Road.

Crash information for Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton

5.11 In the full ten-year period between 2013 and 2022, and the partial year of 2023 (not all crashes are recorded straight away), there were 83 reported crashes at or within 50 metres of this intersection. Of the 83 crashes:

· 76 were a result of crossing/turning movements

· Four were a result of loss of control/head on

· Two crashes were a result of rear-end/obstruction

· One crash involved a person walking.

5.12 Of the 76 crossing/turning crashes, two resulted in a serious injury, and six resulted in a minor injury. There was no pattern in the two serious injury crashes:

5.12.1 One driver failed to stop at the give-way when turning right from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and has driven into the corner of a bus that was about to turn into Yaldhurst Road from Riccarton Road.

5.12.2 One driver failed to stop at the give-way when turning right from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and has driven into a cyclist travelling west on Yaldhurst Road from Riccarton Road.

5.12.3 The six minor crashes were also similar to the serious crashes in that all drivers exiting Main South Road have hit a vehicle travelling westbound on Riccarton Road to Yaldhurst Road. In four crashes, the driver on Main South Road had failed to give-way, and in two instances the driver on Main South Road failed to see the vehicles approaching and have exited into the path of the oncoming traffic.

5.12.4 The remaining 68 crashes were non-injury crashes, however on several occasions FENZ have attended due to the significant damage to vehicles. Ambulances have also been dispatched to many of the crashes alongside Police. This crash type varies from two to 12 per year. Drivers exiting Main South Road have stated that they have failed to see a vehicle, failed to give-way and have mis-judged the speed of the vehicle approaching from the east. In several crashes, the driver travelling westbound has been unable to stop in time when seeing a driver exiting from Main South Road. Two crashes involved buses travelling along Riccarton Road to Yaldhurst Road.

5.13 Two of the four loss of control/head on crashes occurred in 2021, the remaining two occurred in previous years. There are no trends in the data, with the following crashes occurring:

· Vehicle travelling westbound, has swerved hit the central island and then the driver has overcorrected ending up half on the footpath outside the church.

· Vehicle approached intersection on giveway sign failed to see motorcycle and failed to give way, motorcycle swerved to avoid head on collision crossed centreline and was hit by a car driving the other way.

· A driver turning right from Main South Road has entered the intersection, has panicked on seeing an eastbound driver approaching from Yaldhurst Road, and hit the accelerator ending in the front of a building.

· A driver turning right from Main South Road has lost control turning right. Was travelling over the temporary 30km/h limit used for the roadworks.

5.14 The two rear end crashes happened in two different years, one has involved a vehicle turning right into a side road away from the intersection and has hit a vehicle where the driver has made a last minute change to turn into the same entrance, the second crash involved a vehicle giving way to a rubbish truck collecting rubbish travelling eastbound on Riccarton Road and has been hit at the rear.

5.15 The crash involving the pedestrian resulted in minor injury only. The pedestrian had walked out into the road when walking with friends.

Crash information for Riccarton/Waimari/Hansons

5.16 In the full ten-year period between 2013 and 2022, and the partial year of 2023 (not all crashes are recorded straight away), there were 41 reported number of crashes at and within 50 metres of this intersection. During this time, there was one fatal crash, two crashes that resulted in serious injury, 11 crashes resulting in minor injury, and 27 that resulted in non-injury but mainly vehicle damage.

5.17 One crash resulted in a person losing a life. The crash involved a vehicle performing a filtered right turn onto Hansons Lane, who hit a westbound motorcyclist on Riccarton Road during early morning hours in 2021.

5.18 Two crashes resulted in serious injury to people travelling outside a vehicle:

5.18.1 One crash involved a vehicle performing a filtered right turn onto Hansons Lane, who hit a westbound motorcyclist on Riccarton Road during the evening hours in 2022.

5.18.2 One involved a person riding a bicycle south on Waimairi Road towards Riccarton Road and has collided with the rear of a vehicle. This crash occurred in 2021.

5.19 Of the remaining 38 crashes, 11 resulted in minor injury, this included three pedestrians being hit when crossing the road. These crashes occurred in two different locations:

· Waimairi Road, north of the entrance to Bush Inn.

· Riccarton Road to the west of Hansons Lane (two crashes).

5.20 A further collision occurred involving a pedestrian being hit when crossing the slip lane on Waimairi Road at the intersection with Riccarton Road.

5.21 19 of the 38 crashes involved drivers turning at the intersection and being hit, six of which have resulted in a minor injury.

5.21.1 Seven of the crashes occurred at the Hansons/Riccarton intersection. Five vehicles turning right from Hansons Lane were hit by vehicles travelling westbound on Riccarton Road that had failed to stop at a red. A vehicle turning left from Hansons Lane was also hit by a westbound vehicle that had failed to stop at a red. Two crashes involved a vehicle turning right from Riccarton Road into Hansons Lane, which had failed to give way to a westbound vehicle.

5.21.2 Ten of the crashes occurred at the Riccarton/Waimairi Road intersection:

· Four crashes involved people turning right from Riccarton Road and crashing with vehicles travelling eastbound that had proceeded through a very late orange/start of red.

· Two crashes involved a vehicle turning right into Waimairi Road that had failed to give-way, on one occasion this was failing to see the motorcycle travelling east.

· One crash involved a vehicle waiting in the intersection to turn right and was hit by an oncoming vehicle travelling east on Riccarton Road. One crash involved a vehicle waiting to turn right into Waimairi Road when the signals were not operating, and one vehicle has indicated to the driver to turn but the driver has failed to see the car approaching in the other lane.

· Two vehicles exiting Waimairi Road were hit by people travelling on Riccarton Road (one in each direction) that had passed through a red signal. One vehicle that was hit was a bus.

5.21.3 Two of the crashes occurred on Waimairi Road at the Bush Inn entrance. One involved a vehicle turning in to the Bush Inn Centre and failing to see a vehicle travelling in the left turn lane accessing the centre, and the other involved a vehicle exiting that had failed to see a vehicle had exited Leslie Street.

5.22 Eight of the 38 crashes resulted in the rear end of a vehicle being hit (one was a cycle travelling on the footpath). These were all non-injury crashes, with vehicle only damage being reported. Four occurred on the approach to signals, two of which occurred on the Waimairi Road approach. In each instance a vehicle was following too closely with little time to react.

5.23 Five of the 38 crashes involved loss of control by the driver. Three drivers were attempting to turn right into Waimairi Road from Riccarton Road, one turning left from Riccaton Road into Waimairi Road, and one turning right from Riccarton Road to Hansons Lane. On each occasion, the vehicle hit the traffic signals. Four of the five crashes occurred at night after 10pm.

5.24 Two of the 38 crashes involved vehicles overtaking and hitting other vehicles. One was a result of a late lane change to exit onto Main South Road, one was an inexperienced and impatient driver.

Crash information for Waimairi Road crossing

5.25 In the full ten-year period between 2013 and 2022, and the partial year of 2023 (not all crashes are recorded straight away), there have been no reported crashes at the location of the existing island.

Changes following engagement

5.26 Following consultation, changes been made to the proposal, which include:

5.26.1 Adding a speed hump on Bowen Street at the intersection with Peer Street to slow vehicle traffic entering this local street.

5.26.2 Add sharrow markings in the shared through/left lanes between Hansons Lane and Waimairi Road to remind drivers that people riding bicycles are present.

5.26.3 Add additional coloured surfacing road marking alongside the bus stop on Riccarton Road.

5.26.4 Futureproof the zebra crossing on Riccarton Road/Yaldhurst Road to change to a dual crossing in future if people on bicycles are observed crossing at this location.

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

5.27.1 Riccarton Ward.

5.27.2 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

6. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.1 Early engagement with key stakeholders started in late October 2023. An email was sent to key transport stakeholders, local organisations and schools to advise them of the proposed changes and offer to meet with staff.

6.2 Staff met with Bush Inn Centre on 2 November and St Peter’s Anglican Church, St Peter’s Anglican Pre-School, and Petersgate Trust on 10 November 2023 to discuss the proposed changes.

6.3 Staff visited 66 local businesses around Church Corner on 6 and 8 November 2023. Staff also door knocked eight residential properties around the proposed Waimairi Road crossing. Flyers were left for anyone that was unavailable to speak with staff.

6.4 Consultation started on 9 November and ran until 7 December 2023. An email was sent to 173 key stakeholders.

6.5 The consultation was hosted on Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk which had over 8,500 views throughout the consultation period. A flythrough video of the proposed changes was created and posted on the Council’s YouTube Channel which had over 5,000 views. A Chinese voiceover version of the flythrough video was sent directly to Chinese groups in Christchurch which had over 100 views.

6.6 The consultation was posted on the council Facebook page and was shared to eight local community group pages which reached over 8,800 people.

6.7 A flyer was distributed, and a letter was sent to absentee owners of 300 residential properties around Church Corner on 13 November 2023. 100 copies of the flyer were also dropped to St Peter’s Anglican Church and St Peter’s Anglican Pre-School.

6.8 Paid advertising promoted the consultation to the community, including digital and newspaper ads, bus shelter and washroom posters, digital screens utilised in Upper Riccarton Library, Riccarton Library and Jellie Park and signs put up near pedestrian crossing points around Church Corner and Waimairi Road.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.9 Submissions were made by 12 recognised organisations and 292 individuals.

6.10 A full table of submission feedback is available online or in Attachment D.

6.11 Submitters were asked questions about the following sections of the proposal:

· The Riccarton Road, Hansons Road and Waimairi Road intersection.

· The Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection.

· The Curletts Road and Main South Road intersection.

· The raised signalised pedestrian crossing on Waimairi Road.

6.12 For each section of the proposal, submitters were asked how safe they feel using these intersections and crossing points now, compared to how safe they think they would feel if the proposed changes were made.

6.13 The existing Riccarton Road, Hansons Lane and Waimairi Road intersection is perceived as somewhat or very safe by 93 submitters. If the proposed changes were implemented, 171 submitters said they would feel somewhat or very safe.

6.14 The existing Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection is perceived as somewhat or very safe by 71 submitters. If the proposed changes were implemented, 173 submitters said they would feel somewhat or very safe.

6.15 The existing Curletts Road and Main South Road intersection is perceived as somewhat or very safe by 98 submitters. If the proposed changes were implemented, 151 submitters said they would feel somewhat or very safe.

6.16 Crossing Waimairi Road near Bush Inn Centre currently is perceived as somewhat or very safe by 66 submitters. If the proposed changes were implemented, 179 submitters said they would feel somewhat or very safe.

6.17 The overall shift in safety perception across all the proposed changes is shown below in Table 1. A full breakdown analysis, key themes from submitters and a ‘how to’ on reading these tables is available in Attachment E. This also includes detailed feedback from key stakeholders including Environment Canterbury and staff response.

6.18 Overall, submitters indicated that they would feel safer if the proposed changes were made to each of the intersections or crossing points. There is a general increase in submitters saying they would feel somewhat safe (at least 11%) or very safe (at least 5%).

A screen shot of a chart

Description automatically generated Table 1 - Overall shift in safety perceptions across all proposed changes

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

7.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, including, residents having equitable access to a range of transport options that make it easy and safe to get around the city, and reduce emissions as a Council and as a City.

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

7.3 Transport

7.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - <=96 crashes

· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <= 12 crashes per 100,000 residents

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

7.7 The effects of this proposal upon Mana Whenua are expected to be insignificant as the proposal involves minor work within the existing carriageway.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.8 The decisions in this report are likely to:

7.8.1 Contribute neutrally to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

7.8.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

7.9 The emission reductions associated with this project have not been estimated.

7.10 Improving the ability for people to walk and cycle are a key part of council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low emission way for residents to move around the city.

7.11 From the 2022 Life in Christchurch Transport Survey, 96 percent of respondents travel by car. Inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour from other road users and sharing the road with cars were the main reasons respondents found it difficult to bike.

7.12 Improving safety and making the intersection feel safer would address some of the barriers to people making sustainable travel choices. Removing these barriers will lead to reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and consequently emissions from transport.

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.14 This proposal improves accessibility for pedestrians/cyclists, by providing a safer means of crossing at the intersection and on Waimairi Road.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement - $810k for the works on Riccarton Road and on Waimairi Road to Leslie Street. The Waimairi Road signalised crossing is estimated to cost $500k. These are estimates and not tendered prices.

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

8.3 Funding Source –

8.3.1 Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget for Riccarton Road and Main South Road projects.

8.3.2 Waimairi Road signalised pedestrian crossing (CPMS 73676) is funded through the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) in the Long-Term Plan.

8.4 Funding support - Waka Kotahi have confirmed that funding support at 51% is approved for the intersection works on Riccarton Road and Main South Road through the low-cost low-risk programme. Activities funded through the Low-Cost Low-Risk investment pathway do not need to calculate a benefit-cost ratio. Funding support is only guaranteed for this financial year.

Other He mea anō

8.5 None identified.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.5 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in sections 9.1 - 9.3.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 None identified.

11. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

11.1 Should the intersection and pedestrian safety improvements be approved, construction will follow this financial year.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Church Corner Safety Improvements	24/95888
b	Waimairi Road Crossing Background Information	24/79397
c	Church Corner Ward and Pedestrian Information	24/79383
d	Church Corner safety improvements - all submissions (public)	24/94712
e	Church Corner safety improvements - submission analysis	24/95777

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety

Ann Tomlinson - Project Manager

Krystle Anderson - Engagement Advisor

Georgia Greene - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Katie Smith - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

6. Sports Field Network Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/473714
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Richard Gibbs, Senior Project Manager Rupert Bool, Acting Head of Parks
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 present the draft Sports Field Network Plan to the Council for approval.

1.2 This report is staff generated and presents a summary of the content of the Sports Field Network Plan, why it is needed and the collaborative process that was carried out with regional sports organisations and their member clubs to develop the Plan.

1.3 The Council’s final approval of the Sports Field Network Plan is sought to enable implementation of the plan in sync with the 2024-34 Long Term Plan once adopted.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Sports Field Network Plan report.

2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as having a medium to low level significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Adopt the Sports Field Network Plan – Attachment A to this report.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The draft Sports Field Network Plan (the Plan) is a strategic document that articulates the desired goals and outcomes associated to a well performing sports field asset to meet the sporting needs of our community for all levels of sport and for all age groups over the next 10 years. It will help to ensure that the sports field needs of our community are met in the face of a growing pressure for the city’s open space to be used for a range of recreational needs.

3.2 The Plan acknowledges the need to incorporate other parkland open space demand such as the urban forest and an increasing demand to accommodate localised ‘green storm water’ management solutions to alleviate pressure on the city’s network infrastructure generated by increasingly diverse seasonal weather events.

3.3 The draft Plan has been developed in conjunction with stakeholders who represent the key sporting groups and organisations that use the sports fields in the summer and winter sports seasons, and who manage weekly sports opportunities and events. These stakeholders include Sport Canterbury, Regional Sports Organisations (RSOs) who have Council sports fields allocated to them for the summer and winter sports seasons, and independent organisations set up to manage weekly sports opportunities and events for schools.

3.4 The scope of the Plan covers the land that Council has historically provided to Regional Sports Organisations (RSOs) for sports traditionally played on natural turf and which the RSOs have then allocated seasonally to their user groups.

3.5 The Plan sets out how we aim to provide a sports field network that encourages citizens to participate sport locally, and enjoy the multiple benefits of good health, wellbeing and strengthened communities that result from participation.

3.6 The Plan guides development and improvement of our sports fields: to address any backlog; to meet the growth and changing use demands of our communities; and to facilitate sporting performance at a community level.

3.7 The Plan needs to consider the different seasonal needs of sports. The predominant users of the land allocated in winter are rugby, league and football codes. In summer, the predominate users of sports parks are cricket, softball and touch rugby. Junior sports across codes often utilise senior fields for their games. Touch rugby uses a high number of fields as it is a high participation sport.

3.8 Implementation of the Plan will require additional investment over time. As such funding has been included in the draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan to enable delivery of the Plan’s objectives.

3.9 Implementation of the Plan will strengthen Christchurch City’s reputation as an increasingly confident city, one that promotes a green liveable environment, and an increasingly vibrant city where people want to live and thrive.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Sporting activity is at the heart of every community. It impacts our culture, society and economy. An accessible and affordable network of sports fields provides opportunity for our citizens to participate in and enjoy sport regardless of age, ability, background, ethnicity or gender. Sport can break down many of the barriers associated with challenging socio-economic challenges.

4.2 Year-on-year the Council has failed to meet customer satisfaction levels of service associated with sports field asset provision. The last point of contact resident satisfaction survey results (2023/2024) showed 50% overall satisfaction with the range and quality of sport parks against a target of 75%. Results have fluctuated year on year but trend as an ongoing decline.

4.3 Increasingly women are participating in a variety of sports including those traditionally dominated by males. The city needs to adapt and invest in its infrastructure to address this dynamic to support gender neutrality in sports infrastructure.

4.4 The Sports Field Network Plan provides the strategic framework for delivering the above network of sports fields. At the Plan’s core are three goals:

i. Play where you live;

ii. Participate for life; and

iii. Succeed.

4.5 These goals have been developed with the overall aim of encouraging citizens to participate locally, and enjoy the multiple benefits of good health, wellbeing and strengthened communities. By focussing on these three goals, accessibility is delivered locally especially for young people, supporting increased participation in sport whilst minimising barriers such as travel and cost. Furthermore, local provision is supplemented by quality, well-placed and appropriately configured community facilities that support sport development and performance and build the city’s sporting image.

4.6 The following related memos/information were circulated to the members of the meeting:

Date

Subject

15/3/24

Email Sent to Councillor Johanson in his capacity as Sports Promotion Portfolio Lead with the following attachments:

· Draft Sports Field Network Plan and

· All of the feedback submissions from Regional Sports Organisations and associated clubs

26/4/24

Final draft Sports Field Network Plan sent to Councillor Johanson in his capacity as Sports Promotion Portfolio Lead.

4.7 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
28-09-2023	Briefing to Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Briefing
20-11-2023	Briefing to Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board
23-11-2023	Briefing to Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board
23-11-2023	Briefing to Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
30-11-2023	Briefing to Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board
06-05-2024	Briefing to Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 The following reasonably practicable option was considered and is assessed in this report:

· Provision of a Sports Field Network Plan.

4.9 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Not to have a Sports Field Network Plan - this option is not recommended as it is important for the Council to be more strategic in its approach to investment in the provision of sports field infrastructure on behalf of ratepayers. Up until recently, capital expenditure has been in response to earthquake recovery and improvements to support training facility demands for global tournaments. Moving forward, having a planned approach with ongoing collaboration with key stakeholders and clearly defined goals will enable optimal decision making. This approach will enable the Council to achieve its strategic objectives and community outcomes as well as meet the goals of its other plans and strategies, including climate-related goals.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Adopt a citywide Sports Field Network Plan

4.10.1 Option Description: A strategic framework for delivering a network of sports fields across the city.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· There will be a well-coordinated, objective and transparent approach to the provision of new, upgraded and renewals of sports fields that consider existing supply, future growth and changing use demands of our communities and to facilitate sporting performance.

· Decision making relating to prioritisation of future investment will be collaborative with RSOs and can be shared with elected members in advance of annual and LTP plan adoption year-on-year.

· Minimises reactive community ‘noise’ related decision making.

· Enables careful consideration of the most cost-effective way to meet demand.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· The plan will require additional funding over time to implement.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 The Sports Fields Network Plan will set out the development pathway for the network of sports fields and associated infrastructure in Christchurch over the next 10 years. The draft Plan focuses on the provision, development and performance of a network of well-placed, appropriately developed and accessible sports fields across our city, balanced against other competing needs for use of our city’s parks.

4.12 Through implementing the Plan, we will be able to: capture what is working well or requires improvement and where gaps exist; understand existing issues and opportunities in response to changing community needs; and establish clear and concise goals to help guide and prioritise sports field investment.

4.13 The Plan does not identify provision for individual sports. The intention is for the network of sports fields to be as flexible as possible, recognising that demand and use change over time and that sports also use non-Council facilities. It seeks to guide equitable sports field provision and development based on community needs. This approach is considered the most cost-effective way to deliver the appropriate Level of Service.

4.14 In delivering the three goals of the Sports Field Network Plan (Play where you live, Participate for life and Succeed), the provision and development of the sports field network will need to balance the other recreational needs of our community and competing and increasing demands for use of open space.

4.15 This Sports Field Network Plan will sit alongside other documents and plans that contribute to the delivery of Council’s community outcomes and guide policy or investment priorities.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option- network plan	Option 2 – No plan
Cost to Implement	$50M over the term of the current draft Long Term Plan, Funding in the draft long term plan has funding commencing in year 5 FY29/30 of the plan	Not investing in a planned approach would mean funding would remain at low levels as it has in the past. Non network plan funding averages $ 600K per annum and enables minor works only
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Maintenance costs will be defined once individual projects are conceptualised. Any adjustment to Opex budgets (if any) will be detailed in future LTP and Annual plans	Current annual sports field maintenance costs including seasonal renovations average $2.5M per annum. Costs fluctuate marginally driven by seasonal weather determining the level of renovation required.
Funding Source	#61785 Programme - Community Parks Sports Field Development	#70634 Community Parks Sports Field Development Delivery Package) #74020 Community Parks Planned Sports Fields Renewals Delivery Package #61806 Sports Fields Irrigation Systems Development #61816 Community Parks Planned Irrigation System renewals #61818 Programme - Community Parks Planned Sports Fields Renewals
Funding Availability	Dependent on finalisation of the draft 2024-2034	Dependent on finalisation of the draft 2024-2034
Impact on Rates	0.1% per annum average over last five years of the current draft LTP	n/a- This is baseline funding from the existing Long term plan

5.1 The funding for this project is included in the draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Any delays in adopting a final Sports Park Network Plan will mean staff will most likely be received negatively by the sporting community in Christchurch, particularly the Regional Sports Organisations who have contributed to the Plan.

6.2 Resident satisfaction surveys will most likely continue to not meet expectation.

6.3 Future demand will not be met in a well-planned manner meaning the cost impacts may be higher for rate payers.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.4.1 The Council has authority to adopt the final Sports Field Network Plan.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 In preparing the final Sports Park Network Plan (the Plan) consideration has been given to the views and preferences of the persons likely to be affected. Those views and preferences are well known to the Council, as is the impact of the Plan from the perspective of the persons likely to be affected. It was considered that cost of engaging in a full consultative procedure were not warranted due to the likely affected persons being well known and there being no additional benefits in engaging in such a procedure.

6.5.2 This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit in respect to their advice relating to consultation in relation to the Local Government Act 2002.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. In particular this recommendation is strongly aligned with the community outcomes of a collaborative confident city, giving residents the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, and supporting the community to pursue their arts, cultural and sporting interests. It supports our key Community Outcomes of being a collaborative confident city, a green liveable city, a cultural powerhouse city and a thriving prosperous city.

6.6.2 Is assessed as medium to low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The driving factors in assessing this level of significance are the level of community interest, the number of people that the Plan could affect, and the potential benefits to the wider community and the District.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular, the:

· Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy (2022)

· Kia tūroa te Ao Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy (2021)

· Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy (2002)

· The Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan and the Mass Rapid Transit Indicative Business Case

· The Urban Forest Plan (2023)

6.7 This report supports the:

6.8 Parks, heritage and coastal environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.3.5 Overall customer satisfaction with the recreational opportunities and ecological experiences provided by the City's Regional Parks - Regional Parks resident satisfaction >=80%. Citizens and communities

6.8.2 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.1.1 Support the development of strong, connected and resilient communities by supporting the provision of a sustainable network of community facilities.

6.9 Parks, heritage and coastal environment

6.9.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.5 Satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the city's parks and foreshore network. Resident satisfaction with the availability of recreation facilities across the parks and foreshore network: >= 70%.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 Parks staff requested the Communications and Engagement team review the community engagement carried out to date and how the feedback has been incorporated into the draft Plan. The Communications and Engagement team concluded that the community engagement has been comprehensive and consequently, further consultation is not considered necessary.

6.11 The Legal team were asked to consider whether the level of engagement undertaken on the draft Sports Field Network Plan met the requirements of the Local Government Act.

6.11.1 After determining the significance of the Plan and having linked the level of significance to the level of engagement, it was considered that the Plan is significant only to the relatively small group of people (RSOs) who have been identified and consulted and has a low impact on the wider community but has the potential to benefit the wider community.

6.11.2 Prior to initiating any specific projects under the Plan, it is recommended that there is engagement with those members of the community that reside in the immediate vicinity of the subject sports field(s) to discuss the means by which any potential mitigation measures can be initiated to reduce the impact of any new developments on their amenity value.

6.12 In the development of the draft Sports Field Network Plan Council staff engaged with stakeholders who represent the key sporting groups and organisations that use the sports fields in the summer and winter sports seasons, and who manage weekly sports opportunities and events for tamariki and rangatahi in Waitaha. These stakeholders included:

6.12.1 Sport Canterbury – an independent regional sports trust for Waitaha, dedicated to fostering community and connection through sports. Sport Canterbury is one of 17 regional sports trusts under the umbrella of Sport New Zealand.

6.12.2 Major regional sports organisations who have Council sports fields allocated to them for the summer and winter sports seasons have been engaged with and have contributed to the development of the Plan. Collectively, these regional organisations represent the majority of community sports clubs in Christchurch:

6.12.3 Canterbury Rugby – representing 19 clubs (264 teams)

6.12.4 Canterbury Rugby League – representing 11 clubs (92 teams)

6.12.5 Christchurch Metro Cricket and Canterbury Cricket – representing 26 clubs (483 teams)

6.12.6 Canterbury Softball – representing 13 clubs (181 teams)

6.12.7 Mainland Football – representing 39 clubs (430 teams)

6.12.8 Touch Canterbury – representing 24 modules (936 teams)

6.12.9 Canterbury Schools Sport organisation

6.12.10 Independent organisations set up to manage weekly sports opportunities and events for tamariki and rangatahi in Waitaha (School Sports Canterbury, Primary Sports Canterbury). Membership of these organisations consists of primary, intermediate and secondary schools throughout Canterbury

6.13 A minimum of two meetings/workshops were held with these stakeholders, where Council staff presented the draft Plan and received feedback. Subsequent meetings were held at the request of Mainland Football and Canterbury Softball with their respective clubs, where Council staff received further feedback. There was also a meeting held with the Secondary School Regional Sports directors, with information sent out to all secondary schools in Ōtautahi.

6.14 In addition, staff met with RSO’s clubs when requested to discuss core goals of the Plan and how the Plan is intended to be implemented.

6.15 A high proportion of the feedback received at the meetings and workshops was focused on operational detail rather than on the strategic direction of the Plan. However, there was widespread support for the methodology that had been used to develop the Plan and, in particular, the intent to establish a network of six artificial turf hubs around the city.

6.16 One of the key outcomes agreed through the engagement with the key stakeholders is that the prioritisation of the projects implemented from the draft Plan would be agreed in consultation with the regional sports organisations through regular seasonal meetings and using an agreed decision-making matrix (Goal: Succeed. Objective 3.2) This process will help ensure that community sports clubs, through their regional organisations, will continue to have a voice as the Plan is delivered.

6.17 The Plan’s Framework also has other key actions recognising the importance of ongoing collaboration with the Regional Sports Organisations, including working with them to evaluate the city’s network of floodlights (Goal 2, Objective 2.1) and seeking ongoing feedback on the performance of sports fields (Goal 3: Objective 3.1).

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

6.18.1 All Community Boards.

6.19 The Community Boards’ view is supportive, as judged from the feedback given during the five briefings presented in 2023 and one in 2024.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.20 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.

6.21 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.

6.22 A draft copy of the Sports Field Network Plan to all six local Rūnanga (Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Rāpaki, Koukourarata, Wairewa, Ōnuku and Taumutu) and asked for specific feedback. No feedback was received. It should be noted that any individual sports field development on new land would automatically trigger an early engagement with Mahaanui Kurataiao and the Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.23 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.23.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change by designing and constructing new or upgraded sports fields so that they can support climate resilience by increasing their ability to store rainfall in severe weather events.

6.23.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions by prioritising of sports fields within walkable catchments and close to public transport (including proposed Mass Rapid Transit), and cycle routes can support Council’s target to halve our district’s emissions by 2030.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.24 Accessibility is embedded into the Sports Field Network Plan through the vision ‘Parks are for everyone’ and guiding principles ‘For everyone’ and ‘Development is optimised and equitable’.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Deliver on funded actions with the Plan.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Sports Field Network Plan	24/765429	70

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Richard Gibbs - Senior Project Manager

Angela Leatherby - Sports Liaison Advisor

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

7. Better Off Funding - Ferrymead Heritage Park Third Tranche
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440207
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Leader
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 enable the Council to consider approving the payment of the third and final tranche of Better-Off funding allocated to Ferrymead Heritage Park.

1.2 This report originated following the 21 June 2023 Council resolution (CNCL/2023/00076):

1.2.1 $400,000 to the Ferrymead Trust to accelerate or enhance their projects or operations so they continue to contribute to important community experience and subject to the following terms and conditions:

· Joint funding with the Ferrymead Trust on a 50:50 basis for the operation of the Ferrymead Trust from 1 July 2023 to 21 December 2023;

· Ferrymead Trust retaining a suitable qualified entity to develop a business plan that substantively implements the February 2023 BDO Christchurch Limited Report “Final Strategic and Opportunities Review Summary Report” by November 2023 with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate how Ferrymead Trust will achieve ongoing financial sustainability including what actions will be taken, by whom, when, and at what cost. This is to inform Council’s consideration of long-term funding in the Long-Term Plan;

· Milestones that recognise progress implementing the BDO Christchurch Limited Report;

· That staff work with Ferrymead Trust to agree to funding terms and conditions and, if necessary, identify any milestones for grant payments, prior to making the grant payments to the Trust.

1.2.2 $111,700 of the total $400,000 grant was allocated as a first tranche to support business-plan development until 31 December 2023.

1.2.3 A further $140,000 of the remaining was then allocated as a second tranche to support identified high-priority Park transformation initiatives at the Council Meeting of 12 December 2023.

· It was agreed that staff would bring a report to Council for consideration of a third tranche payment in 2024 for allocation of the remaining $148,300 in context of the Trust’s performance against key milestones. These milestones were that:

i. Any expectation of future financial support from the Council should be limited to an application to the contestable Strengthening Communities Fund for an amount no greater than historical norms.

ii. The Ferrymead Trust should consider the impacts of climate change in their future planning primarily their response to adverse events, sea level rise and emissions.

iii. The business plan should contemplate how the Ferrymead Trust will work with its stakeholder organisations to secure the future of vulnerable buildings on site, be this repair, removal, or demolition.

1.3 This report involves the third and final tranche.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Better Off Funding – Ferrymead Heritage Park Third Tranche Report.

2. Approve a third and final tranche payment of $148,300 from the Metropolitan Better Off Fund to The Ferrymead Trust towards business plan implementation for the betterment and long-term sustainability of Ferrymead Heritage Park.

3. 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 On 21 June 2023, the Council approved allocation of $400,000 from the Better Off Fund to support a business transformation effort for Ferrymead Heritage Park, who have struggled financially and structurally for several years.

3.2 This funding has been awarded in two separate tranches so far, with staff working closely alongside the Park governance board to ensure that they meet agreed targets and have adequate support to do so.

3.3 Having met all of the requirements of the second tranche, this decision relates to the release of a third (and final) tranche, which would expend the remainder of the allocated funds for the Park to continue delivering their transformative efforts.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Ferrymead Trust have demonstrated achievement of key milestones through regular progress updates to Council staff. They have:

· Continued to operate the Park successfully throughout the start of 2024. There has been an increase in visitation numbers at the Park when compared to the same period last year, due to a successful summer season and a newly developed marketing and events role.

· Engaged further with Lyttelton Port & Christchurch NZ around encouraging Cruise Ships and other City visitors to offer travel packages and deals that include visits to the Heritage Park.

· Begun to implement a comprehensive business plan, demonstrating use of the BDO (Business Advisory) strategic report recommendations, peer-reviewed by Flourish Consulting (Attachment A).

· Developed a new business operating model at the Park, which will minimise costs for the company without significantly disrupting the member-society activities or general public. These proposals have been co-designed with the societies at the Park over a number of months and will continue to be implemented by the Trust in 2024.

· Operated with transparency with Council staff and a consistent vision for positive change at the Park.

4.2 The following related closed information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
21 June 2023	Decision to award total quantum of $400,000 to the Ferrymead Trust. First tranche of $111,700 made.
12 December 2023	Considered progression against agreed objectives for the Park. Second tranche of $140,000 made.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.3 The following reasonably practicable options were considered for this report:

4.3.1 To decline to award of any of the remaining $148,300 allocated to The Trust.

· This option was not recommended as it withdraws financial support part-way through a transformative process, where funding was released in tranches to retain competitive integrity and pressure for positive progress within the Park.

4.4 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.4.1 To award part of the remaining $148,300 allocated to the trust.

· This option would serve no material benefit to either the Park or the Council and would require additional staff time in the preparation of information and further decisions for any of the remaining quantum.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.5 Preferred Option: To approve a third and final tranche payment of $148,300 from the Metropolitan Better Off Fund to The Ferrymead Trust.

4.6 Option Description: This funding would specifically target business plan implementation for the betterment and long-term sustainability of Ferrymead Heritage Park.

4.6.1 Option Advantages

· This funding will see the park through until decisions are made for the contestable Strengthening Communities Fund in August.

· It will support the continued transformative work of the new Ferrymead Trust.

4.6.2 Option Disadvantages

· Will prevent the Council re-purposing the funding to another output within Ferrymead Park, if it has a mind to do so.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.7 Following Council’s initial resolution on 21 June 2023, staff have worked with representatives from the Ferrymead Trust on various funding terms and key milestones. All milestones of this first tranche were met. Details of progress against milestones of the second tranche are as follows:

4.7.1 The Park has completed and begun implementation of a detailed business plan, peer reviewed by an external body, clearly detailing a realistic route to future stability for the Park (Attachment A).

4.7.2 There is continued communication to the park that expectation of future financial support from the Council should be limited to an application to the contestable Strengthening Communities Fund rather than through Council’s Long-Term Plan.

4.7.3 The Trust has considered the impacts of climate change in their future planning primarily their response to adverse events, sea level rise and emissions.

· They have organised a subcommittee of the Trust that will address buildings and infrastructure in the context of their geographical location, particularly proximity to the coast. They have reviewed the most recent advice from NIWA and continue to monitor the situation. The Trust will report annually to stakeholders on mitigations and residual risk in this area.

4.7.4 The Trust has considered how it will work with its stakeholder organisations to secure the future of vulnerable buildings on site, be this repair, removal, or demolition.

· They have developed an early plan for which buildings are classified for repair, replacement, or (in the worst case) isolation. They have finished a capital-raising investment strategy that will seek money from philanthropic and corporate sources. They are also looking to employ a fundraising professional and have identified a professional chartered accountant who is willing to work with the Park on a 0.4FTE basis to review its finances and ensure it aligns with international accounting standards (this is important for seeking major external and national funding).

· The intention is to have the infrastructure of the Park fit-for-purpose by 2030.

4.7.5 The Trust have completed a comprehensive governance review. This review embedded a new structure with the Trust as the most senior body at the Park, overseeing the Company, and supported by an advisory board with membership across societies at the Park. This is a significant change to the existing structure and will be supported by the NZ Institute of Directors to ensure proper training for new and remaining Trustees.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Grant the remainder	Option 2 – No grant
Cost to Implement	$148,000	0.00
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None	Staff time/advice on use of the remaining funds
Funding Source	The Better-Off Fund	N/A
Funding Availability	Available – allocated for this purpose	N/A
Impact on Rates	None	None

5.1 All of the costs of releasing this third and final tranche are accounted for, because of the decision of Council on 21 June 2023 to ringfence $400,000 for this purpose.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a material risk that longer-term implementation of the transformative business plan by Ferrymead Heritage Park will require substantial funding that is not affordable to the Council’s contestable community funding pool long-term.

· This risk is partially mitigated by the Council clearly communicating to the Trust that the reliance on considerable annual support from the Council does not meet the requirement of financial sustainability.

· This remains a material risk, which will be monitored and used to inform any future advice provided to the Council.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision:

6.3.1 Is consistent with Te Haumako, Te Whitingia - Strengthening Communities Together Strategy:

· Objective 1.5: Support groups involved in providing access to arts, culture, heritage, recreation, and those who care for the environment.

· Objective 1.6: Facilitate and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

· Objective 1.7: Work with others to reduce loneliness and social isolation, with particular focus on intergenerational approaches.

· Objective 2.3: Support the community activation and kaitiakitanga of public places and spaces.

· Objective 3.4: Increase volunteering opportunities across the Council and the wider community and support the organisations providing such opportunities.

6.3.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

6.5 Citizens and communities

6.5.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.6.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

6.6.2 The Community Board has received briefings regarding the ongoing status of the Park. However, the decision regarding allocation of Better Off Funding lies with the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 The decision is not a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. This is because the decision concerns the allocation of pre-approved community funding.

6.9 The Park have indicated a commitment to improving their Mana-Whenua partnership (specifically Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāti Wheke). This relationship with hapū continues to mature month-by-month.

6.10 The Trust is working with the University of Canterbury to incorporate more Te Ao Māori into the Park.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.12 The Trust have provided advice to Council staff on how they will consider the impacts of climate change in their future planning, primarily their response to adverse events, sea level rise and emissions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The recommended third and final Tranche would allow the Park to continue to operate day-to-day, while continuing business plan implementation for long term sustainability and addressing Council feedback.

7.2 It would expend the remaining $148,300 from the initial allocation of $400,000 in June 2023.

7.3 Any future funding from the Council will be managed through applications to the Contestable Strengthening Communities Fund and/or public submissions to Council’s Long Term Plan.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Ferrymead Park Better Business Case 2024 - 2029 (Under Separate Cover)	24/17832

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

8. Mount Pleasant Community Centre - Community Loan Reschedule
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/479049
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Leader
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 for the Council to consider a term-restructuring of the Mount Pleasant Community Loan Schedule.

1.2 The report originated through the relationship with the Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents Association as part of management of their existing community loan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Mount Pleasant Community Centre – Community Loan Reschedule Report.

2. Agree to extend the existing community loan with the Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents’ Association from a total term of 13 years to a total term of 16 years with interest rates maintained at 2% and quarterly repayments increasing by $1,000 p/a.

3. 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 As per the current loan schedule, from 20 December 2024, the Mount Pleasant Community Centre will move from quarterly repayments of $2,000.00 to $9,015.49.

3.2 The Association believe that meeting these repayment commitments are not achievable at this stage in their development and activation of the centre.

3.3 Staff have met with the Association trustees to assess the status of the organisation, gauge repayment ability confidence, and to propose a realistic path forward. The recommended approach reflects the result of this assessment and discussions with the association.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Association have been making their scheduled quarterly repayments of $2,000, of which, a large portion is interest on the loan.

4.2 From December 2024, this quarterly repayment is set to increase to $9,015, a 350% increase. The Association has indicated to Council that they are unable to meet these increased repayments as they have not developed sufficient income-generating streams.

4.3 Council staff have met with officers of the Association to discuss their organisational status and have developed a step-up approach that both parties agree is realistic and achievable for the Association. A copy of this Draft Schedule is included in Attachment A.

4.3.1 This schedule will slowly increase the quarterly repayments each year, rather than seeing one significant jump, to allow the Association to adjust to the increasing costs.

4.3.2 It would not come at significant cost to the Community Loan Scheme over the period of the loan and would extend the total loan period by three years.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.4 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

· To implement a step-up rescheduling of the loan.

· This would involve increasing the quarterly payments by $1,000 each year, until reaching the current maximum ‘table loan’ payments of $9,078.72 per quarter.

· This approach would extend the final quarterly repayment from September 2033 until September 2037.

· The cost to the Community Loan Scheme of this approach would be $12,124, because of the extended period for the loan to be repaid.

· To award the Association with an interest-free loan:

· This would still involve stepping up the principal payments by $1,000 a year. However, the Council would incur an additional cost to the fund caused by the loss of 2%p.a. interest.

· This approach would extend the final quarterly repayment from September 2033 until June 2036.

· The cost to the Community Loan Scheme of this approach would be $46,345, both because of the extended period of the loan, as well as the lack of interest being charged.

4.5 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Forgiving the entirety of the Community Loan.

· The balance of the Community Loan Scheme is maintained through repayments of current loan holders.

· The Association can make repayments at the current level and are reasonably confident in their ability to grow annual income in years to come.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.6 For the integrity of the Loan Scheme as a whole and because of precedent for other Community-Loan holders, it is preferred not to recommend that the Council forgive the loan quantum.

4.7 Staff have been careful to find an option for the Association that reflects a realistic path to meeting their loan obligations to the Council, at the lowest possible cost to the scheme.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option A step-up rescheduling of the loan	Option 2 Award interest free
Cost to Implement	$12,124	$46,345
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	None	None
Funding Source	Community Loans Scheme	Community Loans Scheme
Date of Complete Loan Repayment	September 2037	June 2036
Impact on Rates	None, the loan scheme is already considered largely impaired in the LTP.	None, the loan scheme is already considered largely impaired in the LTP.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a material risk that even with a more forgiving growth in quarterly principal repayments, that the Mount Pleasant Community Centre may struggle to afford the loan costs if they are unable to increase their income in the years to come.

6.1.1 This risk is mitigated by the confidence of the Association in their ability to do so.

6.1.2 The risk is also mitigated by the fact that if they were unable to make the increased quarterly repayments, that maintaining the status quo of low repayments is realistic without any significant organisational change or growth in annual income.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.2.1 The Council has the authority to award community loans and make amendments to community loan schedules where the extension of such a loan would come at cost to the loans scheme.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 This decision will not impact security arrangements currently in place with the Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents Association over the building.

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. .

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of individuals impacted by the decision and low cost to implement.

6.4.3 Is consistent with the 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: 2.2.5.1 Community partner relationships are prioritised, improves and supported by robust information. - 130 Partner Organisations' relationship with Council is health-checked and reported

· Level of Service: 2.0.7 Support community management and activation of facilities through a Council and Community partnership model. - At least 75% of community facilities are activated / managed in partnership with the community

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision affects the following Wards/Community Board areas:

6.7.1 The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

6.7.2 Heathcote Ward.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 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.

6.9 The decision does not 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

6.15 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 Staff will prepare an amended loan agreement with the Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents Association to reflects the nature of the new repayment schedule.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	DRAFT Mount Pleasant Community Centre Loan Schedule - Step Up Model	24/486932	124

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

10. Heritage Incentive Grant Applications
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440189
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner Victoria.Bliss@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider applications for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the organisations listed below, noting that the recommendations can be accommodated within the funds available.

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

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Heritage Incentive Grant Applications 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 a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $63,000 for relocation, conservation, maintenance and upgrade works to the Rāpaki School building, located at 9 Kina Road, Rāpaki.

a. Note that the applicants have already entered into a 20-year limited conservation covenant.

4. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $58,164 for stained glass conservation works at St Michael and All Angels Church.

a. Note that the applicants have already entered into a 10-year limited conservation covenant.

5. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $54,303 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade works at 860-862 Colombo Street.

a. Note that payment of the 860-862 Colombo Street grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20-year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

6. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of $59,000 for reinstatement, upgrade and maintenance works at 210 St Asaph Street.

a. Note that payment of the 210 St Asaph Street grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20-year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

7. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $8,471 for maintenance and repair works to The Old Shipping Office, 3 Church Street, Akaroa.

8. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $2,313 for the William Gilbert and Hine Te Marino Headstone Conservation project.

9. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $405 for the Marion ‘Queenie’ McLean headstone repair project.

10. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $7,610 for conservation, repair and maintenance works to 38 Dublin Street, Lyttelton.

11. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $22,800 for conservation, repair and maintenance works to 47 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

a. Note that payment of the 47 Oxford Street grant is subject to the applicant entering a 10-year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

12. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $12,811 for conservation, repair and maintenance works to 52 Longfellow Street.

13. Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of $22,500 for the Lewe Summers Memorial Sculpture project at Mount Pleasant Community Centre.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Heritage Incentive Grant funding aims to incentivise owners and kaitiaki to undertake works to protect, maintain, repair and upgrade heritage buildings, places, structures and objects. This financial support contributes to the protection of the district’s heritage now, and for future generations.

3.2 The Heritage Incentive Grant fund was an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. Council approved funding to be diverted into this fund from the now closed Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund in 2020. The carry forward of the remaining funds of $1,042,169 was approved for inclusion in the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan, with the resolution to spread these funds over three financial years. This equates to $347,389 per annum for each year.

3.3 Allocation of $311,377 from the 2023-2024 funding provision is recommended by staff in this report. This will leave a balance of $36,012 available for other applicants.

3.4 The staff recommendations will support eleven different heritage conservation projects across the city. The range of projects seeking funding reflects the breadth and diversity of Ōtautahi Christchurch’s taonga.

3.5 The recommended sum of $311,377 will support and incentivise a total investment of over $1,130,569.00 in heritage projects across the district.

3.6 All grants meet the eligibility criteria for the grant scheme, which was approved by the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on 17 December 2020 (SACRC/2020/000460).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga’ Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 was developed in partnership with the six papatipu rūnanga and together with the communities of the district. This engagement affirmed a strong community desire to understand, celebrate and protect its heritage and a recognition of the responsibility to future generations to safeguard Ōtautahi Christchurch’s rich and diverse taonga.

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

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

4.4 Applications for Heritage Incentive Grant funding received by staff are discussed below:

Rāpaki School relocation and conservation project

4.5 On 24 November 2021 the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee awarded a Heritage Incentive grant of $71,000 (30% of eligible costs) to Rāpaki Reserves Trust. The grant was to support the relocation, conservation, maintenance and upgrade of Rāpaki school (SARC/2021/00072).

4.6 At the time of the grant award, the total works were estimated to be $292,261, with $177,932 of this cost eligible for HIG funding.

4.7 The works have begun and there has been a considerable increase in the project costs which have risen to c.$750,000. Project costs have arisen due to construction inflation and unforeseen factors including additional ground and superstructure works. The applicants are now seeking additional HIG funding.

4.8 The Guidelines for the HIG scheme provide for additional funding being approved within a five-year period in certain circumstances, such as:

4.8.1 An increase in the assessed level of risk, including possible loss.

4.8.2 Essential unforeseen maintenance or repairs identified as a consequence of other works being carried out on the building, place, structure or object.

4.9 The building risk has increased as a result of further deterioration to the adjacent cliff edge and ongoing coastal erosion requiring additional foundations once the building is moved, as well as further repairs being identified.

4.10 The applicants have successfully applied for grant funding from other sources, including $140,000 from the Rata Foundation and $30,000 from Parkinsons Trust. They currently have a shortfall of $350,000 and are actively fundraising through a crowd funding campaign Rāpaki School Restoration - Rapaki Marae

4.11 The school is of architectural, cultural and social significance which Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke are seeking to preserve and restore for ongoing use by hapū and manuhiri. This will sustain both the tangible architectural heritage of the whare, as well as its cultural significance as part of hapū life and the mauri of Rāpaki. It is a rare example of a nineteenth century building that has survived and remained in use in a Ngāi Tahu village to the present day.

4.12 Since it was constructed around 1874, Rāpaki School has been an integral part of the hapū community, cultural landscape and social history of the kāika of Rāpaki. The publicly accessible building will benefit not only mana whenua, but also manuhiri for another century and beyond, further preserving the rich heritage of the area both European and Māori.

4.13 Staff are recommending a grant of $63,000 (which equates to 18% of the current funding shortfall) to support the works and note that a 20-year Heritage Conservation Covenant is already in place.

4.14 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building; the contribution the works will make to its retention; the contribution the building makes to wider community heritage and wellbeing outcomes; the urgency of the work required relating to the risk of damage if the work is not done, and the extent to which the building is accessible to the public. Consideration has also been given to the degree to which the proposed activities are consistent with tikanga and kawa of mana whenua.

4.15 Without this additional grant funding Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke will not be able to complete the works, which have begun, to relocate the school away from the cliff edge. They are able to phase some elements of the project to allow for fundraising. However additional funding is required as a matter of urgency to complete the foundation system and relocate the building. This needs to be done before winter weather and further coastal erosion.

Rāpaki School showing works underway, April 2024. Image supplied by Andrew Scott.

A house with a red roof

Description automatically generated

Rendering to show the relocated and repaired school once completed. 2024, supplied by applicant.

4.16 The applicant for the grant is Rāpaki Reserves Trust.

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

4.17.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

4.17.2 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

St Michael and All Angels north transept ‘Six Corporal Acts of Mercy’ and Rose windows conservation project.

4.18 On 30 March 2022 the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee awarded a grant of $26,288 for conservation of the west Rose Window at St Michael and All Angels Church, 243 Durham Street South, Christchurch (SACRC/2022/00011). At the time the Committee sought to offer a higher funding sum given the high heritage significance of the Church, its landmark status and the high heritage significance of the stained-glass windows within the building.

4.19 At the request of the Committee a further report was prepared and presented to Council on 7 April 2022. Staff recommended that the grant remain at the approved $26,288 as 50% of eligible works is the maximum percentage allowed by the grant scheme Guidelines. Council therefore added a note to CNCL/2022/00038 stating that: “the Anglican Parish of Christchurch - St Michael and All Angels, are able to apply for a further Heritage Incentive grant to support conservation works to the other significant stained-glass windows of the Church.”

4.20 An application has been received in response to the Council resolution, seeking grant funding for the conservation and repair of the north transept ‘Six Corporal Acts of Mercy’ and Rose windows.

4.21 These windows are located on the north elevation of the Church, facing directly onto Oxford Terrace, and are highly visible from both Durham Street and the pedestrian focussed paved area of Oxford Terrace. They were installed in 1876 in memory of Isaac Cookson and are a key heritage feature of the building, having been designed and made by some of the most notable and distinguished English artists and craftsmen of the time. The stained glass windows are specifically referenced in the ‘Statement of Significance’ for their craftsmanship and technological significance.

4.22 St Michael and All Angels Church was the first Anglican parish established in Christchurch in 1851, and integral to the foundation of the Anglican settlement. The scheduled Church was opened in 1872 and has high heritage significance. It is also listed with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category I Heritage Place. See Statement of Significance (Attachment A) for further details.

4.23 The Church is an integral part of the Anglican and school communities it serves. The building also attracts visitors and provides a space for gatherings, social interaction and ceremonies, as well as quiet contemplation and reflection. It is frequently included in central city heritage tours and heritage activities and events such as the Heritage Festival, architectural tours and the Open Christchurch Festival. A video was made during the 2023 Heritage Festival to showcase the restoration of the west Rose Window: Stained Glass Windows (tellinglives.co.nz)

4.24 The north transept and Rose Windows are in a critical condition, with a number of its eleven panels in danger of imminent collapse. The poor condition is due to the age of the glass, failing and decaying lead, distortion, cracking and warping of the timber frames and fractures to individual glass pieces. Works undertaken in the 1980s to prevent leaking applied a coating to the glass that has caused further and ongoing damage. This coating has discoloured the glass, is degrading the kiln fired enamel details, and attacking the lead construction. The conservation works require the removal of every segment of glass, cleaning, stabilisation, repairs and replacement and re-leading to put the windows back together again.

4.25 The total cost of the eligible works is $116,328. This sum includes the removal, conservation, repair and reinstatement of the windows by specialist conservators.

4.26 Staff are recommending a grant of $58,164 (which equates to 50% of eligible costs).

4.27 The sum recommended is based on the high heritage significance of the Church and the technological and craftsmanship significance of these windows; the extent to which the building is accessible to the public and its landmark status on a prominent city corner; the contribution the building makes to Heritage Festival activities and wider community heritage and wellbeing outcomes, and the urgency of the work required.

4.28 The applicants have recently received a legacy which will enable them to partially fund the conservation; however, they have stated that without grant support they will not be able to undertake the works required to repair and conserve the windows for future generations.

The north transept ‘Six Corporal Acts of Mercy’ and Rose windows seen from inside the church, c.2010, image supplied by applicant.

Images of the studio showing the conservation of the west Rose Window, 2022, supplied by applicant.

4.29 The applicant for the grant is the Parish of Christchurch on behalf of St Michael and All Angels Church.

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

4.30.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central.

4.30.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

860-862 Colombo Street exterior maintenance and structural upgrade project

4.31 The building at 860-862 Colombo Street was completed in 1938. The two-storey reinforced concrete building with a tower feature was designed in the Art deco-Moderne style and is one of the few remaining buildings from this era in the city. It has landmark presence on Colombo Street and contributes to the distinct streetscape of this part of the central city.

4.32 The building has architectural, technological, cultural and social significance for the district, and the exterior remains largely unchanged since the original construction. It is not currently scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan: the Guidelines state that grant funding is available to “…non-scheduled heritage buildings… which meet the current Christchurch District Plan or equivalent criteria and threshold for significance”. For further details please see Attachment B.

4.33 Originally designed as the apartment complex ‘Langdown Flats’, the building became the Holiday Lodge in the 1970s. It has now returned to residential use as ten rental apartments which ensures the heritage building is publicly accessible.

4.34 The apartment block is in need of remedial maintenance and structural upgrades. This includes a replacement roof, exterior repairs and repainting, drainage renewal and structural repairs and upgrade of the reinforced concrete walls. These works are part of a wider investment project which includes interior upgrades. The interior works are not part of the grant application.

4.35 The total cost of the eligible works is $217, 214. This sum includes weatherproofing of the exterior envelope of the building and structural upgrades.

4.36 Staff are recommending a grant of $54,303 (which equates to 25% of eligible costs) and a limited 20-year Heritage Conservation Covenant.

4.37 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building; the contribution the proposed works will make to its retention; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is accessible to the public. Staff also note the risk of damage to the building’s structure if ongoing water ingress is not addressed.

The Holiday Lodge, 862 Colombo Street, mid 1970s. Image supplied by applicant.

View of the building from Colombo Street, 2021. Image supplied by Laura Dunham.

4.38 The applicant for the grant is the owner, Elizabeth Harris.

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

4.39.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central

4.39.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

210 St Asaph Street, former R. Buchanan & Sons City Foundry reinstatement, upgrade and maintenance project

4.40 The building now at 210 St Asaph Street was completed in 1905 replacing an earlier building from 1878. The two-storey brick and stone masonry building is one of the few remaining industrial buildings from this era in the city. Sitting adjacent to the P & D Duncans Foundry building, it has landmark presence on St Asaph Street and contributes to the distinct streetscape of this part of the central city.

4.41 It is scheduled as a highly significant heritage place and is also listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 2 Historic Place. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment C).

4.42 The building’s principal facade faces onto St Asaph Street and this part of the building included a ground floor office, a show room, a pattern and dressing shop and a first-floor pattern making shop and store. The actual foundry was to the south and accessed via a carriage way entrance within the façade. The whole complex was designed by the Architect William V Wilson.

4.43 The owners are undertaking an adaptive re-use project. This will maintain the existing commercial activity on the ground floor and increase the number of residential apartments. This is a major project which involves demolition of non-heritage fabric and the replacement of the entire rear elevation of the building with residential accommodation. A resource consent for this work has been approved by Council as RMA 2022 1116.

4.44 As part of the alterations and additions, the applicants are proposing to reinstate and repair the architectural features of the north and east facades. This includes the reconstruction of the lost parts of the parapets, and the reinstatement of the windows removed in the 1990s. The brickwork of the principal facades will be repaired, repointed and structurally upgraded.

4.45 Heritage Incentive Grant funding is not available for demolition or removal of all or part of a heritage building, nor to new extensions, alterations and additions. Eligible works include maintenance, repair, structural upgrades and recognised conservation works – in this case the reinstatement of the lost parapet features and windows and the maintenance of the brickwork.

4.46 The total cost of the works included in the application is $278,000. Of this $236,000 is for eligible works: parapet and window reinstatement, brickwork repairs, structural upgrades and professional fees.

4.47 Staff are recommending a grant of $59,000 (which equates to 25% of eligible costs) and a limited 20-year Heritage Conservation Covenant.

4.48 The sum recommended is based on the high heritage values of the building; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is accessible to the public. Staff also note the applicants have chosen to reinstate the heritage form and features of the principal facades of the building as part of their project which will enhance the streetscape in the proximity of this landmark building.

210 St Asaph showing the north façade with the 1990s alterations. 2014, CCC Heritage files.

Rendering to show the north façade with the heritage reinstatement works completed. 2022, RC application.

4.49 The applicant for the grant is the owner, MP Capital Investments Limited.

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

4.50.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central

4.50.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

The Old Shipping Office, 3 Church Street, Akaroa maintenance and repair project.

4.51 The ‘Old Shipping Office’ is located close to the main wharf in Akaroa. Built in 1895 for the Union Steam Ship Company it forms part of a group of listed commercial and residential colonial buildings which are collectively recognised as the Akaroa Historic Area, a well-known visitor attraction to the district.

4.52 The building has high historical, social and cultural significance and is a reminder of the importance of shipping to the area. It has high technological significance in the use of timber detailing to imitate stone on the façade. It is scheduled as a highly significant heritage place and is also listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 2 Historic Place. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment D).

4.53 The building ceased to function as a shipping office in 1919 and became an office space until the 1970s when it was a coffee shop. It now operates as holiday rental accommodation which ensures the heritage building is publicly accessible.

4.54 The building is in need of urgent remedial repair and maintenance, especially to the principal façade. Constructed of timber to imitate stone, the façade is a landmark in the township and is highly decorative and detailed. The marine environment makes the timber susceptible to rot, and it is necessary to make repairs and repaint the building to retain and conserve this highly significant architectural feature.

4.55 The total costs of the eligible works are $16, 943 and include timber repairs and replacement and exterior repainting.

4.56 Staff are recommending a grant of $8,471 (which equates to 50% of eligible costs).

4.57 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building; the extent to which the works protect and maximize the retention of the heritage fabric of the façade; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is accessible to the public. Staff also note the risk of damage to the building’s architectural features if ongoing water ingress and rot is not addressed.

Façade of the Old Shipping Office on Church Street, image from CCC files.

4.58 The applicants for the grant are the owners, Glenn and Gayle Rose.

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

4.59.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

4.59.2 Ōnuku Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

William Gilbert and Hine Te Marino Headstone Conservation project

4.60 Okains Bay Cemetery opened in 1869 and is still open for casket and ash burials. The cemetery has strong community associations and is maintained by the local community, the local parish and the Okains Bay Cemetery Board. The plots are laid out with double rows back-to-back facing northeast or southwest. Some of the older graves at the back of the cemetery are arranged at a different angle with no clear order to the paths.

4.61 William Gilbert and Hine Marino were significant figures in the early settlement of Banks Peninsula. Their history is displayed in both the Okains Bay and Akaroa Museums, including a hand-coloured photograph of Hine. Hine (Ngāti Irakehu and Ngāi Tahu) was one of the original inhabitants of Ōnawe Pa and married carpenter William in 1854 in a pākehā ceremony in Pigeon Bay. They had thirteen children, and it is estimated that they now have 5,000 descendants.

4.62 The headstone which marks William and Hine’s grave is marble with carved and painted lettering. It is in need of conservation, structural support and repair as the lettering has faded and is no longer readable in parts, and a replacement structural berm is required to support the headstone. The stone is listing and there is a risk it will fall and break if not stabilised soon.

4.63 The great, great grandson of William and Hine is leading the project to restore the headstone as a monument to these two key figures and has raised $1,655 through whanau donations after an article in Te Pānui Rūnaka.

4.64 The HIG Guidelines state that funding is available to support kaitiaki of “non-scheduled heritage buildings, places, structures, or objects which… include…memorials, bridges and gravestones…” and “…places of identified significance to iwi and mana whenua…”.

4.65 The total costs of the eligible works are $4,626 and include removal, cleaning and repair of the marble headstone, construction of a new concrete support berm, and reinstatement of the headstone with structural support.

4.66 Staff are recommending a grant of $2,313 (which equates to 50% of eligible costs).

4.67 The sum recommended is based on the contribution the proposed work will make to the retention of the headstone; the extent to which the grave is accessible to the public; the contribution the memorial makes to wider community heritage and wellbeing outcomes; the urgency of the work required relating to the risk of damage if the work is not done in a timely manner, and the significance of the whanau being marked by the headstone.

Hand coloured photo of Hine from Okains Bay Museum and image of damaged headstone, supplied by applicant.

4.68 The applicant for the grant is Alan Bilyard, descendant of the whanau.

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

4.69.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

4.69.2 Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Marion ‘Queenie’ McLean headstone repair project

4.70 Bromley cemetery is located at 429 Linwood Avenue and was opened in 1918 as an extension of Linwood cemetery. The opening of the cemetery coincided with the outbreak of the influenza epidemic, and it became the main burial place for victims on the eastern side of the city. The cemetery is a typical traditional monumental cemetery and is laid out in a highly regimented north-south orientation, with graves facing due east or west.

4.71 The majority of monuments tend to be lower and more conservative than other cemeteries, providing a more orderly appearance which is accentuated by the uniformity of the Services section. There are many Returned and Services Association (RSA) graves, predominantly Great War veterans. Also found here is a memorial for stillborn children and one of the few mausoleums in Christchurch.

4.72 Marion ‘Queenie’ McLean died of stomach cancer in 1938 and is buried with her daughter who died the following year. She had left her husband in Dunedin and moved to Christchurch with her three children to live with her family. She is an example of a woman of her generation moving to the city for family support and employment during the 1930s before welfare support was available.

4.73 The headstone is constructed of marble with carved and painted lettering, set onto part of the original cast concrete grave border. It has been broken from the base and is currently laying in the grave perimeter. When Council grant funding for repairs of monuments and headstones in heritage cemetries ceased, Heritage Incentive Grant funding eligibility was extended to provide an alternative funding source. The heritage and community significance of the wider cemetery context as well as the significance of the individual is considered when recommending grant funding for headstone and grave repairs.

4.74 The total costs of the eligible works are $810 and include pin drilling and resetting the fallen headstone with structural support. Queenie’s granddaughter is leading the project to reinstate the fallen headstone on behalf of the family.

A cemetery with many gravestones

Description automatically generated

Bromley Cemetery and the fallen headstone, 2024, images supplied by applicant.

4.75 Staff are recommending a grant of $405 (which equates to 50% of eligible costs).

4.76 The sum recommended is based on the contribution the proposed work will make to the retention of the headstone in the wider heritage context of the cemetery; the extent to which the grave is accessible to the public; the contribution the memorial makes to wider community heritage and wellbeing outcomes across the cemetery as a whole, and the risk of damage to the fallen headstone if it is not reinstated.

4.77 The applicant for the grant is Sue Campbell, Queenie’s granddaughter.

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

4.78.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood.

4.78.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

38 Dublin Street (Lyttelton) conservation, repair and maintenance project.

4.79 38 Dublin Street, Lyttelton is a two-storey residential dwelling constructed in c. 1875 and was formerly known as Pitcaithly House. It is easily visible from the street for visitors and residents to view; contributes to the heritage streetscape of this area and is included in walking tours of the township. Sited on the west side of Dublin Street on the slope, it is one of a group of timber houses constructed in the mid-late 1870s which reflect the development of Lyttelton and contribute to the town’s aesthetic, architectural, historical, social and archaeological significance.

4.80 The dwelling is proposed to be scheduled as part of Plan Change 13 in the Christchurch District Plan as a ‘defining’ item in the Residential Heritage area as a colonial dwelling that upholds the historic architectural and contextual values of the area. It is also included in Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s ‘Lyttelton Township Historic Area’.

4.81 The dwelling is in need of immediate remedial repair and maintenance as it is no longer weathertight which is threatening the heritage fabric and structure of the building. The works are required to prevent ongoing deterioration and are urgent as they are required before winter weather arrives.

4.82 The total cost of the eligible works is $19,026 and includes a replacement roof, rainwear and spouting, and repair of the exterior joinery, windows and frames.

4.83 Staff are recommending a grant of $7,610 (which equates to 40% of eligible costs).

4.84 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building; the extent to which the works protect the heritage fabric of the exterior- street elevation; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is visibly accessible to the public. Staff also note the risk of damage to the building’s structure if ongoing water ingress is not addressed.

38 Dublin Street, in the historic streetscape context, 2024. Image from CCC files.

4.85 The applicants for the grant are the owners, Helen Taylor and Connor Taylor Brown.

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

4.86.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

4.86.2 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

47 Oxford Street conservation, repair and maintenance project

4.87 47 Oxford Street, Lyttelton was constructed in the early 1860s by Thomas Mutton who also built eight of the other cottages in the street. It is significant as one of the few dwellings from this time, which was not destroyed in the 1870 Lyttelton fire, and records the township’s original streetscape as well as the living conditions of its early inhabitants. Situated prominently on the footpath, the cottage is one of a number of heritage buildings in the immediate vicinity and is included in walking tours of the township.

4.88 The cottage is scheduled as ‘significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan with historic, social and cultural as well as contextual significance. It is included in Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s ‘Lyttelton Township Historic Area’. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment E).

4.89 The building is in need of urgent remedial repair and maintenance as its timber cladding and exterior joinery is failing. A number of weatherboards have completely rotted, and others are decaying so that the building is no longer weathertight which is threatening its structural integrity. The works are required to prevent ongoing deterioration and are urgent as they are required before winter weather arrives, and the structural integrity of the building is seriously compromised.

4.90 The total project cost is $79,925, and the eligible works total $57,000. This includes replacement and repair of the timber cladding and joinery, and exterior repainting.

4.91 Staff are recommending a grant of $22,800 (which equates to 40% of eligible costs) and a 10-year heritage Conservation Covenant.

4.92 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building and its significance as a rare surviving example of a pre-fire timber cottage in the township; the contribution the proposed work will make to the retention of the building; the extent to which the works protect the heritage fabric and values; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is highly visible to the public. Staff also note the high risk of damage to the building’s structure if ongoing water ingress is not addressed.

47 Oxford Street (blue cottage) in the historic streetscape context; the dwelling in 2010, and an image showing an example of deterioration of the exterior envelope, 2024. Images from CCC files.

4.93 The applicant for the grant is the owner Caro Allison.

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

4.94.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

4.94.2 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

52 Longfellow Street conservation, repair and maintenance project

4.95 52 Longfellow Street was originally built as a model home for the 1906-7 New Zealand International Exhibition in Hagley Park. Designed as a Workers’ Dwelling Act model home, the building represented the new standard for low cost, quality homes for workers in New Zealand established under the national housing scheme of the 1905 Workers’ Dwelling Act. Following the Exhibition, the dwelling was relocated to Sydenham, which was one of the suburbs chosen for development under the Act.

4.96 The dwelling has high heritage significance as one of the first 13 homes built in Ōtautahi Christchurch under the Act and has high social and cultural significance for its association with the foundation of New Zealand’s social welfare system. It is a landmark building within the original Camelot Settlement area in Sydenham as the only two storey workers settlement cottage in Christchurch, and one of only two scheduled buildings from the Camelot Settlement that remain. The dwelling is scheduled as ‘Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan and listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 2 Historic Place. See the attached Heritage Statement of Significance for full details (Attachment F).

4.97 The dwelling is in need of immediate remedial repair and maintenance as it is no longer weathertight which is threatening the heritage fabric and structure of the building. The works are required to prevent ongoing deterioration and are urgent as they are required before winter weather arrives. The applicants propose to change the current colour scheme during the repainting to reinstate the original colours used on the building for the Exhibition.

4.98 The total cost of the eligible works is $25,622. This includes replacement and repair of rotten areas of the timber cladding and joinery, and exterior repainting.

4.99 Staff are recommending a grant of $12,811 (which equates to 50% of eligible costs).

4.100 The sum recommended is based on the heritage values of the building and its significance as a unique example of a Workers’ Dwelling Act model home and record of Christchurch’s leadership role in social welfare and social housing; the contribution the proposed work will make to the retention of the building; the extent to which the works protect the heritage fabric and values; the contribution the building makes to the wider heritage values of the area, and the extent to which the building is visible to the public from the street.

Image of ‘Workers dwelling built for the New Zealand International Exhibition in Christchurch’ showing the dwelling when it was first relocated to its current site on Longfellow Street in 1906, National Library Archives, (https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22343959?search%5Bi%5D%5Bsubject_authority_id%5D=-351974&search%5Bpath%5D=items)

52 Longfellow Street c. 2020, CCC heritage files.

4.101 The applicants for the grant are the owners Kaye Woodward and Paul Kean.

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

4.102.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote.

4.102.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Lewe Summers Memorial

4.103 Mount Pleasant Community Centre and Residents Association are seeking to commemorate and celebrate the work of Llew Summers and his contribution to New Zealand art and sculpture.

4.104 The sculptor has a national and international reputation for his works. A resident of Mount Pleasant, he was a neighbour of the Community Centre as well as a member of the association and an active participant in their community works. His funeral in 2019 was held at the Community Centre which he had advocated for and been instrumental in fundraising for after the Canterbury earthquakes.

4.105 Over the past three years the association have worked to develop the memorial concept, working with the local community and Summers’ whanau to create a fitting and appropriate way to commemorate the sculptor and honour his legacy for future generations. This included community engagement, meetings, hui and the engagement of professionals to design the memorial and work through the consenting requirements.

4.106 The memorial is one of Summers’ most famous sculptures ‘Flight’. The sculpture portrays a large, abstracted bird in flight. The community chose this as their memorial because it was Summers’ last major bronze work and expresses his lifelong connection to this part of the city.

4.107 ‘Flight’ also emphasises the importance of the Avon Heathcote Ihutai estuary to Ōtautahi Christchurch as one of only four international flyways in New Zealand, and the only one completely enclosed by suburbs.

4.108 The memorial has been sited fronting the main road to Sumner where it is highly prominent along Main Road for both viewing from vehicles and easily accessible to cyclists and walkers. It is also located adjacent to the Coastal Pathway, and the Coastal Pathway and the Avon Heathcote Ihutai Estuary Trust are including it in their information, interpretation and walks to attract local, national and international visitors.

4.109 Neither the sculpture nor the memorial are currently scheduled as heritage items. The guidelines for the scheme allow for applications relating to “non-scheduled heritage …objects…[including] heritage significance identified by the community. Examples include...memorials…”

4.110 The total project costs are $125,000, which includes the memorial, installation, landscaping and interpretation. The Association have actively fundraised $80,000 from donations, other grants and in-kind donations of design, labour and materials. They have a $45,000 shortfall for the project.

4.111 Staff are recommending a grant of $22,500 which equates to 50% of the project shortfall.

4.112 The sum recommended is based on the extent to which the memorial is accessible to the public; the contribution it makes to wider community heritage and wellbeing outcomes, and to the wider heritage values of the area.

4.113 Grants of $15,000 to $149,999 are subject to a requirement for a Limited Conservation Covenant under the grant scheme Guidelines. In this case staff are recommending that a covenant is not required, given the fact that the sculpture is a memorial and is located on Council owned land.

Images of the Flight sculpture memorial to Lewe Summers, 2024. Images supplied by applicant.

4.114 The applicants for the grant are Mount Pleasant Community Centre and Residents Association Incorporated.

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

4.115.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

4.115.2 Tūāhuriri Rūnanga hold mana whenua rights and interests in the area.

Summary table of these grants are as follows:

Applicant	Project Name	Total eligible costs	Amount Recommended
Rāpaki Reserves Trust	Rāpaki School relocation, repair and conservation project	$350,000 project shortfall	$63,000
Parish of Christchurch	St Michael and All Angels Church ‘Six Corporal Acts of Mercy’ rose window conservation project	$116,328	$58,164
Elizabeth Harris	860-862 Colombo Street conservation, maintenance and upgrade project	$217, 214	$54,303
MP Capital Investments Limited	210 St Asaph Street reinstatement, upgrade and maintenance project	$278,000	$59,000
Glen and Gayle Rose	The Old Shipping Office, maintenance and repair project	$16,943	$8,471
Alan Bilyard	William Gilbert and Hine Te Marino headstone conservation project	$4,626	$2,313
Sue Campbell	Marion ‘Queenie’ McLean headstone repair project	$810	$405
Helen Taylor and Connor Taylor Brown	38 Dublin Street conservation, repair and maintenance project	$19,026	$7,610
Caro Allison	47 Oxford Street conservation, repair and maintenance project	$57,000	$22,800
Kaye Woodward and Paul Kean	52 Longfellow Street conservation, repair and maintenance project	$25,622	$12,811
Mount Pleasant Community Centre and Residents Association	Lewe Summers Memorial project	$45,000 project shortfall	$22,500
Totals		$1,130,569.00	$311,377

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.116 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

· Approving the grants at the funding levels recommended by staff.

· Recommending a higher or lower level of funding.

4.117 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Declining the grant applications. The option was ruled out as declining the applications would not support the conservation of significant heritage/highly significant heritage items; would reduce positive community wellbeing outcomes; would not align with the Heritage Strategy and is not consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines (2020).

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.118 Preferred Option: Grant funding allocated as per staff recommendations.

· Option Description: The staff recommendations are for grants of between 18%-50% of eligible costs.

· The maximum grant allowed by the scheme is 50% of eligible works.

· The recommendations are based on assessment against the scheme’s ‘Criteria for Assessment of Applications’, and with consideration of the availability of funding, the significance of the heritage item and the level of risk if funding is not approved.

· Details and analysis for the recommended sums are included above in Section 4, ‘Background’, and specifically in: 4.14; 4.27; 4.37; 4.48; 4.57; 4.67; 4.76; 4.86; 4.94; 4.102, and 4.114.

4.118.2 Option Advantages

· The levels of funding recommended support the conservation, maintenance and upgrade of significant and highly significant heritage places and items and ensures their ongoing retention and use for future generations.

· The levels of funding are sufficient to incentivise considerable investment by owners and kaitiaki in the heritage items.

· The levels of funding support the retention of places and items which in addition to their heritage significance achieve community social, economic and cultural wellbeing outcomes.

· The recommended levels of funding can be accommodated within the available budget.

4.118.3 Option Disadvantages

· By not providing higher levels of funding, some projects may need to be reduced in scope or undertaken over a longer time period.

· Allocation at the recommended sums leaves only $36,012 available for other applicants, although staff note that no other applications have been received at this time.

4.119 Recommending a higher level or lower level of funding.

· Option Description: Recommending a higher level or lower level of funding.

· The Guidelines allow for up to 0-50% of the eligible works to be awarded funding. Under this option a percentage of up to 50% or as low as 1% could be recommended for individual projects, or all grants could be awarded the same percentage.

4.119.2 Option Advantages

· Higher levels of funding would increase support of significant and highly significant places and objects.

· Lower levels of funding would provide funding for other applications should they be received.

4.119.3 Option Disadvantages

· There is insufficient funding available to provide the maximum of 50% levels of funding for all the applications received and staff have had to prioritise proposed grants in alignment with the Guidelines.

· Recommending a lower level of funding. Staff have carefully considered the applications and the relative benefits and positive outcomes of each project. Staff consider that the projects are unlikely to proceed with a reduced level of funding which risks the ongoing deterioration and potential loss of the significant/highly significant heritage taonga for future generations.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.120 Degree to which the purpose of the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme is achieved.

4.121 Consideration of the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy –Guidelines 2020 ‘Assessment’ criteria.

4.122 Degree to which the projects achieve the pou of the ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga’ Heritage Strategy 2019-2029: Manaakitanga, Tohungatanga, Kaitiakitanga, Rangatiratanga and Wairuatanga.

4.123 Impact on mana whenua, noting that the six papatipu rūnanga hold the mana whenua rights and interests over the district and are partners in the ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga’ Heritage Strategy 2019-2029.

4.124 Degree to which the works align with the International Council on Monument and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010 (conservation principles).

4.125 Extent to which the projects achieve delivery of the overarching strategic principle of “Taking an intergenerational approach to sustainable development, prioritising the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future.”

4.126 Extent to which the projects achieve delivery of the Community Outcome “Resilient Communities” – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation’ and ‘strong sense of community’.

4.127 Extent to which outcomes achieved support delivery of Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy Pillars of People, Place, Participation and Preparedness.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2
Cost to Implement	$311,377	+/- $311,377
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	none	none
Funding Source	2021/2031 Long Term Plan	2021/2031 Long Term Plan
Funding Availability	$347,389	$347,389
Impact on Rates	None - HIGs are an existing budgeted level of service	None - HIGs are an existing budgeted level of service

5.1 The decisions relate to the allocation of an existing Council grant fund.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

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

6.2 There is a risk of loss of significant and highly significant heritage places and items if funding is not available to support the conservation projects.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

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

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

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

6.5.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance is determined by the heritage significance of the items, the cultural and community wellbeing outcomes of the projects, the amount of funding requested, and the fact that Council has approved Heritage Incentive Grant funds for allocation in the 2023/2024 financial year. There are no engagement requirements in the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund – Guidelines 2020 for this grant scheme.

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: 1.4.2 Effectively administer grants within this Activity (including Heritage Incentive Grants, Enliven Places, Innovation and Sustainability) - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for grants.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The decisions affect a number of Community Boards across the city, as detailed in section 4, Background (above) under each specific project.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 The decision relating to the grant request from Rāpaki involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

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

6.11 The decisions involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.13 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.13.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.14 The grants will:

6.14.1 Respond to climate change and coastal erosion by supporting the relocation of a significant taonga to ensure its ongoing retention for future generations.

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Applicants will be notified of the outcome of their grant applications.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: St Michael and All Angels Church Statement of Significance	24/709511	155
b ⇩	Attachment B: 860-862 Colombo Street, Historical Overview	24/709513	175
c ⇩	Attachment C: 210 St Asaph Street, Statement of Significance	24/709516	219
d ⇩	Attachment D: The Old Shipping Office, 3 Church Street, Akaroa, Statement of Significance	24/709521	223
e ⇩	Attachment E: 47 Oxford Street, Lyttelton Statement of Significance	24/709522	227
f ⇩	Attachment F: 52 Longfellow Street, Statement of Significance	24/709525	230

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2023-2024 FY
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/504936
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nicholas Head, Senior Ecologist CIPA Biodiversity; Hannah Murdoch, CIPA Community Partnerships Ranger; Rosyln Kerr, Manager Parks Programmes and Partnerships; Gary Watson, Manager Community Partnerships; Jacqui Jefferey, Community Funding Advisor.
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report provides summary information on applications that meet criteria to qualify for biodiversity funding to protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity on private land.

1.2 Biodiversity funding supports the Council's statutory obligations to protect significant indigenous biodiversity on private land and empowers local communities to assist Council in this task.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2023-2024 FY Report.

2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Approve a total of $400,000 from the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund 2023/24 across the following 14 projects:

a. $5,000 Tirowaikare covenant (Beggs) weed control, Banks Peninsula

Conservation Trust

b. $31,760 Canty Plains floodplain forest restoration

c. $52,000 Feral pig control te Waihora catchments

d. $12,000 Coastal forest protection and enhancement Raupo Bay

e. $50,000 Hinewai conifer eradication for forest restoration

f. $40,000 Hukahukaturoa catchment weed control QEII covenants

g. $7,680 Protection Rare Ecosystems, Linda Woods weeds control

h. $36,000 Living Springs Native Forest Enhancement

i. $25,000 Purau catchment rare ecosystem protection,

j. $11,975 Stencliffe farm – Manatu forest fencing

k. $16,336 Stony Bay forest fencing

l. $41,000 Styx Living Memorial Trust, willow control

m. $44,504 Tokoroa Fencing and weed control

n. $26,744 Wainui rewild

3. 3. Decline the following applications to the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund 2023/24:

a. Decanter Bay pigs ear study

b. Forest Planting Lansdowne Valley

c. Pohatu Penguins

d. Tupari Reserve

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Fourteen applications to the Biodiversity Fund have been recommended for approval. Funding these applications will provide considerable assistance to local landowners working to protect and restore the district’s significant and vulnerable ecosystems and species.

3.2 For this 2023/24 funding round, the fund was oversubscribed by ~$200,000. Four projects that did not meet the criteria or lacked sufficient information were not approved for funding this year, but they were recommended to reapply next year.

3.3 The recommendation for this 2023-2024 round of funding would allocate a combined total of $400,000 across 14 projects as are outlined above. This means the fund is fully allocated for the 2023/24 financial year. This contribution, together with applicant-matched funding and funding from other contributions that far exceeds grant contributions, totals a considerable investment in projects that protect and enhance our local biodiversity.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Halting the decline of indigenous biodiversity is a matter of national importance, and a core statutory function of District Councils. The Christchurch district comprises a diverse assemblage of ecosystems that support internationally and nationally important habitats for wildlife, as well as population strongholds for numerous threatened and rare species. Most remnant ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity occurs on private land in the district.

4.2 The Biodiversity Fund supports landowners working to protect ecologically significant sites on their land. Council will provide up to 50% of funding for eligible projects on private land, with the maximum grant of $60,000 per individual project/property per year. Up to $400,000 is available for allocation this year.

4.3 The Fund is an opportunity to support private landowners who are taking voluntary action, and investing their own time and money, to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on their properties. The projects provide real protection for biodiversity in the Christchurch District through empowering locals and local communities to take direct action.

4.4 Since the fund was established in 2017, a total of $1,655.871.00 has been allocated to 71 projects (excluding the current applications). 62 of these projects are complete, with six still in progress.

4.5 Most previous projects involved fencing (44 projects). Restoration planting (12 projects), pest plant control (19 projects), and pest mammal control (9 projects) are other activities that have been supported. Some projects involve multiple activities.

4.6 Over 2000 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation has been protected, along with the indigenous fauna that live in those habitats. Many projects have also protected streams and important waterways.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.7 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.8 Alternative options are not to fund. As the Biodiversity Fund (the Fund) is allocated specifically to assist private landowners to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity and the applications received achieve this, this option was discounted.

4.9 The other option was to part fund projects. This option was used for a few projects, resulting in some minor reductions to the original amount requested.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.10 Applications are assessed by a cross council panel of staff and prioritised accordingly. Three primary criteria are used to determine applications eligibility:

1: must be private land

2: the site has significant ecological values

3: the site has some form of enduring protection.

4.11 To determine relative priority of applications, further consideration was given to the national priorities for protecting indigenous biodiversity on private land, which provides a useful context to compare relative merits of applications if required.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	None other than staff time to administer the fund.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None other than staff time to administer the fund.
Funding Source	The Fund is provided for in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan
Funding Availability	Available for allocation
Impact on Rates	Minor

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks associated with allocating funds to the projects as outlined. Processes are in place to ensure funding granted is spent in accordance with the project plans and expectations.

6.2 Considerable checks and balances are in place to ensure the funding granted to projects is spent in accordance with the project plan and meets expectations, including progress reports, proof of completions and inspections if necessary. Staff time in relation to this is an inherent part of overseeing the fund.

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 the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The Council has the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision aligns with the strategic framework supporting principle of “taking an inter-generational approach to sustainable development prioritising the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities and the quality of the environment, now and into the future,” by supporting individual landowners to protect and enhance biodiversity on private land.

6.6 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The programme aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework supporting principle of “actively collaborating and co-operating with other local, regional and national organisations.” We work with Environment Canterbury and covenanting agencies to ensure that projects have adequate support and that our combined resources are efficiently allocated.

6.7 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

6.8 The programme aligns with District Plan policies regarding the protection of ecologically significant sites, and the provision of advice and incentives for landowners who wish to do this on private property. The programme supports the goals of the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy.

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

6.10 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.10.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 The community is very supportive of the Council contributing funds to assist with conservation on private land. Several submissions were made by community groups and individuals to the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 requesting that Council increase the annual allocation to the Biodiversity Fund. As a result, the fund was increased to $400,000 - an outcome consistent with the Council declaring an ecological and climate emergency.

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

· Te Pataka o Rakaihauta Banks Peninsula

· Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

· Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

· Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

6.13 The Community Boards view is presumed to be positive because the biodiversity fund is supporting and empowering local landowners to take positive action to improve the outcome for indigenous biodiversity in their rohe.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water but does involve indigenous species and ecosystems that have intrinsic values. Therefore, this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. Staff note, however, that the intent of all projects is to have a positive impact on indigenous biodiversity.

6.15 While matters of indigenous biodiversity are of interest to Mana Whenua, this specific decision to allocate funding to enhance biodiversity will not impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The decisions in this report are likely to contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Most of the projects provide protection and enhancement to regenerating forest habitats, which will boost the carbon sequestration capacity of these areas. Protecting and enhancing the ecological health of sites will improve the resilience of the district’s habitats and species within them to the impacts of climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Council approves the report; successful applicants are informed and set up as vendors; funds allocated; projects commenced.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch Biodiversity Fund applications summary 2023-2024	24/654016	240

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Nicholas Head - Senior Ecologist

Hannah Murdoch - Community Partnerships Ranger

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

Roslyn Kerr - Manager Parks Programmes & Partnerships

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

12. New Zealand Local Government Association Inc: payment of annual membership subscription
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/728082
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance (CFO)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to consider its continued membership of New Zealand Local Government Association Inc (LGNZ) and if membership is confirmed for the invoice to be paid.

1.2 The report is in response to Council receiving the membership renewal invoice and to provide analysis that supports the Council deciding whether or not to remain a member.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the New Zealand Local Government Association Inc: payment of annual membership subscription report.

EITHER:

2. Agree to renew its membership of Local Government New Zealand Inc for the amount of $163,254.75 plus GST.

OR:

3. Decline to renew its membership of Local Government New Zealand Inc and:

a. Resolve to resign its membership of Local Government New Zealand Inc; and

b. Authorise the Mayor to give notice of the resignation in writing to Local Government New Zealand Inc.

4. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, as it is a decision regarding membership of an organisation and does not affect strategic assets or levels of services.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The annual subscription renewal of the Council’s membership of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is due. This year’s renewal fee for membership is for the amount of $163,254.75 plus GST.

3.2 This report provides analysis to support the Council decision on payment or not of this year’s subscription. Should the Council decide not to renew its membership, it must comply with LGNZ’s constitutional requirement to give notice of resignation in writing. The Council will be required to pay a proportion of the membership fee up to the date the resignation takes effect (one month from notification).

3.3 A number of the reasons for remaining a member are not readily quantifiable. Council’s decision should be based on an overall weighting of the merits of being a member of a body that advocates for local government weighed against the merits of undertaking direct advocacy on its own behalf. Being a member of an organisation such as LGNZ provides the benefit of collective advocacy but with reduced influence on the policy and advocacy postions. Alternatively, by not being a member Council may consider it can advocate more effectively and specifically on the issues important to the communities of the city and district, doing so as the South Island’s largest city.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 LGNZ is constituted as an incorporated society and is a membership organisation. LGNZ’s members are local authorities constituted under the Local Government Act 2002. LGNZ’s purpose is to champion, connect, and support local government. The objects of LGNZ are set out in its Rules[1] and summarised are to:

4.1.1 promote the national interests of local government;

4.1.2 advocate on matters affecting the national interests of local government and its communities;

4.1.3 promote and facilitate regular dialogue with the Government, Parliamentarians, and the agencies of the Government;

4.1.4 provide full, accurate, and timely information to its members on matters affecting local government and LGNZ;

4.1.5 research, survey, and investigate matters in which LGNZ and its members have an interest;

4.1.6 provide advice, education, and training opportunities for its members;

4.1.7 hold conferences and forums to advance its objectives.

4.2 LGNZ is governed by the National Council, comprised of the President and 17 members, including three reserved for Auckland (although currently, it is not a member of LGNZ). To ensure representation across the country, LGNZ’s Rules prescribe membership from metropolitan (Christchurch City Council is a member of the metropolitan sector), regional, provincial, and rural New Zealand, and also geographically from across the country. The National Council membership also includes the Chair of Te Maruata and one person appointed from the Young Elected Members Network.

4.3 The National Council appoints the Chief Executive of LGNZ who in turn employs LGNZ’s staff.

4.4 For the financial year ended 31 March 2023 membership subscriptions of $4.09 million made up approximately 42% of LGNZ’s total revenue of $9.812 million (LGNZ’s financial performance for the year ended 31 March 2024 and its financial position as at 31 March 2024 are not yet published or available). For the year ended 31 March 2023 LGNZ made an operating deficit of $578k (rounded).

4.5 LGNZ’s invoice to Council for the current year (which runs from 1 April 2024 – 31 March 2025) is $163 254.75 (plus GST). By comparison for the year 1 April 2023 – 31 March 2024 Council paid $141,960.65 (plus GST).

4.6 One of the reasons for the increased membership this year is that there is now full access to Ākona, LGNZ’s professional development learning platform. This had been optional in previous years. This platform aims to provide training and information on subjects that will help build council capacity and provide skills members need to do their job well such as speechwriting, media advice, guidance on tax obligations as well as subject information like climate change, financial governance, Te Tiriti partnerships. It also provides a tool for elected members to identify their individual professional development needs. A roadmap of modules is available at: Akona_roadmap.pdf (d1pepq1a2249p5.cloudfront.net)

4.7 Council also incurs some other associated costs such as hosting costs, media content, and conference attendance, including travel and accommodation, totalling approx. $25,000 per year.

4.8 The Council also contributes $7,500 to the Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ), which is administered by LGNZ. Ceasing to be a member of LGNZ does not preclude the Mayor/Council from continuing to participate in the MTFJ.

4.9 This matter was last considered by the Council on 9 December 2021 and for a full analysis of the services provided by LGNZ, please view item 32, page 15.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.10 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

· For the Council to pay the membership subscription and continue to be a member of LGNZ, or

· For the Council to not pay the membership subscription and cease to be a member of LGNZ.

4.11 The advantages and disadvantages of membership may be summarised as follows:

Advantages	Disadvantages
Participation in the discussions and deliberations of the wider local government sector on matters of national and local interest.	An annual membership cost of $163,254.75 (GST excl) this money could be redeployed to other activities and/or services, which could include governance and staff resources for direct advocacy on matters of specific interest to Council.
Enhanced access to Central Government Ministers, MPs, and officials through attendance at LGNZ events.	There is a risk that Council may not agree with policy and/or advocacy positions that LGNZ might adopt or pursue. Similarly, there is a risk that LGNZ may not advocate strongly enough on issues that are important to Council and the community.
Right to vote in Presidential and National Council elections.	LGNZ work programmes may not align with the Council’s priorities or wishes, resulting in a sense that value for the membership fee is not being delivered.
Right to vote on and influence AGM remits.	There are travel costs associated with attendance at LGNZ events. There are 6 in-person LGNZ meetings in a calendar year, ranging from Metro sector to Combined sectors to Zone 5 & 6 . Depending on the location and the number of days attended, travel costs could range between $3k - $5k per person. Depending on Council membership there are also 4-5 in-person National Council meetings per year, but travel costs are paid for by LGNZ.
Right to participate in Zone 5 & 6 meetings (held in various locations throughout the South Island), and right to participate in meetings of the Metropolitan Sector (and with Auckland no longer a member Christchurch is now the largest territorial authority member).
Ability and right to influence LGNZ positions and advocacy.
Access to training modules provided by LGNZ through Ākona.
Access to membership pricing for attendance at the annual LGNZ Conference.
24/7 counselling and support service for all elected members and access to wellbeing tools.
Neutral third party advice to LGNZ’s members.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 A number of the reasons for remaining as a member are not readily quantifiable. The benefits are related to an overall weighting of the merits of participating in a membership body that advocates for local government both with central government and more widely, and the Council may consider it important that there is such a body. Christchurch as a large metropolitan council may consider it important that it is an active member of LGNZ to influence its advocacy on matters of importance to the Council and its communities.

4.13 In the alternative, the Council may consider that it can be more influential and represents the interests and concerns of its residents and ratepayers through direct advocacy with government, ministries, and other organisations both in Wellington and nationally. LGNZ with its requirement to reflect the views of its wide and varying membership is hampered in taking positions that reflect specifically the interests of the Council. Aligned to this, Council may perceive that, while it is a large metro, it is unable to influence sufficiently LGNZ’s policy and advocacy decisions it sees as important. As a consequence, Council may consider the subscription monies are better targeted to direct advocacy and representation, or redeployment on to other services and activities. Council may also consider it has sufficient resources to provide on a more direct and targeted basis the benefits that are provided by being a member.

4.14 If the Council considers that it should resign its membership of LGNZ, there would be some work required to identify allocation of internal resourcing to focus on the areas of advocacy and representation that better meet its needs. This resource may be able to be partially (or wholly) redirected within existing staff resource including what is utilised with supporting membership.

4.15 Broadly, as of 31 March 2023, LGNZ had equity, that is its assets were greater than its liabilities of $3.76 million. Of the equity $550,000 (rounded) was held in property, plant and equipment, and intangibles (largely software). The balance of approximately $3.2 million is essentially held as current assets, essentially cash and cash equivalents.

4.16 Assuming that for the financial year ended 31 March 2024 LGNZ’s financial position has not materially or substantially deteriorated, the Council’s membership, or not as the case may be is unlikely to impugn LGNZ’s financial viability for the current year. However, if the Council ceases to be a member it will have unwelcome financial implications for LGNZ, and consequently, it may be necessary for LGNZ to reassess its operating model and what parts of its business it prioritises.

4.17 More broadly, if Council does not renew its membership, is the reputational impact on LGNZ of the country’s second-largest metro now ceasing to be a member.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1	Option 2
Description	Retain membership	Resign membership
Cost to Implement	$163,254.75	$27,209 (max of 2 months membership to provide notice) Further work is required to determine what further staff resources, if any, may be required to fill any gaps created by the absence of information and advocacy provided by LGNZ.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Approx. $25,000 per year	Estimated $10-16k travel costs for meetings
Funding Source	Rates	Rates
Funding Availability	Provided for in LTP/AP	Funding reapplied to direct advocacy - provided for in LTP/AP
Impact on Rates	approx. 0.027%	Estimated 0.006% *

*subject to full analysis of whether additional staff resource is required

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are disadvantages and risks in remaining a member as set out above.

6.2 The risks in leaving LGNZ would be the potential to be isolated within the sector, to find it challenging to have Christchurch’s voice heard in isolation by the sector body, and to convey the Council’s views effectively to the government.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.3.1 The Council can determine whether it will renew its membership of LGNZ.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.5 Membership of LGNZ does not directly impact the community.

6.6 If the Council resigns its membership, this would also apply to Community Board members and their ability to participate in their representative bodies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. This is principally because LGNZ is a membership organisation advancing the interests of the local government sector and organisations.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 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 Should the Council decide to remain a member, the Chief Executive will arrange for the invoice to be paid. Full access to all membership benefits will continue.

7.2 Should the Council decide to resign its membership, notice will be given.

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

Helen White - General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Niel Koch - Group Financial Controller

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Approved By

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

14. MCR Northern Line - Design Adjustment to Restell Street as Part of the Harewood Road Railway Crossing Upgrade
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/457741
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Matt Goldring, Project Manager - Transport
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 approval for a change to the design of the cycle facilities at Restell Street as part of the Major Cycleway Route - Northern Line project which includes the Harewood Road railway crossing upgrade.

1.2 This report is staff generated following the need to finalise designs ready for construction of the project.

1.3 The decisions within this report fall within the Council's delegation, as the Major Cycleway Route Northern Line is a project of metropolitan significance.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the MCR Northern Line - Design Adjustment to Restell Street as Part of the Harewood Road Railway Crossing Upgrade 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. Revoke any previously approved resolutions concerning Restell Street, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, that are in conflict with recommendations 4 and 5 below.

4. Approve all kerb alignments, raised platforms, road surface treatments, road markings, and the removal of the traffic island on Restell Street, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres as detailed on plan for approval RD3832, sheet R1 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

5. Approve, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Restell Street commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 29 metres.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Major Cycleway Route - Northern Line Crossings project includes an upgrade of the Harewood Road railway crossing to improve the safety of both the road and railway crossing points for all users.

3.2 While the Harewood Road railway crossing is part of the MCR Northern Line, it will also be a key connection that links to the MCR’s Wheels to Wings and Nor’West Arc.

3.3 When travelling north on the existing Northern Line cycleway route, the existing path changes from the west side of the railway to the east side of the railway when intersecting the Harewood Road railway crossing. This creates the need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross Harewood Road on the western side of the railway lines, and to then cross the railway on the northern side of Harewood Road, in order to continue on the existing Northern Line cycleway route.

3.4 Council staff work in collaboration with KiwiRail and align with their design standards for railway crossings to ensure that an appropriate design is produced.

3.5 The implementation of a new automatic gate for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the railway line means a larger footprint is needed which has an impact on the available shared path space on Restell Street.

3.6 This has resulted in the proposal to remove the refuge island in Restell Street and extend the western kerb on Restell Street by 3 metres. As a result, the shared path space for users exiting the railway crossing onto Restell Street will be safer for all users.

3.7 There is no material difference in cost from the previously approved design on Restell Street.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 The Northern Line Major Cycleway Route - Belfast to Riccarton represents one of the 13 MCRs which have been identified within the city, providing route connections to an extended number of popular destinations and catchments enabling more people to cycle. The Harewood Road railway crossing upgrade is part of the MCR Northern Line project.

4.2 The scheme design for the MCR Northern Line project was approved by the Major Cycleway Routes Committee on 14 December 2016, with the recommendation that detailed traffic resolutions be brought back to the appropriate Committee for approval once detailed design was completed.

4.3 Detailed design traffic resolutions were approved for the project by Council on 17May 2023 under resolution number CNCL/2023/00067.

The Issue

4.4 Since the previously approved design, KiwiRail’s design standards have changed to improve safety for those crossing the railway.

4.5 KiwiRail, through their latest design standards, require pedestrian automatic gates to be installed at the Harewood Road level crossing. To comply with these standards, the layout required for the north-side railway crossing on Harewood Road, puts the entry/exit point of the automatic gate where the kerb and channel line is currently proposed. Consequently, there would be no space for users to navigate between the shared path and automatic gate without pedestrians and cyclists using the traffic lane.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.6 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

· Remove the refuge island and extend the western kerb on Restell Street.

4.7 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Leaving the design of Restell Street as per the original scheme design – this option was not pursued due to safety risks to footpath and road users. Leaving the scheme design as-is but implementing the new KiwiRail automatic gates would mean pedestrians and cyclists would exit directly into the traffic lane on Restell Street.

· Make Restell Street one-way - This option was not progressed due to it being a commercial area and the alternative access points being heavily trafficked at Langdons Road and Main North Road.

Options Description Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Remove the refuge island and extend the western kerb on Restell Street.

4.8.1 Option Description: The proposed solution removes the existing refuge island on Restell Street to allow the western kerb to be moved eastward by approximately 3m.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· This provides the required space for KiwiRail’s automatic gates, allowing for swept paths for cyclists with trailers and mobility vehicles using either the gate’s standard entry or emergency exit.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· Without the central refuge island pedestrians would have a continuous walking path across both traffic lanes of Restell Street. However, the overall road crossing length is being shortened compared to the existing layout and is further away from the Harewood Road intersection. A raised safety platform is also to be provided under this option to help improve safety.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.9 A design road safety audit was conducted on the proposed solution and no significant issues were identified.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Costs have been accounted for in the development of the original design.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	The cost for maintenance, monitoring, and inspection of the new gates and railway infrastructure at the crossing is approximately $2880 a year, depending on the need for any new parts. These costs will need to be covered under the future maintenance budgets.
Funding Source	The project is funded by the Rau Paenga Shovel-Ready agreement. Note that Council funds any shortfall on the project.
Funding Availability	In CPMS Project #64671 – Major Cycleway - Northern Line Route (Section 1) Railway Crossings.
Impact on Rates	This project is included in the current Annual Plan/draft LTP and has no additional impact on rates.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The key risk at this crossing is the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

6.2 The recommended option will mitigate safety concerns and is aligned with KiwiRail best practice standards.

6.3 A Road Safety Audit has been completed and all solutions agreed with the audit team.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

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

6.4.2 The decisions within this report fall within the Council’s delegation as the Major Cycleway Route Northern Line is a project of metropolitan significance.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Encouraging people to cycle helps reduce emissions as a Council and as a city, and invest in adaptation and resilience, leading a city-wide response to climate change while protecting our indigenous biodiversity, waterbodies and tree canopy.

6.6.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined on the basis that the scheme design layout and traffic resolutions have previously been approved for this design and the design change is not significant and does not change the usage of the path.

6.6.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.8 Transport

6.8.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.3 More people are choosing to travel by cycling - >=13,500 average daily cyclist detections

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Feedback was sought from Spokes, Fire and Emergency, NZ Police, a Disability Organisation Coordinator, and the AA. No responses were received.

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

6.10.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.11 The Board was briefed on this matter on 14 December 2023.

6.12 There was no feedback given at the briefing, which resulted in no changes needing to be made to the design or report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 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 or traditions.

6.14 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

6.15 The report seeks approval for the removal and relocation of minor traffic infrastructure only.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.16.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.17 The project once implemented will help achieve these objectives by encouraging people to swap car travel for bicycle travel.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the design is approved, construction of the crossing is currently planned for September 2024, subject to final confirmation by KiwiRail. The Council is dependent on KiwiRail resources and the procurement of long-lead signalling materials to complete these works.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Plan For Approval - Harewood Road Crossing Upgrade Design - New layout drawing with proposed Restell Street design changes	24/500228	315
b ⇩	Restell Street Design Change Memo	23/1967813	316

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Matt Goldring - Project Manager

Georgia Greene - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure

15. Christchurch Northern Corridor - Downstream Effects Bus Lane Trial: Request for Time Extension
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/530633
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Sun, Project Manager Jacob Bradbury, Manager Planning & Delivery Transport
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 the Council’s approval to extend the Special Purpose Bus Lane trial on Cranford Street from Innes Road to Berwick Street until the end of March 2025.

1.2 The report has been generated by staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Christchurch Northern Corridor - Downstream Effects Bus Lane Trial: Request for Time Extension 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. Approve the continued operation and enforcement of special bus priority lanes on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, in conjunction with the approved temporary traffic management plan, until the end of March 2025 (or earlier if a decision on the permanent solution is made before then).

4. Note that staff will continue to review potential options for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, which will then be followed by a public consultation process.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The bus priority lane trial on Cranford Street ended in February 2024.

3.2 Staff are investigating a number of options for the permanent layout of Cranford Street. These will require public consultation, Council approval, design, and implementation.

3.3 An extension of the current bus lane trial is being sought to ensure continuity until the permanent solution for Cranford Street is approved and implemented.

3.4 By asking for an extension to March 2025, this will provide sufficient time for the permanent solution to be fully implemented.

3.5 It does not preclude changes being implemented earlier than March 2025 should the process be completed earlier than planned.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

History of the Downstream Effects package

4.1 As part of the approval process for the Christchurch Northern Corridor (CNC), a Notice of Requirement was issued. This put requirements on Council to monitor and manage the effects of increased traffic volumes at the Southern end of the motorway in line with the Downstream Effects and Property Amenity Traffic Management Plan, for a period of 10 years after the opening of the motorway.

4.1.1 These documents are available via links highlighted later in this report.

4.1.2 A key objective was to mitigate the effects of increased traffic by keeping most traffic on the key arterial routes – particularly Cranford/Sherborne - to prevent “rat-running”.

4.1.3 Monitoring must be undertaken on identified local roads and, should vehicle movements increase by more than 30% above the traffic level that would have occurred without the operation of CNC, then the Council has an obligation to improve the Cranford/Sherborne corridor, and/or undertake calming work on the affected street(s).

4.1.4 To reduce potential rat-running, the Independent Traffic Expert had originally recommended peak hour clearways along Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street. The Council consulted on plans to manage the expected increases in traffic volumes in early 2019, with feedback from the public and Elected Members indicating a strong preference to not install clearways.

4.2 At an Extraordinary Council meeting on 26 November 2020, the Council resolved to commence a three-month trial of special purpose bus priority lanes on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, starting in February 2021. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board was delegated the authority to approve the design and operating hours for the trial installation.

4.3 The special purpose bus priority lanes were approved by the Community Board and installed on 26 February 2021 and the trial was active until 28 May 2021. The Council subsequently resolved (CNCL/2021/00133) on 12 August 2021 to extend the bus lane trial until the end of February 2022.

4.4 On 2 August 2023, the Council resolved (CNCL/2023/00101) to further extend the bus lane trial until the end of February 2024. In the meantime, the evaluation of options for a permanent solution for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street has been progressing.

4.4.1 At this time there does not appear to be widespread rat-running pushing traffic volumes over the 30% increased traffic level noted above.

4.4.2 Council staff are also working on solutions to issues on Flockton Street and Francis Avenue. These have seen significant traffic increases, although these pre-date both the opening of the motorway, and the installation of the bus lane trial.

4.5 Since the end of February 2024, this corridor has been signed as a bus lane, but is operating as an urban arterial.

Delay caused by exploration of further options

4.6 Initially Council staff were looking to consult on some version of bus lanes, clearway and/or urban arterial on this section of Cranford Street.

4.6.1 At that time, a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane was not considered a viable option, due to difficulties associated with enforcement on an urban arterial route and inconsistencies between Council-owned and NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA)-owned sections.

4.7 During the options evaluation phase, NZTA expressed strong interest in making changes to their HOV lane, extending it along Cranford Street from its current end point north of the Cranford Street roundabout to south of Berwick Street.

4.7.1 Council staff recognise the potential benefits of collaborating with NZTA on all possible solutions along the entire corridor and worked with NZTA staff to update the HOV lane traffic modelling on the Christchurch Northern Corridor (CNC) and determine the feasibility of this option.

4.7.2 Due to the need to update and refine NZTA’s original HOV lane traffic model, traffic modelling analysis took longer than planned.

4.7.3 The results were not available until the end of March 2024. Given this timeframe, staff were not able to undertake public consultation in November 2023 as originally scheduled. In turn, the preferred option was not able to be presented to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (Board) and the Council for approval before the end of the bus lane trial at the end of February 2024.

4.7.4 Council staff have also had preliminary discussions with providers who install and operate HOV lanes elsewhere in New Zealand. While there are still risks with this option, staff are now more confident of its viability in this environment than before and are therefore comfortable to consult on an HOV lane option.

Next Steps

4.8 The Council has received feedback from the Independent Traffic Expert regarding the current trial layout.

4.8.1 While not opposed to a bus lane concept, the feedback does suggest a number of changes to “squeeze as much capacity as possible out of the current corridor”. These will be considered as part of the permanent design process.

4.9 Staff note that any significant changes require further consultation.

4.9.1 Based on this information, a revised timeline is as follows:

Date	Item
June 2024	Community Board pre-consultation briefing
July 2024	Consultation
September 2024	Community Board briefing on consultation results
September / October 2024	Post consultation design changes and report
October 2024	Community Board recommendation to the Council
November 2024	Council decision
November 2024 to February 2025	Detailed design
March / April 2025	Construction

4.9.2 Extending the date of the trial to the end of March 2025 will provide a small buffer against possible further delays.

4.10 The Council, along with its partners at Environment Canterbury and NZTA, is developing plans for elements of the Public Transport Futures programme to be included as part of Long Term Plans. Initial intentions are for service uplifts on the 91 and 92 services (City to Rangiora and Kaiapoi respectively) around FY27.

4.11 The Council has been briefed on this project on a number of occasions. The Community Board (Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central) is also regularly briefed on issues and progress across the entire DEMP programme.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.12 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

· Extend the bus lane trial to the end of March 2025.

· Revert to an urban arterial.

4.13 The following options were considered but ruled out due to not being appropriate for a limited period. However, they remain potential outcomes of the permanent decision-making process:

· Clearway Trial – Given previous feedback and Community Board decisions, this would need to be re-consulted.

· HOV lane trial – This would need to be consulted on, and there would be significant challenges and technology cost associated with enforcement.

Option Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Extend the bus lane trial to the end of March 2025

4.14.1 Option Description: This would extend the bus lane trial along Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Maintains the current layout: low cost installation and minimal confusion.

· Was a favoured option of many submitters during the original consultation.

· Supports growing bus patronage.

· Safest option for cyclists and other active users.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reduces general road capacity for the limited number of buses using it (typically 16 buses running inbound between 6am & 9am).

· Most bus delays appear to be associated with intersections, so it may not be the most effective way of resolving delays.

· Requires alterations to signage to be enforceable.

· Misses the opportunity to trial other layouts.

4.15 Revert to an urban arterial

4.15.1 Option Description: This would require the removal of all bus lane trial signage and road markings and allow the road to revert to a configuration with one general traffic lane and a cycle lane in each direction with on-street parking on both sides.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Potential for future capacity increase. While not offering immediate capacity gains due to on-street parking, this option creates the physical space to explore potential future capacity improvements.

· Provides local residents and businesses with on-road parking.

· This configuration includes an on-street cycle lane, though cyclists are encouraged to utilise the Papanui Parallel Cycleway for a safer and more separated riding experience.

· No special vehicle lanes so easier to enforce.

· May provide opportunities to improve crossing facilities.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· It would negate any potential travel time saving for public transport at peak hours.

· In initial discussions this was not favoured by key stakeholders and was not popular during the initial consultation process.

· Does not support cyclists or other active travel users along the corridor.

· There would be a reasonable cost associated with removing and replacing signage and road markings.

· Change of layout likely to require some bedding in – resulting in potential confusion for users.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.16 The preferred option is recommended due to its low cost, maintenance of the status quo, support for mode shift, and it was the favoured option in the original consultation.

4.17 There is little evidence at this stage of widespread rat-running causing the Notice of Requirement limits to be breached.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – extension of the bus lane trial	Option 2 – urban arterial
Cost to Implement	$0 No change from existing layout. Ongoing maintenance of the corridor is covered under existing budgets (see below).	$44,000 This cost covers the removal of all bus lane signage and road markings, including traffic management and project management costs.
Enforcement costs	To date, as the Bus Lanes have only been a trial, staff have only been undertaking light enforcement. It is not proposed to change this, so the costs for this are not expected to change. If the Council wished to undertake stricter enforcement to discourage parking and driving – such as is undertaken on Lincoln Road – this would have operational costs for the following: · Tow truck vehicle removal · Staff rates for monitoring and enforcing	Based on the current level of enforcement, there would be minimal reduction to costs from this option.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No change to maintenance and ongoing costs
Funding Source	#17088 Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Delivery Package FY24 Budget: $1.01m FY24 Actual (to date): $0.41m
Impact on Rates	None – the costs are accounted for in the Council’s Long Term Plan

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

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

6.2 There is a risk that increased traffic volumes on local streets may be incorrectly attributed to the presence of bus priority lanes.

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

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

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

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The legal considerations are:

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

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

· The Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 delegates to the Temporary Traffic Management Team the power to authorise temporary bus lanes under an approved Temporary Traffic Management Plan.

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

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

6.6.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the relatively small number of residents and businesses impacted by the bus lanes, and because the decision is time-bound and reversable.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.8 Transport

6.8.1 Activity: Transport

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.9.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.10 The Community Board has consistently advocated against the use of a clearway in this area.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.12 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

6.13 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.13.1 Not impact on adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.13.2 Have the potential to contribute positively to emissions reductions through encouraging mode-shift towards public transport and active modes.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Next steps will be for Council staff to undertake public consultation for a permanent solution.

7.1.1 A significant engagement process is planned. This will include a social media campaign, radio, billboard and bus stop advertisements, as well as traditional media. The campaign will seek to reach local communities around Cranford Street, as well as local and regional commuters.

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

Notice of Requirement Conditions: https://api.ecan.govt.nz/TrimPublicAPI/documents/download/2351602

Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP): https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2019/03-March/DEMP-draft-FINAL.pdf

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

David Sun - Project Manager

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure

16. Process for Changing Approved Design - MCR Nor'West Arc
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/457871
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Richard Humm, Project Manager Transport Jacob Bradbury, Manager Planning & Delivery Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide advice on the Notice of Motion relating to the Nor’West Arc Major Cycle Route (Section 3) along Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace, to enable the Council to decide on which option to proceed with.

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

1.3 The Notice of Motion included:

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

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

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

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Process for Changing Approved Design – MCR Nor’West Arc report.

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

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

i. Agree to retain Option A under the previous decision made by the Urban Development and Transport Committee at its 3 February 2022 meeting (Item 9, Resolution 1(d): that Section 3 – Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Brookside Terrace be a two-way cycleway) and continue with the current approved design (Attachment A to this report); and

ii. Note that staff will bring a report to Council in mid-2024 to agree to the detailed traffic resolutions prior to completing construction procurement.

b. Option B - Shared path:

i. Revoke the previous decision made by the Urban Development and Transport Committee at its 3 February 2022 meeting (Item 9, Resolution 1(d): that Section 3 – Aorangi Road from Ilam Road up to Brookside Terrace be a two-way cycleway), following the Committee’s consideration of the Hearings Panel report (Attachment E to this report); and

ii. Approve the scheme design of the Nor’West Arc section 3 between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace as a shared path (Attachment B to this report).

iii. Note that staff will bring a report to the Council to agree the detailed traffic resolutions prior to completing construction procurement.

iv. Note that this option has associated design, budget, resource and delivery impacts and risks (as described in section 4.32 of this report).

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

i. Agree to pause any further work as commenced under Option A – Separated cycleway on the carriageway (the current approved design).

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

iii. Note that this option has associated design, budget, resource and delivery impacts and risks (as described in section 4.33 of this report).

iv. Note that this option is likely to require additional consultation, including the formation of a Hearings Panel to evaluate feedback and design options.

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 A Notice of Motion was agreed by the Council on 6 September 2023 to review the design options for the Nor’West Arc Major Cycle Route.

3.1.1 The Notice of Motion specifically relates to the section of Aorangi Road between Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace (610m).

3.1.2 Council Staff were asked to provide details about the process to change the design, options for removal and replacement of trees, and advise of the impacts of any change to delivery.

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

3.3 The project team carried out early engagement with non-resident stakeholders. After early engagement analysis, further options were considered, including both on berm shared path and on berm separated footpath and cycleway options, leading to the two favoured options:

3.3.1 A separated, two-way cycleway (Option A)

3.3.2 An on-berm shared path (Option B)

3.4 A Scheme Design and Network Functionality (SANF) review was completed on both options. Option A was endorsed over Option B due to concerns around the risks of conflict with shared path users and exiting vehicles from driveways.

3.5 On 3 August 2021, Council was briefed on Nor’West Arc Section 3 prior to consultation.

3.5.1 Formal consultation was conducted from 14 September to the 12 October 2021.

3.5.2 Results of the consultation were 424 submissions with 339 selecting a preferred option:

· Option A - 62%

· Option B - 38%.

3.6 Based on feedback from consultation, several revisions were made to Option A. These included a 70m shared path, additional parking, including more on street parking, and improved safety measures at the Ilam Road/Aorangi Road intersection.

3.7 A Hearings Panel convened on the 15 November 2021.

3.7.1 The Panel accepted the Officer Recommendations for a revised Option A: a shared path from Ilam Road to Truman Road, and separated cycleway in the existing carriageway from Truman Road to Brookside Terrace.

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

3.8 In conclusion, the project has been through a thorough design analysis, public consultation, and Hearings process to provide the current preferred design option for the Nor’West Arc Major Cycleway.

3.8.1 While it is difficult to cost any change exactly at this stage, staff can confidently advise the Council that there is more cost and time associated with changing the option from the current approved Option A, to either of the alternative Options B or C.

3.8.2 This is because changing the design will result in an increase in the scope to be delivered, and there will be additional design costs and time associated with any change.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Nor’West Arc cycleway will provide a Major Cycleway standard design from Cashmere to Papanui.

4.1.1 The Notice of Motion and the content of this report relate specifically to the section on Aorangi Road between the Ilam Road and Brookside Terrace intersections (610m).

4.1.2 The Major Cycleway Programme was declared a Metropolitan Programme on 29 January 2015, where it was agreed that the Council would have authority to make design decisions. This was delegated to the Urban Development and Transport Committee at the time of the original design decision on this section of the project.

4.1.3 Funding for this section is partly from the government’s Shovel Ready programme, with additional funds from the Council.

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

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

· Option B – Shared path on the existing berm

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

4.3 At the beginning of the project two options for this section of the cycleway were considered – these being a greenway and a separated cycleway. The greenway option was ruled out by the Transport Steering Group on 5 March 2021 due to the existing traffic volumes and limited opportunities to reduce them.

4.4 The project team then took Option A, the separated cycleway option, to non-resident stakeholders for early engagement. Following this process, further analysis was undertaken on alternative options, including both an on berm shared path and an on berm separated footpath and cycleway. The on berm shared path option was put forward for wider public consultation as Option B.

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

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

· A 1m offset from property boundaries.

· A 3.5m wide shared path.

· Retains power poles – these being immediately behind the kerb line.

· Retains existing kerb and channel.

· Allows users to choose how they use the space.

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

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

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

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

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

4.9 On 3 August 2021 the Council was briefed on the details of the Nor’West Arc MCR Section 3 to be taken to consultation.

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

· Map 6 - Aorangi Road (Ilam to Clyde)

· Map 7 – Aorangi Road (Clyde to Brookside)

4.11 424 submissions were received, with 339 selecting a preferred option.

· Option A (262, 62%).

· Option B (129, 38%).

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

Submitters’ reasons for supporting Option A:

· Safer (40).

· Poor user behaviour on shared paths (14).

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

· Cyclist priority at intersections (3).

· No tree loss (3).

Submitters’ reasons for supporting Option B:

· Maintains on-road car parking (30).

· Safer (5).

· Removes trees (3)

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

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

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

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

4.15 After consultation the following actions/revisions were made to the preferred Option A:

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

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

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

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

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

4.16 A Hearings Panel process was conducted on 15 November 2021 via video link due to COVID -19 restrictions. The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillors Melanie Coker (Chair), Catherine Chu, Mike Davidson, Jake McLellan, and Community Board Member Simon Britten.

4.17 426 written submissions were received, and the Hearings Panel heard from 28 submitters.

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

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

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

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

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

4.23 Four notable changes were made during the detailed design process:

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

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

4.23.3 The design at the Clyde Road intersection was changed to a shared path crossing. This removed the pedestrian versus cycle lane cross conflicts and would encourage cyclists to be more careful on the approach to Clyde Road. Additionally, the design more clearly indicated to cyclists that they must give way to vehicles on Clyde Road.

4.23.4 The scope of the project now includes the replacement of kerb and channel, and resealing of the carriageway, due to observed poor asset condition.

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

PROCESS TO CHANGE DESIGN

4.25 The below describes the process requirements to progress each of the three options:

4.25.1 Option A – No further action. The project is at the end of detailed design phase and can continue to the procurement phase, and there are no other implications.

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

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

4.25.3 Option C – Should Council wish to proceed with the development of Option C:

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

B. Work would not continue that could prejudice any future Council decisions, until staff have developed a scheme design for Option C, and consulted on this.

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

PROCESS TO REMOVE TREES

4.27 The process to remove the silver birch trees associated with both Options B and C will require:

· Neighbouring properties to be informed of the proposed tree removals.

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

· Removal of the trees will be subject to the Council’s Tree Policy, requiring two new trees to replace each tree removed.

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

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

· Waimaero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.29 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and have been assessed in this report:

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

· Option B – Shared path on the existing berm.

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

4.30 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Greenway. At the beginning of the project two options for this section of the cycleway were considered. A greenway and a separated cycleway in the road corridor. A greenway option was ruled out due to the existing traffic volumes and limited opportunities to reduce them.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.31 Preferred Option: Option A – Separated cycleway on the carriageway (current design).

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

4.31.2 Option Advantages

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

4.31.3 Option Disadvantages

Removal of some parking along Aorangi Road

4.32 Option B – Shared path on the existing berm.

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

4.32.2 Option Advantages

Retention of most car parking spaces.

4.32.3 Option Disadvantages

A. Resource to be sought for detailed design.

B. Technical approvals will need to be reviewed. This includes Orion, Connetics, Enable, One.NZ (formally Vodafone), CCC Three Waters, Chorus, landscaping, and safety auditing.

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

D. Lighting review and upgrade likely required with poles and power connection to be installed against property boundaries.

E. All trees to be removed from the berm. Two trees to be planted in place of every one removed as per the Council Tree Policy. These will likely be planted away from this section of Aorangi Road due to a lack of green space.

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

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

Increased Risks:

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

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

4.33.1 Option Description: ‘An amended version of Option B’, described as an on-berm cycleway alongside the footpath.

4.33.2 Option Advantages

Retention of the majority of existing car parking.

4.33.3 Option Disadvantages

A. Professional services to be procured for scheme design, detailed design, consultation and project management, with associated additional costs.

B. Additional reports to the Council for approval to consult the public; and approval to proceed to design and construction.

C. Hearings Panel to be formed and process followed.

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

E. Lighting review and upgrade likely required. Lighting poles and power connections would be installed against property boundaries.

F. Design implications. Footpath to be replaced due to poor condition. Overhead power poles would need to be undergrounded. Stormwater infrastructure to be reviewed due to increased impermeable space. Other potential design implications due to underground services not yet surveyed.

G. All trees to be removed from the berm. Two trees to be planted in place of every one removed as per the Council Tree Policy. These will likely be planted away from this section of Aorangi Road due to a lack of green space.

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

I. Time – 11 months delay to programme.

· 1 month - Procure resources.

· 3 months - Scheme Design and approvals.

· 3 months – Consultation and approvals.

· 4 months – Detailed Design and approvals.

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

Increased Risks:

K. There is a risk that during consultation the public are not supportive of Option C with a preference for Options A or B.

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

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option B	Option C
Additional cost to Implement	None	$2.5 million	$4 million
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	All options are considered to have the same ongoing costs.	All options are considered to have the same ongoing costs.	All options are considered to have the same ongoing costs.
Current Funding Source
Shovel Ready	$10,500,000	$10,500,000	$10,500,000
CO- funding	$16,125,995	$16,125,995	$16,125,995
Additional Cost to Implement (as above)		$2,500,000	$4,000,000
Total Budget to implement	$26,625,995	$29,125,995	$30,625,995
Funding Availability	Planned in LTP	$2.5m shortfall	$4m shortfall
Impact to Ratepayers	None as planned in LTP	Approx. 0.028%	Approx. 0.04%

5.1 It was requested that staff provide greater explanation on the proposed additional costs related to the alternative Options B and C. Attachment C of this report provides high level indicative cost implications. As there are no detailed designs of Option B and C the additional costs of each option provided in the report are indicative rough order costs.

5.2 The likely scope increases that cause the additional costs for Option B and C are detailed in Attachment D - Table of items contributing to cost by option.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Identified Risks include:

6.1.1 Legal Risk – Ensure adequate engagement is undertaken if Option C is considered. As stated in paragraph 4.34 of this report.

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

6.1.3 Financial Risk – T An independent estimate has been requested and this may change the expected costs. A change from Option A will lead to an increase in costs.

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

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

6.2.4 The decisions within this report falls within the Council’s decision-making authority consistent with the Local Government Act.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

· This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority: Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities.

6.4.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the level of media and community interest in cycleways and availability of Government funding, balanced with the relatively low impact on the city as a whole.

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies by increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking within the main stream of traffic.

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

6.6 Governance

6.6.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

M. 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

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

6.7.1 Waimaero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.9 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.

6.10 The decision does impact any 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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.11.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The decision will provide the direction of next steps.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Option A - As previously approved	23/1855584	341
b ⇩	Option B - As previously consulted	23/1855857	345
c ⇩	Nor'West Arc Cycleway - Aorangi Road Notice of Motion Memo (31 March 2024)	24/308800	349
d ⇩	Table of Items Contributing to Cost by Option	24/309304	352
e ⇩	Hearings Panel Report - Nor'West Arc Section 3 - Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Cycleway	21/1475784	353

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Richard Humm - Project Manager

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Tessa Zant - Manager Engagement

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Funding Request Number	Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
00067087	Green Effect Trust (Trees for Canterbury	Expansion of Services	$25,000	$20,000
00067785	The Christchurch Foundation	Short term funding support	$20,000	$20,000

Total Budget 2023/24	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$585,679	$450,781	$134,898	$94,898

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE REVIEWED FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE
18.	Governance Update	s7(2)(a), s7(2)(h)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Commercial Activities	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	At the discretion of the Chief Executive

9. Discretionary Response Fund - Green Effect Trust, The Christchurch Foundation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/476632
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

13. Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory - Financial Year 2022/23
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/513172
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Carey Graydon, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience Lisa Early, Team Leader Climate Resilience
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services