Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 4 September 2024

Karakia Tīmatanga: All Committee members

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00001

That the apologies received from Helen Rutter and Clare Piper for absence be accepted.

Annabelle Hasselman/Cailin Richardson-Hall Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Mike Patchett declared an interest in Item 8.

3. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentations by the Community Ngā Whakaaturanga a te Hapori

There were no presentations by appointment.

5. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00002

That the minutes of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee meeting held on Thursday, 23 November 2023 be confirmed.

Mike Patchett/Oscar Bloom Carried

6. Identification of Urgent Items by Committee Members Te Tautohu i ngā Take Nonoi nā ngā Mema Komiti

No urgent items were identified.

7. Draft Avon Ōtākaro SMP feedback – Update

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00003

Officer Recommendation Accepted without Change

That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Receive the information in the Draft Avon Ōtākaro SMP feedback – Update Report

Annabelle Hasselman/Cailin Richardson-Hall Carried

Attachments

a Draft Avon Ōtākaro SMP feedback – update - presentation

b draft Otakaro - Avon Stormwater Management Plan SMP 2023

Councillor Dean arrived at 6.06pm during discussion of Item 7.

8. Wetland Restoration Proposal for the Ōtukaikino Catchment

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00004

Officer Recommendation Accepted without Change

That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Receive the project proposal from the Water & Wildlife Habitat Trust (WWHT) and Wallbridge Gilbert Aztec (WGA) on preservation and climate change resilience of groundwater dependent wetlands, streams, and lakes of the Ōtukaikino.

2. Support, in principle, the proposed project and provide a letter to this effect.

Phil Dean/Oscar Bloom Carried

Attachments

a WWHT WGA Ōtukaikino ZCFeb24 V2 presentation

9. Committee Updates

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00005

Officer Recommendation Accepted without Change

That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Receive the information in the Committee Update Report.

Brynlea Stocks/Oscar Bloom Carried

10. 2024 Committee Appointments and Meeting Dates
	Committee Comment 1. The Committee determined to use voting System B, as described in the 2024 Committee Appointments and Meetings Dates report, to elect a Chair and Deputy Chair for the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee for 2024. 2. The Chair was nominated by Annabelle Hasselman and seconded by Councillor Dean. 3. The Deputy Chair was nominated by Brynlea Stocks and seconded by Calin Richardson-Hall. 4. There were no other nominations for Chair or Deputy Chair, and both were appointed unopposed.
	Officer Recommendations That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Determine that the Chair and Deputy Chair be appointed by using [System A or System B] voting as set out later in this report. 2. Elect [insert name] as the Chair and [insert name] as the Deputy Chair of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee for 2024 in accordance with the Terms of Reference (Attachment A to this report). 3. Extend Oscar Bloom’s appointment as the youth representative for the of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee to the 30 July 2024 in accordance with the Terms of Reference (Attachment A to this report). 3. Meet in 2024 between 6-8.30pm on the following Thursdays: a. 21 March (workshop) b. April (nothing scheduled) c. 30 May (meeting) d. 27 June (workshop) e. 25 July (meeting) f. 29 August (workshop) g. 26 September (meeting) h. 31 October (workshop) i. 28 November (meeting)
	Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00006 That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Determine that the Chair and Deputy Chair be appointed by using System B voting as set out later in this report. 2. Elect Oscar Bloom as the Chair and Amber Moke as the Deputy Chair of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee for 2024 in accordance with the Terms of Reference (Attachment A to this report). 3. Extend Oscar Bloom’s appointment as the youth representative for the of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee to the 30 July 2024 in accordance with the Terms of Reference (Attachment A to this report). 3. Meet in 2024 between 6-8.30pm on the following Thursdays: a. 21 March (workshop) b. April (nothing scheduled) c. 30 May (meeting) d. 27 June (workshop) e. 25 July (meeting) f. 29 August (workshop) g. 26 September (meeting) h. 31 October (workshop) i. 28 November (meeting) Brynlea Stocks/Cailin Richardson-Hall Carried

11. Poroporoaki Farwell

Committee Resolved CWZC/2024/00007

Officer Recommendation Accepted without Change

That the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Acknowledge the contributions of Annabelle Hasselman and Clare Piper as community representatives on the committee.

Brynlea Stocks/Cailin Richardson-Hall Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga: All Committee members

Meeting concluded at 8.37pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 27^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

Annabelle Hasselman

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga: All Councillors

Moment's Silence - John Truman

Deputy Mayor Cotter shared remarks to acknowledge the recent passing of John Truman, colloquially known as “Radio Ron”. The meeting then observed a moment’s silence.

Attachments

a John Truman Mural

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00084

That the apologies from the Mayor, Councillors Henstock and McLellan for absence, and from Councillor Gough for partial absence be accepted.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillors MacDonald and Templeton declared an interest in PX Item 21 – ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd – Appointment of Chair.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

There were no public forum presentations.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

22. Resolution to Include Supplementary Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00085

That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Wednesday, 7 August 2024.

Open Items

23. Notice of Motion - The Biodiversity Strategy and a Natural Environment and Biodiversity Working Group

Councillor Moore/Councillor Coker Carried

5. Council - Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034 Minutes - 25 June 2024

The meeting block resolved Minutes Items 5 and 6.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00086

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council - Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034 meeting held 25 June 2024.

Councillor Coker/Councillor Barber Carried

6. Council Minutes - 3 July 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00087

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 3 July 2024.

Councillor Coker/Councillor Barber Carried

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.07am and returned at 10.11am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2024
	Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Keir Leslie, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report. Maryanne Lomax, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting to offer an apology for absence on behalf of Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Bridget Williams, Deputy Chairperson, who were unable to attend for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Bailey Peterson, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Emma Norrish, Chairperson and Simons Britten, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00088 Officer recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2024 Report. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Peters Carried
	Attachments a Waiti Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council b Te Pātaka o Rākaihautu Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council

Report from Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - 13 June 2024
8. Request for an Alcohol Ban – Edgeware Village
	An updated set of recommendations were tabled to clarify that staff would report back to the Council after investigating the trial alcohol ban requested by the Community Board (refer resolution 2). The updated recommendations were Moved by Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Seconded by Councillor Scandrett, voted on and declared carried.
	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendation to Council That the Council: 1. Notes the Board’s support for implementing a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village. 2. Requests that staff investigate a trial alcohol ban for Edgeware Village under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00089 That the Council: 1. Notes the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s support for implementing a trial alcohol ban in Edgeware Village. 2. Requests that staff investigate a trial alcohol ban for Edgeware Village under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018 and report back to the Council with options. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.21am and returned at 10.23am during consideration of Item 9.

Report from Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - 11 July 2024
9. Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road
	Council Officers Elizabeth Wilson and Gary Watson joined the table to present Item 9 and answer questions from Elected Members. Officers shared some further information derived from recent conversations with the Police and options for addressing concerns raised by the Community Board. Deputy Mayor Cotter then Moved a Procedural Motion to let the Item lie on the table and to be reconsidered at the next Council meeting on 21 August 2024. This was Seconded by Councillor Scandrett, put to the vote and declared carried.
	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendation to Council 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00090 The Council resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 20.2, Item 9 - Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road lie on the table and will not be further discussed at this meeting but will be reconsidered at the Council meeting on 21 August 2024. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - 8 July 2024
10. McLeans Island Road Realignment
	A revised set of Officer Recommendations were tabled to reflect updated advice from Officers that the recommended disposal of property would not be a departure from the Council’s Disposal of Council Property Policy (refer Resolution 5) and to correct the Section reference numbers (refer underlined text in Resolutions 5 and 7(c). The revised recommendations were then Moved by Councillor MacDonald, Seconded by Councillor Gough, voted on and declared carried.
	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendation to Council That the Council: 5. Agrees to a departure from the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 by approving the unilateral dealing for disposal Section 5 SO 595130 and Lot 28 DP 356339 to the owners of the adjoining land at a valuation determined by an independent valuer. 6. Delegates to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take and complete all steps necessary to: a. declare as road Sections 2 and 5 SO 595130 b. stop the legal road shown as Section 3, 4 and 7 on Plan SO 595130 c. dispose of Section 5 SO 595130 and Lot 28 DP 356339 and issue one amalgamated Record of Title for all parcels.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00091 That the Council: 5. Approves the unilateral dealing for disposal Section 5 SO 320639 and Lot 28 DP 356339 to the owners of the adjoining land at a valuation determined by an independent valuer. 6. Notes that the disposal of land outlined in Recommendation 5 is consistent with the Council’s Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000. 7. Delegates to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take and complete all steps necessary to: a. declare as road Sections 2 and 5 SO 595130 b. stop the legal road shown as Section 3, 4 and 7 on Plan SO 595130 c. dispose of Section 5 SO 320639 and Lot 28 DP 356339 and issue one amalgamated Record of Title for all parcels. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.37am and returned at 10.43am during consideration of Item 11.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.38 during consideration of Item 11.

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 11 July 2024

11. Shands Road Cycle Lanes

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00092

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

a. That a Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle) be installed on the northwest side of Shands Road commencing at its intersection with Goulding Avenue and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road.

b. That a Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle) be installed on the southwest side of Shands Road commencing at its intersection with Amyes Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Halswell Junction Road.

c. That a Special Vehicle Lane (Cycle) be installed on the southwest side of Shands Road commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 116 metres.

4. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the proposal as described in resolutions 3 above.

5. Approves that these resolutions take effect when road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3 and 4 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

Councillor Peters/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillor Moore left the meeting at 11.06am and returned at 11.08am during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 11.08am and returned at 11.10am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update
	The meeting asked to include an additional resolution requesting that Environment Canterbury provide the final report on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and Zone Committee review to the Council for consideration (refer Resolution 2). The Motion was then Moved by Councillor Scandrett and Seconded by Councillor MacDonald. At the conclusion of debate, the Motion was voted on and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update Report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00093 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update Report. 2. Requests that Environment Canterbury provide the final report on the recent Canterbury Water Management Strategy and Zone Committee review to the Council for its consideration prior to being delivered to the Mayoral Forum in November 2024. Councillor Scandrett/Councillor MacDonald Carried
	Attachments a Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee - Presentation to Council

The meeting adjourned at 11.13am and reconvened at 11.32am. Councillor Keown was not present at this time.

Councillor Keown returned to the meeting at 11.37am during consideration of Item 13.

The meeting adjourned at 11.45am to seek Officer advice on Item 13 and reconvened at 11.48am.

13. Final Instalment of Cathedral Reinstatement Grant
	Council Officers Bede Carran and Matt Pratt joined the table to present Item 13 and answer questions from Elected Members. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Scandrett and Seconded by Councillor MacDonald. Councillor Templeton Moved and Councillor Moore Seconded an amendment regarding future funding requests from the Cathedral being contingent upon independent review. The meeting briefly adjourned to seek advice from Council Officers and the proposed amendment was subsequently ruled Out of Order. The meeting returned to debate, and at its conclusion voted on the original Motion, which was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Final Instalment of Cathedral Reinstatement Grant 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. Notes that staff will release the final instalment of a grant to Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Limited, to be applied towards the capital cost of reinstatement of the Cathedral.
	Amendment Moved and Seconded That the Council: 4. Notes that any future funding requests from the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Limited would be contingent upon independent review. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Moore Ruled Out of Order
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00094 Officer recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Final Instalment of Cathedral Reinstatement Grant 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. Notes that staff will release the final instalment of a grant to Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Limited, to be applied towards the capital cost of reinstatement of the Cathedral. Councillor Moore requested that his vote against the resolutions be recorded. Councillor Scandrett/Councillor MacDonald Carried

14. Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00095

Hearings Panel recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approves the staff recommended scheme design (Attachment A) and tree removal plan (Attachment B) for the Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project, which includes:

a. The installation of a new bridge structure over the Ōtākaro-Avon River and the removal of the existing Pages Road bridge;

b. The installation of a new signalised T-intersection at Pages Road, Hawke Street and Seaview Road intersection;

c. The Pages Road westbound carriageway lane change from one lane to two lanes;

d. No vehicle access (except maintenance vehicles) along Owles Terrace from Beresford Street to the Pages Road, Hawke Street and Seaview Road intersection;

e. No vehicle access (except maintenance vehicles) along New Brighton Road from Rawson Street to the Pages Road, Hawke Street and Seaview Road intersection;

f. No vehicle access (except maintenance vehicles) along Pratt Street from 19 Pratt Street to New Brighton Road;

g. Intersection modifications, including kerb build outs, as listed below:

i. Rawson Street and New Brighton Road intersection,

ii. Keyes Road, Rawson Street and Pratt Street intersection,

iii. Hardy Street and Owles Terrace intersection,

iv. Hardy Street and Collingwood Street intersection,

v. Hardy Street and Beresford Street intersection,

vi. Hardy Street and Seaview Road intersection,

vii. Owles Terrace and Beresford Street intersection;

h. The installation of a cul-de-sac on Pratt Street and Owles Terrace;

i. The minor relocation of one bus stop on Seaview Road;

j. Pedestrian refuge crossings on Pages Road, Hardy Street and Keyes Road;

k. The installation of time restricted parking on Rawson Street, Seaview Road, Hardy Street and Beresford Street;

l. The removal of parking, as detailed in Attachment A, except where changed in below resolutions items 2 and 3.

m. Other works, as listed below:

i. Midblock renewal works on Rawson Street, Pratt Street, Seaview Road, and Hardy Street,

ii. Renewal works on Hawke Street from the proposed new T-intersection to east of Keyes Road,

iii. Renewal works on Pages Road from the proposed new T-intersection to Anzac Drive,

iv. A new pocket park with landscaping and artwork elements on the site of the existing 5-leg roundabout

2. Approves the below Hearings Panel recommendations to be included in the staff recommended scheme design, as detailed in Attachment A:

a. Alternative Design Option J (1 Carpark added outside #134 Hawke Street) with time-limited parking on Hawke Street.

b. Alternative Design Option D (Inclusion of Separated Cycling Facilities on Seaview Road) for Seaview Road.

c. Alternative Design Option K (Carparks Adjacent to Red Zone beside #42 Rawson Street) for Rawson Street.

3. Requests staff investigate and report back to the Council during the detailed design phase on the following items to be included in the Council approved scheme design plan:

a. A location for a pedestrian refuge island on Hardy Street, taking into account any potential change for the entranceway to Nova Montessori School and to enable additional safety near the school.

b. Wider footpaths on Hardy Street to enable pedestrian egress in an emergency and improved day-to-day safety for Nova Montessori School.

c. Alternative Design Option I (5 Carparks in Red Zone by #140 Hawke Street) for Hawke Street.

4. Prioritises Section 3 of the Major Cycleway Route and endeavours to do the two projects in parallel, noting that budget would be needed in a future Long Term Plan or Annual Plan.

5. Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required to implement the Pages Road Bridge Renewal project, are brought back to the Council for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to construction.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 12.40pm during consideration of Item 15.

15. Council submission on the Government’s proposal to ‘make it easier to build granny flats’
	Council Officer Ike Kleynbos joined the table to present Item 15 and answer questions from Elected Members. During questions, Councillors requested some changes to the draft submission prior to it being lodged with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. To facilitate this, the meeting agreed to delegate authority to the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Templeton to approve such changes rather than approve the draft submission in its current form (refer revised Resolution 1).
	Officer recommendations That the Council: 1. Approves the Council submission on the proposal ‘making it easier to build granny flats’ for lodging to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Attachments A and B to this 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00096 That the Council: 1. Delegates authority to the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Templeton to approve any further changes to the draft Council submission on the Government’s proposal ‘to make it easier to build granny flats’ before the 12 August 2024 deadline. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

16. Amendments to Delegations

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00097

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Amendments to Delegations 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. Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business and any other applicable statutory authority:

a. Delegates the responsibilities, duties and powers to the persons as set out in Attachment A to this report, and revokes or amends any other delegations as shown in Attachment A to this report.

b. Delegates to the Community Boards the authority to hear and determine objections to traffic shelters under section 339 of the Local Government 1974 as shown in Attachment A to this report.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Gough Carried

17. Notice of Motion - Northern Line Cycleway

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00098

Councillor Harrison-Hunt’s recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Notes:

a. That the southern part of the Northern Line MCR (Old Blenheim Road to Kilmarnock Street) remains part of the Council’s capital programme with funding available under the following budgets:

i. Corridor works: #23098 Major Cycleway - Northern Line Route (Section 1) Blenheim to Kilmarnock and Restell Street.

ii. Crossings: #64671 Major Cycleway - Northern Line Route (Section 1) Railway Crossings.

iii. Contingency: #1986 Programme - Major Cycleway - Northern Line Cycleway; and remaining budget from Sections 2 and 3.

b. That staff have requested a workshop with the Council to discuss the remaining Shovel Ready projects and associated KiwiRail impacts for later this year.

c. The requests from the Deans Avenue Precinct Society and Christchurch Girls High School students regarding the need for safety improvements associated with Kilmarnock Street crossings from the Railway to Deans Avenue (Attachment A), and that staff are investigating a number of projects in that area through the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Funding (CRAF) programme.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Fields Carried

18. Notice of Motion - Emissions Thermometer
	Councillor Coker presented Item 18 to the meeting and answered questions from Elected Members. At the time the Notice of Motion was Moved by Councillor Coker, and with the agreement of a majority of the meeting, Recommendation 1 was amended to request that staff also provide advice on the possible “design” of an emissions thermometer (refer Resolution 1). The Notice of Motion was then Seconded by Councillor Donovan. At the conclusion of debate, the Notice of Motion as amended was voted on and declared carried.
	Councillor Coker’s Original Recommendations That the Council: 1. Supports the implementation of an “Emissions Thermometer” pending advice from staff on the approximate cost and location. 2. Notes that an Emissions Thermometer might look like the image provided in Attachment A to this Notice of Motion.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00099 That the Council: 1. Supports the implementation of an “Emissions Thermometer” pending advice from staff on the approximate cost, design, and location. 2. Notes that an Emissions Thermometer might look like the image provided in Attachment A to this Notice of Motion. Councillor Coker/Councillor Donovan Carried

23. Notice of Motion - The Biodiversity Strategy and a Natural Environment and Biodiversity Working Group

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00100

Councillor Donovan’s recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Requests staff to prepare a status report in time to be considered in the draft Annual Plan in February 2025, or earlier if possible, on the implementation of the Christchurch City Council Biodiversity Strategy 2008 -2035, including:

a. an assessment of the achievement of the goals, objectives, implementation targets, and actions;

b. the funding streams available within the Council to implement the Biodiversity Strategy; and

c. potential governance or oversight options for implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, including a Natural Environment and Biodiversity working group with advice on a potential Terms of Reference.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Coker Carried

19. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00101

That Bryan Pearson, Chair of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and Therese Arseneau, Chair ChristchurchNZ, remain after the public have been excluded for Item 21 of the public excluded agenda as they have knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

AND

That at 12.58pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 366 to 368 of the agenda be adopted.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.11pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga: All Councillors

Meeting concluded at 2.12pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 4^th DAY OF September 2024

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga: The Mayor and all Councillors

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00105

That the apologies from the Mayor and Councillor Henstock for lateness, Councillor Templeton for absence, and Councillors Harrison-Hunt, McLellan and Moore for partial absence, be accepted.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillors Fields and Johanson joined the meeting at 9.32am.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Upstream

This public forum did not proceed.

Councillor Henstock joined the meeting at 9.35am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2

Christchurch City Mission

Melissa McCreanor, Social Impact Manager and others spoke on behalf of the Christchurch City Mission regarding the difference the City Mission Community Outreach service is making and to introduce new kaimahi Matiu Taitoko.

Attachments

a Christchurch City Mission - Presentation to Council

3.1.3

Brad Stokes Cassidy, Will Davis and Brodie Gardiner

Brad Stokes Cassidy, Will Davis and Brodie Gardiner spoke regarding the threatening behaviour of some homeless people towards the public and businesses and to propose a change to the current public places bylaw.

Attachments

a Brad Stokes Cassidy, Will Davis, and Brodie Gardiner - Presentation to Council

3.1.4 Atlas Quarter

Mark Darbyshire and Claire Higginson spoke regarding a request to investigate installing security cameras for the Atlas Quarter residential area.

Secretarial note: It was noted that Council Officers would follow up regarding the request for investigating the possibility of installing security cameras for the Atlas Quarter residential area.

Attachments

a Atlas Quarter - Presentation to Council

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

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

5. South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00106

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

Councillor Peters/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 9.54am and returned at 9.57am during consideration of Item 6.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 9.56am and returned at 9.58am during consideration of Item 6.

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

6. Request for an Alcohol Ban – Northern Stanmore Road

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00107

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker Carried

7. Council submission on New Zealand's Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030

Council Comment

The Council accepted the Officer Recommendations, with the addition of:

1.1 Providing the following comments for inclusion in the Council’s submission:

· Point 14 – To reference that whilst working in partnership with Central Government, Local Government has a leading role but resourcing is required.

· In relation to the energy section of the submission – To reference the benefits of aspects of the fast track legislation which would allow for environmental activities to occur.

· Point 22 – To clarify the quantum of funding Council is seeking from Government in relation to the request for the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Futures and Mass Rapid Transit projects to be included in the Emission Reduction Plan.

· Points 26 and 27 – In relation to shipping, freight and aviation, to include the suggestion that a National Infrastructure Strategy would be beneficial.

· Point 43 – Including reference to how revenue could also support regenerative farming.

1.2 Confirming the submission will be signed by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor (refer to resolution 1) and

1.3 Appointing Councillor Templeton as the representative to discuss the submission with the Minister for the Environment (refer to resolution 2).

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00108

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, including the further points raised during the meeting as referenced above) to the Ministry for the Environment, to be signed by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor.

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 Councillor Templeton as the representative of the Council to share these views.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Fields Carried

Councillors Keown and Henstock abstained from the vote.

9. Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00109

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Councillor Keown/Councillor Peters Carried

10. Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00110

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Barber Carried

11. Policy and Practices 2023/2024 Section 10A requirement of the Dog Control Act

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00111

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Henstock Carried

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 10.17am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Central City Biannual Report - January to June 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00112

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Central City Biannual Report - January to June 2024 Report.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Johanson Carried

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.43am during consideration of Item 13.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.47am and returned at 10.49am during consideration of Item 13.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.54am and returned at 11am during consideration of Item 13.

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.58am.

13. Transport Operations Report (July 2024)

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00113

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Transport Operations Report (July 2024) Report.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.58am.

The meeting adjourned at 11am and reconvened at 11.23am. Councillor Barber was not present at this time.

Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 11.24am during consideration of Item 8.

8. Replacement Report - Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice - Request for amendment to Gazette notice, Delegation for clarifications
	Council Comment 1. Subsequent to the Agenda being published further information arose relating to this item which required a replacement report and updated Officer Recommendations to be provided (refer to the continued Agenda published Monday 19 August 2024). 2. Council Officers provided a Memorandum (refer to Item 8 Attachment A of the Minutes) following Councillor questions raised at the public Information Session/Workshop held on Tuesday 20 August 2024. 3. The Memorandum outlined that staff had considered that there are some decisions on the Independent Hearings Panel recommendations that the Council would be in a position to make at its meeting on 4 September 2024, which was consistent with an option contained in the replacement report. 4. As a result, Council Officers provided an additional and updated recommendations (refer to resolutions 3 and 4 as underlined below). 5. The updated recommendations were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor Peters, and when put to the vote declared carried.
	Original Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Replacement Report - 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 plan change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to 20^th December 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00114 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Replacement Report - 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. Notes it will have the opportunity to make decisions at its 4 September 2024 meeting on clarified IHP recommendations regarding Plan Change 14 that may be decided in isolation of the residential chapter redrafting and other chapters, including but not limited to heritage items, heritage settings and qualifying matters that are new or continued from the operative District Plan. 4. 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 other decisions on plan change 14 to implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to 20^th December 2024. 5. 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. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried
	Attachments a Plan Change 14 amended resolution for 21 August report - Memo to Mayor and Councillors

The Mayor assumed the Chair.

Councillor McLellan returned to the meeting via audio/visual link at 11.29am during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 11.31am during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor Moore joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 11.33am during consideration of Item 15.

15. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00115

Mayor’s Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives and notes the information in the Mayor’s Monthly Report.

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

Councillor Harrison-Hunt joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 11.37am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 11.47am and returned to the meeting at 11.49am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 11.50am during consideration of Item 14.

14. Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Sequencing
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Lynette Ellis and Jenny Rankin and Dan Lucas of Isaac Construction joined the table and provided a PowerPoint presentation (refer to Item 14 Attachment A of the Minutes). 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by the Mayor. 3. An amendment in relation to recommendation 5 was Moved by Councillor McLellan and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter, to support Separable Portion 3 in principle, and note that staff will report back with funding options. 4. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the amendment was incorporated to the Substantive Motion. 5. The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations 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).
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00116 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. Supports in principle separable portion 3 and notes that staff will report back with funding 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). Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.
	Attachments a Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Staff Presentation to Council

Councillors Harrison-Hunt and Moore left the meeting via audio/visual link at 12.02pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga: The Mayor and all Councillors

Meeting concluded at 12.03pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Report from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board – 12 August 2024

10. 177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1432406
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Property Consultant Manager, Clare Fletcher, Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga
	1. The Board took into consideration the deputations made by Ms Mackay, Mr Christie, Ms Rice, Mr Calder and Ms Gordon. The Board agreed that the consultation period is to be no less than eight weeks.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the 177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke Report.

2. Notes that:

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

b. The property at 177 Pūrau Avenue is not Crown derived nor is there any offer back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

c. If, following consultation, it is determined that transfer of the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue is the appropriate course, the process to revoke the property’s current reserve status would need to be followed to achieve an unencumbered fee simple title capable of transfer.

3. Endorses the proposed engagement approach to consider the proposal to return the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke outlined in Attachment A.

Recommend to the Council that it resolves to:

4. Consult with the community in relation to the proposal by Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke to transfer the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue comprising 1381 m2 held in record of title 841068 and legally described as Reserve 4622 for the consideration of $1 to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke.

5. If no objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through the consultation process, authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to:

a. Revoke the reserve status of the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue through the required process in the Reserves Act 1977 and state the reasons for doing as being that the reserve purpose and status is inconsistent with the cultural history and significance of the property and/or the protection and recognition of urupā on or around the site, and any further reasons established through the consultation process;

b. Deal exclusively with Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke in relation to the transfer of the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue on the basis that there is a clear reason to do so under the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000, specifically that the exclusive dealing:

i. Establishes appropriate ownership control and use of the land that supports the cultural history and significance of the site and/or the protection and recognition of urupā on or around the site.

ii. Urupā have been identified on or around the site, and the cultural history and significance of the site and surrounding area means that disposal to any other party or making it available for other Council purposes would be culturally insensitive and would not meet the Council’s obligations under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it applies to the administration of reserve land.

iii. Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke is the only logical and rightful owner of the land as mana whenua and kaitiaki of the urupā.

iv. Achieves the Council’s Strategic Framework objectives.

v. Any further reasons established through the consultation process.

c. Return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue comprising 1381 m²held in record of title 841068 and legally described as Reserve 4622 for the consideration of $1, subject to a condition that Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke will initiate a process to apply to the Māori Land Court to obtain designation of 177 Pūrau Avenue as a Māori Reserve under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

6. If any objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through consultation, delegate to Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board, the authority to hear and determine the submissions and objections.

3. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Part C

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the 177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke Report.

2. Notes that:

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

b. The property at 177 Pūrau Avenue is not Crown derived nor is there any offer back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

c. If, following consultation, (to be no less than eight weeks) it is determined that transfer of the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue is the appropriate course, the process to revoke the property’s current reserve status would need to be followed to achieve an unencumbered fee simple title capable of transfer.

3. Endorses the proposed engagement approach to consider the proposal to return the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke outlined in Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

Tyrone Fields/Nigel Harrison

4. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1. Consult (to be no less than eight weeks) with the community in relation to the proposal by Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke to transfer the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue comprising 1381 m2 held in record of title 841068 and legally described as Reserve 4622 for the consideration of $1 to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke.

2. If no objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through the consultation process, authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to:

i. Establishes appropriate ownership control and use of the land that supports the cultural history and significance of the site and/or the protection and recognition of urupā on or around the site.

iii. Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke is the only logical and rightful owner of the land as mana whenua and kaitiaki of the urupā.

iv. Achieves the Council’s Strategic Framework objectives.

v. Any further reasons established through the consultation process.

3. If any objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through consultation, delegate to Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board, the authority to hear and determine the submissions and objections.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke	24/1065269	101

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Engagement Outline (Under Separate Cover)	24/1274351
b ⇨	Site and location map (Under Separate Cover)	18/326860
c ⇨	Purau Urupa (Under Separate Cover)	18/322572
d ⇨	Tiemi Nohomutu II - Ngāti Wheke (Under Separate Cover)	18/322574
e ⇨	Letter of request from Ngāti Wheke (Under Separate Cover)	24/1234552
f ⇨	Process Plan (Under Separate Cover)	24/1115309
g ⇨	Public Space Plan (Under Separate Cover)	24/1234920

177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1065269
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Property Consultancy Manager
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 Community Board and Council to consider a proposal by Ngāti Wheke to return the Council-owned property known as Pūrau Māori Reserve, 177 Pūrau Avenue (Property) to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Ngāti Wheke), and if that proposal is supported to seek approval to commence the process to further consider it.

1.2 The report originates from years of conversation with Ngāti Wheke focused on establishing appropriate ownership control and use of the land that supports the cultural history and significance of the Property, and/or protection and recognition of urupā on or around the Property. This matter is being presented now for consideration as the Department of Conservation indicated a change in policy that may facilitate the proposal.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the 177 Pūrau Avenue return by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngati Wheke Report.

2. Note that:

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

b. The property at 177 Pūrau Avenue is not Crown derived nor is there any offer back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

3. Endorse the proposed engagement approach to consider the proposal to return the property at 177 Pūrau Avenue by way of transfer to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke outlined in Attachment A.

Recommend to the Council that it resolves to:

5. If no objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through the consultation process, authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to:

i. Establishes appropriate ownership control and use of the land that supports the cultural history and significance of the site and/or the protection and recognition of urupā on or around the site.

iii. Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke is the only logical and rightful owner of the land as mana whenua and kaitiaki of the urupā.

iv. Achieves the Council’s Strategic Framework objectives.

v. Any further reasons established through the consultation process.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council owned block of land (Attachment B) at 177 Pūrau Avenue referred to as Pūrau Māori Reserve has been the subject of conversation with Ngāti Wheke over a number of years. This property is a significant burial site (urupā). While it is referred to as a Māori Reserve, it is not officially classified as such. It is referred as a “public purpose” reserve but has no official purpose under the Reserves Act 1977. The current status of this land does not recognise or protect the urupā on or around the site, nor the historic and cultural significance of the site and surrounding area to Ngāti Wheke.

3.2 The conversations with Ngāti Wheke have been focused on establishing appropriate ownership control and use of the land that supports the cultural history, values and significance of the Property, and protection and recognition of urupā on or around the site. These outcomes are not currently achieved through Council ownership held under the Reserves Act 1977.

3.3 Setting aside previous considerations and attempts to establish appropriate use of the Property as a culturally significant site, a recent indication from the Department of Conservation to support an application to revoke the reserve status paves the way to consider a process that could see the property more appropriately owned, controlled and managed by Ngāti Wheke.

3.4 This report recommends commencing that process, which involves:

3.4.1 Community consultation and engagement.

3.4.2 Revocation of the reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977.

3.4.3 Agreement to terms and conditions for an exclusive dealing with Ngāti Wheke over the return transfer of the Property.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background – History – Pūrau Bay and 177 Pūrau Avenue

4.1 Pūrau Bay is a significant area for mana whenua. Direct Māori occupation in Pūrau was from the earliest times of Māori occupation on Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula until the late 19th century.

4.2 Pūrau was a favourable location for Māori settlement due to its protection from the north-easterly and south-westerly winds, having a flat area suitable for settlement, a source of freshwater and mahinga kai resources.

4.3 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) Rūnanga is the modern-day representative of the hapū Ngāti Wheke. The takiwā of the rūnanga reflects the events and deeds of Te Rakiwhakaputa and his sons Manuwhiri and Wheke that secured their descendants’ mana whenua rights to the area.

4.4 The takiwā centres on Rāpaki and the catchment of Whakaraupō and is described in the Port Cooper Deed of 1849.The Port Cooper Deed proposed setting aside lands in Pūrau for local Ngāi Tahu residents when land was sold for colonial settlement. Tiemi Nohomutu was a Ngāi Tahu leader in Whakaraupō during the 1830s and 1840s, he was one of the ‘four high chiefs’ on the Port Cooper Deed. He died in 1850 and, as a resident, was buried in Pūrau where his headstone can be seen today at 177 Pūrau Road, Pūrau.

4.5 In 1870 nine acres were set aside in Pūrau and established as Māori Reserve 876. The reserve was not set aside to the hapū but rather to an individual Ngaromata (Wikitoria) Nohomutu (Tiemi Nohomutu’s granddaughter). She had no descendants and willed the land to Rahera Muriwai Uru in 1913 (no whānau relationship). Despite native land restrictions, he sold the nine acres to a local farmer’s wife in 1914.

4.6 In 1950 the landowner subdivided the nine acres. One of the conditions of that subdivision was the establishment of a section which vested in the Mount Herbert County Council as Reserve 4622 by New Zealand Gazette Notice on 26 January 1962 (page 196) for public purposes. That parcel of land (177 Pūrau Avenue) comprises 1381 m2 held by the Council in record of title 841068 as a public purpose reserve and is referred to as Pūrau Māori Reserve and is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

Past considerations and use of 177 Pūrau Avenue

4.7 In 2009 the Council held community consultation for a landscape development plan for Pūrau Māori Reserve and Pūrau Foreshore Reserve. Council received a submission from Ngāti Wheke on the historic and cultural significance of both reserves. The development plan was put on hold to allow for further discussions to take place.

4.8 Ngāti Wheke were concerned there were artefacts buried on or around the reserve and requested that the Council commission an Archaeological Geomagnetic Report for Pūrau, this was undertaken by Archaeology Solutions Limited dated September 2009 (Bader). Attachment I. The critical finding of that report records that area “as an archaeological site containing most likely occupation remains and urupa.”

4.9 In addition, a private resident in the area provided his own findings in a separate report by GPR Solutions Ltd (Shaw). That provides some Ground Penetrating Radar results and data identifying subsurface features and anomalies. It identifies isolated anomalies and concludes those are assumed to be rocks or sections of tree roots, assumed utility / service pipes an assumed possibly dried up stream.

4.10 Ngāti Wheke commissioned an independent review of both those findings by Frank van der Heijden Senior Archaeologist Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga his conclusions are as follows:

Both reports identify a number of individual anomalies within the Purau Reserve (RES 4622). Bader concludes these possible or likely burial pits based on similar examples elsewhere, an 1860s survey plan, and the traditional knowledge held by tangata whenua about the past use of the subject land as part of an urupa. Shaw assumes these are rocks or sections of tree roots but provides no further justification for this conclusion. It is not supported by evidence obtained during surveys undertaken elsewhere where similar anomalies have been confirmed as such. It also has not considered any other information on the history of the subject land parcel. Finally, it is not clear what, if any, archaeological expertise has been utilised to come to this conclusion, even though the scope of the investigation purports to be to ‘Interprete [sic] if there are any signifficant [sic] subsurface features such as fire pits, graves or previouus [sic] agricultural activity’[1], in other words, whether there is any evidence for subsurface archaeological features.

Therefore, in my opinion, based on Bader’s extensive expertise as an archaeologist undertaking such surveys and the whole set of data presented, combined with the traditional knowledge of the subject property and similar examples elsewhere, it is reasonable to assume the individual anomalies identified are burial sites. No evidence has been presented that makes it at this stage reasonable to assume these are rocks or sections of tree roots. However, as indicated above, the only way to confirm the true nature of these anomalies, is by ground-truthing one or more of these anomalies by undertaking targeted excavations carried out by sufficiently experienced archaeologists.

4.11 The Council commissioned Underground Overground Archaeology in 2019 to review the 2009 Archaeology Solutions Limited report. That review concludes that the methodology and techniques employed in that report was commonplace and an accepted practice. It states:

While there are advances in software in the last decade, the physical data capture method has changed little in this time. Thus, the method utilised is appropriate and still relevant today. Dr Bader has identified that, on the basis of the geomagnetic survey and historical research, that the site and area is considered archaeological under NZ legislation, and that an urupa (burial site) is most probably present.

Dr Bader is an expert in this field and is best placed to interpret the results of the geophysical survey, thus, the results and the interpretation presented in the 2009 report, are unlikely to be challenged by any archaeologist in New Zealand.

Thus, the findings of the Bader 2009 report are still applicable and relevant today.

4.12 All of the above referred to reports can be made available upon request.

4.13 Information provided by a member of the community to the Council regarding historic uses of the Property, and other information around areas in the vicinity suggests that there is uncertainty around the exact location and bounds of the urupā.

4.14 In conclusion while defining and attributing a specific area to an urupa could be questioned there is sufficient evidence to support the position that this site has a culturally significant history and there is recognition of urupā on or around the Property.

4.15 At its meeting on 20 August 2014, the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board decided to:

4.16 Request a report that enables the Board to decide on the reclassification of the Foreshore Reserve at Pūrau, including the Pūrau Māori Reserve.

4.17 The report is to include that the reserves have been surveyed, that papatipu rūnanga have been consulted and to seek the reclassification of the reserves as historic to better reflect the historic and cultural values of the site.

4.18 To provide context Ngāti Wheke has shared some historical information which is included in Attachment C Pūrau Urupā and Attachment D Tiemi Nohomutu.

4.19 In December 2017, the Council, Mahaanui and members of Ngāti Wheke met to discuss the process going forward. At this meeting, it was agreed that the following recommendation contained in part of a larger Cultural Values Report be considered for implementation:

4.20 Pūrau Māori Reserve, 177 Pūrau Avenue, Pūrau (Reserve 4622). The CVR requested that the option to restore ownership of this land parcel to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke be explored. This will involve the revoking of reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.21 On 10 December 2017, Ngāti Wheke Incorporated passed the following resolution at its rūnanga meeting:

4.22 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke request of Christchurch City Council that Pūrau Reserve 4622, BP 15546 (0.1381 ha), 177 Pūrau Drive, currently designated under the Reserves Act be revoked and be granted to Mana Whenua Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke with the title to be registered under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act as a Māori Reservation.

4.23 On 12 February 2018, a Banks Peninsula Community Board seminar was held to discuss the proposal to revoke the reserve status. The Community Board suggested that staff have a drop-in session for Pūrau residents prior to the Community Board meeting to approve the initiation of the Reserves Act 1977 process to revoke reserve status.

4.24 A community drop-in session was held on 7 April 2018 at Pūrau Recreation Ground. The key issues raised at the drop-in session were around public access, ongoing maintenance and whether the site could be reclassified as an historic reserve.

4.25 This culminated in a proposed report to the Community Board meeting of 28 May 2018. This report was considered and left to “lay on the table” with a request that staff provide further information that arose from questions as result of a deputation. Not long after that the Department of Conservation (DOC) indicated that they would not support a revocation of the reserve status. The matter has not been reconsidered as a result as pursuant to s 24(1) of the Reserve Act 1977, the Minister of Conservation makes the final decision on the revocation of a reserve status. Conversations have been ongoing between Ngāti Wheke, the Council and Department of Conservation since then.

4.26 In June 2024, Council staff met with Ngāti Wheke representatives, officers from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the DOC National Manager Land Statutory Management. At this meeting, DOC confirmed support for a proposal to revoke the reserve status to enable the return of the land to Ngāti Wheke should the Council resolve to proceed.

Proposal to return ownership of Pūrau Māori Reserve 177 Pūrau Ave to Ngāti Wheke

4.27 The proposal is to commence the process to address long-standing concerns as to the use and management of the site by returning ownership of the land to Ngāti Wheke so it can be appropriately controlled and managed in light of the cultural significance of the site. A letter is attached from Ngāti Wheke setting out their position in this regard (Attachment E).

4.28 To achieve that outcome, a number of decisions and approvals to commence supporting processes are required. This report seeks the Community Board and Council’s approval of the necessary processes. A process plan is attached (Attachment G). By way of a summary of key issues:

4.28.1 Consultation process: This is necessary to determine community views and as part of the proposed revocation of reserve status.

4.28.2 Revocation of reserve status: If the consultation process finds that transfer is appropriate, revocation of status is necessary to obtain an unencumbered fee simple title capable of transfer. The process plan anticipates running the revocation process currently with consultation. This process includes:

· DOC Commissioner approval of the revocation.

· Advertising.

· Confirmation of consultation with the local rūnanga.

· A record of the Council’s resolution for revocation, including the reasons for revocation.

4.28.3 Exclusive dealing: If the consultation process finds that transfer is appropriate, Ngāti Wheke is the most appropriate owner of this significant site, and it would be inappropriate for the Council to continue as owner, or for any other party to own the site.

4.28.4 Property value: If the consultation process finds that transfer is appropriate, the proposed transfer is for $1. The rationale for value is set out in the letter from Ngāti Wheke (Attachment E). In addition, determining a value would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as there are no alternative uses given the cultural significance of the site. The valuation principles of a willing seller willing buyer would not exist even on a theoretical basis.

4.28.5 Māori Reserve: In order to ensure the appropriate management of the site for its cultural significance, the Council can make it a condition of sale that Ngāti Wheke will initiate a process to apply to the Māori Land Court to obtain designation of 177 Pūrau Avenue as a Māori Reserve under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

4.29 The resolutions are worded such that if no objections, or alternative considerations that may require a change in the process (i.e. anything other than submissions in support of the proposal), are received, then staff can proceed with the transfer. If objections or other matters are raised as part of the consultation that require further consideration, the matter can be referred back to the Community Board to determine the appropriate way forward.

Further background

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

Date	Subject
2009 - 2018	Various meetings, exchanges of information, consultation and conversations.
20/8/2018	Part B Reports for Information - Elected Member Exchange 9.2 Pūrau Reserves Classification

4.31 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting: (If the information session/workshop was open to the public, provide a link to either the agenda for the meeting or the recording of the meeting. If it was closed reference when it occurred.)

Date

Subject

27/7/2024

Community Board Briefing

Purpose was to update the Community Board on the changed position of the Department of Conservation and allow the Community board to provide staff with any information believed to relevant when consulting with the public.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.32.1 Recommended option: Commence the process to consider revocation of the reserve status and transfer the property to Ngāti Wheke.

4.32.2 Status Quo: Do nothing. Not recommended.

4.32.3 Reclassify and retain: Reclassify the reserve and retain ownership in the Council or transfer to Ngāti Wheke as administering body. Not recommended.

4.33 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.33.1 Revoke reserve status only: Under this option the Council would go through the process to revoke the reserve status, resulting in a fee simple unencumbered title. The Council would retain ownership of a fee simple property, which would not recognise the cultural significance of the land to rūnanga. This would not support Ngāti Wheke to regain the appropriate management of a culturally significant site.

4.33.2 Apportioning the site for partial revocation / classification treatment: This option would have to be predicated on identifying and attributing defined areas of the site to specific uses for specific treatment. That is not possible nor aligned with the principle of this consideration which is an acknowledgement that there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that this site is has a culturally significant history and there is recognition of urupā on or around the Property.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.34 Recommended Option: Revoke the reserve status and return by way of transfer the property to Ngāti Wheke.

4.34.1 Option Description: The reserve status is revoked creating an unencumbered fee simple parcel of land capable of transfer from the council to Ngāti Wheke.

4.34.2 Option Advantages:

· Aligns and returns ownership, management and control to the historic rights and use of the property.

· Addresses the cultural insensitivities and inappropriate use of the Property.

· Aligns with Council’s responsibility to administer the Reserves Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in accordance with section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

· There remains adequate and appropriate public space in the area without council retaining the subject site the adjacent Pūrau Recreation Ground (3610m²) is classified as a Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, plus an area of legal road in front of approximately 800m² incorporated into the reserve provide for public open space. This is approximately 80m away from Pūrau Māori Reserve. Pūrau Recreation Ground has a playground, toilet, stream, tree shade, seating and open space providing adequate amenity for the surrounding residential area. In addition, there is the foreshore public space, refer Attachment H for public space plan.

· Reduced maintenance cost and liability to the Council.

· As owner, Ngāti Wheke will be able to apply to have the land set aside as a Māori Reservation under Te Ture Whenua Act 1993. This would appropriately recognise the cultural and historical significance of the site and empower Ngāti Wheke to exercise kaitiaki responsibilities.

4.34.3 Option Disadvantages:

· Some community members are concerned around the possibility of loss of open space and public space/amenities.

4.35 Status Quo: Do nothing. Not recommended.

4.35.1 Option Description: Council retain ownership held under the Reserves Act, managing and controlling the property as a public purpose reserve.

4.35.2 Option Advantages:

· Retaining this as public open space for public purposes would/could be perceived by some members of the community as an advantage.

· The Council could manage the reserve in a way that retains some public purposes while also respecting the cultural significance, e.g. through the provision of signage.

4.35.3 Option Disadvantages:

· Perpetuates the cultural insensitivities and potential for inappropriate use.

· Costs of ownership and management reside with the Council.

· This would not support the Council’s strategic objectives.

· Does not create clarity over management and the appropriate use of the site.

· Does not enable the Council’s to meet its obligations under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it applies to the administration of reserve land.

4.36 Reclassify and retain: Reclassify the reserve and retain ownership in the Council or vest control and management with Ngāti Wheke as an administering body.

4.36.1 Option Description: Reclassifying the reserve to a more aligned use under the Reserves Act e.g. Historic Reserve to reflect the cultural and historic significance of this site. Once the reclassification process is completed, the Council could retain ownership or seek to vest control and management of the reserve in Ngāti Wheke as an administering body.

4.36.2 Option Advantages:

· Reclassification of the reserve so it is no longer a public purpose reserve would better reflect the cultural and historic significance of this site.

· Management of the reserve would be changed to ensure it was appropriate for the type of reserve.

4.36.3 Option Disadvantages:

· Does not address issues of cultural appropriateness in terms of current use of the site.

· Changing the reserve status to “historic” would not properly recognise the immense cultural significance of the site.

· It would not support the appropriate management of the urupā or measures to protect it for future generations.

· May not effectively address control and management for an urupā.

· Ngāti Wheke would not be the owner of the land.

· Would not allow for classification as a Māori Reserve under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.37 The Council’s strategic framework priorities and outcomes.

4.38 The nature and status of the land.

4.39 The history.

4.40 Appropriate ownership, use, control and management.

4.41 Legal and statutory considerations and processes.

4.42 Cultural values.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - Status Quo	Option 3 - Reclassify and retain
Cost to Implement	Staff time to undertake the consultation, revoke the reserve status and undertake legal transfer.	Nil	Staff time to undertake the consultation, revoke the reserve status and undertake legal transfer.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	These are approx. $2,000 p.a. and would represent a saving to council.	Nominal annual maintenance costs approx. $2000 p.a.	Nominal annual maintenance costs approx. $2000 p.a.
Funding Source	Parks budget	Parkes budget	Parks budget
Funding Availability	Parks budget	Parks budget	Parks budget
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If the consultation process confirms that transfer is appropriate, there is risk associated with:

· DOC’s support for the revocation of reserve status. This is being managed through early discussions and engagement in the process. Indications from DOC staff are that they are in support of the proposal.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 This report recommends that the Community Board notes significant issues for the Council’s attention and makes recommendations to the Council to support the proposed process.

6.2.2 The Council retains delegation to make the proposed resolutions recommended in the report, which will commence the process. If no objections are received, the recommended Council resolutions delegate to staff the necessary powers to give effect to the process.

6.2.3 If objections are received as part of the revocation process, a Hearings Panel has delegation to consider submissions/objections (Delegations Register Part D Sub-Part 4 Council Hearings Panels). Staff are aware that there are likely to be parties interested in the issue who may make objections or submissions, however, it is anticipated that there will not be many objections/submissions. Given the cost and current scheduling limitations associated with raising a Hearings Panel, the Council can instead delegate the power to hear and determine submissions to the Community Board, who have the necessary knowledge and background of the site.

6.2.4 Note that while the Community Boad has a delegation to declare and change reserve purposes, they do not have the delegation to resolve to revoke reserve statuses (see Part D – Subpart 1 of the Delegations Register.

6.3 Other statutory and legal considerations are addressed below:

6.3.1 Reserves Act 1977: The reserve status revocation process as per section 24, which requires:

· The Council, as administering body of the reserve, considers that the reserve status should be revoked. The reasons for this must be stated in the resolution (s 24(1)(b).

· The Council notifies the “Commissioner”, who is a staff member of DOC who has been delegated authority to consider status revocations. The Commissioner must then in turn notify the revocation in the Gazette (s 24(1)).

· The Council publicly notifies the proposed revocation using the prescribed notification process: ss 24(2)(b) and 119. Any person claiming to be affected is given the opportunity to object. The timeframe for objections is 1 month from notification. The Council then must consider the objections and resolve whether to continue with the revocation and provide the objections and resolution to the Commissioner (s 24(2)(c)).

· The Minister for Conservation must then consider the proposed revocation, objections, and resolution of the Council (s 24(e)).

Further consideration has been given to the different considerations/limitations which apply when revoking the reserve status of reserves of different purposes. The property was designated as a “public purpose reserve”. This is not a recognised purpose in the Reserves Act, so it is assumed for the purposes of the recommended process that there is no designated purpose. However, if we are wrong and a “public purpose” reserve is the same as a “local purpose” reserve under the Reserves Act, then the requirements are the same. Note in particular s 24(7) which provides that the s 24(2) process does not apply to local purpose reserves unless the reserve is vested in the Council pursuant to various historic legislation – this reserve was vested in the Council pursuant to one of those pieces of legislation (s 24(7)) – i.e. the s 24(2) process listed above does apply.

Section 25 of the Reserves Act 1977 prescribes that where a reserve’s status is revoked, the land must pass to the Crown if the land originally derived title from the Crown. This section does not apply because the Council’s ownership of the property in this case is not “deriving title from the Crown”. Section 25(4) provides that the title is not derived from the Crown where it was acquired by the Crown under section 13 of the Land Subdivision Counties Act 1946, but later vested in the relevant council – in the case, a precursor to the Council, the Council of Mount Herbert by s 44 of the Counties Amendment Act 1961 and Gazette Notice 570897 in 1962.

6.3.2 Local Government Act 2002:

· In accordance with s 78 LGA, the proposed consultation and reserve status revocation process will enable the Council to consider the views and preferences of affected/interested parties and is proportionate to determination of the level of significance of this issue.

· This report otherwise meets the Council’s decision-making requirements under ss 78-82A of the Act, including consideration reasonably practicable options and Māori contribution to the decision-making process.

· If the consultation process determines that transfer is appropriate, there are restrictions on the Council disposing of property that has been endowed upon it under s 140 LGA. In order to do so, the Council must satisfy itself that the proceeds of sale will be put to a use that is consistent with the original endowment of the property to the Council and the Council has made attempts to notify, and provide opportunity to comment, to the donor of the property or her successor. The Council must also notify the Minister of Land Information and the Minister in Charge of Waitangi Negotiations (s 141(c)).

6.3.3 Public Works Act 1981 - Section 40

· Section 40 of the Public Works Act (PWA) requires that where land is held by the Council for a public work and it is no longer required for that public work, or any other public work, then, subject to certain exceptions, the land must be “offered back” at market value to the person from whom it was acquired, or their successor, or where it was Crown derived and therefore would be required to be returned to the Crown.

· This matter has been researched and it has been determined that the land is not held for a public work within the definition of the Public Works Act 1981. There is therefore no offer back obligation under the Public Works Act 1981.

6.4 This report has been reviewed by the councils Legal Services Unit.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. In particular the proposal meets the framework objectives of:

6.5.1 The Community outcomes - which show a clear alignment to the four aspects of wellbeing as set out in the LGA (economic, cultural, social, environmental) and Te Tiriti partnership.

6.6 The proposal and matter considered in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the local nature of the matter. The relatively small population of potentially affected parties and geographically constrained area. The Property is of high cultural and historic significance to Ngāti Wheke.

6.7 The proposal is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.8 This is a not a planned activity/project although it has been a topic of concern and conversation for years. It is fortuitous that a unique opportunity has now evolved through the relationship and conversations to resolve this long outstanding issue in a mutually beneficial way.

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

6.10 Internal Services – 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

· That is to provide property solutions on a project basis that service the Council to achieve its strategic objectives while also safeguarding the Council in terms of compliance in a balanced and considered way.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 The considerations in this report have evolved from conversations with Ngāti Wheke whose views are set out in this report and in their letter to the Chief Executive in Attachment E. Some other community views/preferences/concerns were raised through the community drop-in session on 7 April 2018 around public access, ongoing maintenance, and whether reclassification as a historic reserve was appropriate.

6.12 The current community views and preferences will be established through the Reserves Act and Council engagement processes set out in this report.

6.13 The decision affects Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board and this report seeks the Community Boards recommendations to the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 The decisions involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

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

6.16 This proposal has been developed in collaboration with Ngāti Wheke to rectify the inappropriate use, control and management of the site, and to ensure compliance with the partnership priorities. The contents, actions and decisions are supported by Ngāti Wheke.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.17 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.17.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change by empowering Ngāti Wheke as owner of this significant site to facilitate the appropriate adaptation of the site to climate effects. This is in accordance with Kia tūroa te Ao | Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy principles including:

· Principle 1: Honour Te Tiriti by actively protecting Māori interests and engaging on climate issues,

· Goal 2: Understanding and preparing for impacts by empowering Ngāti Wheke,

· Goal 4: We are guardians of our environment and taonga by empowering Ngāti Wheke as kaitiaki of the site.

· Programme 1: Building foundations – Partnership and Resourcing – Implementing a ‘just transition lens’ for use across all programmes by supporting the active management by the appropriate kaitiaki of land and taonga most vulnerable to climate change.

6.17.2 Have no impact on emissions reductions initiatives.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Community Board and Council agree to the recommendations in this report, staff will commence the consultation process to consider revocation of the reserve status and transfer ownership to Ngāti Wheke.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A Engagement Outline	24/1274351
b	Attachment B - Site and location map	18/326860
c	Attachment C Purau Urupa	18/322572
d	Attahcment D Tiemi Nohomutu II - Ngāti Wheke	18/322574
e	Attachment E Letter of request from Ngāti Wheke	24/1234552
f	Attachment G Process Plan	24/1115309
g	Attachment H Public Space Plan	24/1234920
h	Attachment I - Archaeological Geomagnetic Report for Purau - September 2009 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1446538

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Will Wijnveld - Associate Legal Counsel

Sophie Meares - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Paul Devlin - Head Ranger Port Hills & Banks Peninsula

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Takapūneke Reserve - Lease of Red House Property
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/970453
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
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 seek the approval of Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board to enter into a further lease agreement with the current tenant to reside in the Red House property at 281 Beach Road for a term of two years.

1.2 The report is staff generated to support the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan policy 5.16(3), (4), (6) (refer Attachment A) and the Takapūneke Conservation Report section 12 The Red House.

1.3 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board resolved on 13 June 2022 to grant a lease with the tenant for a period of two years. The lease is expiring in September 2024 and officers support a further lease term to allow time to consolidate plans on the next phases of work set out in the reserve management plan and conservation report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the Takapūneke Reserve - Lease of Red House Property Report.

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

3. Acknowledge that the inclusion of a residential tenancy was not contemplated in the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan and that it supports that the continued interim use of the Red House should include keeping a residential tenant in place to ensure that the property is not left vacant and continues to be well maintained including upkeep of the gardens.

4. Recommends that the Council agrees to continue to depart from policy and deal unilaterally with the current tenant, Steven Searle.

5. Conditional on recommendation 4 above:

a. Authorise staff to carry out public consultation in accordance with Section 119-120 of the Reserves Act 1977 for the granting of the lease.

b. Request that in the event that any objections are received on the proposed lease that cannot be satisfied, that staff follow the procedure under the Reserves Act 1977 to convene a Reserves Act Hearings Panel to consider any such objections and make a recommendation to the Board for a decision.

6. Resolve in the event that there are no objections received on the proposed lease that cannot be satisfied, that the Community Board:

a. Request the Chief Executive exercise her delegation from the Minister of Conservation to give consent to the granting of the lease in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

b. Approve the granting of a lease to the proposed tenant, for a period of two years for the purpose of a residential tenancy at the Red House, Lot 2 Deposited Plan 73274 at 281 Beach Road, Akaroa held for the purpose of an Historic Reserve subject to section 58(A) of the Reserves Act 1977 at an annual rent of $15,600 per annum including GST.

7. Request the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A lease was granted in 2022 for a residential tenancy at the Red House on Takapūneke Reserve. The lease expires in September 2024.

3.2 The current tenant has expressed a desire to continue leasing the dwelling while the Council finalises the future use of the property.

3.3 Officers are supportive of continuing the lease with the current tenant and have had no issues with the current tenancy. The dwelling and gardens are well-maintained and regular inspections carried out to ensure compliance with the lease conditions.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Red House land has been classified a Historic Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The residential lease of the reserve under section 58A Reserves Act 1977 was not anticipated in the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan and the Council is therefore required to publicly notify its intention to enter into a lease agreement.

4.2 Ōnuku Rūnanga as mana whenua are supportive of the decision to enter into a lease agreement with the proposed tenant, who has specialist skills and experience to maintain the buildings and gardens at the reserve.

4.3 The term of the lease is for a period of two years, which will provide more time for the Rūnanga, Council and community to discuss the future use of the property and seek funding for the maintenance of the buildings and gardens.

4.4 The Council is commencing work on formation of a carpark in the reserve area adjoining the Red House. There may be times when contractors will be required to use the tenant's driveway. The carpark area does not form part of the lease area to the tenant and officers expect full co-operation between both parties.

A aerial view of a house

Description automatically generated

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Grant a new lease to the current tenant.

· Operational Staff maintain the buildings and gardens.

· Publicly tender for a new tenant.

· Leave property vacant.

4.6 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.6.1 The Parks Unit’s Banks Peninsula operational staff maintain the heritage buildings and amenity gardens – Not Recommended

· Advantage: - The house and gardens are maintained to the standard required in compliance with the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan and the Takapūneke Conservation Report.

· Disadvantage: - The Parks Unit’s operational staff do not have the resources (staff, budget or time) to take on the additional work to maintain the house and garden.

Disadvantage: - The maintenance of the other parks and reserves on the peninsula would fall below the required levels of service if the parks operational staff were required to maintain the amenity garden and heritage buildings on the site.

4.6.2 Publicly tender to lease of the property for a tenant – Not Recommended.

· Advantages – There may be more suitable applicant(s) willing to lease the Red House and carry out the required maintenance to preserve the dwelling and property.

· Disadvantage – It may be difficult to find an applicant that has the skills and experience to maintain historic structures and buildings and has the knowledge and experience to maintain the ornamental amenity garden. The applicant will need to have a cultural awareness of mana whenua’s association with the site including the surrounding wāhi tapu reserve.

Disadvantage – the Red House was purchased because of its significance to mana whenua and the events that occurred on the reserve in the 1800s. It could be difficult to find an applicant that understands the significance of the location and association with mana whenua.

Disadvantage – It could take another two or three months to find a suitable tenant after going through the process. There is no guarantee once the process is completed that there would be a more suitable candidate.

Disadvantage - The property will be vacant for another two to three months and susceptible to vandalism and deterioration. There will be additional unplanned maintenance costs to the Parks operational budgets.

4.6.3 Leave the Red House vacant – Not Recommended

· Advantages – There are no advantages.

· Disadvantage – Additional funding that has not been included in the Parks Units operational budget would be required to cover the maintenance of the gardens and buildings.

Disadvantage – The property and garden would be susceptible to vandalism and damage as the property is isolated from any of its neighbours.

Disadvantage – The Council would not receive $15,600.00 per annum income from the lease.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.7 Preferred Option: Grant a further lease to current tenant.

4.7.1 Option Description: Grant a further lease.

4.7.2 Option Advantages

· Resource Limitations: The Council lacks the resources to maintain the historic buildings or amenity gardens within its current budget. Renting out the property provides a temporary solution to this issue.

· Skilled Tenant: The current tenant is skilled and experienced in maintaining historic sites and amenity gardens. They also have knowledge of cultural values and work well with mana whenua, which is essential given the site's cultural significance.

· Temporary Measure: Renting out the property serves as a temporary holding measure while the future use is discussed, and funding is sourced for maintenance.

4.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· Risk of Damage: There is concern among staff that advertising the property publicly for rental may lead to a high risk of damage to the amenity gardens or historic buildings due to an unknown tenant's limited knowledge or skills in maintaining these items.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.8 Given these considerations, it seems the current tenant offers valuable expertise and cultural awareness that aligns well with the site's significance.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Approximately $600 for newspaper advertising
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Reactive maintenance
Funding Source	Parks Operational Budgets
Funding Availability	Parks Operational Budgets
Impact on Rates	No impact on Rates

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is minimal if any risks associated with this decision, which is in alignment with the policies in the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan and within the delegated authority of the Community Board.

6.2 There are no substantive or significant changes associated with the decision to approve the lease agreement to the current tenant for two years.

6.3 Mitigating the risk of damage to the property has been addressed through clear communication and support of guidelines for maintenance.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The Reserves Act 1977, section 58(A) - the administering body may, with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation and now delegated to the Council’s Chief Executive, grant leases to any person for domestic residential purposes or for the carrying on of any activity, trade, business or occupation in any building within the reserve area for any such purpose.

6.4.2 In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

· The land has been correctly identified.

· The necessary statutory processes have been followed.

· The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act.

· The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one.

· Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tāngata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease will comply with the Minister’s requirements.

6.4.3 Delegations – Community Boards have the delegation to grant leases of historic reserves in accordance with section 58(A) of the Reserves Act.

6.4.4 Lease Policy - Dealing Unilaterally

· The Council previously approved the unsolicited proposal to lease the Red House (June 2022).

· The matter of dealing unilaterally and accepting the unsolicited proposal is reviewed in Attachment B.

· Officers are supportive of the proposal.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The legal consideration is:

Correct application of the provisions pursuant to section 6.4 above.

6.5.2 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit. The matter of the preparation of the lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

6.5.3 The lease documentation will be prepared by the Council's Legal Services team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Resilient Communities - Active participation in civic life:

· The Council establishes, maintains and improves opportunities for Māori to participate in decision-making.

· Māori are involved in decision-making from the beginning, in areas of mutual interest, especially in significant decisions relating to the environment, social and economic recovery.

6.6.2 Resilient Communities – Celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation:

· Our heritage is a taonga and should be collectively valued and protected, celebrated, and shared.

· Sites and places of cultural significance are respected and preserved.

6.6.3 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected, which is low as the property is not open to the public.

6.6.4 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies being the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan adopted by the Council 2018, Policy 5.16 (3), (4) and (6).

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.10.1 Appropriate use and occupation of parks is facilitated - Processing of the application is started within ten working days of receiving application – 95%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The community was consulted on the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan that includes the policies to maintain the Red House gardens and buildings.

6.10 The continued placement of a tenant in the Red House is not contemplated in the Takapūneke Reserve Management Plan and therefore notification in accordance with the requirements of section 58(A) of the Reserves Act 1977 (to lease a Historic Reserve) must be undertaken.

6.11 The Council must consider any submission(s) received to the notification and a Reserves Hearings Panel may be established to hear the submission(s).

6.12 Ōnuku Rūnanga and the Takapūneke Reserve Co-Governance Group are supportive of a tenant for the Red House for a set term while discussions on the future use of the Red House are undertaken.

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

6.13.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.14 The Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board view has not been solicited in this instance, however the Community Board did approve the earlier granting of the lease in June 2022.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.15 The decision involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

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

6.17 The Red House was originally part of the land occupied by Tē Maiharanui’s trading post with the Europeans in the early 1800s and holds significant cultural and historic values for Ōnuku Rūnanga.

6.18 Ōnuku Rūnanga (Riki Tainui) has been contacted by the Council's Te Aporei / Principal Advisor and advised that we may move forward on the lease and no further consultation with the Rūnanga is required on this matter.

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 No significant impacts are anticipated as there are no changes to the daily operation and maintenance of the residential property.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Public notification of the intention to grant a new lease to appear in the local newspaper(s).

7.2 Preparation of a new lease document and execution by both parties.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Section 5.16 The Red House Takapuneke Reserve Management Plan	24/977471
b	The Red House - Factors to Consider When Dealing Unilaterally	24/977472

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

12. Review of Gambling and TAB Venues Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1314864
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst Sharna O’Neil, Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on the review of the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy (the policy) so it can make a decision to retain, replace or amend the existing policy.

1.2 The Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020 require the Council to have a policy on class 4 gambling and TAB venues, respectively. Class 4 gambling refers to electronic gaming machines (commonly referred to as pokies) outside of a casino. TAB venues are also known as TAB stores or standalone TABs; the Council’s policy does not apply to any other form of TAB.

1.3 The Council has a single policy covering both class 4 gambling venues and TAB venues. The respective Acts require the policy to be reviewed at least every three years. The Council’s policy has been in force since 2004 and has been retained without change through the reviews undertaken in the intervening years.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Review of Gambling and TAB Venues Policy 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. Retains the existing Gambling and TAB Venues Policy, without amendment, for a further three years.

4. Agrees to lodge the letter (Attachment C to this report) to the Minister of Internal Affairs to advocate for gambling reform.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council must have a policy on class 4 gambling venues and TAB venues, stating if new venues can be established and where they can be located. Legislation requires that these policies are reviewed every three years. The policy was last reviewed in 2021 and is due for review this year.

3.2 The Council has had its current policy in place since 2004. In summary, the policy provides for the following:

3.2.1 No new class 4 gambling venues can be established in the city nor can existing class 4 venues increase their number of machines (commonly referred to as a “sinking lid” policy).

3.2.2 No provision for the relocation of class 4 gambling venues.

3.2.3 Clubs with class 4 machines can merge and have up to 18 machines.

3.2.4 New TAB venues can establish subject to district plan requirements.

Review findings

3.3 As part of this review process, staff have prepared a detailed background paper (Attachment A) and overview of policy options (Attachment B), which provide information on the current state of class 4 and TAB gambling, consider the social impacts gambling has on the Christchurch district and summarise the policy options available to the Council. These reports are designed to be read in conjunction with this paper.

3.4 The key findings of the review are:

3.4.1 The number of class 4 gaming machines, class 4 gambling venues and TAB venues are continuing to decline at a slow rate.

3.4.2 Christchurch has more class 4 gaming machines per venue and more class 4 gaming machines per head of population compared to national averages.

3.4.3 Class 4 expenditure, or money lost by gamblers, has been relatively steady in Christchurch, despite a reduction in machine numbers.

3.4.4 Christchurch continues to have significantly higher per capita rates of people seeking assistance for problem gambling, compared to national averages.

3.4.5 There does not appear to be a link between the density of machines and expenditure per machine. However, research does show an association between density of machines and rates of problem gambling. While fewer machines have not resulted in reduced gambling expenditure, the evidence indicates that as the number of machines declines, there is a consequent decline in the amount of problem gambling.

3.5 The following information session/workshops briefed the Council on the approach to and findings of the review:

Date	Subject
19 March 2024	Upcoming Review of Gambling and TAB Venues Policy
30 July 2024	Gambling and TAB Venues Policy Review 2024 – Policy Options

3.6 At the Council workshop on 30 July, elected members made several requests for information from staff. This information was provided to councillors by way of a memo on Friday 16 August 2024.

3.7 On the balance of current evidence discussed below, staff recommend that a continuation of the sinking lid policy with no relocation provision is the best approach to reducing class 4 gambling opportunities in Christchurch. Staff also recommend retaining the TAB venue policy without amendment given the limited role the Council has in TAB gambling, and the declining TAB venue numbers in Christchurch.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Gambling Act 2003

4.1 It is a legislative requirement under the Gambling Act 2003 (section 101 and 102) for territorial authorities to have a policy on class 4 venues and for this policy to be reviewed every three years.

4.2 The Gambling Act applies to all forms of gambling except for race and sports betting which is covered by the Racing Industry Act 2020. Class 4 gambling is gambling on electronic gaming machines (“pokies”) which are not located in casinos. The purposes of the Gambling Act relevant to a class 4 venue policy are:

4.2.1 control the growth of gambling;

4.2.2 prevent and minimise harm from gambling, including problem gambling; and

4.2.3 facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

4.3 A territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy:

4.3.1 must specify whether or not class 4 venues may be established in the territorial authority’s district and, if so, where they may be located; and

4.3.2 may specify any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at a class 4 venue; and

4.3.3 may include a relocation policy.

Class 4 Venues: Current Policy

4.4 The current policy does not allow for an increase in class 4 gambling venues or class 4 machine numbers except when two or more corporate societies are merging and require Ministerial approval to operate up to the statutory limit in accordance with section 95 (4) of the Gambling Act 2003. The total number of machines that may operate at a venue must not exceed 18 machines.

Racing Industry Act 2020

4.5 It is a legislative requirement under the Racing Industry Act 2020 (s96 and 97) for territorial authorities to have a policy on TAB Venues and to review the policy every three years.

4.6 The policy must specify whether or not new TAB venues may be established in the district and, if so, where they may be located. In determining its policy on whether TAB venues may be established and where any TAB venues may be located, the territorial authority may have regard to any relevant matters, including:

4.6.1 the characteristics of the district and parts of the district;

4.6.2 the location of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, and other community facilities; and

4.6.3 the cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district.

TAB Venues: Current Policy

4.7 The Council will grant consent to TAB New Zealand to establish a TAB venue provided all other statutory requirements, including District Plan requirements, are met.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.8.1 Retain the current policy settings.

4.8.2 Amend policy to cap class 4 venue and machine numbers

4.8.3 Amend policy to allow class 4 venue relocations

4.8.4 Amend policy to remove the club merger clause

4.8.5 Amend policy and introduce a sinking lid policy approach for TAB Venues.

4.9 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.9.1 Amend policy to remove all restrictions on class 4 venues other than those provided by the Act.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

Policy options: Class 4 Gambling Venues

4.10 Option1: Sinking Lid (current approach): A sinking lid policy is the most restrictive policy a council has the mandate to put in place. A sinking lid policy seeks to reduce the number of venues through attrition. No new venue consents are granted and if an existing venue ceases to operate, no new venue can apply for consent to replace it.

4.11 Option 2: Cap on total machine numbers and/or venue numbers: This policy option would place an upper limit on the number of gaming venues and/or number of machines in Christchurch. The Council could only issue a new venue consent if there is space within the cap. Depending on where the cap is set, this option could:

4.11.1 allow some growth in venues and/or machines if the cap was higher than existing numbers of venues/machines;

4.11.2 set current levels as the maximum and prohibit any further growth, which would enable new venues to open only when an existing venue closes, or;

4.11.3 set a cap lower than current numbers and no consents would be granted until the numbers fall below the cap set.

4.12 A cap on total machine and/or venue numbers could also, in effect, enable a transfer provision. Depending on how the policy provisions were structured, corporate societies could move from one venue to another if the cap limit had not been reached. A venue would only be allowed to have nine machines at the new location, under this policy option.

4.13 Option 3: Allow class 4 relocations: A venue or machine relocation policy enables a corporate society to either move to a new location and retain the conditions of its existing venue consent, and/or move all its machines from one venue to another, within the parameters of the Gambling Act and Council policy[2]. A relocation provision can also include restrictions on the circumstances under which a relocation would be consented.

4.14 Option 4: Prohibit clubs from merging: This policy option would remove the current provision that allows two or more clubs to merge with up to 18 machines. Clubs with class 4 gambling machines would no longer be permitted to merge.

Consideration of class 4 gambling policy options

4.15 The Council’s current policy continues to result in a reduction of class 4 gambling availability over time. Given that Christchurch has a higher number of gambling machines per head of population and higher rates of problem gambling prevalence per capita compared to the national average, it is considered appropriate to continue to focus on reducing gambling opportunities (that is, the number of venues and machines) throughout the city. A cap on venue and/or machine numbers would likely slow the reduction of class 4 gambling availability. Literature supports the use of a sinking lid to reduce class 4 gambling expenditure[3].

4.16 Allowing relocations would be a “softening” of the Council’s current policy approach and could considerably slow down the reduction in the number of venues under a sinking lid policy approach. While a relocation policy could theoretically result in less venues in areas of high deprivation, councils cannot force a venue to relocate out of a high deprivation community - the provision would just give licence holders the mechanism to do so.

4.17 Feedback from problem gambling service providers has been that relocation provisions simply shift the problem into another community. There is limited research on the impact of relocation policies, but a study found that adding a single venue into an area which did not have any electronic gaming machines increased problem gambling more than increasing venues in an area with existing machines[4]. Additionally, class 4 gambling expenditure data by deprivation score does not reflect a clear relationship between deprivation and expenditure; it is possible that allowing deprivation-based relocations will not decrease gambling-related harm in the district.

4.18 With respect to club mergers, staff cannot find any record of clubs having merged in the past, so this is not a provision with significant (or any) uptake. Amending this clause would likely have little impact on the number of machines and venues in Christchurch. Furthermore, there are only seven clubs in Christchurch, six of which are licensed to have 18 machines (one with 12). This means allowing two clubs to merge could actually reduce machine numbers, so we suggest there is no need to prohibit mergers as a reduction in machines is aligned with the intent of the current policy.

4.19 On the balance of current evidence, staff recommend a continuation of the sinking lid policy with no relocation provision (option 1) as the best approach to contribute to reducing gambling harm by limiting class 4 gambling opportunities in Christchurch.

Policy options: TAB Venues

4.20 Option 1: New TAB Venues may be established (current approach): This policy option allows new TAB venues to establish in Christchurch. Under this option, Council could choose to amend the policy to place restrictions on the location of where new venues may establish.

4.21 Option 2: No new TAB Venues: This policy option would not allow new TAB venues to be established in Christchurch. The Council would have a sinking lid on TAB venues and as a venue closes it would not be replaced.

Consideration of TAB Venue policy options

4.22 There has not been a proliferation of TAB venues under the permissive policy in place over the last 20 years, nor is it expected there would be in the next three years should the current policy be rolled over. When the current policy was first introduced, Christchurch had 10 TAB venues; there are now only three.

4.23 Comparatively, TAB products (race and sports betting) have a low prevalence of being the preferred method of gambling for problem gamblers. Limitations in the data mean it is impossible to tell the level of harm caused by TAB stores, compared to pub TABs, self-service kiosks or online TAB gambling (for which Council has no regulatory role).

4.24 Staff recommend the Council retain the status quo (option 1) as the Council’s regulatory role and ability to influence the availability of TAB gambling is limited to standalone TAB venues, of which numbers are declining. As the Council has no regulatory role with respect to the other forms of TAB gambling, the effect of a policy change on overall TAB gambling in Christchurch is likely be minimal.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The cost of reviewing this policy has been met through existing operational budgets.

5.2 Should the Council decide to make any changes to the current policy, the Council must consult on a draft policy using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. This would primarily require staff time, again met through existing operational budgets. There would also be some small costs associated with the SCP, which have not been fully scoped.

5.3 As the Council does not grant consent for new class 4 gambling licences and standalone TAB venues are not the preferred retail outlet, there is currently little ongoing costs associated with this policy. Should the policy settings change, the policy may require additional resources (staff time) to implement.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 While the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy is legislatively required to be reviewed every three years, the policy settings can be re-considered at any time.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020 to have a policy on class 4 gambling and TAB venues, respectively.

6.2.2 The Council has the authority to adopt policies and has not delegated this to a committee of Council.

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. The primary aim of the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy is to minimise problem gambling and gambling related harm in the Christchurch community, noting the detrimental impact problem gambling has – not just on the gambler, but on their friends, family and wider community.

6.4.2 Is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance reflects that while the decision is of significant interest to some organisations and groups, the decision is easily reversed and creates little cost to Council. Retaining the policy without amendment does not require a SCP or further engagement beyond what has been undertaken with stakeholders.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Staff have undertaken targeted engagement with corporate societies and problem gambling service providers to obtain stakeholder views on the policy. Findings are below.

Class 4 Venue Policy

6.8 In general, corporate societies opposed the current class 4 gambling policy settings, regarded the sinking lid policy as a ‘blunt instrument’ which had been ineffective at reducing gambling harm, and suggested it had limited the ability for corporate societies to provide grants to the community. They asked the Council to move to a cap on class 4 gambling venue numbers and introduce a relocation policy.

6.9 Problem gambling service providers generally supported the current class 4 policy settings, but raised some ways the policy could be strengthened. These included being explicit in the policy in not allowing relocations and not allowing mergers.

TAB Venue Policy

6.10 Not every submitter commented on the TAB venue component of the policy. The corporate societies who did comment expressed support for the current policy settings but noted the inconsistency in how class 4 and TAB gambling are currently treated.

6.11 Problem gambling service providers were opposed to this component of the policy as it could result in increased gambling opportunities. They recommended that we have a sinking lid on TABs.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.

6.13 Māori are overrepresented in problem gambling and gambling-related harm statistics. Problem gambling service providers continue to put significant effort into addressing the disproportionate burden of gambling harm experienced by Māori.

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 the report is specifically rolling over the Council’s policy on gambling venues.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the recommendations are accepted, staff will update the adoption date on the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy webpage on our website to reflect the decision made today.

7.2 The letter to the Minister will be signed by the mayor and sent to the Minister.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	2024 Gambling Venue Policy Review - Background Paper & Social Assessment Paper	24/1415302	135
b ⇩	2024 Gambling Venue Policy Review – Discussion of Policy Options	24/1265750	163
c ⇩	Letter for Minister of Internal Affairs on gambling reform	24/1419582	168

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

13. 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1091388
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Matthew Pratt, Community Facilities and Activation Manager, Community Support and Partnerships; Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, Property Consultancy
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 seek a decision regarding the future use of the Council owned land and buildings at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

1.2 The Council approved the sale of the land and buildings at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road in June 2021. A Notice of Motion, approved by Council at its 1 March 2023 meeting (CNCL/2023/00025), required staff to:

‘Put on hold the commencement of the sale of 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road, Hornby for at least 6 months to allow time for the community to refine their work on alternative options, including community ownership and operation of part or full of the facility, noting that there has been insufficient time for this to occur in a robust and genuine manner’.

1.3 This report responds to, and summarises the outcomes arising from, the 1 March Notice of Motion (CNCL/2023/00025).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options 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. Notes that in line with the resolution (CNCL/2023/00025) from the Council’s 1 March 2023 meeting regarding Item 13, the community has had at least 6 months to refine their work on alternative options, including community ownership and operation of part or full of the facility.

4. Notes that neither of the two community proposals provide for sustainable, financially viable, no cost to ratepayer solutions.

5. Agrees that having fulfilled the intent of the resolution (CNCL/2023/00025) from the 1 March 2023 meeting regarding Item 13, to proceed with the commencement of the sale of the property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

6. Notes that staff will work with the community groups to help meet their needs at other Council owned locations.

7. Requests staff to keep the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board informed through existing regular reporting on progress to find locations for the community groups.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The sale of the Council owned property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road was approved by Council in June 2021.

3.2 A subsequent Expression of Interest process designed to seek interest from parties prepared to take over ownership of the property identified some community interest but failed to secure any sustainable, financially viable, community-based proposals.

3.3 Interest was received from several commercial entities interested in clearing the site for development as social / affordable housing.

3.4 Following a Notice of Motion, approved by Council at its 1 March 2023 meeting (CNCL/2023/00025), plans to sell the property were suspended to provide community groups with a further opportunity to submit robust proposals to own and operate the property.

3.5 Proposals for the future use of the land and buildings were invited on the basis that they would be initiated and actioned at no cost to Council.

3.6 Two proposals were received on behalf of a coalition of Hornby community groups, one from Hornby Community MenzShed Inc (MenzShed) and one from the Tongan Youth Trust (TYT).

3.7 The proposal from the TYT was discounted by Council staff, principally due to the lack of a feasible, sustainable, business and financial plan.

3.8 The MenzShed proposal seeks ownership of one of the two existing buildings (the Hall) and only part of the site (151 Gilberthorpes Road). It is heavily dependent on external funding and significant investment from Council sourced from the sale of 153 Gilberthorpes Road. The proposal will not be at ‘no cost to Council’. Furthermore, the proposal requires the Hall to remain vacant for up to three years pending fund-raising for, and repairs to, the building.

3.9 As such, the MenzShed proposal is not supported by staff and the sale of the property in the open market is recommended.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Context

4.1 At its Long-Term Plan meeting on 21 June 2021, the Council approved the sale of the land and buildings at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

4.2 The property (the land and the Hall and Barracks buildings) continued to be tenanted until its closure in January 2022. It has remained vacant since then and was subject to fire damage in August 2022.

4.3 A subsequent Expression of Interest (EOI) process towards the end of 2022 sought proposals from parties interested in taking over the ownership of the property on an as is where is, at no cost to Council, basis. This resulted in one community-based submission being received from the TYT as lead agency for a coalition of Hornby community groups.

4.4 Four other EOI’s were received from commercial entities interested in clearing the site for development as social / affordable housing.

4.5 Following evaluation, the TYT submission was declined principally because it lacked a robust, financially sustainable business case. It was also considered that the coalition’s property requirements could be satisfied in other existing Council owned community facilities.

4.6 Subsequent plans to initiate the sale of the property were suspended following the Council’s approval of a Notion of Motion at its 1 March 2023 meeting (CNCL/2023/00025) which required staff to:

4.7 The TYT and MenzShed have subsequently presented two alternative EOI proposals on behalf of the coalition of Hornby community groups, the review and evaluation of which is the subject of this report.

The Property

Land

4.8 The property is situated on the corner of Gilberthorpes Road and Kaniere Avenue in Hei Hei. Access is currently off Gilberthorpes Road. The fee simple site has a land area of 3146m2 and is held in two titles as outlined in Figure 1 below:

151 Gilberthorpes Road - Part Lot 1 DP 9514 and Part Lot 1 DP 15320 (CB674/99) – 2245m2.

153 Gilberthorpes Road – Lot 2 DP 20850 (CB6C/339) – 901m2.

A close-up of a map

Description automatically generated

4.9 Both titles are subject to a section 37 Building Act 1991 notation and are held contiguously. If one title is to be developed independently of the other cancellation of the section 37 certificate is required. A new survey / subdivision consent is not required.

Buildings

4.10 There are two buildings situated on the site - shown as A and B in Figure 2 above.

4.11 Hall Building (A): a single storey, steel portal frame building with reinforced and filled concrete masonry walls. Constructed circa 1960 and comprising a main hall with ancillary office and kitchen space and rear toilet block. The hall (excluding the rear toilet amenities) has a gross floor area of approximately 180m2.

4.12 Administration (Barracks) Building: originally three linked single storey former barrack buildings of weatherboard construction dating from the 1940’s and providing office and toilet facilities. The building traverses both titles (151 and 153 Gilberthorpes Road).

Historical Use of the Site

4.13 The land and buildings were acquired by the Council from The Presbyterian Church Property Trustees in the late 1990’s for use as a multicultural centre in response to a community needs analysis. The property never really operated as envisaged and has remained vacant since the departure of the last tenant (Te Puawaitanga o Ōtautahi) in January 2022.

Planning Context

4.14 Key planning issues associated with the site include:

· flat site, categorised TC1 Grey land, frontages to Gilberthorpes Road and Kaniere Avenue.

· zoned Residential Suburban. Situated in a predominantly residential area.

· the usual services are available at the property boundary.

· the wider site is suitable for intensive development.

· permitted activities include housing, educational and spiritual activities, welfare and community garden activities, social housing, multi-unit residential complexes and retirement villages.

· resource consent may not be required for community or MenzShed purposes. This would be dependent on the nature of the activities and design proposed for the site.

· ECan’s Listed Land Use Register has no hazardous activities and industries noted on this site.

Current Physical Status of the Land and Buildings

4.15 Both buildings have been vacant and fenced off since January 2022.

4.16 They are both generally suitable for occupation in terms of the structural code. However, both are uninsulated, have no current warrant of fitness (WoF) and require significant works to be completed to meet a healthy building standard to achieve building and fire code compliance and consent prior to re-occupation.

4.17 A recent assessment of the works required, and the associate costs, for both buildings is appended as Attachment A.

4.18 Hall Building: the repair costs are estimated at $360,000. A significant portion of this cost is associated with the demolition and rebuild of the rear toilet block and general site works. It should be noted that the cost summary refers to several significant items which are excluded from this indicative cost estimate. As an aside the indicative replacement cost for the building has been estimated at around $800,000.

4.19 Administration (Barracks) Building: in August 2022 part of the building was damaged by fire and demolished (shown cross-hatched in Figure 2 above). The remainder of the building consists of old, semi-temporary, construction which is in very poor condition. A complete strip-out and refit would be required to meet current code requirements at an estimated indicative repair cost in the order of $1,040,000.

4.20 The estimated timeframe (excluding design and consenting) for completing the repair and compliance works to either of the buildings to enable re-occupation is in the order of 6 to 9 months.

4.21 An estimated cost to demolish each building is in the order of $30,000 - $50,000.

Basis / Criteria of the EOI

4.22 The property was identified as suitable for disposal as it was vacant and not required to meet the needs of the Council approved Community Facilities Network Plan 2020.

4.23 There is currently no LTP approved Council funding available for the operation, management or repair of the buildings.

4.24 EOI’s were invited for future use of the site on an as is, where is basis with proposals to be at no cost to Council and evaluated with reference to the Analysis Criteria outlined at 4.73 – 4.77 (below).

Feasibility Study / Coalition Requirements

4.25 A feasibility study by Sarah Wylie (Social Research & Evaluation,) prepared for TYT on behalf of the coalition of Hornby community groups, is appended as Attachment B.

4.26 The coalition of community groups includes: the TYT, MenzShed, Te Korowai O Grannies, Greater Hornby Residents Association (GHRA), Canterbury Fijian Social Services Trust and Hornby Toy Library.

4.27 The study outlined the status of the coalition group members, their immediate accommodation requirements and the claimed shortfall of available Council and non-Council community facilities in the Hei Hei / Gilberthorpes area. It also summarised two alternative lead agency proposals for the future use of the site: one from TYT and one from MenzShed.

4.28 The study asserted that the coalition requirements could not be met within existing community facilities in the area and that the Gilberthorpes site provided an ideal option to meet the apparent shortfall. It concluded that the use of the Hall building and 151 Gilberthorpes Road (independent of 153 Gilberthorpes Road) would be sufficient to meet these identified needs and that the MenzShed proposal was the most likely to succeed in delivering the requirements of the coalition from a practical perspective.

TYT Proposal

4.29 A copy of the TYT’s proposal is appended as Attachment C.

4.30 Their proposal, as lead agent for the coalition group, contemplated a comprehensive staged redevelopment of the whole site. While visionary in concept the proposal lacked a sustainable financial plan or robust business case.

4.31 For these reasons the proposal has been discounted (i.e. principally on financial grounds).

MenzShed Proposal

4.32 A copy of the MenzShed’s initial and revised proposals are appended as Attachment D.

4.33 Their proposal contemplates taking over ownership of the Hall building and leasing the land at 151 Gilberthorpes Road. It does not include taking over ownership of the Barracks building or leasing 153 Gilberthorpes Road.

4.34 It requires the Council to organise and pay for the demolition of the Barracks building, any incidental costs associated with separating the two titles, erection of a boundary fence (between 151 and 153) and potential tree removal. It assumes that the Council will offset these costs from the sale of 153 Gilberthorpes Road. A grant from the Community Board will also be sought to fund resource consent costs if, and as, required.

4.35 Fund raising for, and completion of, the works required to render the Hall compliant for occupation and use is intended to occur in Years 1 to 3. MenzShed Hornby currently has limited funds of around $6,000 on hand, plus some incidental assets. While TYT and Hornby Toy Library enjoy relatively stronger financial positions, fund-raising will be heavily reliant on grants from Rata, Lotteries, gaming charities and local businesses.

4.36 Annual rental income from tenants / casual users of the Hall and other users of the site is budgeted to come on stream in Year 4 and is expected to cover annual OPEX costs.

4.37 MenzShed seek to place a temporary container on site from Day 1 to store tools to facilitate any works around the site. They intend to fund, consent, construct and operate from a new building on the site in Year 4. The location of that building is indicated on the sketch plan below.

A diagram of a garden

Description automatically generated

4.38 The refurbished Hall is not expected to be available to accommodate the varied office and meeting requirements of the coalition group until Year 4. The wider site is intended to provide space for a community garden, storage of a GHRA container (Noddy Train), relocated Hornby Toy Library building and, demand dependent, a future new office building for wider community use.

4.39 The existing site access and car parking off Gilberthorpes Road is intended to be retained with a new secondary rear access created off Kaniere Avenue.

4.40 MenzShed will lead the formation of a Trust which would need to be registered prior to ownership of the building and ground lease being handed over to the coalition. The Trust would be responsible for securing any required resource, building and other consents together with the operation, repair, maintenance and development of the land and building.

4.41 As lead agent for the coalition MenzShed appear to have motivated, local, personnel with the skills and experience required to manage the process.

Alternative Locations for the members of the Coalition Group

4.42 The MenzShed proposal, and the future use of the Gilberthorpes site by the coalition, is predicated on the assertion that the requirements of the coalition groups cannot be accommodated within existing Council or non-Council community facilities or property.

4.43 This is not a view shared by Council staff. Although the feasibility / proposal does indicate that there are some community space needs, Council staff believe these can be better met elsewhere within existing Council and community facilities and properties, as well as potential commercial partnerships.

4.44 The attached map (Attachment E) indicates the range of facilities within a two-kilometre radius that provide some form of community space of varying sizes. While there is no one facility that would accommodate all the groups together, options exist that can be explored for each group.

4.45 The Gilberthorpes site has been the primary focus for the members of the coalition group. It is possible that this may have limited both their consideration and investigation of other options.

4.46 Staff in the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Team are committed to working with coalition groups to explore and develop alternative options for their accommodation requirements should they require support.

4.47 From March 2022 the local ward Councillor, Community Board and community members raised concerns about the emerging need for a community facility in the Hornby area. This included submissions to the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

4.48 Taking a responsive approach, staff investigated supply and demand matters. This ultimately supported the Council to decide to undertake a community asset transfer of the Hornby Library to the Hornby Community Trust upon completion of the new $39.9 million Matatiki: Hornby Centre.

4.49 Staff analysis suggests that the known and foreseeable community space needs can be met at the new centre, the expanded Hornby Community Trust facility and the other existing facilities in the area. This includes the Hei Hei Community Centre recently refurbished at a cost of $295,368. Staff note that Wycola Youth Facility and Wycola Park are within approximately 500 metres of 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road.

Rationale for Disposal

4.50 A key component of the Community Facilities Network Plan 2020 is to ensure that the Council’s portfolio of (budgeted) Council owned community facilities balances the needs of local communities with the need to provide a financially sustainable, and effectively and efficiently activated, stock of community facilities.

4.51 In this context, and with reference to 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road:

1. Is the property required for the community purpose for which it was originally acquired?

2. Does the property have special cultural, heritage or environmental values that can only be protected through public ownership?

3. Is there an immediate alternative public use / work / activity in a policy, plan or strategy?

4. Are there any strategic, non-service delivery needs that the property meets and they can only be protected through public ownership?

5. Are there any identified unmet needs, which the Council might normally address, that the property could be used to solve? And is there a reasonable pathway to funding the unmet need?

4.52 Based on the coalition’s accommodation requirements, and the potential availability of existing Council owned facilities and property, Council’s Community Facilities team are of the view that the answer to these questions is no.

4.53 Any disposal of Council owned property is to be in a manner as set out in Council’s policies and normal practices, i.e.:

· Policy: to publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise.

· Practice: in an open, transparent, well-advertised and public manner at market value.

Valuation and Costs to Council

Valuation

4.54 In April 2024, Bayley’s were commissioned to provide an independent valuation report to inform this decision-making process assuming the following scenarios:

· Sale of the whole site (151/ 153 Gilberthorpes Road) – cleared site developed as a 6-unit residential development - $1.3m incl GST. (The value of the property in February 2022, prior to the Notice of Motion, was assessed by Bayleys at $2.18m incl GST).

· Subdivision of the site (as contemplated by the MenzShed proposal).

o 151 Gilberthorpes Road – assumed 2246m2, 4/5 lots - $970,000 incl GST.

o 153 Gilberthorpes Road – assumed 900m2, 2 units - $480,000 incl GST.

· Each valuation scenario included a deduction for demolition.

· The current book value for the property is $802,000. The rateable value is $820,000.

Costs to Council

4.55 The EOI process was initiated on the basis that any proposed future use of the land and buildings would be at no cost to Council.

4.56 MenzShed has outlined a strategy to secure the external funding required to undertake the necessary building upgrade and siteworks. However, that strategy assumes that Council will contribute the costs of the following activities:

Activity	Cost to Council
Subdivision of 151 from 153 Gilberthorpes Road – (subdivision consent / survey not required but section 37 Building Act notation to be cancelled) –* estimated cost included in ‘Resource Consent’ below	*$
Demolish Administration / Barracks Block and clear site (153 Gilberthorpes Road) - estimate	$50,000
Erect boundary fence between 151 and 153 Gilberthorpes Road - estimate	$20,000
Remove trees (as required / estimate)	$5,000
Resource Consent (Community Board funded) – contingency	$15,000
Sell 153 Gilberthorpes Road (say $530,000): Agents fees at 3%; CCC staff time (legal/property)	$20,000
Ground Lease at $1.00 per annum	Nil
Total Indicative Cost to Council	$110,000

4.57 MenzShed have suggested that these costs should be funded by Council from the sale of 153 Gilberthorpes Road.

4.58 Given the current fiscal environment, the costs to Council associated with the MenzShed proposal and the potential to accommodate the coalition requirements within existing Council facilities and properties, the financially prudent approach is arguably to sell the Gilberthorpes’ property.

4.59 This could potentially return sale proceeds in the order of $1,300,000 to Council.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.60.1 MenzShed proposal: the coalition own the Hall, lease and develop the land at 151 Gilberthorpes Road; Council demolishes the Barracks building and sells 153 Gilberthorpes Road.

(note: the alternative option of the coalition also owning the land is not recommended).

4.60.2 Council repairs the Hall building, transfers ownership of the Hall to the coalition, grants them a ground lease over 151 Gilberthorpes Road. Council sells 153 Gilberthorpes Road.

4.60.3 Council sells the whole property as is where is in the open market.

4.61 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.61.1 Retain the Status Quo – the buildings will remain closed and the inertia around the future use of the site will continue indefinitely.

4.61.2 TYT proposal – activation of the whole site – declined principally due to a lack of a feasible, sustainable, business and financial plan.

4.61.3 The MenzShed coalition purchase 151 Gilberthorpes Road (or the whole site) at market value – not a practical or feasible option as the coalition do not have the capital to fund the purchase.

4.61.4 Council demolishes the buildings, rebuilds a new community building and grants a lease(s) to a community group(s) – dismissed as there is no available, allocated, capital or operational LTP funding to fund this option, there is no requirement for an additional community facility and there is a resolution to sell the property.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.62 The options (1 to 3) below are analysed and presented with the following:

· A discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis showing results in net present value (NPV) form from the Council’s perspective. A positive NPV indicates a favourable option i.e., the cost of capital and required return is covered and the positive amount reflects the financial gain on that option under that analysis. A negative NPV (in red) reflects a financial loss to the Council.

· An advantages and disadvantages analysis table.

4.63 The DCF of the options is rudimentary and simplistic, containing several generic assumptions to enable a relative financial comparison of the options.

4.64 Option 1 (Preferred Option): Council sells the property.

4.65 Option Description: Council sells the property as is where is in the open market. The coalition groups are accommodated within existing Council owned facilities or property.

4.66 Indicative DCF outcome: NPV $418,000

Advantages	Disadvantages
A positive response to ongoing inertia	Opposition to the sale from the coalition of Hornby community groups
Council’s ongoing unbudgeted CAPEX/OPEX liability extinguished	The coalition group members are not co-located
Potential income of around $1.3m to the Council from the sale of the property
Staff work with the coalition groups to accommodate them in existing Council community facilities / property
Retention of the property as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s Community Facilities Support and partnership Unit

4.67 Option 2 MenzShed Proposal

4.68 Option Description: this option requires: Council to transfer ownership of the Hall to the MenzShed in an as is where is condition and grant a ground lease of #151; Council demolish the Barracks building, sell #153 and contribute some of the sale proceeds to fund the MenzShed proposal; MenzShed assume responsibility for securing the funds required to upgrade the Hall and siteworks and the incremental development of the site, and; once repaired, the coalition Trust would manage and maintain the Hall and property (#153) at no cost to Council. This proposal is conditional on the MenzShed coalition securing the necessary external funding and completing the repair works within 5 years.

4.69 Indicative DCF outcome: NPV -$478,000

Advantages	Disadvantages
A positive response to the ongoing inertia	Risk that MenzShed will fail to generate the funding required to repair the Hall and siteworks
Unbudgeted costs for repair and ongoing maintenance transferred from the Council to MenzShed	Occupation of the Hall (for use by the coalition groups) will not occur until Year 4
Ownership of the Hall provides MenzShed with stronger funding leverage and the opportunity to deliver the coalitions vision	Council is required to sell part of the site (#153) rather than receiving the sale proceeds from sale of the whole site
The Hall remains available for local community use	*Council is required to contribute funding and works to the value of c$110,000 from the proceeds of the sale of #153
The land remains in Council ownership	Risk that MenzShed Trust will apply to the Council for future unbudgeted funding through the LTP
A time bound encumbrance provides the Council with the option to take the Hall (and land) back if funding efforts fail after 5 years	Staff concern regarding the sustainable (realistic) utilisation of the property by the coalition
	Hall returned to the Council after 5 years in a worse state
	Potential negative feedback resulting from gifting a building ‘as is where is’ to a community group
	Retention of the Hall as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s Community facilities, Support and Partnerships team – community need in the area is adequately provided for
	A requirement to deal unilaterally with the coalition group

4.70 Option 3 Council Repairs the Hall Building

4.71 Option Description: Council repairs the Hall building, transfers ownership and grants a ground lease over the land (#151) to the MenzShed coalition and sells #153.

4.72 Indicative DCF outcome: NPV -$793,000

Advantages	Disadvantages
The MenzShed coalition receive the Hall building repaired and fit for occupation – potentially at the end of Year 2	Council is required to find c$360,000 (plus cost of exclusions) of currently unbudgeted expenditure to repair the Hall building
No capital cost for the MenzShed coalition. OPEX funded from rental income. Fund-raising limited to funding the incremental (capital) development of the site i.e. from Year 3	Council required to sell #153 and contribute an additional $110,000 from the sale proceeds towards the coalition proposal
Hall ownership / occupation costs (maintenance, repairs, insurance etc) transfers to the MenzShed coalition	Retention of the Hall is not supported by Council’s Community Facilities, Support and Partnerships Unit – community need is adequately in the area is adequately provided for
The land remains in Council ownership	Direct impact on rates

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.73 In broad terms any proposals received were required to:

· meet cultural, financial, social, environmental and community outcomes

· demonstrate a well-defined need

· demonstrate a robust, enduring and financially sustainable long term business plan, and

· provide evidence that the community led group could deliver the plan

4.74 The MenzShed coalition proposal has been analysed in some detail above in 4.32 to 4.49 and further at 4.67 to 4.69.

4.75 It provides a reasonably comprehensive community-based business case and financial plan supported by local, experienced volunteers.

4.76 However, staff are of the view that the needs of the coalition can be accommodated within existing Council community facilities and property.

4.77 It is also evident that the proposal cannot be delivered at no cost to Council. It requires a significant Council contribution and is heavily reliant on securing external funding. MenzShed, and the wider coalition partners, currently have limited cash reserves or assets.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option - Councils sells the property	Option 2 - MenzShed Proposal	Option 3 – Council Repairs Hall Building
Cost to Implement	Nil – selling agents fees deducted from sale proceeds.	Demolition/subdivision costs - $110,000. Council foregoes sale proceeds from #151.	Repairs to Hall - $360k. Demolition/subdivision costs - $110,000. (Council forego sale proceeds from #151).
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil (assuming early sale)	Nil/nominal – if #153 sold immediately	Nil /nominal – Included above
Funding Source	OPEX (if any incremental costs)	Unbudgeted	Unbudgeted
Funding Availability	Yes	No	No
Impact on Rates	Nil	Yes - nominal	Yes - nominal

5.1 Council’s Finance team has reviewed this report and considers that the financials contained in it are reasonable.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is an ongoing risk to the land and buildings of vandalism and arson.

6.1 The buildings were damaged by fire in August 2022 and have also been the subject of break ins. Although security is in place further delay is likely to increase the risk of further damage. In the interim, while the property continues to be unoccupied, there is a negative impact on the adjoining neighbours and neighbourhood (e.g. eye sore, risk of vandalism and anti-social behaviour).

6.2 It is possible that there may be some residual community feedback regarding Council’s decision to confirm its previous resolution to sell the property.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The disposal of the property was approved by Council through the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 (resolution C-LTP/2021/00106 (M191A).

6.3.2 The powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The legal consideration is the Council’s ‘Disposal of Council Property’ policy, referred to at 4.53 above.

6.4.2 The previous owner of the property, The Presbyterian Church Property Trustees, declined the opportunity to purchase the property pursuant to section 40 Public Works Act 1981.

6.4.3 Ngāi Tahu confirmed that they have no right of first refusal over the site.

6.4.4 This report has been reviewed by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions:

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

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as referred to at 2.2 above.

6.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Citizens and communities

6.7.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.1.2 Review and identify community facilities surplus to requirement and recommend a course of action - Review network, identify facilities and recommend options to Council for disposal

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Through the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 process the Council made the decision in June 2021 to sell 57 properties that were no longer required for their purposes (it also decided not to dispose of another four properties). One of those properties declared surplus was 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road.

6.9 In arriving at this decision, the Council undertook both general and targeted consultation, resulting in over 500 submissions. Targeted consultation went to Community Boards, the 6 Rūnanga, Ngai Tahu (both Iwi and corporate), tenants, and housing providers. 253 submissions clearly supported disposals, 54 clearly opposed and 180 suggested a mix of outcomes. Changes were made based on the received feedback. There were no submissions on Gilberthorpes Road.

6.10 The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board was aware of the consultation and made a submission on other properties. This submission led to changes in the recommendations to Council. The Community Board submission did not mention Gilberthorpes Road.

6.11 Following the adoption of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan where the sale of 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road was approved, there was some level of surprise within the local Hornby and Hei Hei communities over this decision. Community members expressed a lack of awareness of the proposal within the Long-Term Plan and requested that the facility be retained for community use.

The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s submission to the 2022-23 Annual Plan included the following:

6.11.1 The Board notes that the Plan includes additional revenue of 1.9 million dollars from surplus property to be disposed of. The Board reiterates its submission on the Long-Term Plan supporting in principle the disposal of properties that are surplus to the Council’s requirements but cautioning against disposal of property for which there is or could be a current or future community use. 151-3 Gilberthorpes Road is included in the list of properties for disposal but the Board has become aware that there are now a number of potential community uses being put forward for these premises and it therefore asks that the disposal of this property be revisited.

6.12 Leading up to the first expression of interest process, local Board staff worked closely with a variety of community groups to ensure their awareness of the process and their ability to participate in the process.

6.13 Council received one expression of interest for community use of this space.

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

6.14.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.15 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.

6.16 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 The proposal to dispose of the property has been widely consulted with mana whenua through the LTP and EOI processes.

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 attempts to create certainty over future use by recommending the disposal of the site. Beyond that it is not possible to predict the intentions of a future purchaser.

6.17 That purchaser may elect to upgrade and continue the use of the buildings in their current form or demolish and redevelop the site. In either scenario the net impact on the environment and resources is likely to be unchanged.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If Council resolves to approve the Officer recommendations, which endorses a prior Council resolution, the property will be sold in the open market on an as is where is basis.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Cost Estimates (Under Separate Cover)	24/1286614
b ⇨	Feasibility Study (Under Separate Cover)	24/1286623
c ⇨	Tongan Youth Trust Proposal (Under Separate Cover)	24/1286628
d ⇨	MenzShed Proposal (Under Separate Cover)	24/1286635
e ⇨	Nearby Community Facilities Map (Under Separate Cover)	24/1399710

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Matthew Pratt - Acting Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Lynn McClelland - General Manager Corporate Services

15. Community Support and Partnerships Unit Activity Report January - June 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440550
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships Unit Claire Appleby Phillips - Manager Community Planning and Projects
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report updates the Council on the work across the Community Support and Partnerships Unit in Community Development & Facilities from January to June 2024.

1.2 This report is staff-generated.

1.3 This information report largely serves as a formal record.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Community Support and Partnerships Unit Activity Report January - June 2024 Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 This report draws on aspects of the work undertaken by the Community Support and Partnerships Unit over the 6 months of January 2024 to June 2024. However, reporting covers the 2023/24 fiscal year concerning community grant funding.

3.2 The report covers a selection of highlights on the core activities covered by individual teams responsible for the services articulated in the Community Development and Facilities Activity Management Plan including the:

· Community Partnerships Team (including Metropolitan Community Development Advisors, Graffiti and Strengthening Communities Funding Teams)

· Community Planning and Projects Team

· Community Governance Teams

· Community Facilities

· Governance Process Team

3.3 The Unit’s work is guided by the Long-Term Plan, Strengthening Communities Together Strategy, Community Board Plans and local and metropolitan community needs and aspirations. A range of operational policies and strategies also support our work, in particular, the newly adopted Equity and Inclusion Policy, Toi Ōtautahi Arts Strategy, Our Heritage Our Taonga Heritage Strategy, Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy and the Physical Recreation and Sport strategy.

3.4 The work of the unit is developmental / relational in nature, where staff work closely with communities that are geographically defined or communities of interest and identity. Staff also provide advice and support to elected members by providing robust advice to support decision-making.

3.5 This is the first 6-month report to Council for this unit. Future reporting will include new data/monitoring information currently under development that is not fully available at the time of writing.

4. Unit Highlights January 2024-June 2024

573 SCF and DRF applications requesting $16.5m for the available $7.2m.	43 community network meetings were facilitated.	SCF and DRF funding generates 2.4m volunteer hours.	14 community resilience plans in development.
26 public forums and 16 community deputations were received.	Graffiti volunteers provide over 5,000 hours of service. 72% of graffiti was reported by volunteers.	132 Summer of Fun activities funded.	781 Garden Award recipients.
300 community group collaborative meetings were undertaken.	70 local neighbourhood events held/supported.	Board Plans reflecting 54 community-endorsed goals across the city in various stages of completion and reported to Boards monthly.	Total number of participations enabled by grants from the 2023/24 SCF & DRF by Council & Boards 4,694,647m.
81 community facilities on 66 sites 93% of the network currently in use 75% community managed 10% increase in customer satisfaction /ease of access in 2024	7% increase in satisfaction with support given through community development and capacity-building initiatives.	1678 people attended 25 community preparedness events.	10 community/CCC advisory meetings - Multicultural Advisory Group - Accessibility Advisory Group

5. Community Partnerships

NGO Sector

5.1 Staff have begun work with key members of the community sector to update Council’s Statement of Intent Policy (2001). While outdated, the Statement of Intent highlights the leading role the Council must play in ensuring the community sector is sustainable now and into the future.

5.2 A Statement of Intent intends to raise awareness about the significant value the sector brings to the city and Banks Peninsula and Council’s commitment to such. The Community Sector (third sector) provides a role distinct from the state and the private sectors, making contributions to the social, cultural, economic, environmental, and political life of our community.

5.3 A range of dialogues are planned for 2024 intended to strengthen relationships between Council, other funders, and the sector. This will be undertaken in partnership with organisations who advocate for the sector including the Social Equity and Wellbeing Network (SEWN), Community House and Christchurch Envirohub, the wider sector as well as local funders.

5.4 As demand for funding support is increasing every year, it is critical that Council understands the role it has to play in the wider ecosystem and how our financial and active support can make an impact on the sector now and into the future.

5.5 Council has recently signed a one-year subscription to Gem Local, a grants calendar database designed to help the community sector locate other sources of grant funding. This new subscription will enable groups (with incomes under $1.5 million) to locate a wider range of funding options.

5.6 Food security and demand on foodbanks continue to be very high. Delta Community Support Trust (that supports the Richmond community) recently reported a 25% increase in requests from ‘working families”. Staff are working closely with foodbanks to ensure food is in the hands of people who need it – more coordination is happening between ‘official’ foodbanks and local groups who provide food to the community. Post-Covid, with little to no central government support, the foodbank sector is working through how they can collaborate positively, establish clarity about relationships with supermarkets and provide consistency around how community groups support these activities.

5.7 A staff member worked with the Recreation and Sports and Marketing teams to support the Hornby community’s fundraising efforts for the hydrotherapy pool at Matatiki: Hornby. This included the Residents’ Association’s ‘Buy a Bubble’ campaign and Hornby Rotary’s corporate fundraising. The staff member is also working with the Manager Parks Programmes and Partnerships to support any projects that may require external funding for capital and operational projects. Further exploration will be undertaken in relation to external funding/partnerships opportunities across the city for other projects.

Safety

5.8 Work is currently focused on refreshing an existing action plan (Our City), that supports the ‘Street Community’ defined as people without a home, and/or people who are regularly on the streets and are visible through anti-social or criminal behaviours (e.g. aggressive street begging or those who come to town to ‘hang around’ with their mates on the street). This action plan is developing alongside key stakeholders (NGO’s and businesses) and is based on an earlier project from 2018, which outlines a systems approach framework.

5.9 The 6-point action plan includes:

· 1 on 1 support to people needing it (i.e. street-based social workers).

· A community development approach (identifying with the street community opportunities for volunteering/work/training).

· Connected and coordinated agency support (joint networking and planning opportunities).

· Commercial and retail support (Inner City Collaborative Action Group and wider business community).

· Public awareness (providing alternative support opportunities/education).

· Advocacy/Policy/Regulatory processes.

5.10 The Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan (CAAP) lapsed in 2021 and a new plan is currently under development. Now called the Collaborative Alcohol Harm Plan CAHP, it still provides a partnership forum between Police, Te Whatu Ora and Council. A draft is anticipated within the next 3 months and will be circulated for comment and consideration in due course. As Council has recently approved the development of a LAP, a continuation of a non-regulatory response to minimising alcohol harm is timely.

Central City

5.1 Staff provide secretariat services to the inner-city Collaborative Action Group (a key component of the 6-point Action Plan section 5.9 above) focusing on homelessness and antisocial behaviours in the Central city specifically. The group is aimed at identifying how Council, local businesses and organisations can better collaborate to respond to issues related to homelessness, street begging and antisocial behaviours.

5.2 This plan undertakes to:

· Provide a forum between attendees (police, inner city business representatives, City Mission and Corrections and Council) to improve inner city safety by discussing crime patterns and criminal elements (people or groups) that are operating therein. Also to highlight initiatives that are working well.

· Develop networks to solve issues and use to get key messages out to assist.

· Identify certain issues of concern and invite specialist organisations to join and present. For example, recently Youth Crime was discussed and Police Youth Aid team and YCD were invited to discuss. Other areas will include, homeless, aggressive beggars, those on sentences in the community and housing providers.

· Link others involved to assist work being done (e.g. Libraries Social Inclusion staff, City Ambassadors and other outreach services operating in the city).

· Provide a template for other business providers who may wish to set up a similar model/working group, to deal with issues in their business area across the city.

· Discuss and highlight hotspot areas (e.g. Bus exchange or homeless ‘Camp’ that had been set up in Colombo Street near Ballantynes) to develop solutions to deal with issues associated.

· Help all group members and associated businesses, to better understand homeless issues to assist change attitudes that all those on the street are creating issues.

· Find solutions to any new or emerging criminal/nuisance behaviour that impact on public safety in the inner city.

5.3 Positive progress:

· Dissolution of Colombo Street camp (near Ballantynes).

· Corrections have formally joined the group to input about those being released from prison with no fixed abode, who may end up on the street and will work more closely with Police re those on the street who are on serving current community-based sentences.

· Better networks developed across outreach services working in the inner city.

· Some good results from City Ambassadors, (working under CCBA) who have taken a balanced approached between ensuring crime/disorder is dealt with quickly and empathy for those people who genuinely need support on the street.

· The streets are generally tidier, with no camps established and consistent messaging presented to those sleeping rough, to be packed up from inner city sleeping positions by 8 am every morning. This messaging is understood and generally adhered to.

· Significantly fewer (Hybris) complaints re inner city issues over the last 6 months. This year, we have received only three formal complaints relating to matters in the CBD and of these, one was a freedom camper, one related to a person sleeping in a quiet alleyway away from the public, and the last related to The Commons (a precinct on the corner of Kilmore and Montreal Streets), where the public did not like homeless being there.

· Weekly attendance at The Commons connecting with people sleeping rough and social agencies to ensure a “nothing about us without us” approach.

· Working with the Facilities Team, YCD, and Red Badge to activate the Bus Exchange for young people.

· Working with Urban Regeneration and Transport Teams on the Southeast Frame to Input into urban regeneration plans so that the best safety outcomes can be achieved. Recent work with these teams has assisted a development initiative in Colombo St (between BNZ Laneways) to beautify the area while maintaining an area that will be safe for all. This includes good visibility of the full area and not creating areas where homeless/begging camps could be established.

· Regular walk-arounds of the CBD with members of this group have also continued to identify areas of concern and where improvements can be made.

Graffiti

5.4 Current Graffiti trends. Increased reporting is a good sign that residents are becoming more active in taking pride and ownership of their communities. However, the same piece of graffiti being reported multiple times can give an inaccurate picture of the scale of graffiti at any one time.

5.5 Graffiti Recognition App. While the Council’s contractor is required to record ‘tags’ that can help identify offenders there historically has been a very low completion rate and staff did not have the resources to analyse these photos manually. Where photographic evidence has been provided to NZ Police, they have been reluctant to rely on it as human-based analysis of tags is too subjective and therefore not reliable in supporting convictions.

Developing the automated graffiti analysis solution using machine-based learning is a cost-effective and innovative way to counter what is a growing and costly problem for Christchurch, by using the information captured to map and track graffiti across the city. This information can be shared with the Police if requested. However, the team supports a positive youth development approach with an emphasis on prevention, rather than a punitive response.

LGBTQIA+ Communities

5.6 In response to a petition for a Rainbow Crossing in Christchurch, staff called a meeting with seven Rainbow organisations to discuss this. The feedback from groups was that they don’t often meet as a sector. Council has offered to host more regular meetings. As a result of the initial meeting, staff have been meeting with individual LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups across the city and developing relationships.

Community Funding 2023/2024

5.7 Mayors Welfare Fund provided $388,000 in the last calendar year to individuals undergoing severe hardship in Christchurch. The biggest area of support continues to be electricity costs where people have, or risk having, their power shut off; with the average grant ranging between $300-$800. Mayor’s Welfare have increasingly assisted with chrome books and health/learning assessments through schools for families in significant financial difficulty.

5.8 Online Gambling and Afterpay continue to be pervasive negative influences in vulnerable communities, allowing people to fall further into debt and/or financial hardship.

5.9 Creative Communities – There has been an increase in applications to this fund, with the number of applications increasing from 60 one year ago to 130 in a recent funding round. Due to this general oversubscription of the funding scheme and the aim of the fund to support applications ‘to success”, only around 30-40 of these groups receive any funding each round.

5.10 Strengthening Communities Fund- The 2023/24 SCF round has been completed with over $7.2million being granted to both community board and metropolitan applicants.

5.11 Applications for funding for the 2024/25 year has now closed. Staff are currently assessing applications for Council’s approval in August. There were 573 applications totalling $16,445,163. Pressure on the fund has once again increased. Note: A more comprehensive breakdown of funding will be provided in the next 6 monthly report to Council.

5.12 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund - 40% of this financial year’s (2023/24) DRF was allocated in the first two months due to organisations missing the due date for the main Strengthening Communities Fund. Organisations are finding themselves in ‘emergency situations’ far more frequently. The DRF remains a valuable tool for Council to address emergent community priorities throughout the calendar year.

5.13 Community Loans continue to enable valuable community organisations to achieve otherwise difficult or unobtainable outcomes. Council continues to benefit from sound agreements with some community organisations such as the Piki Te Ora Clinic. Some community organisations can struggle with loan agreements primarily when circumstances or operating assumptions have changed. Staff will always support community groups with a range of solutions before more permanent action is recommended. Currently the Community Loans Scheme is fully drawn down, meaning that Council cannot allocate any more until repayments come through.

5.14 Capital Endowment Fund. As per the 2023/24 Annual Plan the Capital Endowment Fund investment had generated $1.289m, which when added to the carry-forward from the previous year allowed for an available balance in 2023/24 of $1.612m.

5.15 This budget was allocated in the financial year across a range of projects supporting applications that demonstrated a significant Civic, Community, Economic and Environmental benefit for the city of Christchurch, its citizens or for a community of people living in Christchurch. Any unspent funds from 2023/24 will be carried forward and brought to Council for consideration.

5.16 The Sustainability Fund expended its annual budget ($380,000) for 2023/24 in one round, across 25 organisations. It is currently budgeted to deliver just one final year of funding to support projects that address climate change objectives and targets in 2024/25. Council is considering its future in the Long-Term Plan.

Funding Trends

5.17 Costs for local charities and community organisations are increasing, as well as for the communities they serve. As such, the number of applications received from organisations for contestable community funding is increasing each year, outstripping the ability for the fund to meet demand.

5.18 Other funders and government departments have significantly reduced the number of organisations they fund annually, by way of reducing total investment and tightening criteria. Council, while supporting these services, does not have the capacity to pick them up in their entirety. Council continues to be adaptable and responsive to these changes, but admittedly the pressure on community funding is anticipated to rise in the months ahead.

6. Community Planning and Projects

Equity and Inclusion Policy supersedes outdated policies.

6.1 On 6 March 2024, Council resolved to approve the new Equity and Inclusion policy, which supersedes a range of outdated policies including the Winning Women Charter, Youth Policy, Children Policy, Equity and Access for People with Disabilities and the Ageing Together Policy. The new Equity and Inclusion Policy has been written with a view to developing, in partnership with sector stakeholders, more action-focussed plans that cover the older adults, disability, youth and children and Pacific communities. Progress on these action plans will be incorporated into this report going forward.

Multicultural

6.2 A refreshed Community Development Advisor - Multicultural position was filled in May 2023. In that time, relationships with a wide range of ethnic groups have been developed/energised. These connections have enabled staff to better assess funding applications and assist groups to build organisational capability. Key aspects of this role include:

· Undertaking the role of Establishment Manager for the new Multicultural Centre on a temporary basis.

· Organising and facilitating the INFoRM interagency networking meetings (6 per year).

· Producing monthly Multicultural Ōtautahi monthly newsletters to promote events, programmes, and projects across the multicultural sector.

· Supporting the Multicultural Advisory Group.

· Representing Council on the InCommon working group.

· Participating in meetings involving ethnic and multicultural groups with relevant agencies to discuss and address issues and needs of multicultural communities.

Meaningful Refugee Participation Project

6.3 In April 2024, Council was awarded a $30,000 contract from MBIE to create and/or increase opportunities for former refugee participation in decision-making and strategic planning at a local level.

6.4 A planned approach will reduce barriers that prevent refugees from participation in forums where decisions are made that affect them and to ensure that former refugees are able to work collaboratively and constructively.

6.5 Council will work in partnership with relevant agencies including Christchurch Resettlement Services, Red Cross, Pura Pura Whetu, Hagley Community College and the Christchurch Refugee Resettlement and Resource Centre to ensure a joined-up approach and full refugee participation.

6.6 An Open Space Forum for all refugee background leaders (including women and youth leadership) is currently in development, where participants will identify their own learning pathways for building leadership capability and capacity. It is anticipated the Open Space Forum will be held in late 2024.

Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre- Establishment

6.7 Council’s Community Development Advisor - Multicultural (Dr Viviana Zanetti) is currently the Establishment Manager for the new Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre (MRCC) to support the Centre as it develops a sustainable working model. An Activation Agreement between the Council and the MRCC Charitable Trust has been signed. It is anticipated that a paid coordinator will be in place by 31 March 2025 and staff transition out.

6.8 The Centre’s Grand Opening was held on 5 March 2024, 30 years to the day that Christchurch Netball opened the building. A fitting acknowledgement of the Centre’s value to the wider community over this time.

6.9 Refurbishment work on the Multicultural Recreation Community Centre is nearly complete, covering layout adjustments, deep cleaning, and repairs. Lotteries funding of $131,838.00 has now been secured for the purchase of a new AV system and permanent dance floor. A new lift is required for the centre as the old one is irreparable. It is anticipated that the delivery and installation of a new lift will take up to 32 weeks. Centre management will continue to ensure accessibility needs are met as much as possible.

6.10 A Youth Audit conducted in July 2023 provided valuable input into ensuring the centre is more youth friendly. A youth hui is scheduled for 14 June 2024 to further investigate how diverse youth communities wish to use/activate the space.

6.11 Safety issues have also been highlighted though a CPTED assessment carried out in October 2023. The report identified the need for improved lighting, and clear lines of sight. Trees at the front of the building have now been sculpted and processes for reporting suspicious behaviours and rough sleeping have been agreed in partnerships with social service agencies, Council and Police. CCTV camera is scheduled to be installed now that fibre is connected to building.

6.12 Work on raising the centre’s profile is underway - building relationships and partnerships, internally across the business and externally with partners.

6.13 Use of the centre has steadily increased over the past 3 months with an increased knowledge of the centre and repeat bookings. Usage will be reported in January 2025.

Implementing the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy

6.14 The Strengthening Communities Together Strategy Implementation plan identifies core activities to be undertaken within the first 1-3 years. This includes developing a reporting mechanism including dashboard monitoring and storytelling of impact. This new data collection method is currently in development. This will form a significant part of 6 monthly reporting to Council and the community, on progress and outcomes going forward. Staff will begin the unit wide collection and analysis of data from 1 July 2024.

6.15 Alongside this, a visibility project has been developed to showcase story telling by the community about how they are contributing to the strategy pillars and objectives. These stories will be made available on the Council website and through various social media platforms throughout the year.

Christchurch becomes a Welcoming Community

6.16 Council has been awarded the status of a Welcoming Community; an initiative funded through MBIE and endorsed by ELT and the Mayor. The Welcoming Communities programme works towards healthier, happier, and more productive communities by welcoming newcomers into the local community. Council will receive $50,000 PA for 3 years with project funding available on a case-by-case basis. Recruitment of a Welcoming Communities coordinator has concluded. Gini Geng, a previous Council intern will be based at the new Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre on Hagley Park from June 2024 onwards. The coordinator will work closely with other TLA’s across the region participating in the Welcoming Communities Programme, is currently undertaking a mapping exercise and will be producing a comprehensive Welcoming Plan for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula as the first of phase of the Programme commences.

Building our connections/nurturing relationships with Pacific communities

6.17 A newly established Pacific Liaison position has been created within the unit.

6.18 Key Highlights – A Kava ceremony in partnership with the Specifically Pacific Steering Group (SPACPC) and Council was held on 4 December 2023, to welcome Sina Mulitalo into the role. Work underway includes the development of a Pacific Advisory Group, exploration of Pacific internship opportunities, increased capacity and capability for Pacific groups seeking grant funding, increased engagement with Council and the signing of a Partnering Agreement with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples.

6.19 The Pacific community provided a verbal submission to the Council LTP deliberations regarding the establishment of a Pacific Village. This concept has been a long-term aspiration of Pacific communities. Council will support the Pacific Communities to move forward with a business/feasibility study.

Communities, Climate Change, Resilience and Adaptation

6.20 Planning is underway to ensure our response to climate change is relevant and timely and that communities are equipped to identify vulnerabilities, prepare and respond. A Unit wide plan is underway in partnership with Te Whatu Ora and ECAN. This network is growing as others join. The purpose of the group is to highlight key players in the climate change space, educate and build capability and capacity within local communities with a view to holding a climate education summit late in 2024. Additionally, as Board Plans and Community Profiles are due to be updated in February 2025 local climate related priorities will be incorporated.

7. Community Governance Teams

7.1 Community Governance Teams across the city have close working relationships with a wide range of community organisations and associations (both formal and informal). Facilitating community partnerships is a core function through bridging, bonding, and linking - a critical component of building social capital.

7.2 The Community Development Advisors’ role is to better understand community group needs, issues and aspirations and support accordingly. During 2023/2024 over 300 groups were canvassed. A full report on the emerging themes will be presented with the next 6-month unit report.

7.3 These teams also provide a wide range of governance support and advice to local elected members. All community boards provide area reports to Council monthly.

Community Profiles (Community Board and Metropolitan)

7.4 The updating of Community Profiles is on hold for 2024 as the unit sharpens its use of demographic information. The latest census information will not be fully available until mid-2024, therefore this year will be spent reassessing the profiles, their use and efficacy of informing decision-making and that they are fully reflective of the assets and needs of communities.

Examples of innovation in community engagement/partnerships

7.5 Burnside/Bryndwr Community Network (BBCN) aims to strengthen social and cultural wellbeing. The BBCN working group meets monthly (15 people on the working group) at Burnside Primary School. A full networking meeting with the wider community will be held on Tuesday, 6th August. The theme of the networking meeting will be "Weaving Together". Last year, two wider network meetings took place with an average of 45 attendees.

The BBCN Network grapples with several key challenges, including resource limitations affecting community groups and sports clubs in Burnside and Bryndwr. Scarce financial resources and human capacity hinder their ability to address diverse community needs effectively. To overcome this, a unified front has emerged, comprising various entities to explore the establishment of a formal network. Despite these challenges, the network remains committed to strengthening community bonds, promoting well-being, and embracing diversity and connectivity within the community. Through collaborative efforts, it aims to uplift individuals and families, enriching community life.

7.6 Nepal Reserve in Burnside is a collaborative effort involving FENZ, the Council, and residents. The primary focus is to transform a significant portion of the reserve into a native forest, aligning with the Council's city-wide ecosystem plans. FENZ's involvement includes Fire Smart planting initiatives to reduce fire risks, given the history of fires at the reserve.

To ensure community involvement and address local concerns, walkarounds and meetings have been organised. These events allow residents to engage with Council staff, provide feedback, and gain insights into the proposed changes. The overwhelmingly positive response from residents indicates strong support for the project, with an emphasis on creating open spaces for various park activities while preserving natural habitats. Plans for tree planting, community engagement, and ongoing maintenance demonstrate a commitment to sustainable development and community well-being.

The Waimaero Board has also allocated funding from its Better Off Fund towards installing new picnic tables and umbrellas.

7.7 Riccarton Collective aims to foster a stronger, safer and more connected community in Riccarton. Memberships comprise NGO’s, the resident’s association, churches, service organisations, businesses, and education. The collective facilitates better communication among key stakeholders who have identified the following themes that need to be addressed to be a healthy, thriving, and connected community. Public Spaces and Recreation; Safety and Crime; Traffic and Transportation and Urban Development and Planning.

7.8 Parklands/Queenspark – Public meetings were held in relation to anti-social behaviours in the area. A Youth Audit was undertaken on Parklands Reserve. The audit provided a set of recommendations and following this, the Parkland Network was formed to enable ongoing collaboration and community led actions with around 8-10 people regularly attending each month. Small regular community events and a monthly Queenspark Collaborative Hui has been initiated to build local connections and pride with a noticeable reduction in anti-social behaviour. The Queenspark Community Trust hold a weekly drop-in session that allow youth to connect in a safe environment.

Examples of innovation in climate adaptation

7.9 The Little River Flooding Working Group and a generic group of other Peninsula settlements including Le Bons Bay, Port Levy, Little Akaloa working groups have been established with a focus on flooding. Flooding in the Little River township is an important issue that causes ongoing damage and distress for the residents on a regular basis. With more frequent and intense weather events in recent years, this concern has understandably grown. A well-attended community hui has held with staff and elected members from Council, ECAN and Little River Ratings District and members of the Banks Peninsula Water Zone Committee. The hui identified a range of concerns including the complexity of the issue and number of key organisations involved. Since this hui the Little River Flooding Round Table Group has been established, coordinated by Wairewa Community Development staff alongside the local Runanga and Little River Wairewa Community Trust. This group will assess and advocate for possible flood mitigation strategies and key community informed of progress.

Innovations in community development /safety

7.10 Papanui Youth Safety Project is an initiative for all young people to have safe transitions as they move from school, through the mall to the bus link on Main North Road. This is a collaboration between Papanui High School, two local youth agencies, Northlands Mall, Police and Council. It aims to encourage the proactive adoption of pro-social interactions in the community, mall and surrounds creating a sense of belonging and genuine community.

Youth workers are present at high-risk times and the project team is investigating a youth space near the mall. The initiative seeks to provide an environment that reflects a safe, inclusive, and caring culture that reduces the number of altercations, harassment, and intimidation through de-escalation, calming and distraction by leveraging off already established relationships within the initiative collaboration.

7.11 Addington is richly diverse with high transience. The Waihoro Community Board, staff and Addington Community organisations have partnered with Neighbours Aotearoa to develop a participatory approach to address social needs and community safety. The project is still in year one of three, with year one due for completion in September2024. The desired outcomes for the project are:

· Increased number of positive interactions with the local community/neighbourhood.

· Greater participation and wider diversity of participation; new projects, networks and supports established.

· Building capability and capacity of community leadership and sharing success.

7.12 The Hoon Hay Community Centre was opened this year. The building is now fully renovated and reflects the aspirations of the local community and is the result of an 8-year partnership between Community, Community Board and staff who provided advocacy and supported community capacity.

The East

7.13 Following an independent review into Council’s response to the fire at the Wastewater Treatment Plant the Council has committed to working collaboratively with the affected communities, key partners and the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to co-develop a plan to regain trust and confidence and ensure effective communication and engagement. The Council has approved a grant of $130,000 from the 2023/24 Capital Endowment Fund to the Council’s Community Support and Partnerships Unit to resource a project with the goal of improving the Council’s relationship with the Eastern Communities and the project Plan will be updated and agreed with the Waitai Community Board Chair and the Chief Executive. Implementation will be phased and reported to the Waitai Community Board and the Chief Executive.

7.14 A fixed term Community Development Advisor has been appointment to project manage this project and to assist with building connection, social capital and trust with the community. Council is also seeking to appointment an independent facilitator/person in order to understand what the barriers are with community and to provide additional connections where they are not already held.

7.15 One of the work streams of the project has been looking to improve the communication and engagement around the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the directly affected residents. This has seen letter box drops, new regular public briefings to the community board and updates to the council’s webpages. Another workstream has looked at a stock take of the Council’s infrastructure investment in the east. This has shown that the East comparatively has not been underinvested in since the earthquakes. Work is underway on forming an internal team with representation across Council units which will be able to hear the views from the independent facilitator and community and hopefully speed up resolution to problem areas and issues that have been an issue for the community in the east.

7.16 Finally, where gaps are identified in community connections and relationships with Council, staff and partners will look to form new groups and connection points. For example, Council Staff and community representatives are in the process of establishing a new residents association in Woolston and currently forming it around the Port Link issue, with an aim that they will represent community views on other issues into the future.

8. Community Facilities Snapshot

8.1 Bookings for Council run community facilities continued to recover following the Covid-19 pandemic. Bookings (and revenue received) have not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but signs are positive as communities re-initiate their pre-pandemic routines. Of note, regular hirer activity dipped from 64.6% prior to the pandemic, to 55.4% in the 2022/23 year, increasing to 58.8% last financial year. Casual user activity has increased from 35.4% pre-pandemic to 43.2% post-pandemic.

8.2 Community Facilities staff have been working closely with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Team to identify appropriate facilities to be used for a variety of emergency management scenarios. The identified facilities will be prioritised for specific upgrades to meet the Civil Defence needs such as replacing keys with swipe cards and keypads and the installation of electrical connections to hook up generators if the centre becomes a community hub during and after an emergency.

8.3 Refurbishments have taken place in several facilities. Over $1.1M has been spent refurbishing Community Centres in Bromley, Hoon Hay and Parklands. Sommerfield Hall is currently being renovated. The Pigeon Bay Hall has received a kitchen upgrade and a new heat pump, managed by the local community. Similarly, the community are working with staff to repaint the facility at Le Bons Bay. Work continues on phase two of the refurbishment of the Multicultural Recreation & Community Centre in Hagley Park.

8.4 Allandale Hall remains closed following air sampling results that showed elevated levels of microbial activity, a rotting main hall subfloor and the requirement for wall framing between the hall and the kitchen/storeroom on the southern side to be replaced. Furthermore, drinking water sampling failed to meet standard in respect of the level of E-coli present. The water source (spring) has now been isolated, and the water tank has been drained.

8.5 Council will be making decisions around the future of two community facilities in the coming months, this includes Yaldhurst War Memorial Hall and the properties at Gilberthorpes Road. Council recently made the decision to gift the old library on Goulding Avenue. The Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library buildings have been demolished and the site will become a memorial park, this has been made possible with a grant from the Waipuna Community Board.

8.6 Richmond Community Cottage, a facility that has been underutilised and is regularly targeted for vandalism, has been successfully activated with a community partner. Staff developed a partnership with Speed Freaks Charitable Trust, a Trust that support recovery from addiction and mental distress through running and walking. The goals included the activation of the facility and a reduction to the cost of reactive maintenance. The Speed Freaks Team are now based in the Community Cottage, Monday to Friday, and manage the regular bookings (that take place in the evening) on behalf of Council. The Trust are supported by the Community Facilities Activation Manager and the local Community Development Advisor. Since the activation of the facility has been initiated, the facility has not received any vandalism and is quickly becoming an active hub in the community. Similarly, Woolston Community Library is now being activated by Youth Town Incorporated and korero are underway with groups to manage and/or activate Council facilities at Parklands Recreation Centre, Abberley Park Hall and Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre.

9. Governance Process Team

Support of Governance Systems and Processes

9.1 The Governance Process Team oversees the governance software solutions used by Council staff, specifically Infocouncil and Bigtincan Hub. They also support the governance function at CCC, which involves approximately 800 staff members participating in various aspects of the advisory and decision-making processes. The “business-as-usual” component of the team's role involves training staff, administering the governance systems and documentation, process auditing, reporting, and managing the review and release of Public Excluded reports and decisions.

9.2 The team is also responsible for reviewing systems and processes to ensure these remain fit-for-purpose and are a cost-effective use of ratepayer funding. The next section details some improvements that were delivered in the reporting period.

Governance Process Improvement Projects

9.3 Infocouncil Upgrade and Other Enhancements: The team tested and, along with the Digital team, implemented an upgrade of Infocouncil as part of the Council's software management process. Other changes were made to the software by the team to automate manual processes and improve governance processes.

9.4 Ombudsman Report Changes: Numerous changes were required to Infocouncil to support the implementation of the changes resulting from the Council’s decision to change the setting of informal meetings from closed to open. The team delivered the required changes with no additional ratepayer funding being required.

9.5 New Report Templates: In February and March, the Executive Leadership team approved a new report template for elected member meetings. Starting in mid-April, all reports for these meetings used the new template. The team made the necessary system changes and helped staff switch to the new templates.

9.6 Power BI Reporting Dashboards: The Governance Process team has created Power BI dashboards that show data from Infocouncil for different units and teams. This helped teams across the organization learn how to manage their own reports whenever they need to. The team plans to develop more dashboards to improve other governance processes.

9.7 Local Issues Information Requests: Council staff use the Hybris software to manage Customer Service Requests (CSRs) and information requests about metropolitan issues. From March, the team supported the Community Governance teams to start using Hybris for local issue requests. Hybris helps track, manage, and report requests in a consistent way. By including local issue requests in Hybris, all requests are now handled the same way, improving efficiency and consistency.

9.8 Online Bookings for Meeting Participation: The team has been trialling software that allows citizens to book in time for public participation at some meetings or with elected members directly. When widely adopted, the system will deliver administrative efficiencies from what is largely a manual process now. The system is part of the existing Microsoft suite of products used by the Council so can be delivered at no additional cost to ratepayers.

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

Claire Appleby-Phillips - Manager Community Planning & Projects

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

[2] Under the Gambling Act, corporate societies who are granted a licence after 17 October 2001 are limited to nine machines. Licences granted before this date can have up to 18 machines.

[3] Erwin, C., Lees, K., Pacheco, G. & Turcu, A. (2020) Capping gambling in NZ: The effectiveness of local government policy intervention. Auckland.

[4] Strohäker, T., Becker, T. (2018). The Relationship Between Exclusions from Gambling Arcades and Accessibility: Evidence from a Newly Introduced Exclusion Program in Hesse, Germany. J Gambling Studies 34, 1033–1047.

5. Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 22 February 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1134689
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele. Democratic Services Advisor, Luke.Smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

6. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 5 April 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1100888
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor, Luke.Smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Council Minutes - 7 August 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1390470
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Democratic Services Advisor (Katie.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

8. Council Minutes - 21 August 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1467948
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Interim Chief Executive

9. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - August 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1431254
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Takapūneke Reserve - Lease of Red House Property
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1483118
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

14. Three Waters Activities Report - April, May and June 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1355926
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Acting Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Author	Gavin Hutchison - Acting Head of Three Waters
Approved By	Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

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
17.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 5 April 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
18.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 7 August 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.