Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 21 August 2024

South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/468584
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Laura Botica, Planner Urban Regeneration Danielle Endacott, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend adoption of the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan (Attachment A). The plan has been refined following feedback gathered through community consultation.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan Report.

2. Endorse the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan (Attachment A).

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

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Receive the information in the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan report.

2. Adopt the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan as a guide to decision making (Attachment A).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The South-East Central (SE Central) area is shown on the map overleaf. A key anchor catalysing growth in this area is Te Kaha, Canterbury’s Multi-Use Arena. The neighbourhood also includes a range of education offerings, hospitality, offices, some light industrial uses, and a growing residential population. The development of this area of the Central City is key to achieving the Council’s ambition of 20,000 residents by 2028.

3.2 A neighbourhood plan has been developed through engagement with community members, businesses, and organisations. The draft South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan was last shared with the Community Board on 15 February 2024, prior to consultation.

3.3 The SE Central Neighbourhood Plan aims to guide the area’s transition over the next 10+ years and sets out a range of actions for the Council, our partners and the community.

3.4 A map of a city

Description automatically generated Feedback gathered through Kōrero Mai during March has helped to refine the plan. Key changes include refining the vision statement, adding new actions that support safety initiatives, clarifying housing outcomes the community want to see and adding detail about the current businesses and organisations in the neighbourhood. The analysis of submissions is included in Attachment B (and the submissions with address and other private details unredacted are available separately for the decision-makers in confidential format to protect the privacy of those details).

3.5 The key themes of the plan address environmental, community, housing, mixed use and movement outcomes.

3.6 Adopting the plan will enable integrated and coordinated development of a quality, mixed use living environment that delivers on the Council’s identified strategic outcomes for the city.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 In 2018, the Council adopted the Central City Residential Programme (‘Project 8011’ – CNCL/2018/00198). This programme set an ambition to achieve 20,000 Central City residents by 2028 and staff have progressed a range of initiatives to facilitate this growth.

4.2 In 2021, the Council requested staff to investigate measures to ‘further integrate [Te Kaha] with the surrounding community and catalyze regeneration’ (CNCL/2021/00067).

4.3 In 2024, the Council adopted the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan (GCSP), which identifies the Central City as a Priority Development Area (PDA). PDAs provide opportunity to accelerate development in locations that will support the desired pattern of growth, including greater intensification and higher densities around centres and public transport routes. Thriving neighbourhoods are described as ones that enable people and communities to meet their day-to-day needs, strengthen quality of life, and increase community connection and resilience. They are well connected, enable safe and equitable access for all, have high quality and safe open spaces, green spaces and public realm, and provide a diverse range of housing including social and affordable housing.

4.4 The SE Central Neighbourhood is a key opportunity to grow the Central City’s population and achieve a quality, mixed-use neighbourhood. Transformation in this neighbourhood is already underway with Te Kaha under construction, new residential developments being built and new businesses opening in the area.

4.5 The community has been at the heart of the development of this plan, inputting during in-person information gathering sessions and sharing feedback through Kōrero Mai. The following related information sessions/workshops have taken place for community board members:

Date	Subject
13 April 2023	Briefing – update on regeneration work in South-East Central City Neighbourhoods
21 September 2023	Briefing – summary of early engagement in South-East Central City Neighbourhoods
15 February 2024	Community Board meeting - Draft South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan – approval to proceed to consultation. Agenda of Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Thursday, 15 February 2024 (infocouncil.biz)

The Neighbourhood Plan

4.6 The SE Central Neighbourhood Plan comprises a vision statement, key themes, actions and a high-level implementation plan. These collectively give effect to the various directions embodied in subregional and district level plans and policies.

4.7 The vision statement of SE Central is:

South-East Central – everything on your doorstep!

This vibrant, green neighbourhood is a key destination for study, work and play. People are attracted to the creative vibe, a range of affordable, quality homes, the proximity to Te Kaha and the friendly community spirit.

4.8 The key themes in the SE Neighbourhood Plan include:

· Good mixed-use neighbours: Businesses and residents adapt well to one another with an improved offering to meet needs of residents and visitors.

· More people in quality housing: Accelerated housing growth and diversity to meet needs of all ages and abilities.

· Healthy, green neighbourhood: Increased tree canopy, more open space and native and productive plantings.

· Easy and enjoyable to get from A to B: More appealing pedestrian, cycle and bus journeys with green links, street furniture, safety improvements, attention to vacant sites and well-located bus stops.

· Strong sense of community: Residents are well-connected, feel safe, enjoy an established identity for the area and are engaged in community place-making initiatives.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Adopt the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan

· Do not proceed with adopting the Draft South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Adopt the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan

4.10.1 Option Description: Adopt the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan as a guide to decision making.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· An agreed plan for the neighbourhood supports alignment between the Council, key partners and the community in the delivery of actions. Addressing the identified current and future challenges will support residential and commercial growth and help to create a great neighbourhood.

· The SE Neighbourhood Plan helps to deliver on the Council’s Strategic Framework, the Climate Resilience Strategy, the Urban Forest Plan, and the Central City Residential Programme.

· The plan has been developed alongside the community and there is collective buy-in to support the delivery of the SE Neighbourhood Plan.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· The SE Neighbourhood Plan will require time and budget to implement actions in the plan.

4.11 Alternative option: Do not proceed with adopting the Draft South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan

4.11.1 Option Description: The plan is not adopted, and work ceases on the SECNP.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Short to medium term financial savings.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Would not follow through on the identification of this area as a regeneration priority.

· Doesn’t respond to feedback gathered through engagement.

· Fails to deliver on the request of Council to integrate Te Kaha into the surrounding neighbourhood.

· Does not contribute to addressing climate resilience imperatives via improved greening and multi-modal shift.

· Does not test approaches and provide leadership on supporting intensification to occur in appropriate locations.

· Action will still likely be required in this neighbourhood in the future (i.e. transport improvements, creating new open space and development support). Without alignment to a wider vision, there is risk of ad hoc and uncoordinated delivery.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 The criteria used to assess the options considered the extent to which each option achieves:

· Alignment with the Council’s previous resolutions, its Strategic Framework and other plans and policies.

· Best outcomes for the community, with reference to community views and feedback.

· Efficient and coordinated delivery.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – adopt SE Neighbourhood plan	Option 2 – Do not adopt neighbourhood plan
Cost to Implement	o The decision to adopt the Neighbourhood Plan involves no direct or immediate costs. o The delivery of elements of the SE Neighbourhood Plan, over coming years, will require separate decision-making processes or can be achieved under existing delegations. Costs to implement include: o New parks - to be funded predominantly by Development Contributions (estimated $10 million). o Transport and streetscapes improvements – would need to be funded in future LTP (estimated $24 million): Pedestrian and cycle-friendly infrastructure; Safety improvements; Increasing greenery through street tree planting and landscaping; Street furniture; Improve access through long city blocks and increased permeability by walking and cycling within the neighbourhood. o Placemaking initiatives and ‘trial and test’ approaches – within current Enliven Places Programme budgets (up to 100k per FY). o Other initiatives to be scoped and costed.	N/A
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	· Facilitating community connections and site development advice within existing operational budgets (estimated 30k per FY). · Staff time · Ongoing maintenance costs of new open space or new planting - will be investigated during the delivery phase.	N/A
Funding Source	· CPMS 61731 – Development Funded Neighbourhood Parks Urban Catchment · CPMS 36874 and 77079 - Enliven Places · Urban Regeneration Team operational budgets	N/A
Funding Availability	Transport improvements require funding in the future LTP.	N/A
Impact on Rates	If transport improvements were added to future LTP’s there would be an increase in rates by 0.02%	Cost neutral

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The current fiscally constrained environment affects timing of implementation, in particular the shorter term delivery of actions to achieve a walkable, cycle friendly neighbourhood. However, the neighbourhood plan is future focused and outlines the opportunities for future implementation. Over time, the actions in this plan are achievable, reflect community feedback and are high level to allow for more detailed investigations once the plan is adopted.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 This project will be delivered as part of Council services under the Local Government Act.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision to adopt the neighbourhood plan as a guide to future decision making.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

6.4.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the level of wider community interest in the plan and the associated costs and benefits of the proposed neighbourhood plan.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including;

· The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, which sets a vision for the rebuild of the Central City. The development of SE Central will build on this vision and will be consistent with An Accessible City.

· The Central City Action Plan, which aims for ‘A Central City built on exploration, open to new ideas and ways to work, live and play’. As a mixed-use area, this neighbourhood provides multiple ways to address vacant sites and other amenity issues, support economic prosperity and engage in neighbourhood level planning to grow numbers of residents and visitors.

· The Central City Residential Programme (‘Project 8011’), which has an ambition of 20,000 residents by 2028. This area of the Central City provides the greatest opportunity for new housing.

· The Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy, which sets out how to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The development of the South-East Central Neighbourhood provides an opportunity to improve resilience to the effects of climate change and reduce transport emissions.

· The Urban Forest Plan, which sets out guidance to grow the city’s tree canopy cover which includes ambitions to have no ward with less than 15% tree canopy cover and increasing planting on streets.

· The Draft Ōtautahi Transport Plan, which sets the direction for transport in Christchurch over the next 30 years and includes goals to create safe and healthy streets and a transport system that supports the transition to a low-emission city.

6.5 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 17.0.20.2 Place-based policy and planning advice to support integrated urban regeneration, city identity, community leadership and place making. - Provide annual regeneration programme report/s to Council, that report on: Central City regeneration projects, including a focus on residential development (P8011)Regeneration projects in priority Suburban Centres, Annual Heritage Festival

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.7.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Early engagement

6.8 Conversations with Central City residents has been ongoing through a variety of forums including meeting with Central City residents through a series of ‘Conversation Walks’ in 2020, a Central City residents forum in 2021 and a community Asset Mapping process in 2022. This engagement helped to focus attention on the South-East area of the Central City.

6.9 Early engagement with strategic partners, key stakeholders, and residents located in the SE Central area started in January 2023.

6.10 Staff gathered insights on the opportunities, challenges, investment, and interest in the SE Central area by meeting with SALT District, Central City Business Association (CCBA), Methodist Mission, Gap Filler, Kainga Ora, Te Whatu Ora, Atlas Quarter residents, and inner-city developers.

6.11 Community insights and knowledge of the area were gathered using an interactive online tool (187 people provided 364+ pieces of feedback) and at an in-person neighbourhood gathering (35 attendees provided 245+ pieces of feedback).

6.12 Early feedback informed the development of the draft plan including the vision statement, five key themes, and their respective actions and aims. In particular:

· Good mixed-use neighbours - There is a wide range of businesses in this area that help create a vibrant neighbourhood. A short walk to the services in the core of the city and easy access to everyday services is a key attractor for living in this area.

· Quality housing - People would like housing that is affordable and meets the needs of a wide range of people. Access to sunlight, greenspace and bike parking are important considerations for people wanting to live in this area.

· Healthy, green neighbourhood - The area is lacking greenspace and would benefit from more trees and landscaping.

· Easy and enjoyable to get from A to B - Safety, access and appearance of streets warrants improvement. The area should become cycle and pedestrian friendly.

· Strong sense of community – As a newly evolving community, it doesn’t have an established identity. Residents would value support to build community – through events, a resident group, and spaces to gather.

6.13 Feedback gathered about Central City noise in September 2023 also informs the draft Plan.

6.14 The Community Board approved the plan to proceed to consultation in February 2024.

2024 consultation on the Draft Plan

6.15 Public consultation on the draft plan ran between 4 March and 1 April 2024. An email was sent to over 2000 key stakeholders, including business owners and operators in the area, local resident associations, the Accessibility Advisory Group, and Life in Christchurch survey participants who live or want to live in or near the Central City (Central City Survey 2022, Housing and Neighbourhoods Survey 2023).

6.16 The consultation link was shared on the Council, CŌN-centric Christchurch Ōtautahi Neighbours, and Chester Community Facebook pages, and via Newsline (1,854 views). Submissions were invited on our Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk webpage (1,605 views).

6.17 The consultation was also promoted as a video on the Council’s Instagram page (12,700 views) and in the Te Kaha e-newsletter, which was sent to a database of more than 9,000 subscribers.

6.18 Consultation documents were delivered to Te Whare Roimata, St Paul’s Trinity Pacific Presbyterian Church, Youth and Cultural Development (YCD), Christchurch Community House, City Mission, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch East School, and Ao Tawhiti. Documents were made available at Tūranga and Papanui libraries, and at the Council Civic Offices.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.19 Submissions were made by 10 recognised organisations, one business and 71 individuals.

6.20 Most submitters somewhat or fully agreed that the plan’s vision aligns with their ideas for the neighbourhood’s future:

· 45 (64%) fully agreed

· 22 (32%) somewhat agreed

6.21 The feedback showed general support for the themes and actions set out in the draft plan. Submitters also had suggestions which have resulted in changes to the plan. Key feedback and changes include:

· Revising the vision to reflect ideas from the community.

· Support for creating a greener neighbourhood with more trees to soften the current environment.

· Support for improving pedestrian and cyclist journeys and enhancing public transport.

· Ensuring the plan covers specific characteristics of the housing outcomes sought for SE Central.

· Monitoring and delivering actions to attract long-term residents.

· Having a focus on safety as the neighbourhood grows.

6.22 A full analysis of submissions is available in Attachment B.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.23 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.

6.24 Discussions were commenced with Mana Whenua, seeking involvement in the development of this plan. However, Whitiora confirmed that the planning process was not a matter of direct interest and would progress without specific input at this stage, confirming this will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. Specific elements in the delivery of the SE Central Neighbourhood Plan may be of interest in due course and will be shared as the project progresses.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.25 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.25.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.26 This project seeks to facilitate housing intensification in the Central City. This will support a reduction in travel emissions by enabling more people to live in a major employment centre and have easy access to their everyday needs. Transport is the largest source of emissions in Christchurch, and reducing the need to travel long distances is a key element in reducing those emissions.

6.27 Climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of extreme weather. This project will also explore opportunities for increasing tree canopy cover, green spaces and water-sensitive design in the neighbourhood which will absorb carbon dioxide, provide shade, and help absorb rainfall - which will all help the neighbourhood become more resilient to the effects of climate change. The plan may also identify opportunities to repurpose spaces to use existing resources more efficiently.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Once the report is adopted by Council as a guide to decision making, actions will begin to be implemented.

7.2 The first year of delivery will include: investigating suitable land for purchase to provide new open space; supporting community development through organising community gatherings and supporting the establishment of a residents group; providing site development support; small scale placemaking initiatives at key locations to improve greening and transport outcomes; and investigating opportunities for new public open space.

7.3 Community Board will be kept up to date at key stages. The implementation of actions may require separate approval processes.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	South-East Neighbourhood Plan - July 2024	24/1049993
b	Submission analysis	24/844504
c	Unredacted submissions table (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1162726

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

· South-East social pinpoint online feedback tool: South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan | Social Pinpoint (mysocialpinpoint.com.au)

· South-East Let’s talk webpage: South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan | Kōrero mai | Let’s talk (ccc.govt.nz)

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Laura Botica - Planner Urban Regeneration

Danielle Endacott - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Report from Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board – 11 July 2024

6. Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1382048
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst Mark Saunders, Community Board Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Secretarial Note: The Council resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 20.2, this item be left to lie on the table and not be further discussed at the meeting of 7 August 2024, but be reconsidered at the Council meeting on 21 August 2024.

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga
	The Board accepted the officer recommendations; in reference to the third of these it considered that the request for an alcohol ban has merit to be further investigated, and so this was converted to its decision to recommend that the Council request staff to initiate the relevant process as noted in the attached presentation delivered at the Board meeting (Attachment D).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road Report.

2. Requests that staff initiate a six-month trial of working with external agencies to address the underlying social issues in the area, including aggressive begging.

3. Notes that if the Board considers the request for an alcohol ban has merit to be further investigated in terms of the legislative requirements, it may recommend further investigations be requested in accordance with that process, which requires these precede consideration of any ban (temporary or permanent) and be reported back to the Council.

4. Considers whether to recommend that the Council:

a. Notes the concerns and support attached to the agenda report relating to the Richmond Residents and Business Association’s request for an alcohol ban around northern Stanmore Road.

b. Requests that staff investigate an alcohol ban for the area under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

5. Noting the information in this report on the requirements of a temporary alcohol ban added in response to the Board’s consideration at its 13 June 2024 meeting of the request for an alcohol ban in Edgeware Village, alter its resolution PCBCC/2024/00044 passed at that meeting to read as follows:

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Notes the Board’s support for implementing a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village.

2. Requests that staff investigate ~~and implement~~ a trial alcohol ban for Edgeware Village under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

3. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Part C

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road Report.

2. Requests that staff initiate a six-month trial of working with external agencies to address the underlying social issues in the area, including aggressive begging.

3. Noting the information in the agenda report on the requirements of a temporary alcohol ban added in response to the Board’s consideration at its 13 June 2024 meeting of the request for an alcohol ban in Edgeware Village, alters its resolution PCBCC/2024/00044 passed at that meeting to read as follows:

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Notes the Board’s support for implementing a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village.

2. Requests that staff investigate ~~and implement~~ a trial alcohol ban for Edgeware Village under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendation to Council

Part A

That the Council:

1. Notes the concerns and support attached to the agenda report relating to the Richmond Residents and Business Association’s request for an alcohol ban around northern Stanmore Road.

2. Requests that staff investigate an alcohol ban for the area under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road	24/1030375	60

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Richmond Residents and Business Association's tabled materials in support of request for an alcohol ban around Northern Stanmore Road	24/1157776	66
b ⇩	Brieﬁng note on alcohol ban bylaw processes and requirements	24/1154000	93
c	Police assessment (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1162928
d ⇩	Staff Presentation - Alcohol Ban - How the bylaw operates and what is required for a ban?	24/1202703	95

Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1030375
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Saunders, Kaitohutohu Hāpori – Community Board Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board to consider making a recommendation that the Council investigate a new alcohol ban area for the northern section of Stanmore Road and surrounds under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018, and alter its recommendation from last meeting in relation to the request for an alcohol ban in Edgeware Village to confirm both its support for trialling a ban in Edgeware Village, and accept confirmation below a temporary ban also requires staff further investigate in terms of the legislative requirements before the Council considers implementation.

1.2 This report was generated at the behest of the Board to commence the process to consider the request for an alcohol ban in this area from the Richmond Residents and Business Association (RRBA) in their public forum presentation to the Board meeting of 13 June 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road Report.

2. Requests that staff initiate a six-month trial of working with external agencies to address the underlying social issues in the area, including aggressive begging.

4. Considers whether to recommend that the Council:

a. Notes the concerns and support attached to the agenda report relating to the Richmond Residents and Business Association’s request for an alcohol ban around northern Stanmore Road.

b. Requests that staff investigate an alcohol ban for the area under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Notes the Board’s support for implementing a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village.

2. Requests that staff investigate ~~and implement~~ a trial alcohol ban for Edgeware Village under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

3. Detail Te whakamahuki

Introduction Te Whakatkinga

3.1 The Council can make alcohol ban areas under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018. An alcohol ban area is a defined area of public open space where people cannot drink alcohol or have alcohol containers during specified times and days. The procedure to request a new alcohol ban is set out in the guide found in the link at the end of this report.

3.2 Once a request for a ban is received, the community board may consider the proposal and make a recommendation for the Council to investigate a ban. Alternatively, it may note the concerns generating the request, but consider that further investigation into an alcohol ban bylaw is not warranted at this time. It may instead request that the issues of concern to the community are referred to the Council for action, which may include working with the Police and other agencies. There are some overlapping issues with persistent and sometimes aggressive or intimating begging, for example, which may not be alcohol related.

3.3 Matters to consider concerning a request for an alcohol ban include:

· Is there clear evidence of ongoing problems of crime and disorder linked to people drinking in the area?

· Is there support for an alcohol ban within the community and from the Police?

· Alternatively, could the problems be resolved by using other methods e.g. instituting community patrols, improving security lighting, or improving rubbish collection?

3.4 The request should be supported by evidence of alcohol-related disorder in the public space that warrants investigating a ban. There are legal thresholds to proceed with implementing a temporary or permanent ban as indicated below, which would take some time for policy staff to assess, so it may be considered whether resource and expectation is appropriately focused on this regulatory approach, and an alcohol ban the relevant mechanism to addressing the issues of concern to the community.

3.5 Once the Council has received a request from a community board, it will decide whether to ask staff to investigate further. The staff investigation will provide advice to the Council in line with the requirements in legislation. The addition of a new alcohol ban area to the bylaw would require a bylaw amendment process. Before amending a bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate tool to address the identified problem (section 155). In considering whether to make a bylaw for alcohol control purposes, the LGA requires that the Council establishes:

· whether there is evidence of a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area (section 147B(a));

· that the ban is appropriate and proportionate in light of the evidence (section 147B(b)(i)); and

· that the ban can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms (section 147B(b)(i)).

3.6 If the Council was satisfied that these legal requirements had been met, the LGA would then require a consultation process to amend the bylaw.

Requirements of a temporary alcohol ban

3.7 A temporary alcohol ban still has the legislative requirements of section 147B of the LGA to be implemented; the assessment of whether the evidential threshold for a temporary ban is met will take due account that it will be contributing to the evidence related whether the threshold is met for a permanent ban.

3.8 The Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 (clauses 4 and 5) shows the distinction between permanent and temporary alcohol ban areas, where the former only is noted as needing to be in accordance with section 156 of the LGA, which sets out consultation requirements when amending bylaws made under the LGA. However, it confirms the requirements of section 147B of the LGA apply to the Council for even a temporary ban, as well as the decision-making provisions in part 6 of the LGA. These requirements for Council decision-making include identifying all reasonably practicable options to achieve the objective and considering the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the decision.

3.9 These requirements dictate that it should be left to the Council if it requests further investigation to approve even a temporary ban. Accordingly, the procedure set out in the guide (in the link at the end of this report) allows for the Board to recommend the Council investigate further if it supports the ban proposal, though it should not drive implementation of a ban (even on a trial basis) prior to Council asking staff to report back with the necessary analysis. The Board can note its support for a ban, whether temporary or permanent, in its discretion, but the staff advice remains that applying the LGA accords with the procedure set out that Council requesting staff further investigate would be the first step before a ban (including a temporary one) is considered.

Alteration to resolution in relation to Edgeware Village trial alcohol ban

3.10 There is opportunity through this report for the Board to alter its recommendation to the Council at its last meeting in relation to a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village in accordance with this advice that the Council may note the Board’s support for a trial ban, though should not consider implementation of one prior to reviewing further investigation of this in terms of the legislative requirements.

Request for an Alcohol Ban Area around the northern section of Stanmore Road

3.11 On 13 June 2024, Richmond Residents and Business Association (RRBA) presented to the Board in its public forum requesting that the Council put in place an alcohol ban around the northern section of Stanmore Road, including Richmond Village. They provided evidence and support for the proposed ban in the form of the materials collated in Attachment A.

3.12 In their presentation in the Board’s public forum, RRBA indicated they were seeking assistance through their request for an alcohol ban with issues of aggressive begging in public, and related petty thefts from the businesses, in northern Stanmore Road area, which they have seen as increasing since last Christmas. They also specifically referenced:

· reports of the community restricting their movements in the area to avoid the beggars as being intimidated by them;

· indications there is an organised group delivering the beggars to the area;

· evidence of increased related litter (bottles and cans) and other nuisances associated with the issues in the area;

· ongoing discussion of the reach of the issues as relevant to the boundaries of a ban, centring on the northern section of Stanmore Road from around the NPD and Gull petrol stations northward to the Richmond Village shopping centre, but also highlighting the issues being reported in Richmond Village Green with it being regularly cleared of alcohol and drug paraphernalia and human faeces;

· the interest in potentially extending the ban toward Avebury House and ‘Adventure Ave’;

· anecdotal evidence of people drinking in the street, and threatening abuse to the public (noting the range of underlying issues, including substance abuse and mental health issues, as well as alcohol abuse);

· a previous request in 2021 for an alcohol ban in Richmond, pointing to an ongoing problem; and

· the short time in which on this occasion RRBA have been able to obtain the volume of community support for an alcohol ban indicated in their supporting materials (Attachment A).

Considerations

3.13 The legislative (LGA) thresholds in relation to the power of territorial authorities to make bylaws for alcohol control purposes essentially are that:

· A high level of crime or disorder is likely in the proposed ban area if the bylaw is not made;

· The ban is appropriate and proportionate in light of that likely crime or disorder; and

· Amending the bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

3.14 The Board should consider whether the issue in this area is with lack of an alcohol ban – is it linked to people drinking in the area – or is the issue with disorderly forms of begging and shop lifting, and lack of an alcohol ban not related to a high level of crime or disorder in the area.

3.15 The Policy team, if the Council directs it, will need to commit resource to investigating whether the request for an alcohol ban in the area meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. They have supplemented this report with a briefing note on alcohol ban bylaw processes and requirements (Attachment B).

3.16 When the Community Governance Team contacted the local community patrol about the Edgeware Village issues raised at the previous Board meeting, their capacity in the Stanmore Road area was also inquired about. They indicated they would make contact with other patrols around the Stanmore Road area (the City Parks and City-Sumner Patrols).

3.17 The Community Governance Team have also contacted the Police to ascertain their views on the requested alcohol ban, which will be provided when supplied. It is not a requirement of the process that Police views are received by the Board for their consideration of whether to make a recommendation to the Council, since the process is for those to be analysed if the Council requests staff to further investigate a prospective alcohol ban. Police views would be relevant to whether there is merit in recommending further investigation, but staff have prioritised presenting this report at the earliest opportunity.

3.18 Views on alcohol-related disorder in the area have additionally been sought from the Alcohol Licensing Team, which similarly are still to be received, though are not necessary to the Board’s consideration.

3.19 The Board may find enough merit in Richmond Residents and Business Association’s supporting materials to recommend the Council request the further investigations, and further relevant evidence and views would be collected for analysis at the Council’s request.

3.20 Staff discussions to date have highlighted that the road and other works in Linwood Village may have temporarily contributed to the issues currently being reported further north on Stanmore Road, as displacing some of the relevant activity from Linwood Village to the north. This may prove relevant to whether a ban for the area would be proportionate.

3.21 It should also be considered before resource is invested in this policy work whether the issues in the area are likely to meet the other legislative thresholds for a ban – particularly whether, on the face of it, there are indications of a high level of crime or disorder likely in the proposed ban area if the bylaw is not made. If it is not believed that a ban will address the issues, but merely seen as something to add to the Police’s toolkit, it cannot be expected that this would be an area at this time Parliament had intended to allow an alcohol ban to be applied to.

Conclusion

3.22 In conclusion, staff recommend that the Board consider the information in this report and the evidence provided by the Richmond Residents and Business Association and consider whether an alcohol ban is sufficiently relevant to warrant recommending further investigation of a ban.

3.23 If, on its face, an alcohol ban will not have a real impact on the issues in the area, such as if they are principally driven by other social issues associated with, for example, instances of begging with no significant connection to alcohol consumption, then the process invites that the Board, rather than recommending a use of resource unlikely to meet the legislative requirement to be implemented, may in the alternative request that non-regulatory tools be explored.

3.24 Staff would form their view with particular reference to Police and other evidence; the Board may recommend the Council request further investigation if it wishes that evidence to be considered. To comply with the legislative requirements, the Council cannot skip to implementing an alcohol ban, even a temporary (trial) one.

Supplementary

3.25 Subsequent to the writing of this report, Police have provided their assessment in confidence (Attachment C) and make no specific recommendation in respect of the proposed ban, commenting that whether a territorial authority should impose an alcohol ban in a specified area is not one which Police do, or should, seek to make, but is a matter for Council to determine after consultation with the community and relevant stakeholders. They also comment that where alcohol consumption in public places, and associated issues arising, are particularly prevalent in an area – Canterbury Police have at times specifically sought or recommended an alcohol ban be imposed.

3.26 They also highlight that the recently undertaken deployment by Police of dedicated community beat patrols in the CBD and surrounds is likely to have a positive effect in terms of public safety in areas such as Richmond, and suggest the following options might be considered:

3.26.1 Consideration of activity to address the underlying social issues in the area – including homelessness and aggressive begging.

3.26.2 Utilisation of relevant social agencies to identify and engage with problematic individuals.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Richmond Residents and Business Association's tabled materials in support of request for an alcohol ban around Northern Stanmore Road	24/1157776
b	Brieﬁng note on alcohol ban bylaw processes and requirements	24/1154000
c	Police assessment (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1162928

Other Reference links:

Procedure to Make New Alcohol Bans

https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/business-licences-and-consents/alcohol/alcohol-bans

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Mark Saunders - Community Board Advisor
Approved By	Emma Pavey - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes-Central

7. Council submission on New Zealand's Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1241463
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tony Moore, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience Edward Lewis, 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 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Council’s submission on the Draft Emissions Reduction Plan for New Zealand for the 2026-2030 emissions budget period.

1.2 The Ministry for the Environment released New Zealand’s second Emissions Reduction Plan for public consultation on Wednesday, 17 July 2024. The deadline for lodging submissions is Wednesday, 21 August 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves lodging the Council submission on New Zealand’s Draft Emissions Reduction Plan for the 2026-2030 budget period (Attachment A) to the Ministry for the Environment.

2. Agrees to request a meeting with the Minister for Climate Change to discuss the Council’s views on the Draft Emissions Reduction Plan and appoints a representative of the Council to share these views.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Ministry for the Environment is seeking feedback by 21 August 2024 on the Draft Emissions Reduction Plan for New Zealand for the emissions budget period of 2026-2030 (the Plan).

3.2 Because climate change is a significant issue for our community, is a strategic priority for the Council, and many of the proposed actions would impact our community and Council, a draft Council submission on the Plan has been prepared (Attachment A). Staff are now seeking Council approval of this submission.

3.3 The key point made by the Council’s submission is that Central Government needs to amend the Plan to include bold, robust and proven actions to reduce emissions that meet New Zealand’s emission reduction targets. Missing our targets exposes New Zealand to additional risks and costs.

3.4 The Council may wish to make a verbal submission to Central Government because of the significance of this consultation and topic. This consultation process is being run by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), which means no process exists to make verbal submissions. MfE have suggested a representative for the Council could speak directly with the Minister of Climate Change to share the Council’s views on the Plan if they wanted to. The Council will need to determine if it would like to speak with the Minister on this matter, and if so, who should represent the Council.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

New Zealand’s Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030

4.1 Under the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Act 2002 the Government must develop successive five-yearly greenhouse gas emissions budgets to reach net zero emission by 2050 (excluding methane) and develop action plans to meet each budget. On 17 July the Ministry for the Environment released the Draft Emissions Reduction Plan for New Zealand for the period of 2026-2030. This Plan outlines Government’s proposed actions to decarbonise energy, transport, waste, and agriculture, and increase forestry carbon removals. The Ministry for the Environment is inviting submissions on the Plan by 21 August 2024.

Summary of the Council’s submission

4.2 The Council makes both general and sector specific recommendations about the Plan. Key points raised in the Council’s submission are:

4.3 The Council supports many aspects of the Plan including increasing renewable energy generation, decarbonising public transport, developing sustainable aviation and marine fuels, and adopting an opportunity focused approach to address our climate challenges.

4.4 The Council recommends the Plan is amended to include bold, robust and proven actions that meet and not miss, as currently proposed, New Zealand’s target of net zero emissions by 2050. Missing our targets exposes New Zealand to additional risks and costs.

4.5 The Plan needs a greater emphasis on gross emission reductions, rather than heavily relying on carbon removals using forestry. For example, encourage proven ways to reduce emissions at source, such as incentives for households, businesses and farms to decarbonise.

4.6 The Plan has an over reliance on the Emissions Trading Scheme to drive changes throughout the economy and on technologies that, at best, may take a long time to deliver at scale. Over reliance on these presents risks to meeting New Zealand’s emissions targets.

4.7 The Plan needs to include a wider range of options for reducing transport emissions such as encouraging walking, cycling, public transport, and integrated land-use and transport planning.

4.8 The Plan should better recognise and build upon the many and far-reaching benefits delivered by emission reductions such as lower costs, improved health, and enhanced competitiveness. By focusing on carbon removals instead of the full range of emission reductions, these additional benefits will not be realised.

4.9 The Council is keen to work with Central Government on key implementation aspects of the Plan including enhancements to public transport infrastructure, integrated transport and land-use planning, regional energy transition planning, innovative energy solutions and clean technologies, and waste minimisation.

4.10 The following related memos/information were circulated to Elected Members:

Date	Subject
2 August 2024	Draft submission circulated to councillors for their feedback

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.11 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council lodges a submission to the Ministry for the Environment on New Zealand’s second Emissions Reduction Plan. Lodging a submission is the preferred option because climate change is a significant issue for our community, is a strategic priority for the Council, and many of the proposed actions would impact our community and Council.

4.12 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may impact Christchurch or Council activities. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence the thinking and decisions of Government.

4.13 The alternative option would be to not submit on the Emissions Reduction Plan. This is not recommended, as making a submission is a valuable opportunity to influence the direction of the final Emissions Reduction Plan.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Lodge submission	Option 2 – No submission
Cost to Implement	Staff time	No further staff time
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost	No cost
Funding Source	N/A	N/A
Funding Availability	Staff time covered in LTP	N/A
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates	No impact on rates

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to lodge a Council submission is low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The opportunity to lodge a submission on the second Emissions Reduction Plan is open to any person or organisation.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, in particular, outcomes around reducing emissions, creating a green liveable city, and a thriving and prosperous economy.

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The low level of significance was determined because of the indirect nature of any impact resulting from the Council’s submission. Any actions will be taken by Central Government and determined through Government engagement and decision-making processes.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Kia tūroa te Ao Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

6.5 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The Council has gathered community views on climate change over many years and through a range of methods. The most recent Life In Christchurch public survey found that respondents were concerned about climate change and wanted greater levels of action from Central Government, Local Government and businesses.

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

6.8.1 No specific community board or ward area will be affected by the decision to make a submission to central government.

6.9 The views of Community Boards have not been gathered.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.12.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.13 While making a submission to Central Government does not have a direct impact on emissions or adaptation, the potential enhancements to a national Emission Reduction Plan would result in less emissions and improved climate resilience.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should the Council approve the submission, the Mayor will sign the submission on behalf of the Council and then lodge the submission with the Ministry for the Environment before the deadline on 21 August 2024.

7.2 Should the Council decide to speak with the Minister of Climate Change on this Plan, the approved Council representative will need to arrange a meeting and verbally present the key points of this submission.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch City Council Draft Submission on ERP2 21 August 2024	24/1381529	108

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Edward Lewis - Advisor Climate Resilience

Tony Moore - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Lisa Early - Team Leader Climate Resilience

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

8. Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice - Request for amendment to Gazette notice, Delegation for clarifications
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1363339
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Acting Head of Planning and Consents; Brent Pizzey, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services unit
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 to seek the Council’s approval to request the Minister for Resource Management Reform to amend the Gazette notice direction under section 80M of the Resource Management Act for when the Council must notify decisions on the parts of chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

1.2 The report also seeks to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning and Consents to seek clarification from the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) of its recommendations on Plan Change 14 in accordance with schedule 1 clause 101(4) of the Resource Management Act.

1.3 The report is in light of recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel, received on Tuesday 30 July 2024 and to be reported to the Council for a decision on 4 September 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice - Request for amendment to Gazette notice, Delegation for clarifications Report.

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

3. Approves a request to the Minister for Resource Management Reform to amend the Gazette notice direction under s80M of the Resource Management Act for when Council must notify its decisions on the parts of chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of plan change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to 30 November 2024.

4. Delegates authority to the Acting Head of Planning and Consents to seek clarification from the Independent Hearings Panel of its recommendations on plan change 14 in accordance with schedule 1 clause 101(4) of the Resource Management Act.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14, directed in paragraph 70 of part 1 of their report that the “Council (is) to revisit the drafting of the provisions in their entirety” in relation to Chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of the District Plan. Staff have commenced work on this but it cannot be completed in time to enable notification of decisions on a revised residential chapter by the 12 September 2024 deadline in the Minister’s Gazette notice direction for the Council to notify its decisions on the IHP’s recommendations on areas subject to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. It is therefore proposed that the Council requests the Minister for Resource Management Reform to amend the Gazette notice direction for notification of a decision on chapter 14 (Residential chapter) that implements policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by 30 November, rather than 12 September 2024.

3.2 The Council has discretion to seek clarification from the IHP on matters in their recommendations under clause 101 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act. Delegation is sought to the Acting Head of Planning and Consents for this, enabling the Council to have sufficient information to make a decision on Plan Change 14 (excluding chapter 14 Residential) by the 12 September 2024.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Request to Minister for change to Gazette notice direction on date for notifying decision on Chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14

4.1 The Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14, directed in paragraph 70 of part 1 of their report (link below) that the “Council (is) to revisit the drafting of the provisions in their entirety” in relation to chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of the District Plan.
https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/IHP-Report-/IHP-Recommendations-Report-Part-1-29-July-2024.pdf

4.2 Counsel sought clarification from the IHP of this statement in a memorandum filed on 2 August 2024 (link below). Specifically, the Council sought clarification on the intended outcomes of the IHP in a redrafted chapter 14 (Residential chapter) as well as the process for revisiting the drafting of chapter 14.

4.3 https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/Council-Memo/Correspondence/Memorandum-of-Counsel-for-Christchurch-City-Council-2-August-2024-Regarding-initial-clarifications.pdf

4.4 The IHP subsequently responded to the Council’s memorandum in Minute 50 (https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/IHP-Minutes-Directions-Docs/IHP-Minute-50-Response-to-Council-Memorandum-regarding-initial-clarification-6-August-2024.pdf). In their minute, the IHP indicated their availability for further clarification including review of a revised chapter 14.

4.5 We anticipate that implementing the direction for redrafting of the residential chapter will take time to complete and staff will not be in a position to enable decisions on a revised residential chapter on 4 September 2024. Staff are still in a position to deliver the remainder of PC14 and therefore propose that Council considers all non-residential parts of the Plan Change, with the residential components subject to Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD delayed no later than 30 November 2024.. The Council would on the same date resolve whether to delay to 2025 decision making on the parts of the residential chapter that are not subject to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. This would allow time for a process of redrafting provisions, a review by the IHP and subsequent changes to address the IHP’s recommendations before bringing it to the Council for approval.

4.6 Due to the additional time required, the Council must request a change to the Gazette notice prescribing a 12 September 2024 deadline for public notification of the Council decision on implementation of policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.

Delegation

4.7 Clause 101 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act prescribes that the Council must decide whether to accept or reject each recommendation of the independent hearings panel (subclause 1(a)) and may provide an alternative recommendation for any recommendation that the authority rejects (subclause 1(b)). This is for Council to decide on at its 4^th September meeting.

4.8 When making decisions under subclause (1), the Council may seek clarification from the independent hearings panel on a recommendation in order to assist the Council to make a decision under subclause (1).

4.9 For the Council meeting on 4 September 2024, it is important the Council has the information it requires to make a decision. To enable this, this report requests the Council to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning and Consents for seeking clarification on any matter in the IHP’s recommendations.

4.10 This decision is in advance of further clarification being sought from the IHP and is also retrospective insofar that Council staff have sought clarification from the IHP on three matters to date, being as follows:

4.11 Initial clarifications sought 2 August 2024

https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/Council-Memo/Correspondence/Memorandum-of-Counsel-for-Christchurch-City-Council-2-August-2024-Regarding-initial-clarifications.pdf

4.12 Further clarifications sought 8 August 2024

https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/Council-Memo/Correspondence/Memorandum-of-Counsel-for-Christchurch-City-Council-8-August-2024-Regarding-further-clarifications.pdf

4.13 Mapping

4.14 A process was set out in Minute 46 (link below) from the IHP for clarification of changes to the planning maps of the District Plan. A set of maps were supplied to the IHP on 13 August 2024 for their review.

4.15 https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/assets/IHP-Minutes-Directions-Docs/IHP-Minute-46-Christchurch-City-Council-Right-of-Reply-22-April-2024.pdf

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

Date	Subject
30 July 2024	Memo with IHP recommendations report
31 July 2024	Memo on the IHP’s recommendations including recommendations on key topics
9 August 2024	Memo addressing questions of elected members and with summaries of evidence

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

Date	Subject
6 August 2024	Information Session on recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel on plan change 14 to the Christchurch District Plan
13 August 2024	Information Session on recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel on plan change 14 to the Christchurch District Plan

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.18.1 To request to the Minister for Resource Management Reform to amend the Gazette notice direction for when Council must notify decisions on chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of plan change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to 30 November 2024.

4.18.2 To not make a request for an amendment to the Gazette notice for the Council to notify decisions on the chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14 i.e. a decision would be required by 12 September 2024.

4.18.3 To delegate authority to staff for seeking clarification from the IHP on their recommendations.

4.18.4 To not delegate authority to staff for seeking clarification from the IHP on their recommendations.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

Request to Minister for Resource Management Reform for amendment to Gazette notice

4.19 Preferred Option: To request to the Minister for Resource Management Reform to amend the Gazette notice direction for when the Council must notify decisions on chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to 30 November 2024

4.19.1 Option Advantages

· It would enable sufficient time for the rewriting of chapter 14 (Residential chapter) and a review to occur, reducing the risk of errors before the Council resolves under the LGA about whether to delay decisions on the parts of the residential chapter that are not subject to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD until 2025 and before the Council decides to accept or reject the IHP recommendations on the matters that it is deciding now.

4.19.2 Option Disadvantages

· The Council may be perceived as delaying its decisions on Plan Change 14, which may not be to the satisfaction of the Minister for Resource Management Reform.

· It will delay the timing of when residential zone provisions become operative. This would impact on any person seeking resource consent under rules being introduced by Plan Change 14.

· When the Minister considers whether to accept the IHP recommendations that the Council rejects, the Minister may have regard to whether the Council has complied with the Minister’s Gazette notice timetabling direction and how the IHP has had regard to that direction (schedule 1 cl.105(2) of the RMA). However, in the circumstances here, there should be little risk of the Minister’s decision on accept/reject recommendations being influenced by the delay.

4.20 Alternative: To not request the Minister to amend the Gazette notice for the Council’s decision on the Chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14 i.e. notification of a decision would be required by 12 September 2024.

4.20.1 Option Advantages

· The Council is perceived as acting in accordance with the Gazette notice. In reality, a decision could not be made by 12 September 2024 on Chapter 14 (Residential chapter).

4.20.2 Option Disadvantages

· The Council would not meet the requirement for a decision on Chapter 14 (Residential chapter) by 12 September 2024 as per the Gazette notice. This would be a breach of the RMA.

Delegation

4.21 Preferred Option: To delegate authority for staff to seek clarification from the IHP on their recommendations.

4.21.1 Option Advantages

· It would enable an expedient process for seeking clarification from the IHP, reducing the timeframes for getting further clarity from the IHP, and retrospectively authorises clarification requests already made by staff.

4.21.2 Option Disadvantages

· The Council would not itself be deciding on what clarifications to request of the IHP.

4.22 Alternative: To not delegate authority for staff to seek clarification from the IHP on their recommendations.

4.22.1 Option Advantages

· The Council would itself be deciding on what clarifications to request of the IHP.

4.22.2 Option Disadvantages

· It would be inefficient for matters of clarification to be approved by the Council having regard to the timeframes/ process of obtaining Council’s approval.

· The Council may not be in a position to notify a decision before 12 September 2024 due to not having all the information it requires to make a decision on 4 September 2024.

· The matters for which clarification has been sought on to date would need to be taken to the Council for a decision, delaying the timeframe for the IHP to respond and potentially not enabling the Council to receive the information before its decision on 4 September 2024.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.23 Considerations in determining the appropriateness of options include:

4.23.1 The lawfulness of each option and abiding by the Gazette notice

4.23.2 The efficiency of the Council acting to make a decision.

4.23.3 The impact of a decision on those affected.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Request for amendment to gazette notice		Delegation
	Recommended Option	Option 2 – No request	Recommended option	Option 2 - No delegation
Cost to Implement	No additional cost		No additional cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None		None
Funding Source	Operational budget for Planning		Operational budget for Planning
Funding Availability	Within existing budget		Within existing budget
Impact on Rates	Nil		Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 By making the request for more time the Council is being transparent with the Minister and community about the Council being unable to comply with the 12 September 2024 deadline. That may mitigate the risk of adverse reaction to that delay.

6.2 The proposal in this report is to confine the delay to being for just the residential chapter, rather than for all of the IHP recommendations, and for as little additional time as is reasonably possible to achieve.

6.3 The risk of the Minister “having regard to” the delay when making the accept/reject decisions is mitigated by explaining the reasons for the delay and the narrow scope of the delay.

6.4 There is a risk that the Minister will be either unwilling or unable to make the Gazette notice amendment in the time available. As a consequence, Council would be in breach of its obligations under the RMA. Staff have told the Ministry that the Council is likely to make the amendment request.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.5.1 The Council has the statutory ability to request the Minister to amend the Gazette notice direction. It could be arguable that the IHP has no ability under the legislation to “direct” the Council to re-draft the chapter; however, there is nothing to be gained by declining to provide this assistance. The IHP request is consistent with the drafting work that Council staff have been doing for the Panel throughout this process. The drafting work needs to be done. Council staff are well placed to do it. The IHP recommendation to the Council on the residential chapter will be made after the IHP has reviewed that drafting.

6.6 Other Legal Implications:

6.6.1 If the Minister does not amend the Gazette notice, the Council will be in breach of its obligations under the RMA because the Council is unable to notify a decision on the IHP recommendations on the residential chapter by 12 September 2024. There is no “penalty” for the breach. Where any council is not performing its functions under the RMA, the Minister for the Environment has residual powers to appoint a person to perform the Council’s functions; however, there would be nothing for the Minister to gain by doing that here, as the timetable described in this report is of the Council making its LGA and RMA decisions on the residential chapter as soon as it is reasonably able to do so.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions:

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

6.7.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the nature of the decision being about the process and timing of it, rather than the substantive decision on the IHP recommendations. Notwithstanding this, the decision in this report is of high interest to the community, having regard to the number of submitters.

6.7.3 are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.8 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

6.9 Regulatory and Compliance

6.9.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - In accordance with statutory processes and timeframes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 The decision affects all of the Community Board areas, having regard to the scope of plan change 14.

6.11 The decision on the request for an amendment to the gazette notice to enable a decision on chapter 14 (Residential chapter) will delay the timing of when residential zone provisions become operative. This would impact on any person seeking resource consent under rules being introduced by plan change 14.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. This is on the basis that it is about the timing of Council’s decision on the recommendations of the IHP and delegation of authority.

6.13 Notwithstanding this, the decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua. It will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions 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 Subject to the Council’s resolution on this report, a letter will be sent to the Minister for Resource Management Reform seeking an amendment to the gazette notice for when decisions on Chapter 14 (Residential chapter) of Plan Change 14) need to be made by.

7.2 The Council will be asked to make a decision on Plan Change 14 on 4 September 2024.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Ike Kleynbos - Principal Advisor Planning

Approved By

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

9. Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1144193
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 a development to occur at 137 Cambridge Terrace (Attachment A).

1.2 The developers of 137 Cambridge Terrace have requested permanent use of the airspace above legal road for the ultimate construction of a building (Attachment B).

1.3 A resource consent for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a hotel with 11 floors was publicly notified with submissions on 24^th May 2024 and closed on 24^th June 2024 with a hearing to be held in September.

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 airspace above the formed carriageway, and amalgamate the parcels of land that arise from that road stopping with the adjoining properties:

a. 137 Cambridge Terrace contained within Title CB18K/448 and CB18K/449.- The parcels of road (airspace) containing an area of 34.6 m²approximately are shown on Drawings A 2006-2010 (Attachment A of this report).

4. Agrees to deal exclusively with the adjoining property owner (Cambridge 137 Limited or nominee) in relation to sale of the property as described in recommendation 3 above on the basis that there is a clear reason to do so under the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 (Attachment F of this report). Specifically, that clear reason is they are the only logical purchaser and have initiated the request to purchase.

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 of airspace as shown on drawings A 2006-2010 (Attachment A of this report).

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, the 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 A commercial building is to be constructed at 137 Cambridge Terrace comprising 11 floors. Level 00 contains access, reception and restaurant back of house and fitness centre, Levels 01 – 10 consists of 200 hotel rooms, with 20 bedrooms per level. The plant will be located on the roof (Level 11).

3.3 No parking is proposed to be provided on site, but a loading and drop off facility will be provided, suitable for coaches as well as cars.

3.4 The developer has applied for a resource consent to demolish the existing building and construct a new building. This consent was publicly notified on 24^th May 2024 with submissions closing on 25^th June 2024 with a hearing to be held in early September 2024.

3.5 A building consent will be applied for following a decision by Council (as the Regulatory Authority).

3.6 For use of the airspace (encroachments) above Council road, the developers need to be granted permission from the Council as landowner and have made an application for this. Attachment C.

3.7 The encroachments do not fit nicely with Council’s Policy on Structures on Road Policy which refers to encroachments for private non-habitable structures.

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

3.9 When this has been completed then the disposal of the stopped road (airspace) will be completed in accordance with the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 and sold to the adjoining property owners.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council has received an application from developers of multi-level building for use of the airspace above legal road. They will require a building and resource consent from the Council, as Regulatory Authority, and will also need Council approval, as landowner, to encroach on the airspace above the road.

4.2 The properties are situated at:

4.2.1 137 Cambridge Terrace Central City – this is a multi-level development by Cambridge 137 Limited comprising a 11 Level building within which there will be 20 hotel rooms on each of the 10 levels. The building being designed as an international 4-star standard with room sizes ranging from 24-29m². The ground level will contain access, reception and restaurant back of house and fitness centre(Appendix I).

4.3 The airspace encroachments do not fit within the parameters of the Council’s Policy on Structures on Road Policy 2020 which allows for structures encroaching over, under or on roads. However, the purpose of the Policy which refers to private non-habitable structures. (balconies, signs etc.) and these encroachments will be for habitable purposes (Attachment D).

4.4 The lease/licence mechanism is not conducive to the life of the building being more than 50 years.

4.5 In a previous road stopping (airspace) application 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.

4.6 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.

4.7 In this instance because the road stopping is unique i.e. airspace rather than the physical road/formed carriageway and a building consent and resource consent is under determination 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.

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

4.8.1 Road stopping applications generally.

4.8.2 Identifying which statutory road stopping process will be used.

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

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

4.8.5 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.

4.9 Road Stoppings are managed under one of two statutory processes: - Attachment F

4.9.1 the Public Works Act 1981; or

4.9.2 the Local Government Act 1974

4.10 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

4.11 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 landowner.

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

· Lease the area being encroached upon.

4.12 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Do not give permission as landowner - this option would mean that the developers of 137 Cambridge Terrace would need to redesign the buildings to avoid the encroachments. This option is not feasible as it would mean:

· The Council would need to consider as a regulatory authority to re advertise the planning consent which is currently before Council.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

4.13.1 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).

4.13.2 Option Advantages

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

· 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.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

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

4.14 Option 2: Proceed with the road stopping and lease the area being encroached upon0.

4.14.1 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 a lease of the area that the building is encroaching into.

4.14.2 Option Advantages.

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

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· There would be more administrative work as each time the property 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.

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

4.15 Option 3: Lease the areas encroached upon.

4.15.1 Option Description: Under this option, the road (airspace) would not be stopped and would remain in Council ownership with a lease of the area that the building is encroaching into.

4.15.2 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.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

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

· 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

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

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

4.18 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.

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 This proposal is funded by the applicants (the developers) 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 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 hasn’t 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) when Council is to consider the resource consent.

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 previously 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.

6.4 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 development which is occurring to which the airspace will be added will go 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 development 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 survey plan with upper and lower reference points shown on the plans. Attachment I.

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 (2024 - 2034):

6.10 Economic Development

6.10.1 Activity: Economic Development

· Level of Service: 5.1.7.3 Ensure Christchurch is well positioned as a Confident City that is attractive to businesses, residents, visitors, students and potential migrants - 60 engagements with trade agents or investors in priority markets and sectors

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.

6.14 The Community Board has been notified of the proposal in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.15 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 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 Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited provided a Cultural Advice Report dated 4^th April 2024 which recommended conditions to the resource consent which would moderate the effects of the proposed activity on mana whenua values. They were also notified as part of the public notification process. Attachment H.

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:

· Public use of the road.

· Is sufficient road remaining?

· The reasons for it being stopped.

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

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

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

· 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 Site Plan 137 Cambridge Terrace	24/1146409	134
b ⇩	Attachment B Street View and encroachment Proposed Building 137 Cambridge Terrace	24/1146079	135
c ⇨	Attachment C Road Stopping Application (Under Separate Cover)	24/1146111
d ⇨	Attachment D Structures on Road Policy 2020 (Under Separate Cover)	24/557916
e ⇨	Attachment E Road Stopping Policy (Under Separate Cover)	24/424160
f ⇨	Attachment F Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 (Under Separate Cover)	24/425955
g ⇨	Attachment G Flow Diagram Road Stopping process (Under Separate Cover)	24/427010
h ⇨	Attachment H Cultural Advice Report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1149178
i ⇨	Attachment I Elevations showing road encroachment (Under Separate Cover)	24/1350679

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

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

10. Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1251353
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Eilidh Hilson, Regional Waste Projects Facilitator
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of;

1.1 The process for updating the status of Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2020 action plan activities.

1.2 The proposed timeframe to meet legislative requirements to adopt a WMMP in 2026.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2026 report.

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

3. Approves that staff undertake a waste assessment in accordance with section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

4. Approves staff to proceed with advising the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) of the intention to put the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020 into an “under review” status in August 2024 to allow for two years for a thorough revision process to be undertaken.

5. Notes that staff will provide a further report to the Council recommending further actions required to write the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2026, under section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, once the waste assessment has been completed.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Under section 50 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA 2008), Territorial Authorities (TAs) are required to adopt a Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (WMMP) every six years.

3.2 A WMMP must have the status of being current or under review, as a requirement of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) continuing to distribute 50% of the Waste Levy to a TA.

3.3 The Waste Levy is currently $60 per tonne of waste to municipal landfills such as Kate Valley and $10 per tonne to managed class 3 and 4 landfills such as Burwood (Site C). As per the WMA 2008, the 50% returned to a TA is to be spent on waste minimisation activities. It may not be used for disposal fees.

3.4 Updates on the WMMP 2020 action plan activities, are being made available on the Council’s public website.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The last Christchurch City Council WMMP was adopted in October 2020, which schedules a renewed or revised plan due for adoption, in the last quarter of 2026.

4.2 Under the 2020 WMMP, five main focus areas were developed. Ongoing updates on the actions are and will continue to be updated on the public webpage: ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/waste-management-and-minimisation-plan

4.3 A waste assessment of the status of waste management in the district is required as part of this review, under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

4.4 A waste assessment was carried out prior to the last plan, in 2019. In reviewing findings of the next assessment, and the outcomes of the WMMP 2020, staff will then make further recommendations to the Council, as to the level of revision and the consultative process.

4.5 The waste assessment will then be reviewed by the Medical Officer of Health (MoH), and feedback provided. As per section 51 of the Act, the assessment is to contain;

(a) a description of the collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal services provided within the territorial authority’s district (whether by the territorial authority or otherwise); and

(b) a forecast of future demands for collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal services within the district; and

(c) a statement of options available to meet the forecast demands of the district with an assessment of the suitability of each option; and

(d) a statement of the territorial authority’s intended role in meeting the forecast demands; and

(e) a statement of the territorial authority’s proposals for meeting the forecast demands, including proposals for new or replacement infrastructure; and

(f) a statement about the extent to which the proposals will—

(i) ensure that public health is adequately protected:

(ii) promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation.

4.6 As shown in Diagram 1; Timeline for reviewing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (below), at least 18 months is required for the WMMP revision process. Further information can be found on the Ministry for the Environment website. https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/waste/waste-disposal-levy/overview/.

4.7 Some neighbouring districts in New Zealand carry out shared waste assessments, and then may also have a joint WMMP. Staff are not proposing a joint plan. However, the continuation of shared infrastructure and collaboration is intended, where beneficial to ratepayers.

Diagram 1; Timeline for reviewing a Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/acts/waste-minimisation-act-2008/role-of-territorial-authorities-in-managing-and-minimising-waste/

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 The final decision to continue, amend, revoke or substitute the WMMP must not be made until after the Ministry of Health report.

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report.

4.9.1 Proceed to request MfE categorise the WMMP 2020 as “under review”, in August 2024.

4.9.2 Delay proceeding with this request until April 2025 (18 months from October 2026).

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Proceed to advise MfE of the intention to put the WMMP 2020 into an “under review” status in August 2024.

4.10.1 Option Description: Staff would inform MfE that, in anticipation of the likelihood of the need to revoke and substitute the WMMP 2020, they will proceed to request the plan is placed in the under-review category, to allow for two years for a thorough revision process.

4.10.2 Auditing of the refuse stream for October 2024 will be scoped. The data will form part of the waste assessment, which will inform the rewrite of the plan.

4.10.3 The high - level draft timeline proposed is as below:

4.10.4 Option Advantages

The resource recovery activity is moving into a different phase. The transfer station masterplan project, the commencement of the use of the new organics processing facility, the tender and award of waste management and minimisation contracts by 2029, and potential changes in national waste minimisation legislation during this time, requires a plan reflective of the new activities.

4.10.5 Option Disadvantages

This is a more extensive piece of work, involving more internal time resources.

4.11 Second Option; Delay proceeding with this request until April 2025 (18 months from October 2026).

4.11.1 Option Description

The Council would resolve to instruct staff to proceed with a shorter timeline.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

This would be a more straightforward process, with less time and technical advisory resource required.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

The Resource Recovery activity for Christchurch City is moving into a different phase with significant amounts of new activity in the next six years.

Therefore, while the final decision cannot be made until the MoH consultation process has occurred, it is anticipated that if council resolve to revoke and substitute the current WMMP 2020, a substantial amount of time will be required to carry this out.

Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option: Review to Start Aug 24	Option 2 – Review to Start April 25
Cost to Implement	Internal staff time and resources, to be scoped.	Internal staff time and resources, to be scoped. Additional resources and costs may be required to meet shorter timelines.
Ongoing Costs (WMMP projects)	Allowed for in LTP planning.	Allowed for in LTP planning.
Funding Source	Planned for in Operational budgets	Planned for in Operational budgets

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

5.1 Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau Should the Council decide not to review the WMMP, the Council will be inconsistent with the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. The consequence of not meeting the requirements of the legislation is that Council could no longer receive the 50% return of the waste levy.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

5.2.1 As per section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, local authorities are required to adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, every 6 years, for the purpose of promoting effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.3 The required decision

5.3.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

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

5.3.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

5.4 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

5.5 Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

5.5.1 Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

· Level of Service: 8.0.6 Engage with Central government, Industry and Sector interest groups on policy and strategy to reduce waste to landfill - 12 interactions per annum.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

5.6.1 The Waste Assessment and the WMMP are subject to public consultation. All community boards will be included as part of the stakeholder engagement and public engagement planning process.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

5.9 Mana Whenua will be approached at the beginning of the process. Proposed actions and activities to reduce waste, will involve seeking Mana Whenua partnership throughout.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.10 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

5.10.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

5.11 Emissions are produced throughout the lifecycle of a product, including after disposal. While methane is captured and utilised in modern landfill systems, the bulk of emissions have already been created, in the preceding production and transportation of the materials.

5.12 Programme 9 of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy states;

About 9% of Christchurch’s greenhouse gas emissions come from our waste. However, approximately 40% of waste currently going to landfill in Christchurch has the potential to be recycled or composted, using the services currently available. https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/Climate-Change/Otautahi-Christchurch-Climate-Resilience-Strategy.pdf

5.13 This does not encompass all emission generating activity from the flow of materials from extraction to disposal.

5.14 Planning for the management and minimisation of waste, therefore, assists in the reduction of emissions. Projects to increase the efficiency of resource usage, requires full lifecycle analysis of activities, to monitor accurate emission reductions. This would be also be a key component of any project management undertaken as a city and or as a region, to collaboratively reduce waste.

6. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.1 Staff will proceed to conduct a waste assessment activity.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Eilidh Hilson - Regional Waste Projects Facilitator

Approved By

Alec McNeil - Manager Resource Recovery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

11. Policy and Practices 2023/2024 Section 10A requirement of the Dog Control Act
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1227524
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lionel Bridger, Manager Animal Services, Regulatory Compliance Unit
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires that the Council report on the administration of its dog control policies and practices each year. The Council must give public notice of the report and make it publicly available.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to fulfill the legislative requirements in the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Policy and Practices 2023/2024 Section 10A requirement of the Dog Control Act 1996.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act), requires territorial authorities to report on their dog control policies and dog control practices.

3.2 The report must include, in respect of each financial year, information relating to:

· the number of registered dogs

· the number of probationary owners and disqualified owners

· the number of dogs classified as dangerous and how the classification was made

· the number of dogs classified as menacing and how the classification was made

· the number of infringement notices issued

· the number of dog related complaints and the nature of those complaints.

· the number of prosecutions taken.

3.3 The territorial authority must give public notice of the report and make it publicly available (section 10A of the Act).

4. The Council’s Dog Control Policy (Section 10A (1a))

4.1 The Act requires every council to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to enforce it. The Council adopted its Dog Control Policy in September 2016. The Policy has provisions relating to the control of dogs in public places, which are enforceable under the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016.

Purpose of the policy

4.2 The purpose of the Dog Control Policy is to outline how the Christchurch City Council addressed the requirements set out in the Dog Control Act.

4.3 The Policy balances regulatory controls to allow for the recreational needs of dogs and their owners with appropriate controls to minimise the danger, distress or nuisance that may be caused by dogs. It is designed as an educational tool to help encourage and facilitate good dog behaviour and good dog ownership. The policy should be read in conjunction with the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 and the Dog Control Act.

4.4 The full policy can be accessed here: Dog-Control-policy-2016.pdf (ccc.govt.nz). In summary, the policy contains the following:

	Section title and brief summary of coverage
Section 1:	Introduction
Section 2:	Dog Control Bylaw (nature and application of the bylaw)
Section 3:	Obligations of dog owners
Section 4:	Registration of dogs (including registration classifications, and responsible dog owner criteria, registration and desexing, working and rural working dogs)
Section 5:	Micro-chipping of dogs
Section 6:	Prohibited and leashed areas (general prohibited and leashed areas)
Section 7:	Other special areas – Dog Parks and Dog Exercise Areas
Section 8:	Licence to own more than two dogs
Section 9:	Other dog matters (barking dogs, female dogs in season, desexing of dogs, dogs in outdoor dining areas, exercising dogs at night, dogs in vehicles over summer months, dogs at Council events and festivals)
Section 10:	Education and training (teaching children about dogs, learning how to be a good dog owner, teaching dog safety for workers)
Section 11:	Ways of managing troublesome dog owners and dogs (probationary and disqualified dog owners, dangerous dogs, menacing dogs, desexing of menacing dogs)
Section 12:	Seizing dogs, impounding dogs and adopting dogs from the Council dog shelter facility
Section 13:	The issuing of infringement notices
Section 14:	Controlled or open dog areas under the Conservation Act

Review of the Policy (and Bylaw)

4.5 The Council’s Dog Control Policy and Bylaw are currently being reviewed. They must be reviewed at least once every ten years to meet legislative requirements.

4.6 Proposals for changes to the Policy and Bylaw will be brought to the Council later in the year. If the Council is happy with the proposals, they will go out for public consultation and hearings, before coming back to the Council for adoption.

5. Christchurch City Council’s Practices (Section 10A (1b))

5.1 To satisfy the requirements of section 10A of the Dog control Act 1996, the following information is provided.

Dog Registration

5.2 The total number of dogs recorded on the Council’s dog registration database for the period was 44,962.

Probationary and Disqualified Owners

5.3 The Council recorded 13 owners as probationary, and 4 owners as disqualified over the period.

Dangerous Dog Classifications

5.4 The Council classified 15 dogs as dangerous under section 31 of the Act, adjusting the total number of dogs on the dangerous dog register to 49.

Menacing Dog Classifications

5.5 The Council has two separate menacing dog classifications.

· Dogs classified as menacing based on the dog’s aggressive behaviour (section 33A(1)(b)(i) of the Act). For the period, 61 new dogs were classified as menacing, adjusting the total number of dogs classified in this category on the Council’s register to 223.

· Dogs to be classified as menacing based on the dog’s breed or breed type (section 33C of the Act). For the period, 5 new dogs were classified as menacing, adjusting the total number of dogs classified in this category on the Council’s register to 83.

Infringement Notices issued

5.6 The Council issued 1,227 infringement notices for breaches against the Act.

· Failing to comply with a menacing classification (10 notices)

· Failure to implant a microchip (8 notices)

· Failure to a keep controlled or confined (357 notices)

· Failure to register a dog (825 notices)

· Failure to supply information (6 notices)

· Failure to comply with the bylaw (6 notices)

· Fail to comply with probationary /disqualified owner (2 notices)

· Fail to comply with effects of a dangerous dog classification (10 notices)

· Fraudulent sale of a dangerous dog (1 notices)

· Failure to provide proper care (1 notices)

· Failure to comply with a barking dog abatement notice (1 notices)

Warnings issued

· A total of 660 warnings were issued.

· Warnings are issued in cases where there is insufficient evidence to support the issuing of an infringement or in cases where the breach of the Act is minor and there is no previous recorded breaches.

Dog related complaints

5.7 The Council investigated 618 priority one complaints (dogs attacking persons, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife or traffic hazards relating to wandering stock on roads).

5.8 The Council received 5,241 complaints relating to dogs barking, wandering, fouling, rushing and unregistered dogs.

5.9 Council received a total of 9,903 complaints relating to breaches of the Dog Control Act and / or Dog Control Bylaw 2016

Prosecutions

5.10 1 prosecution was successfully completed due to a serious attack on a person. Upon conviction, the owner was disqualified from owning a dog for a period of three years and the offending dog was destroyed.

Found Dogs

5.11 Council found 2,123 dogs, wandering. 1,482 were returned to their owners, 641 were impounded. Of these, 514 were claimed by their owners from the animal shelter, 51 were adopted to new homes, and 38 were rehomed to dog rescues.

5.12 Of the found dogs, 38 were euthanised. 13 dogs were euthanised due to a parvo virus outbreak in the shelter, 12 dogs were euthanised as they were classified as Dangerous or Menacing. Six dogs were assessed and could not be safely rehomed, while seven dogs were not adopted and were not coping in the shelter environment.

Education

5.13 A total of 36 child education and adult educational talks were provided free of charge to the community.

Free microchipping

5.14 The Council continues to offer free microchipping to all dog owners, which is available every Wednesday.

6. Statistical Summary

Category	Number
Total number of dogs on record	44,962
Total number of probationary owners	12
Total number of disqualified owners	9
Total number of dogs classified as dangerous (live records only)	49
Total number of dogs classified as menacing (live records only)	306
Number of infringement notices issued	1,227
Dog attacks on people, stock, poultry, domestic animals or protected wildlife	656
Dog rushing, intimidating people or domestic animals.	631
Dogs barking, roaming or fouling, roaming dogs and miscellaneous matters)	5,241
Number of prosecutions taken	1

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Lionel Bridger - Manager Animal Services

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

14. Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Sequencing
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1253743
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jenny Rankin, Senior Project Manager Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the construction award for the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Package of Works. It also requests a decision on critical Transport works sequencing to ensure the completion of works prior to the opening of Te Kaha stadium.

1.2 The report is staff generated following the contract award to enable next steps for construction.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Sequencing Report.

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

3. Notes that Attachment A Financial Implications attached to the report can be made public once the funding decision by NZTA has been finalised and contractual negotiations have ceased following the award of the contract.

4. Instructs staff to proceed with the critical Transport work around stadium and on Lichfield Street (west), identified as Separable Portion 2 for the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets project.

5. Notes that staff will report back with options for Separable Portion 3 - Outlying/non-critical Transport works for the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets project, following an investment decision by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Te Kaha Stadium is due to be completed soon and there is a need to upgrade the surrounding streets to ensure alignment with the stadium and facilitate pedestrian movements during events.

3.2 Staff have submitted an application for New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidy. NZTA have deferred any investment decision until the publication of the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP). Their decision is expected in October 2024.

3.3 This report provides options for the potential construction sequencing for the Transport works and the associated implications.

3.4 The Isaac Construction Company has been awarded the contract to construct the Te Kaha surrounding streets project. Their planned methodology aims to achieve the tight timeframes for delivery, maintain flexibility to work with the Te Kaha stadium contractor and provide value for money.

3.5 The construction contract has been let with three separable portions (SP):

3.5.1 SP1 – Three Waters work

3.5.2 SP2 – Critical Transport works

3.5.3 SP3 – Outlying/non-critical Transport works.

At this stage only SP1 has been instructed. SP2 and SP3 have been awarded as provisional items.

3.6 Key risks for construction include:

3.6.1 Interface with the Te Kaha stadium works.

3.6.2 Stakeholder impacts working in the central city.

3.6.3 Timeline for completion.

3.6.4 Traffic impacts with Madras Street and Barbadoes Street being key north south traffic routes.

3.6.5 Risk of unknowns – e.g. unsuitable ground conditions, new to old connections, etc.

3.7 The following options were considered:

3.7.1 Preferred option: Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) and critical Transport work around stadium and essential transport works on Lichfield Street (west) (SP2) (further described in Section 4 below).

3.7.2 Option 2: Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) and critical Transport work (SP2) around stadium and all works on Lichfield Street (west) (further described in Section 4 below).

3.7.3 Option 3: Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) only.

3.8 The preferred option will maximise the potential for construction efficiency following the Three Waters works and ensures the street levels are tied in with the new stadium.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project

4.1 Christchurch will soon have the most modern, state of the art, multi-use arena within the southern hemisphere (Te Kaha Stadium). There is a need to upgrade the surrounding streets to make them safer and more pedestrian friendly, so that they are ready for the increased activity that this area is going to experience.

4.2 After it opens, Te Kaha Stadium and its surrounding precinct (Te Kaharoa) will frequently host events that will attract an estimated 15,000-20,000 people. It will also host larger, events less frequently.

4.3 In working with the BESIX Watpac team through the design of the stadium it was identified that there are several issues in the surrounding streets that need addressing to facilitate the smooth running of the stadium. These include:

4.3.1 Ground level differences between the finished floor levels of the stadium and the street.

4.3.2 Facilitation of a smooth transition from the stadium to the streets without the potential for trip hazards or other accessibility concerns.

4.3.3 Roading-related stormwater and the potential for flooding of neighbouring properties in large rain events.

4.3.4 End of asset life sewer and water supply upgrades, including upgraded connections to the stadium.

4.3.5 Evacuation egress from the stadium during an emergency. Wider footpaths immediately surrounding the stadium will facilitate safe and more efficient evacuation.

4.3.6 The existing footpaths immediately surrounding the stadium are in a poor condition (particularly Madras Street – main access). Maintenance is required to improve the condition of the footpath surface in these areas

4.4 Experience with Orangetheory Stadium and Lancaster Park, and shared knowledge collected from other New Zealand stadiums, has shown that the surrounding streets need to be designed to accommodate large influxes of traffic and pedestrians. The proposed upgrades look to reduce the need for expensive area-wide event traffic management plans (ETMPs) at each event as well as enhancements to pedestrian safety and identified security risks. The designs also ensure the existing street levels are tied-in to match with the constructed height of the new arena.

4.5 The above issues were all addressed as part of the Hearings Report that was approved by Council on 28 June 2023.

Funding

4.6 The following budgets are identified in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan:

4.6.1 Street upgrade works (including roading-related stormwater) - $23,000,000

4.6.2 Sewer and water supply upgrade - $11,000,000

4.6.3 The project costs to date are $1,500,000.

4.7 The combined construction of Transport and Three Waters works in this area provide an opportunity to upgrade the streets efficiently, with as little additional disruption to the local community as possible.

4.8 The transport components of the project are potentially eligible for NZTA subsidy from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

4.8.1 Not all elements of Transport projects are eligible for NLTF subsidy, this is determined by the NZTA eligibility criteria.

4.8.2 Staff have submitted a business case application for NLTF subsidy. This is in the order of $11 million.

4.9 In parallel, finance staff have undertaken the revenue assumptions for the financial model to inform the 2024/34 Long Term Plan (LTP). This is what has been used in Council’s financial borrowing forecasts and current LTP discussions, and is therefore the impact across the Council’s total transport capital programme.

4.10 On 5 April 2024 NZTA met to formally review the application for funding, and subsequently advised that a decision on funding will be made in or after October 2024. This is due to the uncertainty relating to the changes proposed in the draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) as identified at the time.

4.11 NZTA has not refused to make funding available, they have deferred their investment decision.

4.12 The final GPS has been amended to not just require an existing demand for the walking and cycling activity class, but to have a reliably forecast demand. The potential pedestrian demand generated from the new stadium has been forecast and modelled through the project development process and has been provided to NZTA.

4.13 Staff will provide an options report back to the Council following the advisement of any investment decision from NZTA.

Construction contract

4.14 An open market request for tenders (RFT) was undertaken, the scope of which was based on the agreed works from the 28 June 2023 decision meeting.

4.15 The construction contract has been awarded to The Isaac Construction Company.

4.16 The final construction contract value is $16,500,000. Other anticipated costs for the project are estimated at $4,000,000. These include street lighting, professional fees and ancillary works.

4.17 The three waters component of the contract has been awarded for construction. The Transport component of the contract has been awarded as a provisional item and has been broken into separable portions (as detailed below). This means that the transport work cannot commence without specific approval from the Engineer to Contract and the contractor has not specific expectations of receiving the work.

4.18 The contract has been split into the following separable portions (SP) and estimated values:

4.18.1 SP1 – Three Waters work – sewer and water supply ($6.5m to $7.5m).

4.18.2 SP2 – Critical Transport works – surrounding stadium and essential Transport works on Lichfield Street (west) ($10m to $12m).

4.18.3 SP3 – Outlying/non-critical Transport works – Madras St, Tum Street and Lichfield Street (east) and remainder of Lichfield Street (west) ($4m to $6m).

4.19 Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicate the extent of the different separable portions of the contract.

Figure 1: SP1 Three Waters works

Figure 2: SP2 & SP3 Transport works

Planned Construction Methodology

4.20 The planned construction methodology is designed so that the selected contractor Isaac Construction can efficiently progress through tasks to achieve the delivery ahead of the stadium completion.

4.21 Our procurement method allowed our teams to select a contractor who demonstrated they could achieve the particularly tight programme, remain flexible to cater for the stadium build, provide value for money and above all else minimise the impact on the surrounding community. Isaac Construction demonstrated an experienced team, efficient programme, well thought out methods.

4.22 The proposal consisted of multiple project teams across the site working simultaneously to complete the work systematically and efficiently.

4.23 Starting with underground infrastructure the construction teams have equated efficient sequencing that sees one task transition to the next. Primarily focussing on those streets immediately surrounding the stadium they then plan to move to the further extents (consistent with SP2 & SP3 above). This would essentially see works on Madras St, Barbadoes St, Lichfield and Tuam St all commence simultaneously with multiple crews.

4.24 As these areas near completion works would then progress to those identified as SP3 above being Madras (Moorehouse to St Asaph), Tuam and Lichfield East of Barbados St. This offers staff confidence that the maximum time is available within the programme to coordinate and work with the Te Kaha project team and reduce the risk of either project having an impact on the other.

4.25 Although each road has differing work to complete the below image illustrates the general sequence of work.

Figure 3: Construction sequencing

4.26 By transitioning from one task to the next contractors can minimise costly temporary work, they gain efficiency in machinery and labour through often completing multiple tasks at once and most importantly they can reduce the overall programme.

4.27 Lichfield St West (Manchester to Madras) is considered the critical path for the contract, this is because:

4.27.1 New water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure.

4.27.2 Tunnelling under the tram lines 5 times with underground services.

4.27.3 Complex sewer and water connections within the Manchester/Lichfield and Madras/Lichfield intersections.

4.27.4 Modification to the traffic lights at Manchester St and new lights at Madras St.

4.27.5 New tram infrastructure with pole and overhead line upgrades.

Risks to Construction

4.28 The key unique risk on this project is the requirement to interface with the Te Kaha Stadium works and attempt to align programmes. Both teams are already working closely together to manage how they interface with each other however it is acknowledged that a delay on either project could impact the other.

4.29 Work within the CBD interfaces with a wide range of stakeholders including but not limited to commercial, retail and hospitality businesses, buses, trams and general public. Our contractors work hard to accommodate each and limit the disruption however often managing the competing needs of each stakeholder can cause delays.

4.30 Madras and Barbados Streets include critical south bound and north bound routes across the city, the construction works will remove a lane in each direction, we do expect some wider network impacts from this lane reduction and as a result the north and south bound lanes on Montreal, Durham and Fitzgerald become critical to remain at full service.

4.31 Much of the infrastructure we are upgrading is well over 100 years old, with this often comes surprises particularly where we tie new pipes onto old, these surprises can impact the programme.

4.32 According to early programmes, transport activities were planned to start at the commencement of the project where space allowed, by starting early with a ‘hard and fast approach’ we were able to create some float in the programme on many of the streets. Although the current delays being experienced while funding decisions are made can be accommodated, we are starting to remove this float. What this means is as the inevitable challenges are encountered on the project can become more costly due to the need to increase the project duration or pay the contractor to accelerate works i.e. bring in additional resource.

Supporting Information

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

Date	Subject
17 April 2024	Te Kaha Surrounding Streets – NZTA Funding Council Memo April 24

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

Date	Subject
9 August 2022	Council Briefing (closed at the time) -see Attachment B for presentation
8 November 2022	Council Briefing (closed at the time) - see Attachment C for presentation
December 2022	Consultation Document https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2023/03-March/Getting-ready-for-Te-Kaha-consultation-document-WEB-v2.pdf
03 March 2023	Staff Report to Hearings Panel - https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/03/BLHP_20230303_AGN_9397_AT.PDF
28 June 2023	Hearings Panel Report to the Council (Item 10) - https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/06/FPCO_20230628_AGN_8435_AT.PDF

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.35.1 Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) and critical Transport work around stadium and essential transport works on Lichfield Street (west) (SP2).

4.35.2 Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) and critical Transport work (SP2) around stadium and all works on Lichfield Street (west).

4.35.3 Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) only.

4.36 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.36.1 Proceed with instruction of all Transport work (SP2 and SP3) – the decision relating to NZTA subsidy has been delayed until at least October 2024, therefore the financial impact of any revenue will not be known until then.

4.36.2 Cancel the project – there is a need to address the tie-in requirements and the roading-related stormwater works around the new stadium.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.37 Preferred Option: Option 1 - Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) and critical Transport work around stadium and essential transport works on Lichfield Street (west) (SP2).

4.37.1 Option Description: Instruct the construction of critical Transport works on the immediately surrounding streets (SP2), including:

· Madras Street – Tuam to Hereford

· Tuam Street – Madras to Barbadoes

· Barbadoes Street – Tuam to Hereford

· Lichfield Street (west) – Manchester to Madras

4.37.2 All works are in streets following Three Waters works.

4.37.3 The inclusion of Lichfield Street (west) in this option is due to the preceding sewer and water supply works. There is a requirement to ensure the street is returned to a trafficable state and ensure it ties-in with the levels at Madras Street. These levels will have changed due to the new levels at the stadium boundary.

4.37.4 The Lichfield Street changes also include the roading related stormwater changes to manage the potential impact of any unwanted surface flooding, resurfacing of the street and the installation of permanent tram pole infrastructure.

4.37.5 The final solution for Lichfield Street will be completed as part of SP3.

4.37.6 Option Advantages

· Maximises the efficiency of the street reinstatement following the Three Waters works.

· Ensures surrounding street levels are tied-in with the new stadium and addresses roading-related stormwater concerns in the area.

· Minimises construction disruption to neighbouring businesses and property owners.

· Allows for a decision on remaining works following NZTA decision on potential subsidy.

4.37.7 Option Disadvantages

· Businesses and property owners along Lichfield Street (west) will potentially have extended disruption to the street. This can be managed through good communication and clear programming of works.

4.38 Option 2 - Proceed with Three Waters work and critical Transport work (SP2) around stadium and all works on Lichfield Street.

4.38.1 Option Description: Instruct the construction works as per 4.26.1 and undertake all works on Lichfield Street (west).

4.38.2 Option Advantages

· One-pass approach applied to Lichfield Street construction minimises disruption to local businesses.

4.38.3 Option Disadvantages

· Work will proceed prior to having funding certainty.

4.39 Option 3 - Proceed with Three Waters work only.

4.39.1 Option Description: Proceed with Three Waters work (SP1) only and delay any decision in the Transport works until an NZTA funding decision has been made.

4.39.2 Option Advantages

· Funding certainty. This will provide complete assurance on the impact on Council revenue and the wider capital programme.

4.39.3 Option Disadvantages

· Least efficient construction methodology and will extend the impact on local residents and businesses.

· Risk that construction works will not be completed in time for the opening of Te Kaha.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.40 The following considerations have been taken into account when analysing the options:

4.40.1 Construction impact – what is the impact on the construction timeline and methodology.

4.40.2 Financial impact – is there additional cost to the project or is there an impact on potential subsidy.

4.40.3 Reputational impact – what will the impact be on local stakeholders and how does the option relate to the original decision.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 Financial implications are detailed in Attachment A of this report which is public excluded as potential subsidy from NZTA has yet to be decided upon and while the contract has been awarded, negotiations with contractor are ongoing as a result of the delay in NZTA decisions.

5.2 NZTA have made a decision to delay its determination on funding support for this project until at the earliest October 2024.

5.3 The budget for this project is ringfenced within the Council’s transport budget for the current LTP and is available for the total construction cost. However, should funding from the NLTP not be approved later this year, it will affect the projected subsidy Council finance staff have assumed across future capital expenditure on the wider programme of projects.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There a number of risks associated with the decision in this report. The main risks have been identified as;

6.1.1 Financial.

6.1.2 Engineering/Technical.

6.1.3 Reputational.

Financial Risks

6.2 The risk of costs associated with delaying or rescoping the project are likely to increase on the basis of a number of factors:

6.2.1 Re-design of Te Kaharoa landscape area.

6.2.2 Potential for re-tendering reduced construction package.

6.2.3 Loss of efficiencies.

Engineering/Technical Risks

6.3 The Te Kaharoa precinct has been designed and constructed to an agreed height. Any reduction in delivery of the adjacent streets will require further engineering work to ensure that safe and accessible access can be gained from the current street level to the height of the new facility.

6.4 The conversion of Tuam Street to a one-way street (between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue) and the conversion of Lichfield Street (between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue) to a two-way street are required to allow smooth and efficient access for patrons using shared passenger vehicle services. The designated areas for drop-off/pick-up and coach parking are located in these two blocks. Their design has been developed to ensure traffic flow and operations within the city during events has a limited impact on the wider transport network.

6.5 Construction risks are covered in section 4.27 to 4.31.

Reputational Risks

6.6 The decision to undertake the construction of the surrounding streets package of works in line with the construction of the stadium was to ensure that the disruption to the neighbouring properties and businesses was limited to a small duration. Re-scoping or pausing the project has the potential to add delays to the construction and adds risk that the delivery will not be completed in time of the opening of Te Kaha for events.

6.7 A reduction in scope or change in design may result in a need to further consult on any proposed changes.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

6.9 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.10 The required decision:

6.10.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Creating a well-connected and accessible city, promoting active and public transport as well as a vibrant and thriving city centre.

6.10.2 Is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the high level of interest from stakeholders through project progression and as part of the Hearing process and the fact that the decision has an impact on the metropolitan area of the central city.

6.10.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.11 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

6.12 Transport

6.12.1 Activity: Transport

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.13 Community views have not been sought in relation to this decision because it relates to a contractual arrangement and construction sequencing. Community impacts and views were sought as part of the Hearings Panel process and changes as a result of consultation were made to the final approved design. The approved design has been reflected in the detailed design and tender process.

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

6.14.1 Central Ward/Waipapa Papanui-Innes Central Community Board.

6.15 The decision in this report is determined to be of metropolitan significance because it is within the metropolitan (Part A) area of the central city.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.17 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, as the decision relates to construction methodology issues.

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, as it relates to construction methodology issues.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should the Council decision be to accept the preferred option, staff will arrange for the Engineer to Contract to instruct the Transport works relating to SP2. This will enable to contractor to proceed with the critical Transport works.

7.2 Staff will return to Council following the publication of the NLTP. This will be an options report when the funding implications are known and is expected no earlier than October 2024.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A - Financial Implications (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1356358
b ⇨	Attachment B -Te Kaha Council Briefing (Transport) August 2022 (Under Separate Cover)	22/1049064
c ⇨	Attachment C -Te Kaha Council Briefing (Transport) November 2022 (Under Separate Cover)	24/682790

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jenny Rankin - Senior Project Manager

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

15. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1427371
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Mayor Phil Mauger

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE REVIEWED FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE
6.	Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road
	Attachment c - Police assessment	s6(c), s7(2)(a)	Maintenance of the law, Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To preserve privacy of individuals, including around victimisations, and the maintenance of Police operations.	Key findings and conclusions from the Police assessment are included in the report. Further detail from Police is not intended for release.
14.	Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Implications
	Attachment a - Attachment A - Financial Implications	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities	Potential subsidy from NZTA has yet to be decided upon and while the contract has been awarded, negotiations with the contractor are ongoing as a result of the delay in NZTA decisions.	Attachment A Financial Implications can be released following the NZTA decision and the finalisation of contract negotiations.

5. South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1202705
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Laura Botica, Planner Urban Regeneration
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga
The Board considered the submitter feedback (available to the public on the consultation site), the deputations from Greater Ōtautahi and Te Whare Roimata Trust (recorded on the Board’s channel, with the latter’s handout for the meeting available in the Board’s Minutes Attachments), and the staff presentation (Attachment C), before accepting the Officer Recommendations.

12. Central City Biannual Report - January to June 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1281275
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Robbie Schmidt, Assistant Planner Urban Regeneration John Meeker, Principal Advisor Urban Regeneration
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

13. Transport Operations Report (July 2024)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1356559
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure