Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 5 June 2024

Karakia Tīmatanga: All Councillors

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00035

That the apologies from The Mayor and Councillor Templeton for partial absence be accepted.

That an apology be recorded for Councillor Harrison-Hunt due to a leave of absence.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Henstock Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

There were no public forum presentations.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

4.1

Claude Tellick presented a petition regarding the installation of a rainbow crossing in central Ōtautahi Christchurch.

Link to the petition: Petition · Let's get a Rainbow Crossing for Ōtautahi! - New Zealand · Change.org

5. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 27 November 2023

The meeting blocked resolved Minutes Items 5 – 8 and PX Minutes Items 20 – 21.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00036

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held 27 November 2023.

Councillor Moore/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. Council Minutes - 3 April 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00037

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 3 April 2024.

AND

That the Council confirm the Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held 3 April 2024.

Councillor Moore/Deputy Mayor Carried

7. Council Minutes - 10 April 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00038

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 April 2024.

AND

That the Council confirm the Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 April 2024.

Councillor Moore/Deputy Mayor Carried

8. Council Minutes - 16 April 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00039

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 16 April 2024.

Councillor Moore/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Donovan joined the meeting via audio / visual link at 10.26am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Johanson left the meeting at 9.57am and returned at 9.59am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor McDonald left the meeting at 10.09am and returned at 10.19am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.09am and returned at 10.19am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.16am and returned at 10.20am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.16am and returned at 10.23am during consideration of Item 9.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.18am and returned at 10.20am during consideration of Item 9.

9. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2024
	The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, thanked Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Chairperson Bridget Williams and Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Chairperson Helen Broughton after each announced they would be stepping down from their roles as Chairperson though would continue to serve on their respective Community Boards. Their service, accomplishments, and contributions were acknowledged by the meeting.
	Bridget Williams, Chairperson, and Jason Middlemiss, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Simon Britten, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report. Helen Broughton, Chairperson, and Marie Pollisco, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Keir Leslie, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00040 Officer recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2024 Report. Councillor Barber/Councillor Peters Carried
	Attachments a Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council e Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council f Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 11 April 2024

10. Worsleys Road Realignment - Legalisation

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00041

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Pursuant to Sections 116 and 117(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 the Council resolves to make application to the Minister of Lands to stop that parcel road identified as Section 1 on SO Plan 585685, as detailed on Attachment A to the report (Worsleys Road Realignment – Legalisation, Title Plan SO 585685) on the meeting agenda, containing 0.3871ha and to declare it to be a local purpose (utility) reserve vested in the Christchurch City Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 10.26am and returned at 10.29an during consideration of Item 11.

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 11 April 2024

11. Former Opawa Children's Library Building - Expression of Interest, Results and Recommendation

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00042

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

3. Notes:

a. The existing Council resolution (CNCL/2022/00076) to approve the removal of the Building from its current flood prone location if no purchase or relocation options arise from an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process.

b. That the proposal from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust to take ownership of and relocate the Building to the Smith Street community garden was withdrawn after the report on the Community Board agenda.

4. Requires staff to further explore relocation options as a preference prior to demolition.

5. Any relocation option is conditional upon:

a. An achievable option being established within three months of this resolution.

b. The cost of any relocation being within the $40,000 council budget provision including remediation of the current site.

6. Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to make all decisions, enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary at their sole discretion to implement the demolition or relocation of the building and remediation of the site, without further formal reporting back to the Community Board or Council.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.31am and reconvened at 10.49am. The Mayor, Councillor Barber and Councillor Gough were not present at this time.

Deputy Mayor Cotter assumed the Chair for consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Barber returned the meeting at 10.56am during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Gough returned the meeting at 10.56am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Plan Change 14 Staging of Decision

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00043

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Plan Change 14 Staging of Decision Report.

2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as Medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Agree that its decision by 12 September 2024 on the IHP’s recommendations on PC14 will be confined to (option 1 in this report):

a. Those parts of Plan Change 14 that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, including the rezoning of land in Sydenham to Mixed-use, and

b. Related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones within policy 3 and 4 areas; and

c. Financial contributions for tree canopy cover across all relevant zones (including beyond NPS-UD areas).

The division was declared carried by 10 votes to 5 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett

Against: Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Henstock Carried

Attachments

a Plan Change 14 Staging of Decision - Presentation to Council

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 11.41am and returned at 11.43am during consideration of Item 13.

The Mayor returned to the meeting at 11.43am during consideration of Item 13.
Councillor McDonald left the meeting at 11.41am and returned at 11.44am during consideration of Item 13.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 11.49am during consideration of Item 13.

13. Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period

Item 13 was first Moved by Councillor Scandrett and Seconded by Councillor McLellan. Council Officers Lynette Ellis and Jacob Bradbury then joined the table to answer questions from elected members. As further questions were raised regarding the availability of feedback from the public, Council Officer Ron Lemm also joined the table to respond to elected member queries.

The meeting then agreed to let the Item lie on the table and to return to it later in the meeting to allow Council Officers time to collect advice in response to the elected members’ questions.

Refer to Item 13, as continued, below.

Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period Report.

2. Agree to retain the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) trial layout until 31 October 2024, to allow time for a Hearings Panel to review feedback from the trial and make a recommendation to Council regarding its long-term future.

3. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor McLellan Carried/Lost

The Mayor returned to the Chair at 11.50am for consideration of Item 14.

14. Transport Choices - School Safety Linwood - Pedestrian crossing Worcester McLeans

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00045

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Transport Choices - School Safety Linwood - Pedestrian crossing Worcester McLeans Report.

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

3. Revoke the road layout, including all traffic islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Worcester Street to the southwest of McLean Street as detailed on plan TG361601 dated 21/08/2023 in Attachment A to this report.

4. Relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, approve the road layout, including all traffic islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Worcester Street as detailed on plan TP361601a issue 2 dated 26/02/2024 in Attachment B to this report.

Parking and stopping restrictions to be revoked

5. Revoke that the:

a. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Mclean Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

b. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Mclean Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

c. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Mclean Street and extending in a southwest direction for a distance of 63 metres.

d. stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 153 metres southwest from its intersection with Surrey Street and extending in a southwest direction for a distance of 67 metres be revoked.

Parking and stopping restrictions

6. Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in Recommendation 7 below.

7. Approve, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that:

a. the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 16 metres northeast from its intersection with Norwich Street and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.

b. the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 35 metres northeast from its intersection with Rochester Street and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 42 metres.

8. Approve that Recommendations 5 to 7 take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the report on the meeting agenda are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 11.51am and returned at 11.52am during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 12.06pm and returned at 12.11pm during consideration of Item 15.

15. Capital Endowment Fund Application Eastern Relationship Project

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00046

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approve a grant of $130,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Council’s Community Support and Partnerships Unit to resource a project with the goal of improving the Council’s relationship with the Eastern Communities.

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

Mayor/Councillor Peters Carried

16. Chief Executive Recruitment - Approval of the Position Description
	The Mayor and Interim Chief Executive introduced Item 16 and put forward an additional recommendation delegating to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the finalisation and approval of the Chief Executive Position Description to be used during recruitment. The Motion as amended was then Moved by Councillor McLellan and Seconded by Councillor Barber, voted on, and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Chief Executive Recruitment - Approval of the Position Description Report. 2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approve the Position Description (Attachment A to this report) be used during the recruitment of a new Chief Executive.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00047 That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Chief Executive Recruitment - Approval of the Position Description Report. 2. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approve the Position Description (Attachment A to this report) be used during the recruitment of a new Chief Executive. 4. Delegate to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the finalisation and approval of the Position Description to be used during the recruitment of a new Chief Executive. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Barber Carried

17. Revoking Superseded External Policies

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00048

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Revoking Superseded External Policies report.

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

3. Approve the revocation of the following policies as they have been superseded by other Council documents and are no longer fit-for-purpose as further detailed in Attachment A to this report:

a. Arts Policy and Strategy 2001 (Attachment B), superseded by Tōi Ōtautahi – Arts and Creativity Strategy.

b. Footpath Battens Policy 1999 (Attachment C), superseded by the Christchurch City Council Construction Standard Specifications, Part 6.

c. Footpath Berms Policy 1999 (Attachment D), superseded by the Christchurch City Council Construction Standard Specifications, Part 6 and Chapter 9.

d. Heritage Conservation Policy 2007 (Attachment E), superseded by the Heritage Grants Guidelines and the ‘Our Heritage Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029.

Councillor MacDonald/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.10pm and returned at 12.11pm during consideration of Item 18.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 12.14pm and returned at 12.19pm during consideration of Item 18.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting via audio / visual link at 12.15pm and returned at 12.34pm via audio / visual link during consideration of Item 18.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.15pm and returned at 12.22pm during consideration of Item 18.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 12.30pm during consideration of Item 18.

18. Wastewater overflow improvement status

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00049

Officer recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Wastewater overflow improvement status Report.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

Attachments

a Wastewater overflow improvement status - Presentation to Council

13. Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period
	The meeting returned to Item 13 after it was left to lie on the table to allow Council Officers time to collect advice in response to the elected members’ questions. Council Officers Lynette Ellis, Jacob Bradbury, Ron Lemm, and Lauren Boyce returned to the table to answer further questions from elected members. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the meeting included an additional recommendation requesting a breakdown of the expected total costs of the Gloucester Street trial (refer Resolution 4 below). At the conclusion of debate, the meeting voted on the Motion as amended which was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period Report. 2. Agree to retain the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) trial layout until 31 October 2024, to allow time for a Hearings Panel to review feedback from the trial and make a recommendation to Council regarding its long-term future. 3. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00050 That the Council: 1. Receive the information in the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo): Completion of Trial Period Report. 2. Agree to retain the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) trial layout until 31 October 2024, to allow time for a Hearings Panel to review feedback from the trial and make a recommendation to Council regarding its long-term future. 3. Note that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 4. Request that staff provide a memo updating the Council on a breakdown of the expected total costs of the Gloucester Street (Manchester to Colombo) trial. Councillor Scandrett/Councillor McLellan Carried

19. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui
	Secretarial Note: The meeting did not resolve to go into a Public Excluded session as Items 20 and 21 – the Public Excluded Council Minutes of 3 April and 10 April were confirmed in the Open meeting (refer Item 6 and Item 7).

Karakia Whakamutunga: All Councillors

Meeting concluded at 1.01pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

27 Hunters Road & 43 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour – FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū Unsolicited Proposals
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440559
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Manager Kristine Bouw, Development Project Manager
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 present the outcomes of the consultation and make recommendations relating to the Unsolicited Proposals received for the Council-owned land at 27 Hunters Road and 43 Whero Avenue to:

1.1.1 Sell a portion to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) for a new fire station and

1.1.2 Sell a portion to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke investment company Te Poho o Tamatea Limited for the purposes of Te Pā o Rākaihautū character school.

1.2 The report is staff generated in response to proposals from FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū (Te Pā) character school to purchase parts of the Hunters Road site for a Fire Station and a character school established under section 156 of the Education Act 1989 respectively.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommend to the Council that:

1. It depart from its Disposal of Property Policy 2000 and the requirement to sell by public tender, noting that the Council does not intend to amend the Policy to accommodate this decision.

2. It deal unilaterally with Fire and Emergency New Zealand and Te Poho o Tamatea Limited and conditionally sell the part of the land as shown in Attachment B and C to this report and described as:

a. Part Lot 1 DP 14050 contained in Record of Title CB12F/538 and marked “FENZ Site” in Attachment B to this report to Fire and Emergency New Zealand for a Fire Station; and

b. Part Lot 1 DP 14050 marked “Te Pā o Rākaihautū” in Attachment C to this report to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke investment company Te Poho o Tamatea Limited for a Character School under section 156 of the Education Act 1989.

3. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy, to undertake all actions, negotiate and conclude all the agreements necessary to facilitate Recommendations 1 and 2 in general accordance with this report on terms and conditions acceptable to him at his sole discretion, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

4. Requires the matter to be referred back to the Council should the Manager Property Consultancy in his sole discretion consider the terms in the attached Terms Sheets (Attachment A and B) cannot be reasonably met.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Council has been approached by two organisations, FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū, a designated Character School, to sell to them portions of the Council owned land situated at 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour, identified as Part Lot 1 DP 14050 contained in Record of Title CB12F/538.

3.2 The land is not required for any current or reasonably foreseeable future Council use and it has no reason to retain the land that is the subject of these bids.

3.3 The proposals have benefits to the wider community and help Council achieves its outcomes and priorities.

3.4 Community feedback is generally supportive of both proposals, however, there are concerns from some in Diamond Harbour about the effects of the school on infrastructure, the environment and other local educational establishments.

3.5 Te Poho o Tamatea Limited and the Ministry of Education (MoE), have expressed concerns about expending further time and resources on collating information to support their proposals when there is uncertainty about whether Council would depart from policy, support the proposals and deal unilaterally with them. Until this further information is prepared there remains uncertainty about the effects of the school proposal.

3.6 To address these concerns, the report recommends an option that provides increased certainty for the proponents to proceed to the next stage and commence substantial property planning and consenting investigations and feasibility studies. The effects of the proposals on infrastructure and the environment can then be addressed through the statutory resource consent process. The effects of the proposed school on other educational establishments can be addressed through the Ministry of Education decision making process.

3.7 Community views are supportive of both proposals as detailed later in this report. There is little to no financial impact at this stage or reputational risk to Council in adopting the recommendations in this report.

3.8 The proposed uses of the land by both FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū support the Council's Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together and Multicultural Strategies.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki (4.2 and 4.3 can be deleted if not applicable)

4.1 In 2021 the Christchurch City Council as part of its Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation proposed to sell the land situated at 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue (the land). As a result of that LTP consultation Council resolved to undertake further targeted consultation.

4.1.1 M19Aii: That the Council defer making a decision about the properties at 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Diamond Harbour until a targeted consultation process can be undertaken to gather additional information to support the material gathered trough the LTP Consultation process. Council creates a project in the first year of the LTP and sets aside a budget of $65,000 for this purpose. Report back to Council for a final decision as part of the FY 2022/23 annual plan process.

4.2 This targeted consultation took place in October/November 2021 and resulted in the following resolutions being passed by Council;

Council Resolved CNCL/2022/0032

1. Acknowledges the views of the submitters from the Council’s targeted consultation process including the Banks Peninsula Community Board’s submission from its meeting on 14 February 2022.

2. Note there is community support for the sale of the land for residential and other purposes subject to the development reflecting community aspirations.

3. Notes that the recommended paths forward is to:

a. Develop an Outline Development Plan for the properties collectively known as 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue;

b. Protect the revegetated gullies and access tracks;

c. Subdivide the site and place covenants on the property titles that requires development to be in accordance with the Outline Development Plan; and

d. Dispose of the balance of the site not required for Council purposes.

4. Refers the matter to the 2023/24 Annual Plan for prioritisation and funding;

5. Defers any decision to declare 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue surplus to operational requirement until such time as an Outline Development Plan is completed

6. Request the Outline Development Plan prioritise climate change adaptation and the ability for local residents to age in place in the considerations as far as possible.

4.3 Soon after, Council staff commenced a process to develop an Outline Development Plan (ODP) to determine possible future uses for the land that reflected community views and aspirations and the Council resolution in paragraph 4.2.

4.4 Council staff became aware of a request by FENZ to purchase approximately 5000m² of the site for a fire station and subsequently in late 2023 received a further request from Te Pā o Rākaihautū, for a designated Character School, to purchase approximately 8 hectares in the middle portion of the site. These sites are identified below and are both part of Lot 1 DP 14050 contained in Record of Title CB12F/538.

4.5 The receipt of the two unsolicited proposals has necessitated that the ODP process be put on hold until decisions on the unsolicited proposals and outcomes are known.

A map of a city

Description automatically generated

Site Plan of CCC-owned land at 27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue with proposed FENZ and Te Pā land purchase areas highlighted in red

5. FENZ – Diamond Harbour Fire Station

5.1 FENZ currently occupy an 829m² site at 89 Marine Drive, Diamond Harbour. FENZ has identified that this site not large enough for their operational requirements and the building that they occupy has been rated at less than 34% of the New Building Standard and is an Earthquake Prone Building. As a result, notice have been served on FENZ to upgrade the building based on current building standards.

5.2 FENZ are looking for a larger site to meet their future needs and have investigated several sites within the Diamond Harbour area. The proposed site has been selected based on preference in regards to optimal response times, population movement and estimated growth in the Diamond Harbour area. The result of these investigations is the selection of the current site for their new build.

5.3 The selected site of approximately 5000m² will enable FENZ to build a new station that is a fit for purpose, resilient, and meets statutory, regulatory and organisational requirements for the future and allows for growth of the wider community.

5.4 Whilst the station will be vacant 80 – 90% of the time it will be used for training purposes approximately one evening per week and be used for community engagement days, education and Civil Defence if required.

6. Te Pā o Rākaihautū – Character School

6.1 Nōku Te Ao Charitable Trust in partnership with the Ministry of Education have been working together to realise a long-term goal to develop a permanent 21st century pā wānaka (learning village) known as Te Pā o Rākaihautū and are looking to develop this on the Council-owned land at 27 Hunters Road / 42 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour.

6.2 Te Pā opened in 2015 on a temporary site at Richmond Primary School, it moved to the old Linwood Intermediate site in the same year on a temporary basis and remains there while they look for a permanent home.

6.3 Te Pā became aware the Council were seeking a use(s) for the Hunters Road site in Diamond Harbour. The proposed site in Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū (Banks Peninsula) is strongly aligned with Te Pā’s kaupapa (special character) and would enable full delivery of their curriculum with a location based centrally amongst the five key Rūnanga.

6.4 The unsolicited proposal from Te Pā o Rākaihautū to purchase part of the site is appended as Attachment A Unsolicited Proposal Te Pā o Rākaihautū. The proposal includes input from multiple parties and can be summarised as follows:

6.4.1 Nōku Te Ao Charitable Trust was established in 2002 to establish a total immersion reo Māori early childhood centre. It has since evolved and opened Te Pā o Rākaihautū as a designated Character School established under Section 156 of the Education Act 1989.

6.4.2 Te Pā o Rākaihautū has been operating from a temporary site at 7 McLean Street in Linwood since 2015.

6.4.3 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke through their charitable investment company Te Poho o Tamatea Limited propose to purchase the land and lease it to the Ministry of Education as a school site for Te Pā o Rākaihautū.

6.4.4 The Ministry of Education (the Ministry) are supportive of Te Pā o Rākaihautū operating a multi-site school to ultimately provide a school for up to 700 students across two sites, currently the Linwood site and part of the land at 27 Hunters Road.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Preferred Option 1: To support the conditional sale of part of the land to FENZ and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke through their charitable investment company Te Poho o Tamatea Limited

· Option 2: Not sell the land to FENZ

· Option 3: Not sell the land to Te Poho o Tamatea Limited

Option Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.6 Preferred Option: To support the conditional sale of part of the land to FENZ and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke through their charitable investment company Te Poho o Tamatea Limited

6.6.1 Option Description

Sale of land to both FENZ and Te Poho o Tamatea Limited subject to FENZ and Te Poho o Tamatea Limited meeting conditions of sale whereby they are satisfied the land is suitable for their specific use and being able to obtain all necessary consents and approvals to construct, operate and manage a Fire and Emergency and Character School site respectively. The land sale option will be subject to multiple conditions as outlined in the attached terms sheets (Attachment B and C) and be subject to any terms and conditions approved from time to time by the Property Consultancy Manager.

6.6.2 Option Advantages

· Gives certainty to all parties that enables them to commit financial resources for planning, design and consenting,

· Helps meet Council commitment to community development,

· Provides an economic return to Council i.e., land sale,

· Provides a permanent site for Te Pā o Rākaihautū,

· Provides a fit for purpose site for FENZ,

· Both proposals are low intensity and would retain a degree of open space and be less demanding on services than could be enabled by the current zoning for residential activity.

6.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· Delays the ODP process until outcomes become certain.

· Precludes other alternative uses.

6.7 Option 2 - Not sell the land to FENZ

6.7.1 Option Description

This option would require FENZ to seek an alternative site for a new fire station. FENZ has considered other sites within Diamond Harbour many of which have already been considered and ruled out as being not suitable, and included:

· Laurenson Park – a recreation reserve used by the Diamond Harbour Community and its use by FENZ is not supported by the Councils Parks Team due to its current park use and direct proximity to residential properties. In addition, being a reserve presents reserve act challenges to revoke the reserve status and sell.

· Alternative sites within the Council-owned Hunters Road land. These were considered either too steep, have poor access or were not in a suitable locality.

6.7.2 Option Advantages

· Council’s Outline Development Plan (ODP) process could continue as planned.

6.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· FENZ is required to rebuild the Diamond Harbour Fire Station as a part of their operational and community response requirements. Further delays to the location of a new facility provide increased risk to the community.

· FENZ is an acquiring authority under the Public Works Act 1981 and has the ability to compulsory acquire land for a fire station and may choose a site that from a Council perspective is less desirable. Not selecting this Hunter Road land may result in a less desirable land selection for a new fire station.

6.8 Option 3 - Not sell the land to Te Poho o Tamatea Limited

6.8.1 Option Description

This option would require Te Poho o Tamatea Limited to find an alternate site within the Banks Peninsula that would accommodate their needs for a new school.

6.8.2 Option Advantages

· This option may allow for the location of a new school with potentially less infrastructural constraints.

· Council’s ODP process could continue as planned.

6.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· An alternative site for a school will need to be found within Banks Peninsula and which may not provide the opportunities of the land at Hunters Road.

· Further delays the location of a fit for purpose, permanent site for Te Pā.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

6.9 These proposals were assessed against the Councils Guidelines for Submission and Assessment of Unsolicited Proposals and Disposal of Property Policy.

6.9.1 The above guidelines require unsolicited proposals to be unique, align with Council community outcomes and strategic priorities and demonstrate value for money.

6.9.2 Both proposals submitted are unique (including community focused and low density outcomes), are considered to align with desirable community outcomes, align with strategic priorities, and have potential to demonstrate value for money once valuations are available.

6.10 The proposals were also considered against the Council’s Strategic Framework and policies.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

7.1 The decision of this report does not have a direct financial implication but rather considers the conditional sale of the land to FENZ and to Te Poho o Tamatea Limited.

7.2 The full details of the cost to implement the land sale are not yet known, including CAPEX / OPEX implications. Should the proposed land sale be supported by the Council, staff will provide further information and detail on the financial implications and based on standard Council land transactions.

7.3 Any option is considered to include costs to Council in the form of operational costs and staff time to support as an upfront consideration and will be a part of any future land sale decision making and considered under the appropriate delegations.

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 There are limited risks for Council in adopting the recommendations in this report. The proposed conditional sale to both FENZ and Te Poho o Tamatea Limited have been widely consulted on and have generally been well received by the community as detailed in this report.

8.2 There are risks associated with the consenting of the proposals at a future date, particularly at this stage without complete information on how the effects will be mitigated. Notwithstanding this, conditions can be included on the sale of the land, requiring approvals to be obtained.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

8.3 When selling land, officers follow the requirements of legislation and the Council’s “Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000”. This policy states that:

· the Council's policy of publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise be confirmed as applying to all areas of the City.

8.4 Normal practice is to treat the statement “clear reason for doing otherwise” as a policy inconsistency under Clause 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. This clause requires the Local Authority to clearly identify any significant inconsistencies with policy including the reasons for the inconsistency. The specific clause is:

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated

8.5 In this case the inconsistency is to not publicly tender the sale of parts of the site.

8.6 This is inconsistent with the policy because it is proposed to deal unilaterally with FENZ and Te Poho o Tamatea Limited.

8.7 Council do not intend to amend the policy as these are unique, one-off proposals.

8.8 In the case of the sale to Te Poho o Tamatea Limited, Council intend to enter into a covenant whereby if the land is not used for the purposes of a character school as described in the attached proposal then the Council has the ability to repurchase the property.

8.9 In the case of FENZ, FENZ is deemed to be an acquiring authority under the Public Works Act 1981 and if they were to ever consider selling their site then they are obligated under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 to offer the land back to Council.

Consultation requirements

8.10 Council has consulted the Community on the proposed sale. Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires consultation where Council proposes to sell land that could be considered to be a park where that land was acquired or is used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes. Although the proposed sale only relates to land that is grazed other parts of the land are used by the community e.g. native planting and walking tracks.

Term and Conditions of Sale

8.11 Both parties intend to enter into terms and conditions of sale, the principal ones affecting both parties are,

· Valuation to establish the purchase price.

· Protection of existing Council infrastructure.

· Suitable for proposed use, i.e. geotechnical reports.

8.12 Te Poho o Tamatea Limited has specific conditions over and above those listed in paragraph 8.9 to enable Te Pā o Rākaihautū to utilise the site for a school and requires,

· MoE completing a feasibility study for the suitability of the site for Te Pā o Rākaihautū to operate a school.

· MoE and Te Pā o Rākaihautū having a suitable business and financial plan.

· Use of the balance of the site purchased by Te Poho o Tamatea Limited being used solely for the purposes of Te Pā o Rākaihautū school.

· Ability for the Council to purchase the site back if it is not used for a school.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.13 The required decisions:

8.13.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

· The proposals help to contribute to the Community Outcome: A collaborative confident city

· The proposed uses of the land by both FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū is consistent with the Council's Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together and Multicultural Strategies.

· The proposals help the Council “manage ratepayers' money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community and addressing the issues that are important to our residents” via releasing capital from land that is not currently contributing to meeting community outcomes.

8.13.2 Relate to land that on initial assessment does not meet Council’s criteria for retention as set out in its December 2020 approved retention criteria.

8.13.3 The decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the interest from the Banks Peninsula community in the future of the land, the significance of the decision outcome to Te Pā and FENZ, and the potential impacts on the local area.

8.13.4 The decisions in this report are inconsistent with the Council Disposal of Property Policy. This policy requires Council to “… publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise …”. The inconsistency is that the recommended action is to sell these properties via private treaty. The clear reason for taking this approach in both cases is that the beneficial outcomes cannot be guaranteed through a public tender process.

8.13.5 The decision in this report do not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

8.13.6 Not in Plan

8.13.7 Activity: Not in Plan

· Level of Service: Not in Plan

8.13.8 The sale of the sites does not negate the need for approvals under the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. resource consent), which will require an assessment of the effects of the proposed activities and mitigation of those effects.

8.13.9 Both Te Poho o Tamatea and FENZ will need to work through the resource consent processes on the basis that resource consent is required under the zone rules and provisions in the Christchurch District Plan.

8.13.10 The sale of these sites remains separate to the spatial planning work for the wider site that the Council has been undertaking, and any ongoing spatial planning will take into account the outcomes of these recommendations and decisions. The broader exercise for the balance of the site will be reported to the community board at a future date including options and a preferred option.

Community Views and Preferences Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

8.14 Early community consultation in November 2021, gathered feedback on potential land uses for the 27 Hunters and 43 Whero Avenue site. A total of 234 submissions were received, which showed strong community interest in preserving the gullies and ongoing involvement in deciding the future use of the land.

8.15 Following the unsolicited proposals received from both FENZ at Te Pā, further community consultation started on 22 January 2024 and ran until 19 February 2024.

8.16 An email was sent to 76 key stakeholders, including local resident groups, community organisations, Rūnanga, businesses, schools, and preschools.

8.17 The consultation was promoted on the Council Newsline (998 views) and Facebook page (9900 impressions). It was also posted to the Diamond Harbour community group Facebook page, the Diamond Harbour NZ community page, and the Banks Peninsula Community Board page. The Community Board also promoted the consultation in their weekly email updates, inviting submissions on the Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk consultation page (2400 views).

8.18 Consultation documents were delivered to directly affected residents located around the proposed land parcels for a school and fire station. Documents were available in the Diamond Harbour library, Lyttelton Service Centre, Diamond Harbour School, KidsFirst Kindergarten, and local businesses including Four Square, Diamond Harbour Surgery, and Diamond Harbour Bar & Eatery.

8.19 The consultation was advertised in the Diamond Harbour Herald newspaper.

8.20 An information session was held on 31 January 2024 and attended by approximately 60 people. Council staff and representatives from Te Pā and FENZ provided project information and were available to answer questions.

8.21 Staff attended a Diamond Harbour School Board meeting to discuss the proposals and gather their feedback. Feedback from the Board included:

· Interest in meeting with Te Pā to explore mutual benefit.

· Acknowledgement of the site’s cultural significance to Te Pā.

· Concerns about Te Pā students/staff unfamiliarity with the Diamond Harbour community if coming from wider Christchurch, and transport implications including increased traffic and road wear.

· Interest to engage with the MOE to ensure they have assessed any negative effects on the existing school, ways to support its growth, and the demand for Te Pā school.

· Recognise the significant role of FENZ in the local community. Recommend considering and mitigating noise impacts for Diamond Harbour School where possible.

· Diamond Harbour School Board prioritises maintaining education quality and community service despite potential impacts of the proposed facilities.

8.22 Te Pā and FENZ have also undertaken their own community engagement and communication strategies throughout the project.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

8.23 Submissions were made by three recognised organisations – Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Church Bay Neighbourhood Association, Better Ancestors; one business – Rei Collective; and 424 individuals.

8.24 A full table of submission feedback is available in Attachment D.

8.25 Submitters were asked if the proposed fire station and designated character school were a good use for the outlined parts of the 27 Hunters Road and 43 Whero Avenue land.

8.26 As shown below, 85% (366) of submitters fully or somewhat agreed that the proposed fire station is a good use for part of the land, 9% (39) disagreed, and 5% (22) were unsure.

A graph with different colored bars

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

8.27 Submitters who supported the proposed fire station felt that it would benefit the local community, is necessary to meet the future needs of both the brigade and the community and see benefits in the proposed helipad.

8.28 As shown below, 69% (298) of submitters fully or somewhat agreed that the designated character school is a good use for part of the land, 27% (116) disagreed, and 3% (14) were unsure.

A graph with different colored bars

Description automatically generated

8.29 Submitters who supported the proposed school felt that it would benefit the local community and mana whenua, as well as meet the demand for more Māori medium education. However, there was concern about potential issues from increased traffic, such as road wear, environmental effects, and logistical challenges for Te Pā students and staff.

8.30 The detailed breakdown of the addresses of submitters show different views about the school proposal between the Diamond Harbour and others (Table 1). Diamond Harbour submitters were less likely to support the school proposal than other submitters.

Table 1 Support For Proposed School by Location

8.31 The community views likely reflect that the that the “benefits” (e.g. capital release, achievement of community outcomes, provision of a specialist education facility) of the sale of the land to the school fall widely, while the real or perceived costs (e.g. impacts on infrastructure and environment) are perceived to fall on the local Diamond Harbour community.

8.32 Additionally, a theme that has emerged from the three consultation processes undertaken regarding the Hunter Road land is that the Diamond Harbour community may be open to Council selling the land, but they want to understand the effects of any development on the land as part of this decision. Council’s usual decision-making process does not give sufficient certainty to meet the community desires as Council does not generally[1] restrict, beyond the requirements of the planning scheme, the use of land it sells. This means that the effects of any future use are not known at the time of the decision to dispose of the land.

8.33 Obtaining information about the effects of a use can be expensive, and in this case the school proponents do not want to commit to costs with no indication that the land will be available for use.

8.34 The recommendation in this report tries to address this matter and balance the community and proponent’s concerns. A conditional agreement to sell gives sufficient certainty to the proponent that they can commit to the costs of further studies and proceed to apply for a resource consent. The resource consent process allows for the effects of the development to be assessed, allowing a degree of comfort to the local community that the effects of a use have been considered. This may or may not be a process that the community comments on depending on a technical assessment of the information about the effects against regulatory requirements.

8.35 There are some points of concern that should receive little weight in the Community Board and Council’s consideration of these matters. These are “there is no need for another school” and “there is little or no demand for Māori medium education in Diamond Harbour”. These matters fall outside of Council’s responsibility and are best left with the proponent and the Ministry of Education to determine. The recommended option allows for this to occur.

8.36 Concerns about negative impacts on the existing school / kindergarten are matters where the Community Board / Council has a broad community interest, however, analysis and decision making on this matter sits with the Ministry of Education. The recommended option allows the opportunity for this matter to be raised with the Ministry.

8.37 A full analysis of submissions is available in Attachment E.

8.38 The decision affects the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area, however, they also have city wide implications.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.39 The recommendations of this report regarding the conditional sale of this land does not specifically involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, however, all lands within the proposed land sale area are of cultural significance and therefore this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions for the purpose of the decision making.

8.40 The decisions do involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will positively impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. Ngāti Wheke, mana whenua for this area, have indicated that this sale is important to them.

8.41 Setting aside the proposed sale of part to FENZ, the sale of approximately 8ha of the site to the investment arm of Ngāti Wheke, Te Poho o Tamatea Limited supports Te Pā o Rākaihautū character school to provide a Māori medium education service.

8.42 Staff have been working closely and collaboratively with Ngāti Wheke and Ngai Tahu throughout this process and require a decision from Council to move forward.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

8.44 Although there will be some additional bus/boat movements resulting from the sale of the land to Te Poho o Tamatea Limited to transport pupils from Christchurch City to Lyttelton and then to Diamond Harbour the school itself strives to build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, biodiversity and tree canopy.

8.45 There is expected to be no significant change to the day to day FENZ activities in Diamond Harbour and therefore a negligible impact on climate change.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 If the recommendations is this report are adopted, conditional agreements for sale and purchase will be entered into that reflect the draft terms in the attached terms sheet for both Te Poho o Tamatea Limited and FENZ. These included but are not limited to purchase price being determined by independent valuations and being acceptable to the Council delegate in recommendation two (2) at his or her sole discretion, survey, site investigations, resource and building consents.

9.2 If there is any major change from the proposed terms and conditions as assessed by the Manager Property Consultancy that change may shall be reported back to Council for a decision.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Unsolicited Proposal Te Pa o Rākaihautū	24/497492
b	FENZ Terms Sheet	24/511602
c	Te Poho o Tamatea Limited	24/511610
d	Submission file	24/550625
e	Analysis of submissions	24/513310

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

Danielle Endacott - Engagement Advisor

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Jane Parfitt - General Manager City Infrastructure

Report from Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards – 14 May 2024

8. City to Sea West Safety Improvements - Roading Elements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/833629
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sam Morris, Project Manager David Little, Residential Red Zone Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

The Waitai and Waipapa Community Boards took into consideration a deputation received from Jack Gibbons on behalf of Greater Ōtautahi and responses from Council Officers.

The resolutions below were voted on part by part by each respective Board.

Ali Jones moved an amendment (to resolution 6 to remove the words “with a raised safety platform”) that was seconded by Victoria Henstock. The amendment was debated, put to vote and declared lost. Victoria Henstock requested that it was noted that her vote against the raised platform in resolution 6 be recorded.

The original officer recommendation was then put to the vote and declared carried.

2. Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

1. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board approves:

a. A pedestrian crossing be established on Swanns Road, for the use of pedestrians and riders of mobility devices only, located at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive as detailed in Agenda Attachment B – Swanns Road Crossing Plan, in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices: 2004.

b. A Give Way control be placed against the westbound Swanns Road traffic, located at a point 32 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive as detailed on Agenda Attachment B – Swanns Road Crossing Plan. The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Swanns Road.

c. A Give Way control be placed against the eastbound Swanns Road traffic, located at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive as detailed on Agenda Attachment B – Swanns Road Crossing Plan. The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Swanns Road.

d. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to this crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment B – Swanns Road Crossing Plan.

e. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to the Stanmore Road crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment A – Stanmore Road Crossing Plan.

f. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to the Flesher Avenue carpark entry, as detailed on Agenda Attachment D – Flesher Avenue Car Park Plan.

g. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to the Evelyn Couzins Avenue carpark entry, as detailed on Agenda Attachment E – Evelyn Couzins Car Park Plan.

2. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board resolves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. Swanns Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

i. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

ii. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 45 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

iii. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

iv. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 44 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres.

v. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 103 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

vi. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 91 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

vii. On the western side of Avonside Drive, commencing at its intersection with Swanns Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

viii. On the western side of Avonside Drive, commencing at its intersection with Swanns Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

b. Flesher Avenue Carpark (within the red zone)

i. On the eastern side of Flesher Avenue, commencing at a point approximately 14 metres north of its intersection with Kershaw Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

ii. On the eastern side of Flesher Avenue, commencing at a point approximately 32 metres north of its intersection with Kershaw Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

c. Evelyn Couzins Carpark (within the red zone)

i. On the eastern side of Evelyn Couzins Avenue, commencing at a point approximately 173 metres south of its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

ii. On the western side of Evelyn Couzins Avenue, commencing at a point approximately 168 metres south of its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

3. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board resolves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

ii. On the western side of Stanmore Road, commencing at a point approximately 82 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 37 metres.

iii. On the eastern side of Stanmore Road, commencing at a point approximately 66 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of ten metres.

iv. On the eastern side of Stanmore Road, commencing at a point approximately 83 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

4. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board approves:

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

i. A pedestrian crossing be established on Gayhurst Road, for the use of pedestrians and riders of mobility devices only, located at a point 383 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road as detailed on Agenda Attachment C – Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan, in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices: 2004.

ii. A Give Way control be placed against the southbound Gayhurst Road traffic, located at a point 370 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road as detailed on Agenda Attachment C – Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan. The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Gayhurst Road.

iii. A Give Way control be placed against the northbound Gayhurst Road traffic, located at a point 386 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road as detailed on Agenda Attachment C – Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan. The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Gayhurst Road.

iv. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to this crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment C – Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan.

5. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board resolves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

ii. On the western side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 382 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

iii. On the eastern side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 363 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

iv. On the eastern side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 385 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

v. On the western side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 327 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres.

vi. On the western side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 425 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres.

vii. On the eastern side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 327 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres.

viii. On the eastern side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 425 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres.

10. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board and Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

i. Revoke any previous restrictions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described above.

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

3. Joint Meeting - Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards Recommendation to Council

Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part A

6. That the Council approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

i. A signalised crossing with a raised safety platform for use by pedestrians and cyclists, installed on Stanmore Road with its centreline approximately 80 metres north of the centreline of Avonside Drive, in accordance with the relevant sections of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

7. That the Council approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

i. On the western side of Stanmore Road, commencing at a point approximately 67 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 24 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and north bound cycle only 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.

ii. On the eastern side of Stanmore Road, commencing at a point approximately 66 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 25 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and south bound cycle only 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.

b. Swanns Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

i. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 27 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and east bound cycle only 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.

ii. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 26 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 28 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and west bound cycle only 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.

8. That the Council approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

i. On the western side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 365 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and north bound cycle only 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.

ii. On the eastern side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a point approximately 370 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be resolved as a Shared Path for pedestrian and south bound cycle only 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.

9. That the Council approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Gayhurst Road Special Vehicle Lane (cycle) extension

i. An extension to the existing Special Vehicle Lane (cycle) on Gayhurst Road, installed along the western side of Gayhurst Road at a point approximately 290 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 234 metres.

ii. An extension to the existing Special Vehicle Lane (cycle) on Gayhurst Road, installed along the eastern side of Gayhurst Road at a point approximately 260 metres south of its intersection with McBratneys Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 281 metres.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	City to Sea West Safety Improvements - Roading Elements	24/491341	104

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Stanmore Road Crossing Plan	24/736670	118
b ⇩	Swanns Road Crossing Plan	24/722538	119
c ⇩	Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan	24/722545	120
d ⇩	Flesher Avenue Car Park Plan	24/797134	121
e ⇩	Evelyn Cousinz Avenue Car Park Plan	24/797123	122
f ⇩	City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Engagement Report Data	24/679600	123
g ⇩	Extract from City to Sea Transport Assessment, Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive intersection modelling.	24/685044	131
h ⇨	City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Submission Table (Under Separate Cover)	24/787085

City to Sea West Safety Improvements - Roading Elements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/491341
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sam Morris, Project Manager David Little, Residential Red Zone Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens & Community Group

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Boards to consider proposed safety improvements associated with the City to Sea Pathway, and to make decisions on the same. The safety improvements are split across the two boards, and are primarily road crossings, described below:

· A signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing on Stanmore Road and an unsignalised pedestrian/cycle crossing on Swanns Road, in the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area.

· An unsignalised pedestrian/cycle crossing on Gayhurst Road in the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area.

· There are also minor line marking changes related to carpark entries at Flesher Avenue and Evelyn Couzins Avenue, both in the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area.

1.2 Due to the nature of the work, some of the specific decisions are delegated to Community Boards and some to Council. This is reflected in the officer recommendations.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the safety impacts of the decisions on the relevant user groups.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

1. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board approves:

d. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to this crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment B – Swanns Road Crossing Plan.

e. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to the Stanmore Road crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment A – Stanmore Road Crossing Plan.

f. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to the Flesher Avenue carpark entry, as detailed on Agenda Attachment D – Flesher Avenue Car Park Plan.

a. Swanns Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

i. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

ii. On the northern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 45 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

iii. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

iv. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 44 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres.

vi. On the southern side of Swanns Road, commencing at a point approximately 91 metres west of its intersection with Avonside Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

vii. On the western side of Avonside Drive, commencing at its intersection with Swanns Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

viii. On the western side of Avonside Drive, commencing at its intersection with Swanns Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

b. Flesher Avenue Carpark (within the red zone)

c. Evelyn Couzins Carpark (within the red zone)

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

4. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board approves:

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

iv. All kerb alignments, road surface treatments, speed cushions and road markings related to this crossing, as detailed on Agenda Attachment C – Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan.

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

6. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

7. That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017

a. Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing

b. Swanns Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

8. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that the Council approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017

a. Gayhurst Road Dual Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing

9. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that the Council approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Gayhurst Road Special Vehicle Lane (cycle) extension

10. That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board and Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

i. Revoke any previous restrictions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described above.

ii. These resolutions to take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This portion of the City to Sea Pathway crosses three ‘in service’ roads. There are currently no dedicated crossing facilities in place, which leads to safety hazards for users – including those currently using stopped roads in the area. The expected increase in use of the Pathway following construction will likely exacerbate this issue.

3.2 Designs have been prepared aimed at improving safety at the crossing points. These have been consulted with the community, receiving generally favourable feedback as detailed in Section 6 of this report.

3.3 The proposals are described in Section 4, and scheme plans can be found in Attachment A to E.

3.4 In order to enact these proposals, Community Board and Council approval is required.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The City to Sea Pathway is a core element of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan and has been funded by central government via the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF). Its implementation was approved via Council Resolution CNCL/2021/00160 (Implementing the City to Sea Pathway – Key Decisions 12 October 2021).

4.2 Due to its length, delivery of the Pathway has been split into three sections. The decisions in this report relate to the road crossings associated with the western section, shown in Figure 1 below. This section runs from Fitzgerald Avenue to Snell Bridge (Avon Park).

A map of a city with red circles

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. City to Sea Pathway – Western Portion

4.3 A Safe System assessment has been completed for the proposed crossings.

4.4 The proposed safety improvements fall into two different Board areas, as described below:

4.4.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area:

· A signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing on a safer speed platform on Stanmore Road between River Road and Glade Avenue.

· A dual pedestrian/cycle crossing on a safer speed platform on Swanns Road immediately west of the Swanns Road bridge.

· Minor road marking changes at Flesher Avenue and Evelyn Couzins Avenue, associated with proposed carparks within the grassed red zone area.

4.4.2 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area:

· A dual pedestrian/cycle crossing on a safer speed platform on Gayhurst Road.

· Extension of the north and southbound Gayhurst Road cycle lanes, to connect the existing cycle lanes to the new City to Sea Pathway.

4.5 Traffic Information relating to the Stanmore Road Signalised Crossing.

4.5.1 Stanmore Road is an arterial road carrying approximately 14,800 vehicles per day (3.3% heavy vehicles) with approximately 1,110 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 1,600 vehicles in the evening peak hour. The posted speed is 50km/h, and the 85th percentile speed is 50km/h.

4.5.2 Traffic modelling was completed to understand the effects of the proposed crossing on the Stanmore Road and Avonside Drive intersection and was deemed negligible by Council’s traffic operations team. This report is included as Attachment G - City to Sea Transport Assessment, Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive.

4.5.3 Between 2012 and 2022 a total of 29 crashes were recorded at the Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive intersection. Most were minor/non-injury, and involved rear end or crossing movements. One crash was reported as serious, being a side collision between a right turning and through moving vehicles on opposite lanes. There were no crashes related to the section of Stanmore Road where the crossing is proposed during this period.

4.6 Traffic Information relating to the Swanns Road dual pedestrian/cycle crossing.

4.6.1 Swanns Road is a collector road carrying approximately 1,000 vehicles per day (2.9% heavy vehicles). The posted speed is 50km/h, and the 85th percentile speed is 55km/h.

4.6.2 Between 2012 and 2022 no crashes were recorded on Swanns Road.

4.7 Traffic Information relating to the Gayhurst Road dual pedestrian/cycle crossing.

4.7.1 Gayhurst Road is an arterial road carrying approximately 7,500 vehicles per day (3.3% heavy vehicles). The posted speed is 50 km/h and the 85^th percentile speed is 59km/h northbound (Team Traffic Survey, 22 and 24 June, 2023).

4.7.2 Between 2012 and 2022 one crash was recorded at the Gayhurst Road and Glenarm Terrace intersection. This resulted in a minor injury and had cause factors associated with a vehicle losing control.

4.8 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option, described below.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed below:

· Preferred: Adopt the road crossings at Stanmore, Swanns and Gayhurst Roads as per Attachment A.

· Maintain status quo, without crossing facilities.

· Provide the road crossings as proposed, but without raised tables.

· Utilise existing traffic signals at the intersection of Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive in lieu of the Stanmore Road crossing.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred: Adopt crossings at Stanmore, Swanns and Gayhurst Roads

4.10.1 Option Description: Construct a signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing on Stanmore Road and unsignalised pedestrian/cycle crossings on Swanns Road and Gayhurst Road.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Provides safe crossing points for users of the City to Sea Pathway. As part of consultation, we heard from users of the current Te Ara Ōtākaro Avon River Trail who expressed safety concerns with the status quo.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· The cost of the physical works, although the City to Sea Pathway project was fully funded by the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF).

4.11 Option 1, maintain the status quo at all road crossings

4.11.1 Option Description: City to Sea Pathway constructed to the edge of the road reserve only, existing road corridor remains as is.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Avoids physical works costs.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· The lack of crossings would be confusing for users, and we could expect queries as to why they were omitted.

· Safety issues with uncontrolled crossings, resulting in increased likelihood of injury as usage of the Pathway increases.

· Missing this opportunity to provide the crossings from the CRAF funding would mean that future crossings would need to be funded out of Transport budgets.

4.12 Option 2, provide all crossing points as shown, but omit the raised safer speed platforms

4.12.1 Option Description: Omit the safer speed platforms on all three crossings. This could take the form of road markings only, possibly with a central median island.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Reduced physical works cost (although noting CRAF funding as above).

· Less impact to road users during construction

· Preferred option of public transport providers

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are known speeding issues at two of the three crossing points (Swanns and Gayhurst) and Stanmore is a high-volume road. Safer speed platforms make motorists more aware of the crossings and reduce speeds to within safe system thresholds for any potential collisions between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. Not installing the platforms would increase the likelihood of death or serious injury for users of the Pathway.

· Doing all works in one contract is more economically efficient than retrofitting, if raised platforms were to be needed in the future.

4.13 Option 3, use existing traffic signals at Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive intersection to cross in lieu of the Stanmore Road crossing, which is the most expensive of the three.

4.13.1 Option Description: Provide Swanns and Gayhurst crossings as presented but use existing traffic signals at the Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive intersection to cross.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Reduced physical works cost (although noting CRAF funding as above).

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· The current traffic light phasing requires users to cross to the southern side of Avonside Drive in order to move east or west. There is no direct connection on the northern side, and this means that most users jaywalk rather than waiting for three crossing phases. As part of a recent traffic signal ducting and re-cabling project, BECA looked at creation of a northern crossing phase, but concluded that this was not possible due to the configuration of the intersection.

· Noting the above, this option would result in continuation of the current jaywalking behaviour, but in greater numbers - increasing the likelihood of death or serious injury.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 1 – Status quo retained	Option 2 – Delete raised tables	Option 3– Delete Stanmore crossing
Cost to Implement	$ 900 000 approx	0	$ 750 000 approx	$ 450 000 approx
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$ 8000 approx	$ 8000 approx	$ 8000 approx	Nil, above normal roading costs for the remaining crossings.
Funding Source	CRAF, fully funded	N/A	CRAF, fully funded	CRAF, fully funded
Funding Availability	On budget in LTP	N/A	On budget in LTP	On budget in LTP
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil

5.1 The works form part of the City to Sea Pathway project, which has been fully funded by central government, via the Christchurch Recovery Acceleration Facility (CRAF).

5.2 Around 15% of the above costs relate to traffic management.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Pathway is intended to provide a route for active users, and the route should be safe for use. The crossings have been designed to mitigate injury risk. The Safe System assessment concluded that if the design as proposed is not accepted, then then the risk to users is increased.

6.2 There are no further risk and mitigation considerations.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 Part 1, Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.

6.3.2 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 and traffic control devices.

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

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.4.2 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 this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions in this report:

6.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, particularly:

A green, liveable city

· Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity, waterbodies and tree canopy.

6.5.2 Are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy.

6.5.3 Are generally consistent with the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, in that they support the City to Sea Pathway.

6.5.4 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the safety impacts of the decisions on the relevant user groups.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

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

Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

Activity: Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor

Level of Service: 6.8.12.1 Implementation of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan (Green Spine). Council-led capital investment: Progress integrated Green Spine programme (Parks, Water and Transport) as per the Implementation Plan. Target: 90 % of approved work programmes delivered in the year funded.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.8 Public consultation started on 1 March 2024 and ran until 24 March 2024. An email was sent to 163 key stakeholders including local community groups, recreational groups (including local flatwater sports clubs), key transport stakeholders, key disability sector groups, and ECAN as part of the Public Transport Steering Group.

6.9 The consultation was posted on the Council Facebook page and on five community group pages, inviting submissions on the Let’s Talk webpage. The Facebook post reached 21,592 people, receiving 74 reactions, 34 comments and 12 shares.

6.10 A Newsline story about the project was published on 1 March 2024 and received 1,759 views. A video showing the road crossings and encouraging engagement had 488 views.

6.11 Consultation posters were displayed at Richmond Community Garden/Riverlution Hub, New World Stanmore Road and Shirley Library. Consultation documents were delivered to Riverlution Hub and Shirley Library/Service Centre.

6.12 14 signs were displayed throughout the consultation along the City to Sea Pathway with a QR code directing people to the Let’s Talk consultation page which was scanned by 106 people users.

6.13 The project featured in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor newsletter sent to 488 subscribers on 18 March, which also promoted a drop-in session at the Richmond Gala.

6.14 Households on Swanns Road impacted by the proposed speed cushions and crossing received consultation documents on 1 March 2024.

6.15 The Dallington Residents Association delivered a flier to the Dallington and Avonside communities inviting people to a Dallington Landing drop-in event.

6.16 On 9 March a drop-in session at Dallington Landing was held in partnership with the Dallington Residents Association and attended by approximately 50 people. A second drop-in at the Richmond Community Gala on Saturday 23 March and engaged approximately 70 people. A quick star-rating activity at each of these events sought feedback for each crossing point.

6.17 The Hohepa Trust group requested a site visit at the Dallington crossing point and staff met with the group to discuss the project.

6.18 The Let’s Talk webpage received 1,995 unique page visits for the project, with 30% of visitors to the page clicking on at least two features, and 54% of visitors spending at least one minute on the page. The conversion from page visitors to submissions was 6%. The Let’s Talk page featured a video describing the project which had 421 views.

6.19 The Swanns Road crossing is close to the access of a resident, and early engagement was carried out directly with him, commencing in December 2023. Verbally, he was supportive of the raised crossing.

6.20 Environmental Canterbury were notified of the proposed crossings and feedback sought in March 2024. No feedback was received.

6.21 Emergency Services were also notified of the proposed crossings and feedback sought in February 2024. No specific concerns were raised with the plans. St John sought clarification regarding who has right of way in the event when an ambulance has its lights on. Staff confirmed that when a crossing is unsignalised, emergency vehicles with lights and sirens will always have right of way over crossing pedestrians.

6.22 Mahaanui Kurataiao were consulted as part of the wider consenting process for the Pathway.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.23 Submissions were made by 8 recognised organisations, 2 businesses and 55 individuals. A full table of submission feedback is available in Attachment H - City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Submission Table.

6.24 The majority of submitters provided feedback on all three crossings and were largely in support:

· Stanmore Road: 49 in support (80.3%), 7 did not support (11.5%)

· Swanns Road: 44 in support (74.6%), 7 did not support (11.9%)

· Gayhurst Road: 47 in support (78.35), 8 did not support (13.3%)

6.25 Key issues raised by submitters were:

· Safety for pathway users, especially for vulnerable users. This was particularly of interest to Hohepa Canterbury and Early Childcare Centres, who were interested in safely crossing the roads with larger groups.

· Measures to slow traffic on the approaches to the crossing were supported, particularly on Swanns Road and Gayhurst Road.

6.26 A full analysis of submissions is available in Attachment F City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Engagement Report Data.

6.27 As a result of the submissions, the following changes were made to the designs:

· Evelyn Couzins Carpark – We heard from the community and Avebury House tenants how well used the on-street parking is, especially during events. Based on this feedback, the original plans for increased on-street parking will be replaced by a larger 20 space (approx.) carpark in the red zone area east of Evelyn Couzins Avenue. The no stopping lines in the draft recommendations reflect this change, and the revised design is included as Attachment E.

· Gayhurst Road speed cushions – Detailed minor feedback was received around the location and configuration of the proposed advance speed cushions associated with the platforms. Transport staff have reviewed and suggested a speed hump is included, as per Attachment C.

· Swanns Road speed cushions - Detailed minor feedback was received around the location of the speed cushions proposed near 45 Swanns Road. As a result, the speed cushion was relocated slightly to be clear of turning movements in and out of the driveway, and these changes are included in Attachment B.

· Swanns Road Crossing – Concerns were raised about speeding vehicles entering Swanns Road from Avonside Drive and whether these vehicles have sufficient warning of the crossing. The Transport team reviewed this feedback, and expect that the bend and intersection will slow traffic sufficiently, in combination with the new raised platform. There are clear sightlines for both crossing users and drivers, however No Stopping lines have been added on both sides of the bridge to ensure this, as shown in Attachment B. Transport will monitor speeds at the intersection and consider traffic calming treatment if required. As a further note, in future the speed limit on Swanns Road is likely to reduce to 30kph as part of Transport’s Safer Speed Programme.

· Swanns Road Crossing – The cycle cutdown for eastbound cyclists was removed from the crossing at approximately 213A Swanns Road due to conflicts with a driveway. This change is included in Attachment B.

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

6.28.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.28.2 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.29 The decisions do not involve a significant decision concerning 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.

6.30 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.

6.31 While the Corridor overall is of high value and interest to mana whenua (and is the subject of co-governance arrangements), the primary focus for mana whenua has consistently been its return to a functioning delta ecosystem where mahinga kai can once more be gathered and processed. Road crossing points are of minor interest only in this outcome. The Co-governance committee have been briefed on the project as it has developed.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.32 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.32.1 Not affect adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.32.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.33 While the crossings are not likely to have a significant impact on adaptation planning, they will encourage use of non-motorised transport options, reducing emissions. Although not strictly a commuting route, the Pathway is likely to be used for this purpose by residents, as well as for short trips to local facilities and shops.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved by both Community Boards and Council, this work will proceed as part of a separable portion to the City to Sea construction contract. This contract is on programme to be completed by Christmas 2024.

7.2 If Council decide not to approve the Stanmore Road signalised crossing, alternative measures will be considered to enable safe crossing and brought back to the Board.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Stanmore Road Crossing Plan	24/736670
b	Swanns Road Crossing Plan	24/722538
c	Gayhurst Road Crossing Plan	24/722545
d	Flesher Avenue Car Park Plan	24/797134
e	Evelyn Cousinz Avenue Car Park Plan	24/797123
f	City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Engagement Report Data	24/679600
g	Extract from City to Sea Transport Assessment, Stanmore Road/Avonside Drive intersection modelling.	24/685044
h	City to Sea Pathway Road Crossings Submission Table	24/787085

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sam Morris - Project Manager

Jacqui Miller - Engagement Advisor

Swantje Bubritzki - Senior Engagement Advisor

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Tessa Zant - Manager Engagement

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

9. Local Alcohol Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/688918
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Elizabeth Wilson – Team Leader Policy Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance Helen White - General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This is a staff-generated report seeking a Council Resolution to develop a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this report.

2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high level significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Directs staff to commence work on development of a Local Alcohol Policy and report to Council on progress before the end of 2024.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A LAP is a set of decisions a territorial authority may make in consultation with its community about the sale and supply of alcohol in its district, giving local communities more input into licensing decisions, including about trading hours, location, and density of licensed premisesⁱ.

3.2 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) empowers any territorial authority to have a LAP and prescribes what a council wishing to have a LAP must do to adopt one for its district.

3.3 The Act was amended last year. Amendments included:

3.3.1 removing the requirement for a council wishing to have a LAP to adopt a provisional version of the policy before it adopts the final LAP.

3.3.2 removing the right of other parties to appeal to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) against any element of that territorial authority’s provisional LAP.

3.4 The right to appeal was a significant obstacle to territorial authorities, including the Council, adopting LAPs. Its removal should make adopting a LAP easier for the Council.

3.5 In addition, a Supreme Court judgement^{^[2]}last year clarified that policies in a provisional LAP may be justified on the basis of ‘reasonable likelihood’ (rather than proof) of reducing alcohol-related harm and that LAPs may be based on, or influenced by, community preferences, which to that extent do not have to be evidence-basedⁱⁱ.

3.6 In 2017, the Council discontinued over four years of work on a LAP after lengthy appeals and judicial review (and, the following year, decided to not pursue a LAP ‘at this time’).

3.7 Following a Council Resolution made on 7 December 2022, and having regard to the changing legislative context, staff carried out preparatory work to enable Council to consider a new LAP.

3.8 This report presents a summary of issues and options, and seeks Council approval to commence the production of a LAP.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

LAP: in-scope

4.1 The Act empowers territorial authorities to have a policy relating to the sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol within its district[3].

4.2 LAPs are made for the purpose of achieving the object of the Act, which is that:

· the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol is undertaken safely and responsibly; and

· alcohol-related harm is minimised.

4.3 The Act provides for a LAP to include policies on any or all of the following matters[4] relating to licensing in seeking to reduce alcohol related harm:

(a) location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas:

(b) location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises of a particular kind or kinds:

(d) whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned, or any stated part of the district:

(e) maximum trading hours

(f) the issue of licences, or licences of a particular kind or kinds, subject to discretionary conditions:

(g) one-way door restrictions.

4.4 LAPs are optional, but where a territorial authority has a LAP the District Licensing Committee (DLC) and ARLA must consider it when determining licence applications in the district^{^[5]}.

LAP: out-of-scope

4.5 The scope of a LAP is limited by the legislation to alcohol licensing and to no other matters. It does not, and cannot, fulfil the functions of a general alcohol strategy or action plan which could aim to address a fuller range of issues relating to alcohol misuse.

4.6 However, because LAPs must be consistent with the Act, a LAP should complement policies and programmes at local- and national levels aligning with the object of the Act.

What is required to develop a LAP?

4.7 Councils wishing to have a LAP must:

· Produce a draft LAP^{^[6]}

· Consult on the draft LAP using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP)^{^[7]}

· Review the LAP, once adopted, every six years^{^[8]}.

4.8 The Act sets out what councils must consider[9] when producing a draft LAP (for further information see Appendix 1).

4.9 The cost involved in developing a LAP (excluding staff time) is estimated at between: $20,000 to $100,000, depending on the level of stakeholder engagement and research to be carried out (in addition to the mandatory analysis and consultation required under the Act).

4.10 The estimated timeframe is around 18 months. Work is still ongoing to refine the timeframe to less than the current estimated timeframe.

4.11 The outline project plan attached (Appendix 2) illustrates the main activities and timeframes involved.

Advantages of having a LAP, for:

Citizens and the community

Health and wellbeing

4.12 The information available at this time indicates there may be a reasonable likelihood that policies made under a LAP reduce the effects of alcohol related harm[10].

4.13 The Council recently received correspondence from Health New Zealand, Pegasus Health Charitable Limited, and Healthy Families Ōtautahi, expressing support for a LAP (see Appendices 3, 4, and 5), pointing to the role of policies on availability, affordability, and marketing of alcohol in reducing alcohol-related harm, and referring to the findings of local research relating to alcohol-related harm locally and in the region.

Public safety

4.14 The Council also received a letter from the Police (see Appendix 6), stating that an appropriately drafted and consulted LAP ‘can greatly assist us both in reducing alcohol related harm in our city’.

Community input

4.15 LAPs enable alcohol licensing decisions to take account of local issues and preferences.

4.16 The Council’s previous work on a LAP (in 2013, see Appendix 7) identified general support in the community for more restrictive licensing policies than default settings under the Act.

4.17 The changed legislative context should strengthen the Council’s ability to develop a LAP based on, or influenced by, the preferences of our community.

Licensed trade

Clarity of policy direction

4.18 A LAP would give businesses certainty about the Council’s intentions concerning a LAP.

4.19 It would give new operators a baseline for how they are expected to operate, providing a level playing field for the sector.

Council

Greater consistency in licensing decisions

4.20 The Act already empowers DLCs to impose licence conditions relating to matters for which a LAP would provide (eg: reduced trading hours) but these are considered on an individual basis and can be more difficult to apply consistently in the absence of a LAP.

4.21 The DLC has expressed a desire to have a LAP to provide a framework for its decisions.

Potential cost savings

4.22 Having a LAP may lead to a decrease in the number of objections made against individual licence applications (depending on LAP provisions) and consequently fewer hearings.

4.23 In October 2023, DLC costs for the 12 months prior totalled $170,289.51. This included both unopposed and opposed applications (but excludes Council staff time).

4.24 The DLC and Alcohol Licensing staff spend considerable time at hearings dealing with issues of single sales in deprived areas, remote sales, one way door provisions for night clubs and off license trading hours. Since 2021, staff have managed 25 hearings on these matters and have more than 10 applicants awaiting hearings. The cost of and time taken for hearings could be significantly reduced, depending on policy provisions.

Disadvantages of having a LAP, for:

Citizens and the community

Risk of unintended consequences

4.25 For instance, consumers shifting spending from on-licensed premises to liquor stores (as observed in a 2019 NZIER study for the Health Promotion Agencyⁱⁱⁱ).

Licenced trade

Restrictions

4.26 Businesses in the hospitality and alcohol retail sectors may be concerned about the impacts of greater restrictions on trade.

Council

Litigation

4.27 Judicial review is still possible despite the amendments to the Act. The risk of a successful claim can be mitigated but defending a judicial review remains costly and time consuming.

Managing conflicting views

4.28 LAPs in metro areas are high-profile and contentious. The Council must be prepared to manage opposing viewpoints from stakeholders with a high interest in the outcome of this work, and to accept that its decisions and outputs in this area may not satisfy all parties equally.

Resource commitment

4.29 Developing a LAP is resource intensive, requiring input from Strategic Policy, Legal, Alcohol Licensing, Engagement, Communications, Hearings and Council Support.

4.30 The development and cyclical review of a LAP for Ōtautahi-Christchurch would incur one-off costs every six years and require significant staff resources from Council teams.

4.31 Some elements of the development and subsequent reviews may need to be outsourced.

This is not the first time Council has pursued a LAP

4.32 The Council commenced development of a LAP in 2013 but discontinued in 2017 and resolved in 2018 to not pursue a LAP ‘at this time’, following two rounds of appeal, long pauses to await ARLA hearing dates and decisions and judicial review proceedings.

4.33 The Council considered it untenable to continue because of the wide grounds for appeal, the indefinite duration of the appeals process, and the significant costs associated with defending appeals in court (this was before the legislative changes made in 2023, summarised below).

What has changed since then?

4.34 Alcohol Healthwatch reportedin 2017 that LAPs became less restrictive as they progressed through stages of development (particularly the appeals stage), signalling an ‘increasing gap between community expectations for greater control and the reality of the LAP process as it is prescribed in legislation’ under the legislative settings at the time^iv.

4.35 New case law and legislative changes, both made last year, should strengthen the Council’s ability to develop and implement a LAP that reflects community expectations.

New case law

4.36 On 5 May 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed judicial review proceedings^{^[11]}challenging a 2017 decision of the High Court that largely upheld Auckland Council’s Provisional LAP^{^[12]}.

4.37 The Supreme Court’s decision clears the way for Auckland’s provisional LAP to become operative (although it is not yet operative). By making the evidence base for a LAP less onerous for councils, the case law should make it easier to develop LAPs reflecting community preferences.

Legislative changes

4.38 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Act (Amendment Act), enacted in August 2023, made several changes to the Act.

4.39 The Amendment Act removed the requirement for territorial authorities to produce a provisional LAP and the ability of parties to appeal the provisional LAP.

4.40 LAPs can now be adopted after having undertaken Special Consultative Procedure (SCP), generally in line with other policy development processes.

4.41 The amended Act now allows DLCs to consider policies made under a LAP when determining licence renewals, meaning LAP provisions can be applied not only to prospective new licence holders but to existing licensed premises at the point of renewal.

4.42 The following related memo (Appendix 8) was circulated to the Mayor and Councillors following the legislative changes last year:

Date	Subject
14/09/2023	Alcohol Amendment Act Passed

Seeking direction

LAPs return to the Council’s agenda

4.43 The Council, at its meeting on 7 December 2022, following consideration of a report by the Chairperson of the Waitai-Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board, resolved (see Appendices 9 and 10):

‘[That the Council] Requests staff, in anticipation of legislative change, to start the process of gathering the information and resources needed to develop an evidence-based Local Alcohol Policy’.

4.44 Staff work to discharge this resolution covered:

· Preparation of a Council submission on the legislative changes enacted in August 2023 and engagement with the Ministry of Justice subsequently.

· Briefing Elected Members on the changes by memo.

· Developing a draft project plan for LAP development.

· Examining our previous LAP process to inform any new LAP process.

· Provisional identification of stakeholders.

· Consulting staff in other metro councils working on LAP matters.

· Researching relevant academic work research (including meetings with University of Otago Christchurch researchers and Health Promotion Agency staff).

4.45 The issue was also raised in Council on 7 February and 3 April this year (see Appendix 11).

4.46 When the Council briefly considered LAP matters on these occasions[13], it did not have before it advice on options, costs, risks, and challenges. This is now provided.

Other considerations in developing a LAP

Understanding the impacts of LAPs

4.47 The true impact of a LAP alone is not entirely clear, and may be difficult to quantify.

4.48 A LAP made under the previous legislative settings may have been ‘watered down’ to avoid legal challenge, so the efficacy of LAPs may not become clear until these new settings bed-in[14]^,v.

4.49 In addition, as a LAP is one tool in a suite of potential options to address alcohol-related harm, it is difficult to attribute the direct impacts of a LAP. The impact of LAP provisions can only really be considered in terms of a reasonable likeliness to contribute to alcohol-related harm.

Further legislative reform cannot be ruled out

4.50 The potential for further legislative change has not been signalled but cannot be ruled out:

4.50.1 Hospitality NZ’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister^vi(dated November 2023) advocated for the new government to repeal the legislative changes made last year and consider ‘appropriate amendments or abandonment of the LAP system’.

4.50.2 National and ACT opposed the previous (Labour) government’s reforms to the Act but the new coalition government has made no commitment to repeal the Amendment Act.

Anticipated industry position

4.51 Feedback on the previous LAP proposals from industry stakeholders was generally not in support of further restrictions over and above the provisions of the Act.

4.52 Points made by businesses in the off-licence sector in response to the Council’s (2013) consultation (see Appendix 7)^vii, included:

· supermarkets: shorter licensing hours would have significant negative impacts on business, employment, customer convenience and are not justified by empirical evidence;

· bottle stores: responsible retailers of alcohol should not be restricted from opening in particular neighbourhoods or local centres.

4.53 More recently, Hospitality New Zealand communicated its opposition to a LAP in its responses to the Council’s Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation (see Appendix 12)^viii,ix.

4.54 Points made included: ‘well run on-licensed environments are the safest place for people to consume alcohol in New Zealand’; increased access to liquor has not translated to higher consumption; and other tools are available to Councils to address alcohol-related harm.

Potential development of joint LAP with other districts

4.55 The Act provides for territorial authorities to develop joint LAPs for their districts, although staff are not recommending that the Council pursues this option.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1: Commence development of a LAP immediately.

· Option 2: Complete research, report findings, proceed if Council is satisfied with the benefits.

· Option 3: Do nothing.

4.57 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Option 4: Defer decision by six months whilst monitoring whether central government will reverse/repeal legislative changes introduced by the previous government.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.58 Preferred Option: Option 1

4.58.1 Option Description: Staff to commence production of a LAP immediately and report to Council on progress before the end of December 2024.

4.59 Option 2

4.59.1 Option Description: Staff to complete the LAP research component and report to Council before the end of December 2024 on issues identified and a recommendation on whether a LAP is the most suitable tool to address these issues.

4.60 Option 3

4.60.1 Option Description: Business as usual is maintained. Staff to take no further action concerning the development of a draft LAP.

4.61 Option advantages and disadvantages:

	Options Analysis
	Implementation		Operational		Community
	+	-	+	-	+	-
Option 1	LAP developed at earliest opportunity.		LAP benefits achieved sooner.		LAP benefits achieved sooner.
Option 2	Provides opportunity for Council to enhance knowledge of general and local issues before committing fully to LAP.	Carrying out research but (potentially) deciding to not produce a LAP could be perceived as wasting time, money, and effort.				Does not provide certainty to stakeholders
Option 3	N/A	N/A	Staff time reserved for producing LAP freed up for other work, plus no need to resource LAP review every six years.	LAP benefits (including cost savings in staff and DLC time) would not be realised.		LAP benefits would not be realised.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.62 No comprehensive quantitative (cost-benefit) analysis has been undertaken to inform the development of this report.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option Option 1: Develop LAP immediately	Option 2 Complete research, report findings, proceed if Council is satisfied with the benefits.	Option 3 Do nothing
Cost to Implement Excludes: · staff time costs · potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: $20,000 to $100,000 Minimum estimated cost in the region of $20,000 for mandatory SCP, plus additional (discretionary) research and engagement costs up to an estimated maximum of $100,000.	As Option 1	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs Excludes: · staff time costs · potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: $20,000 to $100,000 once every six years. Cost of reviewing LAP estimated as matching cost of developing LAP.	As Option 1	DLC costs for the 12 months to October 2023 totalled approximately $170,000^{^[15]}. We could expect a reduction to this figure under options 1& 2.
Funding Source	Strategic policy, legal and licensing operational budgets.	Strategic policy, legal and licensing operational budgets.	N/A
Funding Availability	Covered by existing budgets.	Covered by existing budgets.	N/A
Impact on Rates	Neutral, as within existing budgets.	Neutral, as within existing budgets.	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

Judicial review

6.1 The right to appeal is no longer part of the process, but the risk of judicial review remains.

6.2 The Council cannot mitigate against judicial review proceedings being brought but can manage the risk of a successful claim by getting the LAP development process right.

Reputational risk

6.3 Because the Council’s stakeholders have opposing viewpoints and expectations, the Council may be unable to satisfy the requirements of everyone with an interest in the LAP, which may lead to the Council’s work in this area being criticised.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 Section 75 of the Act provides for territorial authorities to have a LAP to guide local alcohol licensing decisions and conditions.

6.4.2 Under section 77 of the Act, a LAP can only deal with specific matters related to licensing. A LAP cannot include provisions related to any other matter outside of the scope of what is defined in the Act.

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 in particular the collaborative and confident (draft) community outcome which aims for all residents to have the opportunity to participate in community and city life and to feel safe (and the current community outcomes of Resilient Communities (safe and healthy communities).

6.6.2 Has been assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by carrying out an initial assessment based on the principle of minimising alcohol-related harm and by the anticipated high level of interest among the community and other stakeholders. (More detailed assessment of the impact of specific provisions of a LAP cannot be assessed until those provisions have been produced.)

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

6.6.4 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.5 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 This decision will affect the district as a whole.

6.8 As noted above, a Community Board (Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood) has already expressed its view on development of a LAP and other Boards are expected to engage in the process of developing a LAP, if that is the decision of Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.10 The decision may be a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.11 Further consideration is required and engagement with Mana Whenua will be undertaken under the recommended option.

6.12 As set out in Appendix 3, the Health Promotion Agency has advised of the disproportionate impact of hazardous drinking and alcohol related harm on Māori males (among others).

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 Operationalisation of the Council’s decision (see Appendix 2).

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Appendix 1 - Subpart 2 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2013	24/707231	146
b ⇩	Appendix 2 - LAP - Outline Project Plan	24/726377	153
c ⇩	Appendix 3 - LAP - Letter of Support from Health New Zealand	24/726013	155
d ⇩	Appendix 4 - LAP - Letter of Support from Pegasus Health	24/836113	157
e ⇩	Appendix 5 - LAP - Letter of Support - Healthy Families	24/836206	159
f ⇩	Appendix 6 - LAP - Letter of Support from Police	24/836167	161
g ⇩	Appendix 7 - LAP - Consultation Analysis (2013)	24/848136	163
h ⇩	Appendix 8 - LAP - Memo to Mayor and Councillors 'Alcohol Amendment Act Passed' (14 September 2023)	23/1511658	212
i ⇩	Appendix 9 - LAP - Chairperson's Report (7 December 2022)	22/1522571	214
j ⇩	Appendix 10 - Extract of Council Minutes 7 December 2022	24/848335	216
k ⇩	Appendix 11 - References to Council Meetings on 7 February and 3 April 2024	24/707247	217
l ⇩	Appendix 12 - Copy of Hospitality New Zealand Submission to LTP 2024-34 Consultation	24/848402	218
m ⇩	Appendix 13 - Reference list	24/874715	224

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Philip Henderson - Senior Policy Analyst

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Dave Joker - Team Leader Alcohol Licensing

Wade Morris - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

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

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/494555
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn Property Consultant
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 for the Council, as landowner, to consider stopping the road (airspace) and selling the airspace to the adjoining landowners of developments at:

1.1.1 5-11 Marriner Street, Sumner (Devcorp) – Attachment A.

1.1.2 132 Worcester Street, Central City (Williams Corporation) – Attachment B and I.

1.2 The developers of both properties have requested permanent use of the airspace above legal road for the developments, both of which have received building and resource consents from the Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Stop Road (airspace) and dispose of to the adjoining landowners report.

2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Pursuant to Section 116(1) of the Public Works Act 1981, agree to stop the legal road, being a cube of airspace above the formed carriageway, and amalgamate the parcels of land that arise from that road stopping with the adjoining properties:

a. 5 – 11 Marriner Street, Sumner contained within Title Identifier 961489.- The parcels of land containing an area of 76 m²are shown as Section 1 and 2 on Plan SO 602249^.

b. Hereford/Manchester and 132 Worcester Streets contained within Title Identifier 1158091 and 1158093.- The parcels of land are shown as Sections 1-10 containing an area of 104 m² shown on Plan SO XXXXXX (this being the reference on the plan which is yet to be numbered).

4. Agrees to a departure from the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 by approving the unilateral dealing for disposal of the stopped legal road parcels (the cubes of airspace above the formed carriage way) as described in recommendation 3 above to the owners of the adjoining land at a valuation determined by an independent valuer.

5. Delegates to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take and complete all steps necessary to stop the legal road and dispose of the stopped parcels (cubes of airspace) as shown as Section 1 and 2 on Plan SO 602249 and Sections 1-10 on Plan SO XXXXXX (this being the reference on the plan which is yet to be numbered).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The definition of a road not only includes the land at ground level but also the subsoil and airspace above the road. For this reason, Council can lease the subsoil/airspace or lease or sell the subsoil/airspace above the road without affecting the primary purpose of the road.

3.2 Two residential/commercial buildings are being constructed at:

i. 5-11 Marriner Street Sumner -Devcorp – Attachment A

ii. 132 Worcester Street Christchurch Central– Williams Corporation - Attachment B and I

3.3 Both developments have been granted building and planning consents by Council (as the Regulatory Authority) to erect part of the buildings over the footpath at a height that does not hinder pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

3.4 For use of the airspace (encroachments) above Council Road, the developers also need to be granted permission from the Council as landowner.

3.5 Initially it was thought that the encroachments would be dealt with by a licence/lease through the Council’s Policy on Structures on Road Policy 2020. However, the encroachments do not fit nicely within the purpose of the Policy which refers to encroachments for private non- habitable structures.

3.6 The report therefore deals with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy utilising the Public Works 1981 for the process of dealing with the encroachments.

3.7 When this has been completed then the disposal of the stopped road (airspace) will be completed utilising the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 and the departure of this to deal unilaterally with the adjoining property owners of the road is sought.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council has received two applications from developers of multi-level buildings for use of the airspace above legal road. Both developers have obtained building and resource consents from the Council, and will also need Council approval, as landowner, to encroach on the airspace above the road.

4.2 The adjoining properties are:

4.2.1 5-11 Marriner Street, Sumner – this is a multi-level development by Devcorp comprising 50 two and three-bedroom apartments and five “premium” penthouses over six separate buildings on the corner of Marriner Street and The Esplanade Sumner. The development will contain 8 residential units, with balconies that encroach on the airspace over Marriner Street and The Esplanade. - Attachment D

4.2.2 132 Worcester Street, Central City – this is a multi-level development by Williams Corporation on land contained within Huanui Lane, Hereford, Manchester, and Worcester Streets. This development is a mixture of unit’s, townhouses and commercial properties. The development will contain 40 residential units, with balconies that encroach on the airspace on Hereford, Manchester and Worcester Streets. The property was purchased from Ōtākaro Limited with the development approved by them. - Attachment C.

4.3 Initially it was thought that the encroachments could be dealt with by way of a licence/lease for the airspace, which would be within the parameters of The Council’s Policy on Structures on Road Policy 2020 which allows for structures encroaching over, under or on roads. - Attachment H.

4.4 However, the encroachments do not fit nicely within the purpose of the Policy which refers to private non-habitable structures.

4.5 The lease/licence mechanism is not conducive with future strata ownership once individual titles are available for the units, providing long term administrative uncertainty for Council and unit owners with insurance and mortgage lenders.

4.6 Staff sought legal advice which recommended that road stopping under the Public Works Act 1981 and sale of the airspace would be the most appropriate mechanism rather than the lease/licence.

4.7 The Council has delegated road stopping to the respective Community Boards; however, road stoppings have been suspended until the review of the policy is undertaken.

4.8 In this instance because the road stopping is unique i.e. airspace rather than the physical road/formed carriageway along with consents given by the Council, staff thought it prudent to bring this matter to the Council. In addition, the sale of the airspace (property) is not supported by a delegation and therefore requires a Council decision.

4.9 The Councils Road Stopping Policy Attachment E provides guidance on the Council’s approach to:

4.9.1 Road stopping applications generally.

4.9.2 Identifying which statutory road stopping process will be used.

4.9.3 The evaluation criteria to be applied when considering road stopping applications.

4.9.4 Achieving consistency with road stopping applications, decisions and processes ensuring statutory compliance.

4.9.5 While the policy does not specifically deal with stopping the airspace over roads it does not prevent it, therefore what is proposed in this report is not inconsistent as the Council will be stopping airspace as distinct from the surface of roads.

4.10 Road Stoppings are managed under one of two statutory processes: - Attachment G

4.10.1 the Public Works Act 1981; or

4.10.2 the Local Government Act 1974

4.11 In this instance the thresholds of the Public Works Act 1981 are met (section 6.6 below) and stopping of the road (airspace) will be undertaken utilising the provisions the Public Works Act 1981.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Proceed with the road stopping and dispose of the areas encroached upon to the adjacent landowners.

· Proceed with the road stopping and lease the area being encroached upon.

· Lease the area being encroached upon.

4.13 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Do not give permission as landowner - this option would mean that the developers of 5-11 Marriner Street and 132 Worcester Street would need to redesign the buildings to avoid the encroachments review their consents; the development at 132 Worcester Street has already commenced construction and is retrospectively seeking permission. This option is not feasible as it would mean:

· The Council would be allowing the use of a Council asset with no compensation.

· There would be a breach of Council’s policy with respect to Structures on Road Policy

· There would be no Public Liability Insurance for a structure which is encroaching onto the road.

· Unit owners may experience problems when obtaining funding for the purchase of their units or insurance as a portion of their unit would be over an area where there was no legitimate right to occupy.

· There would be the potential that the developers commence litigation with Council as the landowner.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Proceed with the road (airspace) stopping and dispose of the areas encroached on to the adjacent landowners.

4.14.1 Option Description: The road(airspace) would be stopped using the Public Works Act 1981, valued and then a sale at market valuation undertaken with the adjoining landowners (developers).

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· The permanent structures within the airspace can occupy the airspace for an indefinite period.

· The Council would only be dealing with one landowner (i.e. the developer).

· The Council would receive market value for the sale along with the additional rates revenue for an increase in value of the units the airspace is being added to.

· The right to use the airspace is transferable with the title of the property it is amalgamated with; the Council would not be involved when the property changes hands.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Additional costs associated with the road stopping including legal, survey.

4.15 Proceed with the road stopping and lease the area being occupied.

4.15.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would proceed with the road stopping of the airspace but rather than transferring ownership to the developer, the Council would enter into leases with the owner of each individual apartment.

4.15.2 Option Advantages.

· The Council would retain ownership of the airspace in case it is needed in the future.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· There would be more administrative work as each time the unit was transferred with the lease needing to be separately assigned or a new lease entered.

· Council would not receive a market value for the airspace.

· Council would need to deal with 8 owners with respect to 5-11 Marriner Street and 40 owners in 2 buildings for 132 Worcester Street.

· Leases can only be granted for a finite period which may be longer than the life of the building.

4.16 Lease the areas encroached upon.

4.16.1 Option Description: Under this option, the road (airspace) would remain in Council ownership with a lease of the area that the building is encroaching into to each apartment owner.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· The Council would retain ownership of the airspace in case it is needed in the future.

· There would be less administrative work initially.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Leases can only be granted for a finite period which may be longer than the life of the building.

· The Council would need to deal with eight owners with respect to 5-11 Marriner Street and 40 owners in 2 buildings for 132 Worcester Street. This would create more administrative work as each time the unit was transferred with the lease needing to be separately assigned or a new lease entered.

· If the Council did ever want use of the airspace, it would be problematic as the building would need to be partially rebuilt to ensure there was no encroachment.

· Council would not receive a market value for the airspace.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.17 Staff considered all the options which are discussed in this report to provide a long-term cost-effective process for the encroachments.

4.18 The recommended option of stopping the road (airspace) and disposing to the adjoining landowners will provide this.

4.19 The Council will receive revenue from the disposal, with additional rate intake from having the additional space added to the area of the various units and subsequent capital value.

4.20 The unit owners will be provided with ownership of the encroachment and therefore funding and insurance certainty.

4.21 The decision does not set a precedent as all applications for encroachments will need to come to the Council on an individual basis.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 This proposal is funded by the applicants (the developers of each property) with Council recovering all costs along with receiving the value of the road (airspace) being sold along with long term increase in rates from the 48 properties which will have an additional area added to the rateable area of their properties.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Minister may not give approval for the stopping but given the criteria the stopping is assessed against this risk is considered minimal.

6.2 As a Regulatory Authority Council has granted resource and building consents for the construction of the buildings. There is a reputational risk to Council as the landowner if Council does not offer an appropriate form of tenure for the road(airspace).

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 Councils have powers under Sections 116, 117 and 120 of the PWA 1981 to stop roads. The Christchurch City Council has delegated this authority to the Property Consultancy Manager, due to the uniqueness of this proposal that delegation is not being exercised in this instance, hence referral to the Council by way of this report.

6.3.2 Legal advice was sought with respect to the process to be used and this was confirmed that a road stopping under the Public Works Act 1981 was the appropriate procedure.

6.3.3 Approval is being sought to a departure from the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 which requires the tendering for the sale of properties. This is not appropriate given that the road(airspace) can only be sold to the property owners adjoining. Attachment F

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.5 Local Government Act 1974

6.5.1 The Local Government Act 1974 road-stopping procedure will not be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

6.5.2 Where any public right of access to any public space could be removed or materially limited or extinguished because of the road being stopped; or

6.5.3 If it is found through the review process that the road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

6.5.4 The road stopping is, in the judgment of the Council, likely to be controversial; or

6.5.5 If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.

6.6 The Public Works Act 1981

6.5.6 Public Works Act 1981 process considerations

6.5.7 The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted only if all the following circumstances apply:

6.5.8 Where there are no more than two properties, other than the applicant’s property, adjoining the road proposed to be stopped.

6.5.9 Where the written consent to the proposed road stopping of all adjoining landowners (other than the applicant) to the proposed road-stopping is obtained.

6.5.10 Where no other persons, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping.

6.5.11 Where the road(airspace) proposed to be stopped is to be amalgamated with the adjoining property or properties (as appropriate); and

6.5.12 Where other reasonable access exists or will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the road proposed to be stopped (i.e. by the construction of a new road); and

6.5.13 Where the use of the Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure is approved by the relevant Government department or Minister.

6.7 If any one of the circumstances referred to in clause 6.6 does not apply, then the Local

Government Act 1974 process must be used.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.8 The required decisions:

6.8.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

6.8.2 This recommendation is strongly aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular Councils vision of providing an opportunity for all open to new ideas and a new way of doing things.

6.8.3 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy in that the stopping of the (road)airspace does not compromise the primary purpose of the road at street level, doesn’t not set a precedent for future developments of a similar nature provides a benefit to the community by providing additional revenue for the sale and additional revenue through rates in the future.

6.8.4 The decision to be made is considering whether or not to stop a portion of road (airspace) which while contemplated by the Public Works Act 1981 and the Local Government Act 1974 there are thresholds which must be met as described in this report and therefore what methodology should be used.

6.8.5 The developments which are occurring to which the airspace will be added have both been through the Council’s Planning consent process which considers the effects of the development and a decision made to grant a resource consent for the developments with conditions.

6.8.6 The road stopping application has been assessed against the criteria in the Council’s Road Stopping Policy with all criteria being satisfied:

6.8.7 Following this assessment to progress the application a 3-dimensional road stopping (cube of airspace) survey plan has been prepared for each property, with upper and lower reference points shown on the plans. Attachments C and D.

These plans will be used to assess the value of the road(airspace) to be stopped with a sale and purchase agreement entered with the adjoining owner. This agreement is conditional upon Minister of Land’s approval and subject to the stopped road (airspace) being amalgamated with the applicant’s adjoining title.

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

6.10 Economic Development

6.10.1 Activity: Economic Development

· Level of Service: 5.1.9.2 Facilitate urban development activities that contribute to a prosperous local economy - New urban development projects added to the pipeline in line with the strategy

6.11 Transport

6.11.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within 15 minutes to key destination types by walking - >=49% of residential land holdings with a 15- minute walking access

6.12 Internal Services

6.12.1 Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.13.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board and Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Boards.

6.14 The Community Boards have been notified of the proposal in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.16 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.

6.17 Specific consultation is not required as the decision of this report relates to the sale of encroachments into public airspace. The decision is of low significance and would not impact on the relationship between council and Mana Whenua.

6.18 In addition, both are consented with papatipu rūnanga through Mahannui Kurataiao Limited indicating in respect of the Marriner Street development that “the rūnunga would not consider themselves adversely affected subject to the recommended conditions being adopted …” The principles and relationship issues in respect of the Worcester Street development are the same.

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.

6.16 The decision is procedural to do with road stopping (airspace) and disposal.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the proposals in this report, staff will continue with the statutory processes for road stopping.

7.2 Sale and Purchase Agreement will be prepared by the Council Legal Services Unit and entered with the respective property owners which will be subject to obtaining Ministerial approval.

7.3 Application to Minister to proceed with the road stopping.

7.4 All road stoppings that fall within the Public Works Act 1981 process are subject to approval from the Minister of Lands. The Minister’s consent is obtained by submitting a report to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) that contains all information relevant to each individual application.

7.5 The Minister considers the following critical factors set out in LINZ’s road stopping standard:

7.6 Public use of the road.

7.7 Is sufficient road remaining?

7.8 The reasons for it being stopped.

7.9 Access to adjoining properties either remains or is provided for.

7.10 All necessary regulatory authorities have been obtained i.e. The Council approval, and

7.11 Is the use of the Public Works Act 1981 warranted?

7.12 If the Minister’s approval is given, then a road stopping notice is published in the New Zealand Gazette stopping the road and automatically amalgamating it with the adjoining title(s). The notice is then lodged with the District Land Registrar who issues one new title for the stopped road and the adjoining parcel of land.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Street View Proposed Building 5-11 Marriner Street Sumner	24/423250	235
b ⇩	Attachment B Street View Building 132 Worcester Street from Worcester Street to Hereford Street Central Christchurch	24/344828	236
c ⇩	Attachment C Road Stopping Plan 132 Worcester Street Christchurch Central	24/344842	237
d ⇩	Attachment D Road Stopping Plan 5-11 Marriner Street Sumner	24/423265	243
e ⇩	Attachment E Road Stopping Policy 2020	24/424160	248
f ⇩	Attachment F Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000	24/425955	257
g ⇩	Attachment G Flow Diagram Road Stopping process	24/427010	258
h ⇩	Attachment H Structures on Road Policy 2020	24/557916	260
i ⇩	Attachment I Street View Building 132 Worcester Street from Hereford Street to Worcester Street	24/606350	269

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Colin Windleborn - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

11. Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation Progress
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440554
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joy Gribben, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience Tony Moore, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience Diane Shelander, Senior Advisor Climate Resilience
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 At its 15 November 2023 meeting, the Council resolved (CNCL/2023/00147) to request six monthly reporting to the Council on the implementation of Kia Tūroa te Ao: Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy (the Strategy).

1.2 This is the first six monthly report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation Progress Report.

3. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Coverage of the first and subsequent reports

3.1 This first report covers work done between June 2021, when the Strategy was adopted, and the present. It also covers actions intended to be done in the next six months. It does not include international shipping or aviation emissions. As recently requested by the Council at its 15 May 2024 meeting (Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00062), staff will provide advice in a separate report regarding the Lyttelton Port Company international shipping emissions and Christchurch International Airport Limited international aviation emissions.

3.2 Future reports will cover the preceding six-month period and intended actions in the upcoming six months. Staff are developing key performance indicators to make future six-monthly reporting succinct and easily communicated.

Across Council contributions and engagement

3.3 Staff have worked closely with teams across the Council to document key achievements.

3.4 This has been guided by a cross-Council Climate Resilience Strategy implementation working group, set up to develop the reporting and drive further work to implement the Strategy.

3.5 These units and teams have contributed: Transport, Parks, Three Waters, Waste Management, Civil Defence, Asset Management, Climate Resilience, Coastal Hazards Adaptation, Planning and Consents, Procurement, Community Support, Smart Christchurch, Corporate Planning, Monitoring and Research, and ChristchurchNZ.

Actions taken to build climate resilience

3.6 The Council has made substantial progress on building climate resilience for Christchurch. Further planning is also underway, and tools have been developed to help the Council and communities understand how climate change is affecting our District.

3.7 An account of key climate activities undertaken, and planned activities upcoming, is provided in Attachment A. This is not a full list of all actions, but a list of significant actions.

Mitigation: emissions reduction and carbon removal

3.8 The Council has set targets for Christchurch to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 (excluding methane), and for the Council to be net carbon neutral by 2030. Tracking our progress is now underway (see Tools and Information below) and we are developing an Emissions Reduction Plan for the Council’s operational emissions, due July 2024.

3.9 Transport is the source of 54 percent of the District’s emissions. Actions to address this include supporting public transport, expanding the cycleways network (over 60 percent complete), investigating rapid transit options, and working on the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan, which focusses growth around centres and along strategic transport corridors.

3.10 Large planting programmes, such as regeneration work (e.g., Ōtākaro Avon and Styx rivers) and the Urban Forest Plan, play a role in reducing our emissions through carbon sequestration. They also provide protection for our riverways in case of flooding and protect hilly areas to reduce slips and erosion thus protecting soils. As an example of the extent of this work, the Council nursery now provides around 500,000 eco-sourced plants annually for restoration and general planting purposes.

3.11 Further actions to reduce emissions:

· Water conservation (for example, the ‘Water like you oughta’ campaign which reduced peak daily demand by 25 percent from the February 2020 peak to the FY22/23 peak) reduced electricity use for pumping water.

· Work to support over 1000 low-income households to use LED lightbulbs and efficient showerheads has also given them an average saving of $865 per household per year.

· Landfill remediation work is supporting emissions reductions.

Adaptation: taking action to reduce and respond to climate risk

3.12 Adaptation planning and action is underway in many areas of the Council. Actions taken so far have focussed on flood and erosion protection, as well as reduction of fire risk by using native and fire-retardant planting.

3.13 One of the biggest risks is sea level rise.[16] The Christchurch District has 33,985 properties with LIM notations for either coastal flooding or erosion risk over 100 years, making coastal adaptation planning essential. The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme began in 2021 and continues to make good progress, with the Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourārata Port Levy community planning underway.

3.14 It is also essential for the Council to prepare its infrastructure for climate risk. The Long Term Plan (LTP) and associated Infrastructure Strategy has a focus on climate change issues, both adaptation and mitigation.

Tools and information

3.15 While the potential impacts of climate change are well known, the risks to different parts of our District vary. We need good information to prepare and plan to minimise impacts on people, services, assets, and the environment. A range of tools and information have been developed to support climate action.

3.16 The Risk Explorer tool is highly useful to map which climate risks affect which areas and assets, and is being further developed to include additional climate hazard datasets as these become available. Work has also been done on Christchurch climate change risk screening, published in 2022.

3.17 The Council’s operational emissions are tracked with BraveGen software to produce an annual inventory, while an inventory of District emissions has recently been published. Further tools include one for long-term management of closed landfills, and one under development for estimating embodied carbon in Three Waters targeted capital projects.

Full summary of key actions in Attachment A

3.18 Further details of specific programmes and projects can be found in Table 1 (which covers actions since June 2021) and Table 2 (which highlights near term actions planned) in Attachment A.

3.19 The tables cover the ten programme areas in the Strategy which are:

1. Building the foundation – partnerships and resourcing	6. Economic transformation and innovation
2. Understanding local effects of climate change	7. Low-emission transport system
3. Proactive climate planning with communities	8. Energy efficient homes and buildings
4. Adapting and greening infrastructure	9. Towards zero waste
5. Carbon removal and natural restoration	10. Sustainable food system

Next steps

3.20 The Climate Resilience Strategy implementation staff working group will develop key performance indicators that can be reported to the Council to demonstrate progress on the Strategy implementation in future.

3.21 The Climate Resilience Strategy will continue to guide and drive the Council’s climate action. As shown in Attachment A, there is a wide range of activities planned and underway across the Council to address emissions reduction and to reduce and plan for climate risks.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Tables of Actions by Council on Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation (June 2021-April 2024)	24/684194	275

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Kia tūroa te Ao, Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/Climate-Change/Otautahi-Christchurch-Climate-Resilience-Strategy.pdf

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Joy Gribben - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Tony Moore - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Diane Shelander - Senior Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Lisa Early - Team Leader Climate Resilience

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. Central City Noise Programme - Progress Update, Acoustic Assessment Advice
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/673390
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Carolyn Bonis, Urban Regeneration Team Leader; Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning & Consents
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:

1.1.1 To update the Council on progress with delivering the Central City Noise Programme; and

1.1.2 To provide advice ahead of a possible future initiative: provision of a funded acoustic assessment service.

1.2 The origin of the report reflects:

1.2.1 The range of initiatives currently forming the Central City Noise Programme as agreed by the Council on 5 April 2023 (CNCL/2023/00045 - refer item 18 of agenda ); and

1.2.2 The 12 December 2023 request by the Council for staff advice about “funding for live music acoustic assessments as part of an update report on the ongoing live music programme” (CNCL/2023/00185); and

1.2.3 The Council’s decision as part of adopting the Draft Long Term Plan, which notes that: “staff will table a report in FY24 or FY25 that provides an update to Council on the District plan change process as it affects live music venues in the central city which will inform a future discussion around funding acoustic assessment trials in the 2025/2026 Annual Plan” (CNCL/2024/00003).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Central City Noise Programme - Progress Update, Acoustic Assessment Advice report.

2. Notes that staff will report back to the Council with a further update on the Central City Noise Programme. This is likely to be in early 2025.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 New residential activity, including multi-unit development, is occurring across the Central City residential zones and – increasingly – the mixed use zones (refer the July – December 2023 Central City Biannual report and the online progress dashboard). This helps meet the Council’s 'Project 8011' Central City Residential Programme aspiration for 20,000 people living in the Central City. However, with tensions arising between existing businesses and newly developed residential pockets, the Council agreed a Central City Noise Programme in 2023 as a mechanism to reconsider noise standards in the Central City while better supporting developers, businesses and residents to be good neighbours with one another. While there are no ‘silver bullets’ or quick fixes for these tensions, the range of regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives was agreed as a means of responding to the situation.

3.2 With the city’s relatively high rate of land use change and evolution, areas that had been experiencing noise tensions a few years ago (e.g. Victoria Street) are no longer a focus for enforcement officers as noise-generating activity has begun to cluster into the more centrally-located commercial zones. Nevertheless, the ongoing uptake of the Central City’s mixed use and commercial areas for residential activity is anticipated to result in new areas of tension.

3.3 This report covers both:

3.3.1 An update on the Central City Noise Programme, which has several components, both regulatory and non-regulatory. This update is detailed in Attachment A and via the link to survey findings in a recent Newsline Article (refer the table at the end of this report). To summarise Attachment A:

· The non-regulatory elements have progressed well across the various information gathering and information sharing initiatives. This includes new advisory notes on Land Information Memoranda (LIMs), advice from the Council’s Eco Design Advisor and Arts mentoring, and new webpage information underway to educate residents, businesses and developers on how they might achieve good acoustic insulation and implement associated measures to mitigate noise nuisance issues.

· Recent surveys have clearly shown that both residents and businesses expect a higher noise environment in the Central City and they do not want the growing residential population to be at the expense of our nighttime economy. These survey results will help inform the shape of future changes to the District Plan; an Issues and Options paper is currently in development. Next steps are working through the technical analysis on the issues and options identified, with the goal to identify a preferred option that will inform early engagement. Thereafter, staff will commence work on the Section 32 Report and will draft provisions over the coming months. Officers will report back at a future date on the plan change, including for approval to notify and invite submissions.

3.3.2 Initial advice regarding scope of any possible future funding for acoustic assessments. Council resolutions have sought advice on use of acoustic assessments, particularly in relation to live music venues. This report provides an initial step towards a future decision.

· It recognises that noise in mixed use environments may come from several different sources, so the scope of any future service is important to clarify. Staff are seeking initial views and feedback from elected members on whether to continue a focus on live music, or extend the scope of advice to include intrusive noise from a broader range of music and other businesses.

· Staff advice is that any funded assessments would most usefully apply to those areas currently undergoing land use transition from industrial to mixed use (including residential) activities, and with a focus on the noise emitter rather than the noise receiver.

· This advice is provided in section 4 below and examples of acoustic assessments used elsewhere nationally and globally is provided at Attachment B.

· A later report will provide further advice once more information is available on both the pilot acoustic assessment currently underway and the likely future changes to noise rules in the district plan. This will enable all relevant information to be considered ahead of any decisions on possible funding of acoustic assessments, as part of the FY25/26 Annual Plan, including a decision on whether or not to progress.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The advice provided below, regarding potential future acoustic assessments, canvasses the following topics:

· What is an acoustic assessment

· The current pilot acoustic assessment.

· Interpretation: ‘live music’.

· Achieving freedom from intrusive noise: understanding the range of noise issues in the Central City and what distinguishes ‘live music’ from other music, other business-related noise, and other general noise issues.

· Geographical scope.

· Acoustic assessments at source and/or receiving environments.

· Current numbers of businesses and complaints.

· Community views.

· Next steps: scope of future advice and financial implications.

What is an acoustic assessment

4.2 Acoustic assessments are often undertaken in advance of construction or operation of a noise-emitting activity. However, in this context we’re considering assessments of established buildings to consider how best to mitigate existing noise issues.

4.3 Assessments are undertaken by qualified acoustic engineers and advice is provided on a range of possible structural solutions to either address the level of sound ‘leaking’ from the structure, or limit the level of noise being received inside a sensitive environment (for example, bedrooms or living areas of nearby dwellings).

4.4 Attachment B provides examples of acoustic assessments used elsewhere in New Zealand and globally, together with brief commentary on their benefits and drawbacks.

Current pilot assessment

4.5 In 2023 and with a particular tension arising in St Asaph Street (where new residential activity was being built near existing live music venues), budget was allocated to pilot an acoustic assessment of a live music venue. This sought to better understand the nature of concern regarding noise and the mitigation options for the music venue.

4.6 The assessment identified a range of initiatives that the building owner might undertake – for example the addition of Gib Noiseline, polyester sound absorbers, laminated glass, acoustic door seals, additional solid core doors, additional walls and ceiling inside the existing structure and some internal reconstruction. A Council quantity surveyor outlined the costs associated with the proposed mitigation; this totalled over $100,000. This information was provided to the venue operator and to Save Our Venues, a national advocacy group for grassroots live music venues. The venue operator is currently considering their options but has noted the significant costs involved in retrofitting the building, especially in the context of potential changes to the noise standards.

4.7 Therefore, a drawback of acoustic assessments is that while they provide clarity in terms of potential steps to take and ballpark costs for the venue to meet noise standards, the ability to fund mitigation works can remain challenging. For this reason, and with the knowledge that the District plan rules in and around noise precincts may be changing, the original pilot remains ‘live’, with no clear resolution to the original noise-related concerns at the time of preparing this report.

Interpretation

4.8 The Council resolutions asked for advice on a potential future acoustic assessment service relating to “live music”. Having taken advice, this report uses an interpretation of ‘live music’ which extends the traditional understanding of live performance to include, for example, a DJ using a personally curated composition:

4.8.1 Live music is an event where one or more performers provide music (including vocals, instrumental or via manipulating pre-existing sound recordings with a creative or curatorial aim), with or without amplification, to an audience at the same location.^{^[17]}

Achieving freedom from intrusive noise

4.9 Although the initiation of the Central City Noise Programme resulted from concerns regarding “live music”, the success of mixed use living requires freedom from intrusive noise from a range of sources as shown below. For example, music from sound systems at hospitality venues or the operation of restaurant extractor fans can create at least as much concern for residents as noise from live music venues.

4.10 This is an important consideration when contemplating the scope of any future acoustic assessment service. If the intent is to focus purely on the arts, then a scope that sits to the left of the diagram would be appropriate. If the intent is to mitigate tensions between residents and existing businesses, a broader scope may be warranted.

4.11 Individual music-related venues will not necessarily fit neatly into any one category in this diagram as they may provide a range of music offerings.

A diagram of a music system

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Geographical scope

4.12 The scope of any future acoustic assessment service also needs to consider whether it would be focused towards a particular geographical area. The current Central City Noise Programme has a geographical scope of the whole area within the four avenues. However, current tensions are focused toward the Central City’s mixed use neighbourhoods.

4.13 These mixed use neighbourhoods are where the greatest impact can be achieved in supporting new housing demand in the Central City, to realise the growth of residents anticipated by Project 8011. The District Plan’s activity rules for the mixed use and commercial zones are also more enabling of commercial activities than in pure residential zones.

4.14 The potential for future noise concerns in the South-East Central neighbourhoods - resulting from the mix of light industrial activity and new housing growth - is unable to be quantified at present but likely provides the greatest potential for tension between existing/new business activity and new residential neighbours.

4.15 Therefore, the Central City’s commercial and mixed use zones would potentially be the most suitable location for focusing any future acoustic assessment service.

Acoustic assessments at source and/or receiving environments

4.16 Acoustic assessments could theoretically be undertaken for both a business producing noise and a dwelling receiving the noise – noting that acoustic insulation can be achieved at both the source and the receiving end. Examples of each are provided in Attachment B. However, addressing the noise source in the first instance has potential to mitigate effects on multiple receiving dwellings, so is likely to be a more efficient way of addressing any concern related to a particular business. Many dwellings in the coming decade will also be new-builds rather than existing or retrofitted buildings; as such, they will likely employ a higher degree of noise attenuation. It is further anticipated that the action taken to amend LIMs and to prepare educational webpages for new residents may provide solutions for the majority of residential situations.

4.17 Similarly, acoustic assessments for non-business sources – such as residential parties, traffic, rowdy pedestrians etc – would unlikely be suitable for funded acoustic assessments as they don’t relate to a building or would be a poor fit for any Council funded service.

Current numbers of businesses and complaints

4.18 Future decisions on whether to provide an acoustic assessment service would need to consider the size of the issue.

4.19 The number of business venues emitting noise is not a static figure, as the number of Central City businesses continues to evolve. The following breakdown uses early 2024 numbers from the Council’s enforcement team:

4.19.1 Music venues: There are up to 30 venues across the Central City and all are located within the current commercial or mixed use zones. Of these venues, half have generated a need for noise monitoring in recent years by enforcement officers.

· Of the 110 complaints received and investigated across this timeframe, 75 (68%) were found not to be generating excessive noise, with no further action required.

· Although three quarters of monitored venues were, at some stage, found to be producing excessive noise or exceeding the noise standards, the vast majority involved three or fewer occasions.

· With ongoing resolution of noise complaints, there is a relatively small list of venues on an active monitoring list at any given time.

4.19.2 Enforcement colleagues advise that some of the received complaints are for live music, although the collected data does not currently distinguish whether or not the music is ‘live’.

4.19.3 Other businesses: A further three businesses in the Central City have given rise to noise complaints across the last year, unrelated to matters of music. All are located in the mixed use zone and relate to restaurant plant and extraction fans located on the external areas of the building. The businesses are in close proximity to residential buildings. One of the three businesses also features in the music venue numbers in 4.8.1 above. This is a relatively small number of businesses, but looking ahead may be underrepresented relative to future anticipated growth of residential activity in the Central City, particularly when considering any existing use rights of established businesses.

4.20 If acoustic assessments are available in future to the full range of businesses generating noise complaints, it is unlikely that every establishment would either need or seek this service as they may be able to readily and immediately mitigate the issues raised – for example, by reducing speaker volume.

Community views

4.21 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board was briefed on 23 November 2023 regarding progress of the Programme and the findings from the survey. The Board was interested to ensure that webpage information targeted tenants as well as landlords; and reflected with staff on the cost of acoustic surveys and the economics of mitigation for older buildings.

4.22 Staff have tested the idea of providing further funded acoustic assessments with a representative of Save Our Venues. Initial feedback from Save Our Venues is that:

4.22.1 The pilot acoustic assessment has been a valued contribution from the Council to understand potential investment to attenuate sound and mitigate possible conflict with nearby residents. However, the pilot shows significant financial investment may be needed – noting that in most instances venue operators are not the owner of the property. Venues are also concerned that making a significant investment does not necessarily preclude a complainant from continuing to call the noise control service. The plan change, noise enforcement procedures and other non-regulatory tools are considered important to work in parallel with sound attenuation, to give confidence to venues that the investment will be worthwhile.

4.22.2 Any funding assistance for acoustic assessments be prioritised to ticketed live music venues in the first instance (in particular those which have live music performance as their primary purpose as compared with other hospitality venues), while acknowledging that there are many other components of the night-time economy that would also benefit from such support.

4.22.3 A contestable grant be considered, to support initial, targeted investment in improving sound mitigation. This may help venues to start work on some of the more affordable components of the work suggested in an acoustic report. Save Our Venues has suggested an approach similar to the New South Wales ‘Venues Unlocked’ Programme, outlined in Attachment B. This supports music venues to achieve best-practice soundproofing and management by providing grants of up to $100,000 to upgrade premises’ sound management infrastructure and equipment. To inform the scope of mitigation required, an acoustic assessment report up to the value of $10,000 is provided by Sound NSW.

Next steps: Scope of future advice and likely implications that will need to be considered

4.23 Further advice on an acoustic assessment service will need to await and take into account the following matters in order to provide sound options for a Council decision:

· Any feedback from elected members around the scope of the service, as noted below.

· An updated understanding of any District Plan changes to noise rules in the Central City. The earliest that the ‘shape’ of new rules and/or precincts and any associated decision on funding might be possible is early 2025 (post- plan change notification and receipt of submissions).

· Any further outcomes of the initial pilot acoustic assessment.

4.24 Future decisions on whether to offer an acoustic assessment service will also need to consider:

· An appropriate level of budget allocation, noting the current pilot acoustic assessment cost approximately $6000 plus staff time.

· Risks that providing acoustic assessments may not deliver changed outcomes if the recommended building alterations are not actioned (acknowledging the high cost of these, and the difficulty for businesses who may not own the building).

· Locational application (e.g. the Central City’s mixed use and commercial zones).

· Timing of any new service, noting that any funding would not apply until new District Plan noise rules for the Central City are operative.

4.25 Meanwhile, staff are happy to receive feedback from elected members on the scope of any potential future acoustic assessment service. In this regard, if the focus for elected members is strongly towards the arts function of live music, then a more narrow and targeted approach might be taken. However, if the focus is towards addressing tensions between residents and noisier businesses (of any type), with a broader aim of growing the number of Central City residents, then a wider scope would be beneficial. Initial advice is that there may be little difference in costs between both approaches, if taking a multi-year, ‘first come first served’ and/or criteria-driven approach.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Central City Noise Programme Update	24/500294	297
b ⇩	Acoustic assessments elsewhere	24/833067	301

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Newsline article, including link to survey findings: https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/residents-want-to-boost-vibrant-central-city

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] There are exceptions, especially around the sale of surplus community housing land. In those cases Council will restrict use to affordable and public homes.

[4] Paragraphs (a) to (d) do not apply to special licences, or premises for which a special licence is held or has been applied for.

[5] DLCs and ARLA must consider an operative LAP, but they are not bound by the provisions of a LAP.

[6] Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s78(1)

[7] Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s79(1)

[9] Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s78(2)-(4)

[10] See paragraph 93 of the Supreme Court judgement (NZSC 45) concerning restrictions on trading hours.

[11] Foodstuffs North Island Ltd v Auckland Council and Others (SC 140/2021)

[12] Matters appealed included off-licence trading hours of 9am-9pm; and a temporary freeze on new licences in certain locations.

[13] Council Meetings on 7 December 2022, 7 February 2024, and 3 April 2024.

[14] A 2018 report by UMR referred to concerns that ‘the long, costly and resource-intensive appeals process may result in some territorial authorities being tempted to ‘water down’ their LAPs or abandon them altogether’. 5

[15] This includes both unopposed and opposed applications, but excludes Council staff time.

[17] Informed by discussions with Save Our Venues and research e.g. Definition live music - Ontario Live Music Working Group

5. Council Minutes - 1 May 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/751332
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Democratic Services Advisor (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

6. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - May 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/822275
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

7. 27 Hunters Road & 43 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour – FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū Unsolicited Proposals
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/684938
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Manager Kristine Bouw, Development Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

13. Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report - October 2023 to March 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/452960
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Janine Sowerby, Senior Planner, Urban Regeneration
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure