Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 16 October 2024

5. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Road Intersection Safety Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/673335
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to make a decision on the preferred option for the layout of the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection at Church Corner, to improve safety for all road users.

1.2 This report has been written in response to a Notice of Motion presented at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (Community Board) on 9 April 2024. At that meeting, the Community Board resolved to:

1.2.1 Revoke the decision made at its meeting on 15 February 2024 for Resolutions 6-10 on the Church Corner and Waimairi Road Safety Improvements Report (HHRB/2024/00031).

1.2.2 Request staff to provide options that keep the right-hand turn, dual crossing, and mitigates serious crash incidences (HHRB/2024/00032).

1.2.3 Delegate to Council the decision on the original staff recommendations 6-10, or alternative options (HHRB/2024/00033).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Road Intersection Safety Improvements 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 pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Main South Road, Yaldhurst Road, and Riccarton Road as detailed as Option A in Attachment A of this report (plan TG1457S24, dated 26/08/2024), which includes:

a. In accordance with Section 8.5 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a signalised pedestrian and cycle crossing be installed on Yaldhurst Road, located 65 metres south-east of its intersection with Brake Street, and as detailed in Attachment A of this report (plan TG1457S24).

b. In accordance with Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a No Right Turn control be placed against eastbound vehicles using the roadway on Main South Road at its intersection with Riccarton Road.

c. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwest side of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road, commencing at a point 55 metres southeast of intersection with Main South Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point 123 metres west of Main South Road.

d. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the north side of Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 61 metres west of Brake Street, and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

e. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the north side of Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 21 metres west of Main South Road at Yaldhurst Road, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection (the intersection) at Church Corner is in the top three per cent of intersections in Christchurch where there is a risk of having a crash (excluding State Highway intersections). There have been 76 crashes at this intersection in the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022, involving people turning right from Main South Road to Riccarton Road, including three serious injuries and seven minor injuries.

3.2 The recurring crash type is attributed to the current design of the intersection, particularly with people turning right from Main South Road into Riccarton Road. Although the visibility of oncoming traffic travelling west on Riccarton Road is clear to drivers waiting on Main South Road, the combination of the curve in Riccarton Road and the two westbound lanes attributes to poor perception of vehicle speed and gap selection by traffic waiting to exit Main South Road.

3.3 On 26 October 2023, the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board was briefed on a proposal for safety improvements in the wider Church Corner area. Through the public consultation process on this proposal, 302 submissions were received. Of the submitters who answered the question about how safe they feel using the current layout at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection, 58.6% perceived it as somewhat or very unsafe.

3.4 In February 2024, the Community Board considered the written submissions from consultation, and heard from submitters, on the staff proposal for the wider Church Corner project. The consideration of this report was conducted over two meetings, during which time staff revised the proposal to improve access to a business and pre-school; and to incorporate a dual crossing on Riccarton Road. The Community Board resolved most recommendations, other than Officer Recommendations 6-10 (minutes, item 8).

3.5 The Community Board reconsidered its decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6-10 in March 2024, but the motion was declared lost. This was followed by a Notice of Motion in April 2024, which revoked the Community Board’s previous decision for Officer Recommendations 6-10; included a request for staff to provide information on alternative options at the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection; and for the decision to be made by the Council.

3.6 Staff undertook further investigations to assess options for safety improvements at this intersection. Four options were developed, which have been independently assessed for safety and network effects. Further refinements were made following the independent assessments, resulting in two additional options that would be safer and more efficient than the original four options. These two additional options are proposed in this report:

3.6.1 Option A (Attachment A): Remove the right turn from Main South Road to Riccarton Road and changes the main road crossing type from a pedestrian crossing to a signalised crossing (preferred).

3.6.2 Option B (Attachment B): Retain the right turn from Main South Road to Riccarton Road and changes the main road crossing type from a pedestrian crossing to a signalised crossing.

3.7 Staff recommend Option A (Attachment A) as this presents the lowest risk option to all road users as it:

3.7.1 Removes the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road to eliminate the current crash risk.

3.7.2 Provides a signalised crossing for people walking and cycling on Riccarton Road. The signal-controlled crossing would provide a safer and more efficient option.

3.7.3 Includes improvements for people who cycle to and through the area by providing a cycle lane on the southern side of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the Council. Providing safe infrastructure is key to ensure people get to where they are going safely, irrespective of their mode of travel.

4.2 The Council has a Level of Service target to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries from all crashes by 40% in 2030. This is also a goal in the Road Safety Action Plan, which is a collaborative plan between Christchurch City Council, Waka Kotahi NZTA, ACC, FENZ and New Zealand Police. If the Council is to achieve this goal, it needs to create a safe transport system.

4.3 Waka Kotahi NZTA guidance states that “the selection of treatment measures should start with the objective of aiming to achieve a Safe System by first considering interventions that are most likely to eliminate the occurrence of fatal and serious injuries”. Other measures can be implemented to manage a particular risk, such as reducing the speed limit, reducing the operational speed of vehicles through traffic calming, and providing additional signs and lines.

4.4 Church Corner is a busy area with many people walking, cycling, accessing public transport and driving through. It is particularly busy when people are travelling to and from school and work. Church Corner includes the Bush Inn Centre, Church Corner Mall, St Peter’s Anglican Church, a medical centre, a pre-school, supermarkets, other local shops and businesses. The University of Canterbury and student accommodation is located to the north of Riccarton Road, and there are large schools close by including Villa Maria, Riccarton High, Middleton Grange and Kirkwood Intermediate.

4.5 The Main South/Yaldhurst /Riccarton intersection at Church Corner is in the top three percent of Christchurch intersections in terms of risk of being in a crash, compared to over 5,700 Council controlled intersections citywide. The need for intersection safety improvements at this location was identified through a co-design process with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for the 2021-2024 National Land Transport Programme Funding Cycle through the Pipeline Development Tool.

Existing layout at the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection

4.6 The existing layout of this intersection is shown below in Figure 1. It is formed as a “half seagull” arrangement with the main road flow along Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road. Vehicles turning right out of Main South Road only need to give way to westbound vehicles on Riccarton Road and can then merge with Riccarton Road eastbound traffic in their own lane approaching the Hansons Lane intersection.

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

Figure 1: Existing layout at Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst

4.8 The crossing points are mostly median islands with no priority given. The crossing at the bus stops requires people to cross two lanes of busy free flowing traffic in each direction. There is one signal-controlled crossing provided at the Hansons/Riccarton intersection for people to cross Riccarton Road.

4.9 The Puari ki Niho-toto South Express Cycleway provides a short local connection to the supermarket entrance on the south side of Riccarton Road. There is no connection from the South Express Cycleway to Bush Inn or Church Corner. There are no cycle lanes or paths for people riding bicycles through the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road intersection.

4.10 There are five bus routes that use the stops on Riccarton Road to the west of Hansons Lane, including the numbers 5, 86, 100, 130 and 140. The 5, 100 and 130 bus routes turn left into Main South Road for the outbound journey and use Curletts Road and the Peer St/Yaldhurst Road intersection to travel east through Church Corner. There are bus stops located on Riccarton Road. These routes are also used by school buses, however school buses turn right at the signals at Peer/Yaldhurst/Curletts and do not turn right from Main South Road to Riccarton Road.

Community Board consideration - Proposed Church Corner safety improvements

4.11 On 26 October 2023, the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board was briefed on a proposal for safety improvements in the wider Church Corner area. For the section relating to Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection, it was proposed that Main South Road would be closed at the intersection with Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road via a cul-de-sac arrangement (as shown below in Figure 2 and within the wider area in (Attachment C). This proposal would remove the ability for people travelling along Main South Road to turn left or right at Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road. The plans also included a pedestrian crossing (zebra) on Riccarton Road.

A map of a road junction

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 2: Proposal for Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst for consultation Nov-Dec 2023

4.12 The public were consulted on this proposal between 9 November and 7 December 2023. The results of the consultation on the wider Church Corner are provided in Section 6, with a summary relating specifically to the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection.

4.13 On 15 February 2024 (item 8), the Community Board considered a report that summarised the submissions received during consultation and made recommendations for the wider Church Corner safety improvements. At that meeting, the Community Board heard deputations from submitters both in support and against the package of improvements at Church Corner (minutes, item 5). The staff recommendations included traffic calming, slip lane removals, an improved crossing and changes to parking on Waimairi Road.

4.14 The meeting was adjourned until 20 February 2024 to continue the discussion on this report. Between the two meetings, following Community Board questions on the deputations, staff revised the proposal to retain the left turn out from Main South Road to improve access for a business at the corner of Peer/Yaldhurst/Curletts and the local pre-school; and to incorporate a dual crossing on Riccarton Road. This revision is provided in Figure 3 below and shown with the wider Church Corner project in Attachment D.

A map of a road with a road and trees

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 3: Proposal for Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst presented at the 20 February Decision Meeting

4.15 The Community Board resolved (minutes, item 8) the majority of the recommendations, which are shown on the plan in Attachment D. However, the Community Board did not approve Officer Recommendations 6-10 Traffic Controls, which related to the traffic restrictions at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection and the crossing on Riccarton Road.

4.16 Following further staff advice, a report was tabled at the Community Board meeting on 14 March 2024 (item 17) for the Board to reconsider its 15 February 2024 decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6 –10. The motion was declared lost, and the status quo upheld. Subsequently, a Notice of Motion was raised for the Community Board to revoke its 15 February 2024 decision regarding Officer Recommendations 6 – 10. Attachment E shows the programme of works approved by the Community Board.

4.17 At its Extraordinary Meeting on 9 April 2024 (item 3), the Community Board considered the Notice of Motion. The Mover, with the agreement of the Community Board, amended the original Notice of Motion. The Community Board resolved to revoke its previous decision; request that Council retain the delegation to make a decision on the intersection; and request staff to provide options to keep the right-hand turn and dual crossing and to mitigate serious crash incidences. At this extraordinary meeting, the Community Board also heard from community members through the Public Forum (minutes, item 4).

4.18 On 6 August 2024 at a Public Information Session/Workshop with the Council (item 4), additional information was requested about crash risk and rates at the adjacent intersection at the Peer/Yaldhurst/Curletts intersection. This was due to a concern around transferring crash risk for users if the right turn was removed at Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton. The crash history and risk information are provided in Attachment F.

4.19 In reviewing this information, staff identified that two crashes at the Peer/Yaldhurst/Curletts intersection had been incorrectly coded, as they had actually occurred at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection. After a review of all the crash information, it was determined that on a per-vehicle basis, the Main South/ Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection has 2.5x the injury crashes compared to the Peer/Yaldhurst/Curletts intersection (6.7 injury crashes v 2.64 injury crashes). The crash history and risk information are provided in Attachment F and Attachment G.

4.20 The updated data for the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection is a total of 83 reported crashes occurring in the ten-year period (2013-2022) at or within 50 metres of Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton. Of the 83 crashes:

o 76 were a result of crossing/turning movements.

o Four were a result of loss of control/head on.

o Two crashes were a result of rear-end/obstruction.

o One crash involved a person walking.

4.21 Of the 76 crossing/turning crashes at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton, three resulted in a serious injury, and seven resulted in a minor injury. A pattern was identified within the three serious injury crashes, two of which occurred when the driver failed to give-way when turning right from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road crashing with westbound movements (one cycle and one bus). The third was a driver misjudging the speed of the vehicle travelling west on Riccarton Road and has entered the intersection from Main South Road and hit the westbound vehicle.

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

4.23 The remaining 66 crashes were non-injury crashes, however on several occasions FENZ attended due to the significant damage to vehicles. Ambulances have also been dispatched to many of the crashes alongside Police.

4.24 In the crash reports for the non-injury crashes, drivers exiting Main South Road and turning right have stated that they have failed to see a vehicle, failed to give-way and have mis-judged the speed of the vehicle approaching from the east. In several crashes, the driver travelling westbound has been unable to stop in time when seeing a driver exiting from Main South Road. Two crashes involved buses travelling along Riccarton Road to Yaldhurst Road.

Memos/workshops

4.25 Following the Information Session/Workshop held on 1 October 2024, further information regarding the consideration of controlling the right turn from Main South Road by traffic signals was provided to the Mayor and Councillors via a Memo (refer to Attachment M).

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

Date

Subject

06/08/2024

Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road Safety Improvements
Agenda:

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/08/ISCC_20240806_AGN_10014_WEB.htm

Recording: https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/meeting/06-08-24-council-information-session-workshop/06-08-24-council-information-session-workshop-part-2/

01/10/2024

Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road Safety Improvements
Agenda:

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/10/ISCC_20241001_AGN_10006_AT.PDF

Recording:

https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/meeting/01-10-24-council-information-session-workshop/01-10-24-council-information-session-workshop-part-2/

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.27 To address the crash risk at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection, two options were identified as being reasonably practicable:

4.27.1 Option A: Remove the right turn from Main South Road to Riccarton Road and change the main road crossing type from a pedestrian crossing to a signalised crossing (preferred).

4.27.2 Option B: Retain the right turn from Main South Road to Riccarton Road and change the main road crossing type from a pedestrian crossing to a signalised crossing.

4.28 As discussed below in the Assessment Criteria section, these two options will provide safer outcomes for the intersection, with the change in crossing type being more efficient for Riccarton Road (The options are explained in Attachment H with larger plans provided in Attachment I). Staff recommend Option A, which is the lowest risk option for all users and is in line with the Council’s objective of improving safety on local roads. This option will:

4.28.1 Remove the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road to eliminate the current crash risk.

4.28.2 Install a signalised crossing on Riccarton Road for people walking and cycling to cross the road.

4.28.3 Install improvements for people who cycle, by providing a cycle lane on the southern side of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road. The cycle lane on the northern side was included in the previous scheme.

	Option A	Option B
Keeps the right-hand turn	This option removes the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road.	This option retains the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road. However, delay does increase as traffic gives way to two lanes of traffic. Alternative routes may be more attractive and more time efficient.
Impact on network	Minimal impact. Traffic would divert to other routes to access destinations.	Minimal impact. Traffic may divert to other routes to access destinations due to increase in delay from the design of the standard T-intersection.
Mitigates serious crash incidences	Eliminates the risk of a serious crash type involving right turning vehicles from Main South Road.	Manage the risk of a serious crash type involving right turning vehicles from Main South Road. Risk reduction is through speed management (inclusion of speed hump).
Dual crossing	Signalised crossing for people walking and cycling included. The signalised crossing is more efficient than the original zebra proposed as there is more ability to control when people cross the road.	Signalised crossing for people walking and cycling included. The signalised crossing is more efficient than the original zebra proposed as there is more ability to control when people cross the road.
Speed calming	To align with the safe system principles, traffic calming is provided on the approaches to the signal-controlled crossing.	To align with the safe system principles, traffic calming is provided on the approaches to the signal-controlled crossing. However, there is no speed calming device between the limit line and the crossing. This could increase the risk of a right turning vehicle from Main South Road potentially being unaware of the crossing and travelling through on a red signal.
Cycle Facilities	Through consultation, submitters requested additional cycle facilities. The Safety Audit also raised a serious concern about the lack of cycle lane for westbound users, particularly where drivers are turning left from Riccarton Road to Main South Road. A westbound cycle lane has now been included in the proposal.	Through consultation, submitters requested additional cycle facilities. The Safety Audit also raised a serious concern about the lack of cycle lane for westbound users, particularly where drivers are turning left from Riccarton Road to Main South Road. A westbound cycle lane has now been included in the proposal.

4.29 Preferred Option: Option A – remove right hand turn from Main South Road and install a traffic signal-controlled crossing on Riccarton Road.

4.29.1 Option Description: Removes the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road and a new traffic signal-controlled crossing is installed on Riccarton Road.

4.29.2 Option Advantages

· Eliminates the risk of right turn against crashes, as this movement is no longer available.

· Provides a traffic signal-controlled crossing on Riccarton Road to accommodate people walking and cycling to cross this busy road.

· Includes a cycle lane on the southern side of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

4.29.3 Option Disadvantages

· Drivers wanting to make the right turn are no longer able to make the turn at this location. However, there are multiple alternative options for people to access the Church Corner area and further afield without drivers incurring significant additional delays.

4.30 Option B – retain right hand turn from Main South Road and install a traffic signal-controlled crossing on Riccarton Road.

4.30.1 Option Description: Retains the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road and install a new traffic signal-controlled crossing is installed on Riccarton Road.

4.30.2 Option Advantages

· Provides a traffic signal-controlled crossing on Riccarton Road to accommodate people walking and cycling to cross this busy road.

· Includes a cycle lane on the southern side of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

4.30.3 Option Disadvantages

· Risk of a right turn against crashes remains but the likelihood and severity of death or serious injury crashes reduced through the use of speed management.

· Drivers wanting to make the right turn can do this, however, they are now giving way to two lanes of traffic, and delay may increase.

· The lack of traffic calming between the right turn movement and the signalised crossing could increase the risk of a right turning vehicle from Main South Road potentially being unaware of the crossing and travelling through on a red signal.

4.31 The following options were also considered but were not assessed as being reasonably practicable for the reasons outlined below:

4.31.1 Alternative options for the intersection: Staff developed four options, which were initially assessed for the right turn at the intersection:

· 1: Remove the right turn and retain left-in and left-out movements (as per 14 March report proposal)

· 2: Retain the right turn out with the half seagull arrangement (retains most of the existing layout with additional speed management devices).

· 3: Retain the right turn out via a standard T-intersection layout (alternate arrangement to retaining the right turn).

· 4: Remove the right turn and retain left-in and left-out movements (Similar to Option 1 but accommodates additional westbound cycle lane to address submitter feedback).

Following independent assessments which considered these four options (discussed below in the Analysis Criteria section, and referred to as Options 1-4), further refinements were made to the plans to provide safer measures. This resulted in two additional options (Options A and B) being developed. These two additional options are preferred over the four independently assessed options, as they are safer and more efficient for this intersection.

· Option A combines Options 1 and 4; and

· Option B is a revised Option 3.

· Option 2 was disregarded as it was the least aligned to safe system principles and would be difficult for people to use all the crossings.

· The options are explained in Attachment H with full plans provided in Attachment I.

4.31.2 Main South Road cul-de-sac as per the original proposal: Public consultation was undertaken on an option to remove through traffic on Main South Road by forming a cul-de-sac. This would eliminate the risk of crashes occurring. Following deputations at the Community Board meeting on 15 February 2024, it was proposed by staff to retain the left turn out of Main South Road for ease of access to properties on the southeast corner of the Peer/Curletts/Yaldhurst intersection. This option has therefore not been re-visited due to those concerns around access.

4.31.3 Trial layout: While the closure of the half seagull arrangement could be tested, it is not feasible within the geometric constraints of the street to trial the raised crossing also as a complete package. Due to the costs associated with trialling an option coming from within the Minor Road Safety budget, it is most cost effective to deliver the final solution. The independent reviews provide confidence that the option will deliver the outcomes being sought by reducing the number of crashes and improving accessibility for active modes.

4.31.4 Full signalisation of the intersection This provides for the Main South Road approach to be fully signalised with a dedicated phase that can be used to separate turning traffic from conflicting vehicle movements. This would also be co-ordinated with the crossing provided as per the Notice of Motion.

The delays to journeys on Riccarton Road would increase as traffic would be required to stop every phase of the signal cycle and every time a person wanted to cross Riccarton Road. This would disrupt the flow of traffic on Riccarton Road, by imposing substantial delays on each of the single lane approaches that can be accommodated within the road space available.

This is likely to lead traffic to use alternative routes to avoid the congestion that could occur. Attracting additional traffic demand, would further deteriorate the performance of the corridor, particularly for public transport movements. Speed management would be recommended through the full signalisation to address residual safety concerns around red light running and pedestrian safety.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.32 The analysis criteria focuses on two issues: safety and network effects.

Independent Safety Review

4.33 Abley were commissioned to undertake a Safe System Audit of the first four proposed options as well as assessing the wider implications of each option (Options A and B are a composition of these four options and have been created to address the outcomes of the Safe System Audit). The wider implications include alignment with strategic transport direction, user comfort and perception of safety and alignment with best practice guidance. The Abley report is provided in Attachment J.

4.34 A Safe System Assessment scores each option in terms of seven crash types and the exposure, likelihood and severity associated with each crash type. The safe system scores from the Safe System Assessment for the existing intersection and Options 1-4 are provided in the graph in Figure 4.

A graph of different colored bars

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Safe System Assessment - The lower the score the safer the outcome

4.35 The following table presents the assessment of the four options against the selected criteria:

A red and grey chart with text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

4.36 Options 1 and 4 are most aligned with safe system principles as these options would reduce the risk of intersection crashes the most while also significantly improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. Option 2 is the least aligned to safe system principles due to the risk associated with the right turn out movement which is retained in this option.

4.37 All of the options significantly reduce the crash risk for pedestrians and cyclists by providing a priority crossing (for people walking and cycling to cross) across the main road. The small differences in safe system scores for pedestrian and cyclist crash risk depend on how the crossing is configured and whether on-road cycle facilities are provided.

4.38 Option 1 and 4 provide the best alignment with the criteria considered. These options have been combined and after incorporating feedback from the Safe System Audit, is now presented as Option A.

4.39 The independent report recommended that if the right turn out movement must be retained for wider network efficiency, then Option 3 aligns with the criteria more than Option 2, although with significant residual risk. Option 3 has therefore been developed further based on the Safe System Audit. This option is now presented as Option B.

Independent review of network effects

4.40 An independent analysis has been completed by QTP consultants to understand the effects on traffic. The QTP review is provided in Attachment K. The purpose of the review was to demonstrate the network effects of these options and how this might impact on people who drive through this area.

4.41 In terms of traffic modelling to understand differences in traffic flows and delay between the options, these can be distilled down to just two options based on the provided traffic movements at Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst intersection:

4.41.1 left-in/left-out (Options 1,4 and A); or

4.41.2 retain both the left and right turn movements (Options 2, 3 and B).

4.42 The greatest impact (at all locations) occurs during the morning peak, so only the morning has been assessed.

4.43 Options 1, 4 and A remove the right turn from Main south Road into Riccarton Road, resulting in a left-in/left-out arrangement. The modelling shows:

· Approximately 100 vehicles per hour (vph) are likely to divert to Yaldhurst Road (via Curletts Road intersection) due to removing the right turn from Main South Road to Riccarton Road. This is indicated to increase delay for the right turn movement from Curletts Road to Yaldhurst Road by 10 seconds (from 22 to 32 seconds).

· For eastbound trips that can no longer turn right from Main South Road into Riccarton Road, the alternative route via Curletts Road and Yaldhurst Road will add 34 seconds of overall travel time. This time consists of 10 seconds for additional distance travelled, the time taken to turn at Curletts/Peer/Yaldhurst (32 seconds) minus the 8 seconds of delay that people experience when turning right from Main South Road to Riccarton Road.

· While the eastbound movement on Main South Road decreases by 200 vph without the right turn onto Riccarton Road, it also attracts 60 vph additional new trips consisting of left turners (from Main South Road into Yaldhurst Road) that travel north via Brake Street. This results in a net reduction of 140 vph travelling east on Main South Road. The model shows only a very small amount of traffic is estimated to divert to Brake Street (1 vehicle per minute peak and it could potentially be less than modelled). Similarly, this is inconsequential for the right turn at Curletts Road into Yaldhurst Road, which has more than sufficient capacity (noting that it is indicated to operate at LoS C with or without the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road).

4.44 Option 2 retains the half seagull arrangement and therefore only negligible changes in flow and delay are expected.

4.45 Option 3 and B which also include the right turn from Main South Road, are indicated to have delays for the right turn increase by approximately 39 seconds because right turners would have to give way to both directions simultaneously compared to the existing seagull which separates these out.

4.46 The model indicates that in Options 3 and B, with the right turn retained from Main South Road to Riccarton Road, a small amount of eastbound traffic (40 vph) is likely to divert to Yaldhurst Road (via Curletts intersection) to avoid the increased delay on the Main South Road approach to Riccarton Road.

4.47 TomTom travel time data has been used to understand where people travelling through the area have come from and are going to. The sample origins and destinations show a significant level of dispersal:

· Only around 12% of the drivers using the right turn travel the whole way down to the eastern end of Riccarton Road at Deans Avenue (5.3% turn north at that point, 6.2% carry on towards the CBD down Riccarton Avenue and 0.4% turn south).

· Closer to the intersection, around 7% of all right turners can be seen to then immediately turn right at Hansons, with the majority of these clearly bound for Woolworths at Church Corner (before proceeding with their journey).

· The sample suggests that only a very small proportion (1.3%) of all existing right turners are bound for the Bush Inn Centre.

· Drivers to both the Woolworths at Church Corner and the Bush Inn Centre, as well as those further afield (down Riccarton Road and beyond) would clearly have alternative options for routing to their destinations, should the ability to turn right out of Main South Road be removed (as provided by Options 1, 4 and A).

4.48 The analysis suggests that restricting the right turn in Options 1, 4 and A, would likely have a very small impact on their own overall journey time, or on other road users. Given the dispersal of destinations, it is highly unlikely that all would choose to reroute via the Curletts Road/Yaldhurst Road intersection given other reasonably attractive alternative routes for many (e.g., Blenheim>Hansons if shopping at Woolworths Church Corner). Any additional delays are likely to be less than 30 seconds on average (for peak periods) and would not comprise more than approximately 5% of the average observed total journey length of current users of the right turn. Average observed trip length for the eastbound right turning (Main South Road to Riccarton Road) traffic is 6 kilometres and takes an average time of 11.1 minutes (664 seconds) resulting in an average speed of 32.5 kph. If the right turn was removed, the average speed would drop by 1 kph.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option A	Option B
Cost to Implement the works at Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst	$1,433k	$1,433k
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.
Funding Availability	Not confirmed.
Impact on Rates	None.

5.1 The cost are high-level estimates and are not tendered prices.

5.2 Cost estimates were also completed for the original four options that were assessed. These options all included additional kerb work, and a raised dual crossing. The raised crossing and kerb-work would have required supporting stormwater infrastructure and increase the likelihood for additional construction risks. Option A and B do not require the supporting stormwater infrastructure, nor the additional kerb works, which offsets the cost of the traffic signal-controlled crossing.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If the Council decides not to approve the preferred option (Option A), there is a risk that there will continue to be crashes at this intersection that cause death and serious injury. By removing the right turn, this risk is eliminated. Option A also includes other traffic safety measures that will reduce risk for all road users at that location.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Decision making

6.2 Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that every legal decision made by the Council must be made in accordance with sections 77, 78, 80, 81, 82.

6.3 In relation to section 78, although compliance is mandatory, the Council has a broad discretion as to how best it achieves compliance, relative to the significance of the issue.

78 Community views in relation to decisions

(1) A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of person likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter.

(2) ..

(3) A local authority is not required by this section alone to undertake any consultation process or procedure.

(4) This section is subject to section 79.

6.4 Section 79 enables the Council to decide how it achieves compliance with this requirement which is to be largely in proportion to the significance of the matter (determined in accordance with the Council’s significance and engagement policy). As part of its decision on this report, the Council must take into account the following relevant considerations:

6.4.1 The results of the public engagement and deputations received on the proposed changes for the wider Church Corner project, which included the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection;

6.4.2 The crash risk and crash history at the intersection;

6.4.3 The assessment of options, including the analysis criteria and results of the independent safety review.

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

6.5.1 Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides that the Council may, by resolution, prescribe a road or part of a road as a special vehicle lane. The Council has not sub-delegated this power.

6.5.2 On 9 April 2024, the Community Board requested that the Council resume the delegation for the purposes of dealing with the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road Intersection, and the relevant delegated powers are:

Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

6.5.3 Clauses 7 and 8 provides the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.5.4 Clause 17 provides for prohibiting or restricting vehicles or classes of vehicles on any road from turning to the right or to the left or from proceeding in any other direction.

Local Government Act 1974

6.5.5 Section 319 provides general powers of councils in respects of roads, including the authority to:

· divert or alter the course of any road

· increase or diminish the width of any road subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the district plan, if any, and to the Local Government Act 1974 and any other Act

· determine what part of a road shall be carriageway, and what part a footpath or cycle track only

6.5.6 Section 331 provides authority to approve concept plans for forming or upgrading footpath, kerbs and channels.

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

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 and Community Outcomes. Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes, in particular to be an inclusive and equitable city; build trust and confidence by listening to and working with our residents; and providing safe crossing points for people who walk and cycle will contribute to a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected.

6.6.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the assessment for the wider Church Corner safety improvement project, where it was considered medium due to the high risk of crashes but is localised to this area. There is increased community interest in this particular intersection, however the decision does not have any greater impact on the community than it did originally.

6.6.3 The recommended option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:

· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.

· The changes made align with road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).

· The changes made align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change Impact Considerations section below.

· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.

· Church Corner is poised to be one of the bigger growth areas in the city in coming years and is identified as a priority development area in the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan (along with the rest of the Riccarton corridor). The area may likely be upzoned (through Plan Change 14) to allow high density residential development within a walkable catchment of these shops. This would lead to an increase in the number of people wanting to walk and cross the road to access local services.

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

6.8 Transport

6.8.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The proposed options in this report consider the feedback received in the consultation carried out for the wider Church Corner safety improvements project. While not specifically consulted on, Option A includes removing the right turn which was consulted on. Option B retains the right turn, which was not consulted on, therefore we do not have specific community views on retaining the right turn. Both options would, however, improve the safety risk at the intersection for all users.

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

6.10.1 Riccarton Ward.

6.10.2 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

Consultation on wider Church Corner safety improvements

6.11 Consultation on the wider Church Corner safety improvements project started on 9 November and ran until 7 December 2023, with 302 submissions received (from 12 organisations and 292 individuals). For each section of the proposal, submitters were asked how safe they feel using these intersections and crossing points now, compared to how safe they think they would feel if the proposed changes were made.

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

6.13 The consultation was emailed to 173 key stakeholders, posted on the Council Facebook page and was shared to eight local community group pages which reached over 8,800 people.

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

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

6.16 The consultation analysis and all feedback was provided in full to the Community Board on 15 February 2024. Across the 15 February, 14 March and 9 April 2024 Community Board meetings, the Board heard deputations from 10 individuals and four organisations regarding the Church Corner safety improvements.

Feedback relevant to the Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection

6.17 The proposal that was consulted on showed that Main South Road would be closed at the intersection with Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road via a cul-de-sac arrangement.

6.18 Of the 292 submitters who answered the question about how safe they feel at the Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection, 71 submitters (24.3%) perceive the existing intersection as somewhat or very safe whereas 171 (58.6%) perceive it as somewhat or very unsafe.

6.19 If the proposed consultation changes were implemented, the number of submitters who thought they would feel unsafe decreased with only 60 submitters (20.5%) saying they would feel somewhat or very unsafe and the number of submitters who thought they would feel safe increased with 173 submitters (59.2%) saying they would feel somewhat or very safe.

6.20 An extract of all comments made by submitters in the Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road intersection section of the consultation is available in Attachment L. All submissions are available in full online.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.22 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.

6.23 The Ngāi Tahu Cultural Atlas identifies a route way running through the project footprint. There is an opportunity to recognise the route mapped in the Cultural Atlas and apply a Te Ao Māori lens to the landscape design of the space.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.24 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.24.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

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

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

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

6.28 Options that increase the area of permeable surface (increasing the amount of green space) in the area will help contribute more positively to adaptation.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, the next step will be to undertake construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Option A Plan for approval	24/1079513	25
b ⇩	Option B Plan for information	24/1720021	26
c ⇨	Consultation Plan (Under Separate Cover)	24/1513545
d ⇨	Plan provided for Community Board approval (14 March 2024 meeting) (Under Separate Cover)	24/1513611
e ⇨	Community Board approved plan - wider programme (Under Separate Cover)	24/1367900
f ⇨	Crash history and risk (Under Separate Cover)	24/1633845
g ⇨	SMART Safe Survey Outputs (Under Separate Cover)	24/1079507
h ⇨	Proposed options and options assessment table (Under Separate Cover)	24/1633839
i ⇨	Plans for proposed options1 to 4, A and B (Under Separate Cover)	24/1079514
j ⇨	Abley Memo - Safe System Audit (Under Separate Cover)	24/1079515
k ⇨	QTP Memo - Traffic Modelling (Under Separate Cover)	24/1079516
l ⇨	Extract of Submissions (Under Separate Cover)	24/1079550
m ⇩	Memo to Councillors dated 2 October 2024	24/1774190	27

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation Safety

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Krystle Anderson - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

6. Nor'West Arc Major Cycleway (Section 3) - Detailed Traffic Resolutions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440200
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Richard Humm, Project Manager Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report refers to the section of Nor’West Arc Cycleway (Section 3 Stages 2 and 3) between the intersection of Ilam Road and Aorangi Road; to the intersection of Matsons Ave and Harewood Road.

1.2 The purpose of the report is to seek approval for the detailed traffic resolutions and for tree removals/relocations, assessed in accordance with the Urban Development and Transport Committee (UDaT) and the Council’s requests as part of the detailed design process.

1.3 This report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Nor'West Arc Major Cycleway (Section 3) - Detailed Traffic Resolutions report.

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

3. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any Bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions described in recommendations 4-35 below.

4. Aorangi Road (Ilam Road to Clyde Road) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Clyde Road as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4010B dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against:

i. Aorangi Road at its intersection with Ilam Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. Aorangi Road at its intersection with Clyde Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

c. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Aorangi Road Shared path users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, travelling in a north-easterly direction on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, located at its intersection with Clyde Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

d. Approves, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rules 2004, for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, on

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Truman Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 37 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

e. Approves, in accordance with clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane be installed, for the use of north-easterly and south-westerly bound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, expecting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at point 7 metres southwest of its intersection with Truman Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 7 metres northeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

5. Aorangi Road (Ilam Road to Clyde Road) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on:

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 14 meters south-west of its intersection with Truman Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Truman Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 7 metres northeast side of its intersection with Truman Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 30 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B and 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 11 metres southwest of its intersection with Truman Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

vi. the southwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 49 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

vii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 105 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 2 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

viii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 132 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

ix. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 158 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

x. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 229 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

xi. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 286 metres southwest of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction to its intersection with Ilam Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

6. Truman Road (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Truman Road, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Truman Road at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 13/09/2024.

7. Truman Road (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Truman Road commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4010B, dated 22/08/0224.

8. Clyde Road (southwestern project extent to northeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Clyde Road, commencing at a point 25 metres southeast of intersection with the southern leg of Aorangi Road, and extending a north-westerly direction to a point 50 metres northwest of this intersection, as shown on Attachment A, of this report sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, in accordance with clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane be installed, for the use of north-westerly bound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, expecting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, on

i. the southwestern side of Clyde Road commencing at point 19 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 45 metres northwest of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northeastern side of Clyde Road commencing at point 45 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to a point 19 metres southeast of its intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

9. Clyde Road (southwestern project extent to northeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the southwestern side of Clyde Road commencing at a point 25 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 49 metres northwest of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 22/08/0224.

ii. the northeastern side of Clyde Road, commencing at a point 50 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction to a point 19 metres southeast of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

10. Aorangi Road (Clyde Road to Wairakei Road) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Wairakei Road as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011 to 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Aorangi Road at its intersection with Clyde Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

c. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against

i. Aorangi Road Shared path users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, travelling in a north-easterly direction on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, located at its intersection with Clyde Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. Aorangi Road cycle path users traveling in an easterly direction on the bi-directional cycle path on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road at a point 14 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road, as shown on Attachment of this report A, sheet 4015, date 13/09/2024.

iii. Aorangi Road shared path users travelling in a northbound direction on the bi-directional shared path on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, located at its intersection with Wairakei Road, as shown on of this report Attachment A, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. Aorangi Road cycle path users traveling in a south-westerly direction on the bi-directional cycle path on the southeast side of Aorangi Road at a point 14 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road, as shown on Attachment A, of this report sheet 4015, date 13/09/2024.

v. Aorangi Road at its intersection with Wairakei Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the northwest side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 32 metres northeast of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the western side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 13 metres south of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a northerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the eastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 6 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

e. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 32 metres northeast of its intersection with Clyde Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 7 metres southwest of its intersection with Brookside Terrace, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011-4013, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 7 metres northeast of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 13 metres south of its intersection with Wairakei Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the eastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 15 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 6 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

f. Approves, in accordance with clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane be installed, for the use of north-easterly and south-westerly bound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, expecting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at point 7 metres southwest of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 7 metres northeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

g. Approves, in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that right turns be prohibited on the northbound approach of Aorangi Road at its intersection with Wairakei Road as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

11. Aorangi Road (Clyde Road to Wairakei Road) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Brookside Terrace, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011 to 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Wairakei Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013 to 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the southeast side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 38 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Colwyn Street and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Colwyn Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014, dated 13/09/2024.

vi. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

vii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection Brookside Terrace and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

viii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 28 metres southwest of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012 to 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

ix. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 66 metres southwest of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

x. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 10 metres northeast of its intersection with Bateman Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xi. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection Bateman Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 24 metres southwest of its intersection with Bateman Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xiii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 49 metres southwest of its intersection with Bateman Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xiv. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 106 metres northeast of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xv. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 57 metres northeast of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

xvi. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4011, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to

i. a maximum period of 10 minutes, on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 38 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday between the hours of 8am to 6pm

ii. a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 43 metres southwest of its intersection with Wairakei Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014 to 4015, dated 13/09/2024. This restriction is to apply at all times.

12. Bateman Avenue (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Bateman Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Bateman Avenue at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

13. Bateman Avenue (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Bateman Avenue commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4012, dated 13/09/2024.

14. Brookside Terrace (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Brookside Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Brookside Terrace at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

15. Brookside Terrace (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Brookside Terrace commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

16. Brookside Terrace (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

17. Brookside Terrace (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Brookside Terrace commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4013, dated 13/09/2024.

18. Colwyn Street (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Colwyn Street, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Colwyn Street at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014, dated 13/09/2024.

19. Colwyn Street (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restriction

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Colwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4014, dated 13/09/2024.

20. Wairakei Road (northwestern project extent to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 15 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 28 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Wairakei cycle path users travelling in an eastbound direction on the cycle path, at a point 12 metres west of its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the southeastern side of Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 25 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northeastern side of Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 12 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a southeasterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

d. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the northeastern side of Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 14 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 2 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the southwestern side of Wairakei Road commencing at a point 15 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northeastern side of Wairakei Road commencing at a point 28 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

f. Approves, in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 that a signalised roadway crossing, for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, be installed on Wairakei Road, located 7 metres southeast of its intersection with the southwestern leg of Aorangi Road, and as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

21. Wairakei Road (western project extent to eastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the southwestern side of Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 25 metres southeast of its intersection with the southern leg of Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northern side of Wairakei Road, commencing at a point 28 metres northwest of its intersection with the northern leg of Aorangi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

22. Aorangi Road (Wairakei Road to Condell Avenue) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Codell Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4015 to 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against

i. Aorangi Road at its intersection with Wairakei Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. Aorangi Road at its intersection with Condell Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 9 metres northeast of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction to a point 13 metres southwest of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 9 metres north of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 8 metres southwest of its intersection with Wallace Street, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015 to 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 6 metres northeast of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Condell Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4017 to 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

e. Approves, in accordance with clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane be installed, for the use of north-easterly and south-westerly bound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, expecting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road commencing at point 8 metres southwest of its intersection with Brookside Terrace and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 6 metres northeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

f. Approves, in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that right turns be prohibited on the southbound approach of Aorangi Road at its intersection with Wairakei Road as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024.

g. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against Aorangi Road at its intersection with Condell Avenue in accordance with section 4 and section 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 as detailed in Attachment A of this report.

23. Aorangi Road (Wairakei Road to Condell Avenue) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 58 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4015 to 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 70 metres northeast of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 106 metres northeast of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 126 metres northeast of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 131 metres southwest of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A, of this report sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

vi. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 115 metres southwest of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 74 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

vii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 35 metres southwest of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4016, dated 13/09/2024.

viii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 11 metres southwest of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4016 to 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

ix. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

x. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 44 metres northeast of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xi. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 62 metres northeast of its intersection with Wallace Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 231 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xiii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 215 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xiv. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 183 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 51 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4017 to 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xv. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 125 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xvi. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 106 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xvii. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 91 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xviii. The northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 68 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xix. the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 47 metres southwest of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xx. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

xxi. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at a point 11 metres northeast of its intersection with Christian Street and extending in a south-westerly direction this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xxii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, commencing at its intersection with Christian Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

xxiii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at a point 52 metres northeast of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, on the southeastern side of Aorangi Street commencing at a point 62 metres northeast of its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4015, dated 13/09/2024. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday between the hours of 8am to 6pm.

24. Wallace Street (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Wallace Street, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Wallace Street at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

25. Wallace Street (Aorangi Road to northwestern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Wallace Street, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

26. Christian Street (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Christian Street, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against Christian Street at its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A, of this report sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

27. Christian Street (Aorangi Road to southeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restriction

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Christian Street, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4017, dated 13/09/2024.

28. Condell Avenue (southeastern project extent to northwestern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 28 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 18 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4018 to 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against

i. Condell Avenue cycle path users travelling in a north-westerly direction on the bi-directional cycle path, and that this Give Way control be located at a point 74 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. Condell Avenue cycle path users travelling in a north-westerly direction, at a point 115 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. Condell Avenue cycle path users travelling in a south-easterly direction, at a point 5 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. Condell Avenue cycle path users travelling in a south-easterly direction, at a point 20 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 28 metres southeast of intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 3 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 5 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

d. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use

i. of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 3 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 76 metres northwest of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. of northwest bound road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 76 metres northwest of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 39 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018 to 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. of southeast bound road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 14 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 5 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4018 to 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

29. Condell Avenue (southeastern project extent to northwestern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at point 28 metres southeast of its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southwestern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Aorangi Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 124 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018 to 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 14 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 33 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4018 to 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 52 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4018, dated 13/09/2024.

vi. the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, commencing at a point 84 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

30. Matsons Avenue (Condell Avenue to Harewood Road) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Matsons Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a northeasterly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4019 to 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Matsons Avenue at its intersection with Harewood Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

c. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against

i. Matsons Avenue at its intersection with Condell Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southeastern Matsons Avenue shared path users travelling in a north-easterly direction on the bi-directional cycle path, at a point 33 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northwestern Matsons Avenue cycle path users travelling in a south-westerly direction on the bi-directional cycle path, at a point 32 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 8 metres northeast of this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at point 8 metres southwest of its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a north-easterly direction this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 8 metres northeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 36 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 34 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

i. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 8 metres northeast of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 8 metres southwest of its intersection with Windermere Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 8 metres northeast of its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 36 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019 to 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

f. Approves, in accordance with clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane be installed, for the use of north-easterly and south-westerly bound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, expecting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road commencing at point 8 metres southwest of its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 8 metres northeast of this intersection as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

31. Matsons Avenue (Condell Avenue to Harewood Road) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on:

i. the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue commencing at its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue commencing at point 412 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

iii. the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue commencing at a point 209 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

iv. the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue commencing at a point 44 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

v. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 53 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

vi. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 61 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

vii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 93 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

viii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 117 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

ix. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 157 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4020 to 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

x. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 179 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xi. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 223 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 238 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xiii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 259 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xiv. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 297 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xv. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 338 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xvi. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 357 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xvii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 379 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheets 4019 to 4020, dated 13/09/2024.

xviii. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 29 metres northeast of its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

xix. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 38 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

xx. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 58 metres southwest of its intersection with Windermere Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 43 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

xxi. the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, commencing at a point 48 metres northeast of its intersection with Condell Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

32. Windermere Road (Matsons Avenue to southeastern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Matsons Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Stop control be placed against Windermere Road at its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

33. Windermere Road (Matsons Avenue to southeastern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the southwestern side of Windermere Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the northeastern side of Windermere Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4019, dated 13/09/2024.

34. Harewood Road (southeastern project extent to northwestern project extent) – Traffic Controls

a. Approves all kerb alignments, paths, islands, road surface treatments, traffic calming features and road markings on Harewood Road commencing at a point 8 metres south-east of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction to a point 36 metres past this intersection, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

b. Approves, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Give Way control be placed against the Harewood Road users travelling in a north-westbound direction on the cycle path, and that this Give Way control be located at a point 3 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as shown on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

c. Approves, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rules 2004, for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, on the southwestern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 8 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in an north-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

d. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established on the southwestern side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 3 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

35. Harewood Road (southeastern project extent to northwestern project extent) – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on

i. the southwestern side of Harewood Road, commencing 8 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction to this intersection, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

ii. the southwestern side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A of this report, sheet 4021, dated 13/09/2024.

36. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 4-35 are in place or removed in the case of revocations.

37. Tree Removal & Planting

a. Notes that tree removals associated with this project and corridor have previously been approved, including 23 trees by the Urban Development and Transport Committee at its meeting on 3 February 2022. The previously approved trees for removal are:

· 1. 36721 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #192.

· 2. 99225 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #190.

· 3. 99226 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #190.

· 4. 99227 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #188.

· 5. 99228 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #188.

· 6. 131820/VC88 on the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, near #98.

· 7. 131820/VC89 on the northeastern side of Condell Avenue, near #98.

· 8. 37096 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #126 Condell Avenue.

· 9. 37064 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #108 Condell Avenue.

· 10. 37065 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #126.

· 11. 37095 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #149.

· 12. 37066 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #138

· 13. 37094 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #161

· 14. 37093 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #167

· 15. 37067 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #98 Windermere Road.

· 16. 37087 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #195.

· 17. 37072 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #176.

· 18. 37086 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #203.

· 19. 37074 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #186.

· 20. 37077 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #196.

· 21. 99613 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #200.

· 22. VC106 on the northwestern side of Matsons Avenue, near #239.

· 23. 37252 on the southeastern side of Matsons Avenue, near #51 Harewood Road.

ii. Approves the removal of two trees near #171 Wairakei Road that the Council had previously provisionally approved through the Urban Development and Transport Committee at its meeting on 3 February 2022.

· 1. 36897 on the northwest side of Aorangi Road near #171 Wairakei Road. This tree is a Lime within the driveway relocation.

· 2. 36896 on the northwest side of Aorangi Road near #171 Wairakei Road. This tree is a Lime within the driveway relocation.

iii. Notes the removal of three trees that were approved by the Council at its meeting on 25 August 2022. The previously approved trees for removal are:

· 1. 99319 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #315 Clyde Road. This a Silver Birch in poor condition and within the footpath realignment.

· 2. 99318 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #159. This a Claret Ash in poor condition, within the footpath realignment bay and within the overhead line encroachment zone.

· 3. 99317 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #159. This a Claret Ash in poor condition, within the footpath realignment bay and within the overhead line encroachment zone.

b. Approves tree removal as detailed in Attachment B of this report which are tree numbers:

i. 36719 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #367 Ilam Road. This tree is an English oak within the overhead lines' encroachment zone;

ii. 36718 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #367 Ilam Road. This tree is an English oak within the footpath realignment;

iii. 15132 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #182. This tree is a Silver Birch adjacent to the carriageway works;

iv. 15148 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #181. This tree is a Silver Birch in poor condition, within the proposed parking bay and within the overhead line encroachment zone;

v. 15149 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #179. This tree is a Silver Birch in poor condition, within the proposed parking bay and within the overhead lines' encroachment zone;

vi. 99139 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #173. This tree is a Silver Birch in poor condition, within the proposed parking bay and within the overhead lines' encroachment zone;

vii. 15151 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #171. This tree is a Silver Birch in poor condition, within the proposed parking bay and within the overhead lines' encroachment zone;

viii. 15152 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #169. This tree is a Silver Birch within the proposed parking bay and within the overhead lines' encroachment zone;

ix. 99316 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #49 Brookside Terrace. This is a Golden Ash within the proposed parking bay.

x. 65963 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #49 Brookside Terrace. This is a Flowering Cherry within the proposed parking bay.

xi. 15067 on the northeastern side of Clyde Road, near #316. This is a Lime within the kerb realignment and highlighted by the Safety Audit as creating an obstruction to intervisibility between traffic on Clyde Road and users on the proposed Clyde Road crossing;

xii. 36895 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #171 Wairakei Road;

xiii. 37075 on the southeastern side of Matsons Ave, near #190. This tree is a Silver Birch within the carriageway construction.

c. Approves that tree relocation (or removal where not possible) to a more suitable location as detailed in Attachment B of this report. Tree numbers:

i. NEW1 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #167. This is a Magnolia Tree recently planted and within the parking bay.

ii. NEW2 on the northwestern side of Aorangi Road, near #165. This is a Magnolia Tree recently planted and within the parking bay.

iii. NEW3 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #165. This is Ash Tree recently planted and within the parking bay.

iv. NEW4 on the southeastern side of Aorangi Road, near #163. This is a Ash Tree recently planted and within the parking bay.

d. Notes:

i. Tree removals have been assessed in accordance with Urban Development and Transport Committee and the Council’s requests on 3 February 2022 and 25 August 2022 for staff to investigate additional parking bays on Aorangi Road between Clyde Road and Ilam Road.

ii. Approval for two tree removals (36897 and 36896) are requested in accordance with the UDAT Committee request on 3 February 2022 to work with the owner of 171 Wairakei Road in respect of the driveway to optimise safety of all users.

iii. The above removals are supported by the Christchurch City Council Arborist, except for the Lime tree at 316 Clyde Road (15067) and the 2 trees at 171 Wairakei (36897 and 36896). (Arboricultural Impact Assessment Reports require for viewing).

iv. For every tree removed, a minimum of two new trees will be planted in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Tree Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Urban Development and Transport Committee (UDaT) approved the scheme design for the Nor’West Arc Cycleway in February 2022.

3.2 This included a resolution that staff bring back the detailed traffic resolutions to the Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to entering construction. This report will therefore formalise and legalise the traffic resolutions and allow the road changes previously approved.

3.3 In line with requests from the UDaT Committee and the Council, staff have made two minor changes to the design:

3.3.1 Inclusion of additional parking near the Aorangi Road / Clyde Road intersection.

3.3.2 Removal of trees adjacent to 171 Wairakei Road to improve safety.

3.4 The amended design also includes the removal of a number of trees due to encroachment into the area around overhead power lines. While it does not directly form part of this project, this is an issue that Council will need to address, and inclusion in the project scope will form the least disruptive and most cost-effective way of managing the issue.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Nor’West Arc is one of the 13 Major Cycleways Routes planned within Christchurch.

4.2 This cycleway will form a semi-orbital route linking Cashmere in the South, to Papanui in the North, via Spreydon and the University. When the full Major Cycleway network is constructed, it will also provide links between six other major cycleways.

4.3 In 2020, the Nor’West Arc was one of a number of cycleways that was successful in attracting “Shovel Ready” funding from central government. The project as been mostly constructed, with the remaining parts to be built being:

· Section 3 as outlined in this report – from the Ilam/Aorangi intersection to the Matsons/Harewood intersection; and

· Annex Road, between Birmingham Road and Blenheim Road.

4.4 On 3 February 2022 the scheme design for Major Cycleway Nor’West Arc Section 3 project was approved for detailed design and construction by the UDaT Committee: Minutes of Urban Development and Transport Committee - Thursday, 3 February 2022 (infocouncil.biz)

4.4.1 The Committee resolved that the detailed design traffic resolutions be brought back to the Committee at the end of the detailed design prior to beginning of construction (UDATC/2022/00005).

4.4.2 The UDaT Committee no longer sits, so the delegation for the Major Cycleways programme now lies with the Council.

4.4.3 The Detailed Traffic Resolutions for Stage 1 (from the University to the Ilam/Aorangi intersection) were approved by the Council on 25 August 2022. This section has since been constructed and opened.

4.5 On 6 September 2023 a Notice of Motion was raised to investigate changing the design of part of this section of the cycleway: along Aorangi Road, from Ilam Road to Brookside Terrace. Council Officers provided a report on this matter to the Council on 15 May 2024 where the Council resolved to continue with the approved design.

4.6 The UDaT Committee and the Council requested that staff investigate a number of options that affect parking and trees during detailed design:

4.6.1 UDaT Committee 3 February 2022:

· Request for staff to investigate additional parking on the Aorangi Road corner by Clyde Road – Design amended to include 8 car parking spaces resulting in the removal or relocation of 17 trees. Detailed in attachment B -sheets 5210 and 5211.

· Request for staff to work with the owner of 171 Wairakei Road in respect of the driveway to optimise safety for all users - New driveway access agreed with resident as detailed in attachment A - Sheet 4105.

· Notes that two additional trees may need to be removed outside 171 Wairakei Road and 315 Clyde Road depending on the detailed design and consultation with affected parties - Detailed in attachment B - Sheet 5215.

4.6.2 Council 25 August 2022:

· Approve those three trees be removed from the eastern side of Aorangi Road outside #159 Aorangi Road and #315 Clyde Rd

· Request that staff investigate an additional multi-vehicle parking bay on Aorangi Road, between Clyde Road and Ilam Road (approximately outside number 169), by removing two additional silver birch trees

4.7 During detailed design, Council Officers have also identified a number of trees that are encroaching on the space required by overhead power lines.

4.7.1 The encroachment issues will need to be addressed regardless of the project.

4.7.2 This has been included within this report as the project provides the least disruptive and most cost-effective way of resolving these issues.

4.8 Council Officers have investigated these options and incorporated minor changes to the design to accommodate these. This has resulted in:

· The removal of 13 trees; and

· The relocation (if possible) of 4 trees.

4.9 For every tree removed two new trees will be planted as per the Council’s Tree Policy. All new trees will be planted within the project area as detailed in Attachment B.

4.10 This report is therefore to approve the minor changes to the design and detailed traffic resolutions, in line with designs previously approved by the Council.

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

Date	Subject
15/05/2024	N.O.M Process for Changing an approved Design – MCR Nor’West Arc.
03/02/2022	Hearings Panel report on the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor’west Arc Cycleway Section 3 – Urban Development and Transport Committee.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Approve the detailed traffic resolutions, including minor amendments and tree removal.

4.13 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Do not approve the detailed traffic resolutions report – this was ruled out as it would not allow the Council to meet previous resolutions, and would mean the changes could not be enforced after construction of the cycle route.

· Approve the detailed traffic resolutions without the additional tree removals – this was ruled out as it would not allow the Council to meet expectations set with the community for improved safety and parking and would likely have an increased cost for addressing trees that are encroaching on overhead power lines.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Approve detailed traffic resolutions, including minor amendments and tree removal.

4.14.1 Option Description: Passing the resolutions would mean the previously approved design can be legally enforced after construction of the cycle route.

The amendments would reduce safety risks for users of cycleway at the location of 171 Wairakei Road, will create space for additional parking bays as requested by the Council, and will address concerns around trees and overhead power lines.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Would ensure that changes to the road layout associated with the cycleway are enforceable.

· Increase the safety for users.

· Additional parking spaces close to a community facility.

· Reduce the risk that overhead lines will be damaged by their proximity to trees.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Minor additional cost for the removal of trees and installation of additional parking bays.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	$14.35m
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$23,495 pa
Funding Source	Shovel Ready + CAPEX
Funding Availability	$13.79m remaining in #23101 (NWA Section 3) $1.86m in #1993 (NWA Programme funds) $15.65m Total budget remaining
Impact on Rates	0.07%, unchanged from that agreed at LTP

5.1 This report has minor additional financial implications for the removal extra trees and installation of the parking bays. The expected cost is between $175,000 and $225,000 to complete, which is available within the available project budget.

5.2 Budget for this project has been included in the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. Expected forecast costs are available in the monthly Watchlist report to Finance & Performance.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If these resolutions are not approved the legalities relating to the users of the road space including parking and cycle lanes will not be able to be enforced.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

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

6.2.4 The decision within this report falls within the Councils Terms of Reference.

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

6.4 This report has not been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

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. This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking among the mainstream traffic.

6.5.2 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined on the basis that all the delivery decisions have been previously made and this report seeks to set in place the traffic by-laws for enforcement.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city - >=67% resident satisfaction

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 This report request is for traffic resolution approval. No additional engagement with the community has taken place. The changes from the approved design discussed in this report where at the request of the Hearings Panel review on 3 February 2022.

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

6.9.1 Waimaero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

6.9.2 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.10 The Community Boards have not been considered as the delegation for approval sits with the Council. All Major Cycleway Route approvals have been delegated to the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.13 The report is for approval of traffic resolutions only.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.15 This option helps reduce vehicle emissions by encouraging more residents to cycle or walk for local trips and longer trips.

6.16 For each tree removed, two replacement trees will be planted within the project site as per the Council’s Tree Policy.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Complete the procurement process and commence construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	NWA Section 3B Resolutions - Signage & Linemarking Plans (Under Separate Cover)	24/1472377
b ⇨	NWA Section 3B resolutions - Tree Removal Plans (Under Separate Cover)	24/1472407
c ⇨	Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1722542

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Richard Humm - Project Manager

Andrew Hensley - Traffic Engineer

Laurie Gordon - Senior Arboricultural Advisor

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

7. Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan: Whakaraupo Lyttelton Harbour to Koukourarata Port Levy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1489381
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jane Morgan, Team Leader, Coastal Adaptation, Krystle Anderson, Engagement Advisor Tom Simons-Smith, Principal Advisor, Coastal Adaptation
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to adopt the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy for consultation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan: Whakaraupo Lyttelton Harbour to Koukourarata Port Levy Report.

2. Agrees to adopt the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan: Whakaraupo Lyttelton Harbour to Koukourarata Port Levy for consultation.

3. Notes that a Hearings Panel will be appointed to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Council as the final decision-maker on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Staff have been undertaking adaptation planning for public assets at risk of coastal hazards in the Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy Adaptation Area since late 2022.

3.2 In line with the approach set out in the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework, a Coastal Panel of community and rūnanga representatives has identified their preferred adaption pathways for these assets over the next 100 years. The Coastal Panel has been supported by a Specialist and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) which includes the Council’s asset owners as well as other specialists.

3.3 There is strong alignment around the preferred pathways, reflecting that this process of bringing Council asset owners and specialists together with community and rūnanga representatives has resulted in a high level of agreement around the relative priority and future pathway for these assets.

3.4 The estimated costs of implementation of these pathways at this stage in the process are $15.4m over the next decade, $164m between 2035-2065, and $35m from 2065 onwards, totalling $214.4m. There is more certainty about the more proximate actions, and because the dynamic adaptive planning approach allows for a range of feasible options to be retained in the process, the potential for future changes in direction in the medium to long term is well signalled in the draft Plan.

3.5 The Coastal Panel’s preferred pathways are set out in the attached draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy, (‘draft Plan’) which has been written by Council staff.

3.6 Following Council adoption of the draft Plan, the Council will invite submissions to understand the wider community views and preferences. A Hearings Panel will hear submissions, and staff analysis of submissions and will then make a recommendation to Council for a Council meeting in early 2025.

3.7 Note that the draft Plan has been endorsed by the Coastal Hazards Working Group.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Process of developing the draft Plan

4.1 The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning (CHAP) programme has been progressing an adaptation planning process in the Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy Adaptation Area since late 2022. This is the first of a number of climate adaptation planning processes that are expected to occur across the district as Council and communities prepare for the impacts of climate change.

4.2 The process focuses on developing adaptation pathways for Council-owned assets in areas at risk of coastal flooding, erosion and/or rising groundwater within the next 30 years. The specific locations planned for are: Rāpaki, Allandale Teddington, Te Wharau Charteris Bay, Purau and Koukourarata Port Levy. Assets in other areas such as Lyttelton have been assessed as lower risk during this 30-year timeframe but may be subject to future adaptation planning processes.

4.3 Adaptation planning uses the Dynamic Adaptive Planning Pathways (DAPP) approach which is predicated on undertaking long-term planning (over a 100-year period for these at-risk assets) in the context of deep uncertainty, and includes two key features that differentiate it from standard planning processes:

· The timing of actions is based on signals and triggers, not on concrete timelines meaning that we only act when we need to – this responds to the uncertainty around the rate (and therefore timing) of sea level rise;

· While a preferred pathway is identified, a range of alternative options that are also feasible are retained in the pathway – this responds to the possibility that we may need to change direction in the future.

4.4 In line with its Coastal Adaptation Framework, the Council appointed a local Coastal Panel of community and rūnanga representatives with the responsibility of identifying their preferred adaptation pathways.

4.5 The Coastal Panel have been guided through this process by the Specialist and Technical Advisory Group (STAG) which includes Council asset owners and specialists as well as representatives from Environment Canterbury, the Department of Conservation, Te Whatu Ora and the University of Canterbury. The involvement of asset owners from across Council has ensured that the draft Plan reflects and aligns with existing activity and decision-making approaches in these areas.

4.6 In addition to the involvement of rūnanga representatives on the Coastal Panel, CHAP staff have engaged directly throughout the process with the two rūnanga whose takiwā is impacted: Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke and Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata.

4.7 There have also been wider community engagement points during the process, to ensure that the Coastal Panel has been able to integrate community values and feedback as the planning has progressed.

4.8 The Coastal Panel’s preferred pathways are set out in the attached draft Plan.

4.9 Following Council adoption of the draft Plan, the Council will invite submissions to understand the wider community views and preferences. A Hearings Panel will hear submissions, and staff analysis of submissions. The Hearings Panel will then make a recommendation to Council in early 2025.

4.10 The draft Plan has been reviewed by the following groups:

· The Coastal Panel

· The Specialist and Technical Advisory Group (and subject matter experts in Council)

· The Independent Chair of the Coastal Panel

· Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata

· Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke

· The Executive Leadership Team

· The Coastal Hazards Working Group

4.11 Feedback has been very positive, with no significant changes required, reflecting that this process of bringing Council asset owners and specialists together with community and rūnanga representatives has resulted in a high level of convergence around the preferred pathways.

Funding and financing approach

4.12 As set out in the table below[1], it is currently anticipated that over the next ten years $15.9m will be required to fund the adaptation of public assets, with the bulk of the adaptation costs ($164m) projected to occur within the period 2035 – 2065 and the remainder in the decades after that ($35m). This indicates that the burden of adaptation costs will fall on future generations and reinforces the Council decision to establish the Climate Resilience Fund to address this inter-generational equity issue.

A screenshot of a document

Description automatically generated

5. Engagement considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

5.1 Significant engagement has occurred with the wider Whakaraupō and Koukourarata community throughout the process. The first engagement phase ran for eight weeks, and the second phase ran for 14 weeks. This wider community feedback has helped the Coastal Panel shape their preferred pathways.

5.2 The upcoming final consultation is intended to run for four weeks. A range of tactics will be used to encourage the community to make submissions.

5.3 Early engagement has begun with residents’ groups to ensure that they are ready to receive the draft Plan and provide feedback.

5.4 Due to the complex technical nature of the work, and the inter-dependencies between the adaptation pathways across the adaptation area (for example, the main access route around the harbour is impacted in five locations), it was decided that releasing the full draft Plan was the most effective way to seek feedback in this final consultation. The draft Plan is lengthy, but considerable efforts have been made using an informal style, plain language and an emphasis on graphic design to make this document accessible.

5.5 Please note that the following briefings have occurred in the lead up to this decision:

Date	Subject
22 July	Te Pātaka o Rākahautū Banks Peninsula Community Board briefing
6 Aug	Council information session (link to recording, which starts at 39.50 minutes)
17 Sept	Draft Plan circulated to the Coastal Hazards Working Group for feedback
17 Sept	Draft Plan circulated to the Te Pātaka o Rākahautū Banks Peninsula Community Board for feedback
26 Sept	Coastal Hazards Working Group provided feedback and endorsed the draft Plan

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.6 The Council decision being sought in this report, is to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

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

5.7.1 The Council could agree to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

5.7.2 The Council could decline to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.8 Preferred Option: Council agrees to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

5.8.1 Option Description: The draft Plan has been written by Council staff but sets out preferred adaptation pathways for public assets at risk of coastal hazards in the Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy area that have been identified by the Coastal Panel, in line with the process established through the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework.

5.8.2 If the Council adopts the draft Plan, consultation will occur between 17 October and 17 November 2024. The Hearings Panel will make a recommendation to the Council on the draft Plan, and/or amendments to the draft Plan, following submissions. This is likely to be to a Council meeting in early 2025.

5.8.3 Option Advantages

· This option aligns with the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework which allocates the responsibility for identifying preferred adaptation pathways to the Coastal Panel, with the Council making the final decision on whether to confirm the Plan and preferred adaptation pathways.

· Significant time and resource have been committed to this process, and in particular the Coastal Panel and both rūnanga have dedicated many evenings and weekends to technical assessment processes and the provision of advice.

5.8.4 Option Disadvantages

· None, as the draft Plan has followed the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework.

5.9 Alternative Option: The Council could decline to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

5.9.1 Option Description: Council could decline to adopt the draft Plan.

5.9.2 Option Advantages

· Council could instead seek to either develop its own proposed adaptation pathways with less or no community participation; or Council could choose to end the adaptation planning process and pursue a different course of action.

5.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option would create a reputational risk for Council given the commitments made in the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework and the degree of public participation involved in the process to date.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

6.1 The costs of the consultation are absorbed within the existing CHAP budget. Any decision to not adopt the draft Plan and take a different approach to progressing adaptation planning would need to be re-costed depending on the direction set.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.2 Council has the power under the Local Government Act to adopt the draft Plan for consultation.

7.3 Other Legal Implications:

7.4 Council also has the power under the Local Government Act to make the decisions regarding maintaining or changing levels of service and provision of infrastructure that are indicated in the preferred pathways.

7.5 Implementation of the Plan will require separate future Council decisions on funding pathway steps.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.6 The required decision:

7.6.1 Aligns with the Council’s Strategic Framework in particular with the strategic priorities of investing in adaptation, balancing the needs of today’s residents with the needs of future generations, and building trust and confidence.

7.6.2 Is low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, as this decision is to consult. Note that the final decision to approve the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan: Whakaraupo Lyttelton Harbour to Koukourarata Port Levy is of high significance.

7.6.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Coastal Adaptation Framework which allocates responsibility for identifying the preferred adaptation pathways to the Coastal Panel of community and rūnanga representatives.

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

7.6.5 Regulatory and Compliance

7.6.6 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 17.0.23.4 Work with communities and rūnanga in low-lying coastal and inland communities to develop adaptation plans that respond to the current and future impacts of coastal hazards caused by climate change - Undertake adaptation planning in accordance with Council expectations and in alignment with central government guidance.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.7 The Coastal Panel are a group of community and rūnanga representatives.

7.8 The Te Pātaka o Rākahautū Banks Peninsula Community Board have a representative and a member on the Coastal Panel and have been briefed throughout the process. A briefing regarding this stage of the process was provided on 22 July 2024 and a copy of the draft Plan was circulated on 17 September 2024 for feedback.

7.9 The Banks Peninsula Zone Committee have a representative on the Coastal Panel and were briefed on the draft Plan on 17 September 2024.

7.10 As outlined in this report, significant and multi-faceted engagement has occurred throughout the process, with the analysis of previous community feedback being summarised and publicly released on the Council website, as well as being used to directly inform the Coastal Panel decision-making process.

7.11 Community views from the upcoming consultation will direct the finalisation of the draft Plan and preferred adaptation pathways.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.12 The draft Plan has been developed with the benefit of extensive engagement with Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke and Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata as it involves the development of adaptation pathways for public assets within their takiwā. In particular, decisions related to the papakaianga and settlements of Rāpaki, Purau, and Koukourarata are significant to each rūnanga.

7.13 Both Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke and Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata have heavily invested their time and resources in this process through membership of the Coastal Panel and through hosting a number of hui to provide feedback on the adaptation pathways.

7.14 The decision to adopt the draft Plan involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.15 The decisions in this report will contribute positively and directly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

7.16 This is the Council’s first adaptation plan and signals the delivery of a Council commitment to undertake adaptation planning in conjunction with communities. The process undertaken in Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Port Levy Koukourarata pilots the adaptation planning process agreed by Council through the Coastal Adaptation Framework.

7.17 A decision to adopt this draft Plan for consultation provides communities with confidence that the Council is progressing adaptation planning in alignment with its policy framework.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 Following Council adoption of the draft Plan, the Council will invite submissions to understand the wider community views and preferences.

8.2 A Hearings Panel will hear submissions and staff analysis of submissions. The Hearings Panel will then make a recommendation to Council in early 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan: Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour & Koukourarata Port Levy (Under Separate Cover)	24/1732645

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Morgan - Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning

Krystle Anderson - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

8. Review of Gambling and TAB Venues Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1685879
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

Secretarial Note:
On 4 September 2024 the Council resolved that, pursuant to Standing Order 20.2, this item be left to lie on the table in order to receive further advice back from staff to enable the Item to be considered before the end of the year.
Council Officers have provided a Memorandum which contains the further advice requested and two amendments to the original Officer Recommendations (refer to Attachment D of this report).

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	83
b ⇩	2024 Gambling Venue Policy Review – Discussion of Policy Options	24/1265750	111
c ⇩	Letter for Minister of Internal Affairs on gambling reform	24/1419582	116
d ⇩	Memorandum Review of Gambling and TAB Venues Policy 2024 - Further Officer Advice	24/1685506	118

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

9. Review of the Dog Control Policy 2016 and Dog Control Bylaw 2016
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/796262
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst Lionel Bridger, Manager Animal Services Andrew Campbell, Legal Counsel
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 set out the review of the Council’s Dog Control Policy 2016 and Dog Control Bylaw 2016 and to seek Council’s agreement to go out for public consultation on proposed improvements arising from the review.

1.2 The review has been undertaken to comply with legislative requirements. In summary:

· every council must have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to enforce it;

· legislation requires that bylaws are reviewed at least once every ten years;

· a dog control policy must be reviewed when a dog control bylaw is reviewed;

· the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Dog Control Act 1996 set out the requirements for the review, and for the scope of the bylaw and policy;

· the LGA requires that certain formal bylaw determinations are made (these are reflected in the recommendations);

· consultation must be undertaken, whether any changes are proposed or not;

· the special consultative procedure must be used, regardless of the level of significance;

· all registered dog owners must be notified of the proposed changes; and

· the statement of proposal prepared for consultation must include certain things.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Review of the Dog Control Policy 2016 and Dog Control Bylaw 2016 report and its attachments.

2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and that the Dog Control Act 1996 requires consultation to be undertaken using the Special Consultative Procedure.

3. Agrees that the proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy 2016 in Attachment C of this report meet the requirements of section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

4. Determines, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 (incorporating the changes in Attachment D of this report and based on the assessment in Attachment A of this report):

a. is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified dog control problems in the district;

b. is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c. does not give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications.

5. Agrees to undertake a Special Consultative Procedure in relation to the proposed changes to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 and Dog Control Policy 2016 to seek the community’s views, as required by sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 10(1) and 20(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996, and that the form of the consultation will comply with section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report and its attachments present a review of:

· the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2016 (the policy)

· the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016 (the bylaw).

3.2 The policy and bylaw work together to impose reasonable regulatory controls on dogs and their owners to minimise the danger, distress or nuisance that may be caused by dogs, and to balance this by enabling appropriate recreational access for dogs and their owners. The policy sets out how the Council will meet its regulatory obligations under the Dog Control Act.

3.3 The policy and bylaw have generally been working well since they were last reviewed and adopted in 2016. Undertaking a review enables the Council to respond to changes in the district and to meet its legislative obligations.[5]

3.4 The legal considerations section of this report sets out important detail about the Council’s use of regulatory power in making this kind of policy and bylaw. The key legislation requiring the council to have a policy and bylaw, setting the scope of regulation, requiring the review, setting out the nature of the review, and the consultation requirements after a review, are:

· the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act)

· the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

3.5 The analysis of issues, options and proposed improvements are set out in more detail in the attachments to this report. In summary, the review recommends proposed changes based on:

· better control of dogs in public places;

· better protecting wildlife from dogs in key areas;

· continuing to provide a wide range of opportunities for people to exercise their dogs on and off-leash;

· protecting areas for cultural reasons (eg wāhi tapu, rongoā areas); and

· simplifying and updating the rules so they are easier to understand.

3.6 Christchurch has one of the highest dog ownership rates in New Zealand, with over 37,000 registered dog owners and almost 45,000 registered dogs. Many people consider their dogs to be part of the family, and there has historically been a high degree of interest in dog control regulation, particularly where dogs can and cannot be taken. In contrast, many people have concerns about dogs and the potential negative impacts they can have. The proposed bylaw and policy seek to find a balance between these views.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Act places obligations on dog owners and on councils. It requires councils to regulate to ensure dogs are well controlled in public places, that people feel safe, and that the recreational needs of dogs can be met. The Act requires that when a council is considering a dog control policy, it “must have regard to” the following:

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

· the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.[6]

4.2 The bylaw then must give effect to the policy, making the dog controls enforceable. A breach of a dog control bylaw can result in a $300 infringement fine (an amount set in the Act).

4.3 We have 5,000 more dogs than when the policy and bylaw were last reviewed in 2016. With almost 45,000 dogs, this equates to one dog for every nine people.[7] We also have an extraordinary network of parks and greenspace, a long stretch of accessible coastline, and some important waterways, wetlands and estuaries.

4.4 The review has involved substantial cross-Council work to review the leashed and prohibited areas in the policy, and any new or changed areas that may require regulation, including with:

· the Animal Management Team (responsible for dog control in the district);

· the Parks Unit (including staff from the biodiversity, garden parks, community parks, metropolitan parks, regional parks, residential red zone, planning and asset management, parks recreation planning, sports turf, and visitor experience teams); and

· stormwater and waterways staff (including landscape planning and asset planning).

4.5 The review and proposed changes have been based on information including:

· dog control activities in the district (complaints, issues, trends, data);

· advice from Council staff about land management, changing habitats, priority wildlife protection areas, community access and dog behaviour;

· the strategic priorities of the Council (especially protecting biodiversity), and recent Long-Term Plan investment in land and water management; and

· any relevant trending national issues and the approaches of other councils.

4.6 The review has examined any areas or activities that might need special protections or controls, and has focused on simplifying the rules and futureproofing them where possible.

4.7 Key areas for change have arisen from:

· changing landscapes and habitats, including to coastal wetlands and estuaries, and new and restored wetlands and waterways;

· Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary being internationally recognised as part of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (EAAF) network, supporting threatened and at-risk migratory birds of national and international importance; [8]

· the Council’s strategic priority of protecting biodiversity, and ongoing investment in habitat and ecological restoration;[9] and

· the changing ways in which people use public spaces and the activities of dogs and their owners.

4.8 The following related information session/workshops have taken place:

Date

Subject

February -March 2024

All community boards were briefed earlier in 2024 and were able to give early input into the review (see community views section, below):

o Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote, 22 February

o Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood, 26 February

o Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central, 29 February

o Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood, 11 March

o Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula, 25 March

o Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton, 28 March

3 September 2024

The Council received an information session on the Dog Control Act, the Council’s current dog control policy and bylaw, the review, and the results of the early engagement survey

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 Legislation requires bylaws to be periodically reviewed. When a dog control bylaw is reviewed, a dog control policy must be reviewed. If no changes are proposed, consultation must still be undertaken.[10] On this basis, the following reasonably practicable options were considered:

· update and improve the policy and bylaw (and consult on the proposed changes)

· retain the policy and bylaw with no changes (and consult).

4.10 The preferred option is to update and improve the policy and bylaw. The attached review report explores the options and matters that were considered for how best to update and improve the policy and bylaw in more detail.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Update and improve the policy and bylaw

4.12 Option Description: Legislation requires a review, and there are some matters that need to be updated since the bylaw and policy were last reviewed in 2016.

4.12.1 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements and will ensure the bylaw and policy are up to date and fit for purpose

· There have been changes to some land that the Council manages since the last review, including the transfer of the former residential red zone and development of new engineered stormwater basins

· Some of our communities have been asking for the policy and bylaw to be updated

· There are changing views towards better protecting wildlife from dogs

· The district has over 5,000 more dogs than the last review (almost 45,000 dogs)

· Consultation on the proposed changes will enable us to check in with our communities to see if the level of dog regulation is appropriate

· There are identified improvements that we can make.

4.12.2 Option Disadvantages

· None. Legislation requires the review and requires consultation, whether any changes are proposed or not.

4.13 Option Description: Retain the policy and bylaw with no changes

4.13.1 Option Advantages

· None, other than reduced staff time.

4.13.2 Option Disadvantages

· Legislation requires a review, and the review has revealed some areas where updates are needed or where current settings are out of step. Not proposing any changes, updates or improvements would be a missed opportunity.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 Bylaws are governed by the Local Government Act, and there are special analysis requirements for bylaw reviews (including section 155 of the LGA). Much of the analysis of issues, options and proposed improvements are set out in the attached documents, including:

Attachment	Title	Purpose
Attachment A	Bylaw and Policy Review Report	Contains the section 155 assessment. Includes dog-related statistics, enforcement data, information on evidence-based policy making, analysis of the status quo and reasoning for the proposed changes
Attachment B	Bylaw clause-by-clause analysis	Sets out the bylaw changes and reasoning in detail
Attachment C	Proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy	Shows the full policy wording, with changes shown (and reasons for changes) Shows the proposed changes to leashed and prohibited areas (see the Schedule 1 tables in the policy)
Attachment D	Proposed changes to the Dog Control Bylaw	Shows full bylaw wording, with changes shown (and reasons for changes)
Attachment E	Statement of proposal	Summarises changes for public consultation. Required by section 86 of the Local Government Act - special consultative procedure

5. Summary of proposed changes to leashed and prohibited areas

5.1 The relationship between a dog control policy and a dog control bylaw is set out in the Dog Control Act. The policy is the primary document, which leads to the bylaw. For this reason, there is some duplication in content between the two regulatory documents.

5.2 The changes to the leashed and prohibited areas are listed in the Dog Control Policy. The policy’s schedule contains tables listing the specific leashed and prohibited areas. The policy also contains general prohibited areas and leashed areas – these are where the rule always applies eg in all playgrounds. These are then enforceable through the bylaw.

5.3 For the full proposed changes and the reasons for the changes, in context, see the attached bylaw and policy. For broader analysis, see the Bylaw and Policy Review Report.

Top five changes likely to be of the highest public interest

5.4 The top five changes likely to be of the highest public interest are:

· the proposal to require dogs to be on a short leash on footpaths, shared paths and tracks in all greenspace areas where dogs are allowed (this includes parks, reserves and stormwater assets that function as parks), so they are safer for everyone;[11]

· the proposal to regulate the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (former red zone) by prohibiting dogs in key areas to protect wildlife (river, wetland and planted areas), while continuing to allow dogs off-leash and under effective control on mown grass (noting that pathways would come under the general leashed rule);[12]

· the proposal to prohibit dogs from Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary to protect wildlife from the landward boundary inwards – including along the shoreline where birds nest and in tidal areas where they feed. People could continue to walk dogs on land nearby, including along the western edge of Southshore Spit, or on Te Ara Ihutai Christchurch Coastal Pathway;

· the proposal to regulate stormwater basins like Te Kuru Wetland, by prohibiting dogs in key areas to protect wildlife (wetland and planted areas), while continuing to allow dogs off-leash and under effective control on mown grass (noting that pathways would come under the general leashed rule); and

· the proposal to limit the number of dogs one person can be in control of in a public place (to two when unleashed and four when leashed), with an exemption process for people with appropriate skills to apply to control a greater number of dogs in public places.

5.5 We asked some general questions about these issues in a recent survey and they were largely well supported (see the Community Views section below).

5.6 The changes to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor align with changes being proposed to protect wildlife in other greenspace areas with a wetland or waterway focus, including Blakes Road Wetland; Curletts Drainage Reserve; Dickeys Reserve; Clare Park; Creamery Ponds; Quaifes Road Springlands; Quaifes Drainage Reserve; Sparks Wetland; Te Kuru Wetland; and Worsley Valley 1 Drainage Reserve.

5.7 The changes to Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary align with changes being proposed to protect wildlife in new coastal wetland and mudflat areas, including Brooklands red zone; Lower Styx Conservation Reserve; Bridge Reserve; South New Brighton Park; Ferrymead Regional Park; and Sumner Beach Regional Park. We have proposed similar areas around Banks Peninsula, see coverage below.

5.8 We have proposed changes to existing entries for consistency and clarification for other coastal wetland or mudflat areas including: Teddington mudflats; Duvauchelle foreshore entries; Brooklands Spit and Lagoon, and Seafield Park entries; Te Rauakaaka Nature Reserve; Styx Rivermouth Conservation Reserve; Lower Avon and Bexley Saltmarshes; Southshore Spit Reserve; and Te Huingi Manu Wildlife Refuge.

Other changes likely to be of reasonable public interest

5.9 The other changes likely to be of reasonable public interest are:

· the proposal to lift the leashing requirement in the central city in three key greenspace areas to enable dogs to be exercised off leash and under effective control (Latimer Square, Rauora Park and on the grassed area in the Avon Loop);

· the proposal to change the Groynes to leashed (excluding the dog park);

· the proposal to lift the leashing requirement on Lyttelton Recreation Ground to enable a flat space for people to exercise dogs (noting the proposed rule on sports fields, below);

· new general requirements to leash dogs on sports fields (during games and practice sessions), on wharves, jetties and boardwalks, and in community gardens; and

· the proposal to prohibit dogs from the Styx Mill Conservation Reserve to better protect wildlife (except in and near the dog park, and the path around the predator fence);

· the proposal to prohibit dogs from mudflats and other key wildlife habitats around Banks Peninsula, including Children’s Bay mudflats and foreshore (Akaroa), Robinson’s Bay mudflats and foreshore; Barry’s Bay mudflats, saltmarsh and foreshore; French Farm mudflats and foreshore; Charteris Bay foreshore (part of); Purau foreshore and mudflats; and Birdlings Flat near the Bossu Road canal bridge;

· protecting areas for cultural reasons with new restrictions for Ōnawe Pā Historic Reserve (wāhi tapu); Kaputone Confluence Conservation Park (rongoā / medicinal garden area); and Janet Stewart Reserve (pa harakeke traditional flax harvesting area); and

· some changes to what under effective control means, to ensure any dog owner or person in control of a dog in a public place is more actively paying attention to the dog.

5.10 The policy regulates more broadly than just leashed and prohibited areas. The following changes are proposed in the policy and are reflected proposed changes to the bylaw, where appropriate (see the attached policy and bylaw for more context):

· clarifying that compostable or biodegradable bags can be used to pick up after dogs (not just plastic bags), and an explanatory note that dog faeces should always be disposed of in a rubbish bin or Council red wheelie bin and cannot be composted through the green waste system, along with a note that dog faeces that is left on the ground can contaminate waterways; and

· adding a statement that dog owners should not rely on signage, but should be familiar with the policy – and that the Council provides an interactive online map where people can check the dog control status.[13]

5.11 We are proposing:

· some minor administrative changes to simplify dog registration; responsible dog owner status; and to the licence to own more than two dogs; and

· a minor change to make it administratively easier for the Council to create new dog parks or dog exercise areas (and added the new Dog Exercise Area in Little River to the policy).

5.12 For full analysis of the changes, see the attached Bylaw and Policy Review Report. For the specific wording changes and reasoning, see the attached Dog Control Policy 2024.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 The main costs from changes to the policy relate to updating the Council’s online interactive dog control map, updating the Council’s website information, installing new or updating existing signage, and undertaking communication with dog owners and the general public on any new or changed rules.

6.2 Many of these costs are difficult to quantify until the changes to the policy and bylaw are confirmed. While many are business-as-usual costs or anticipated costs, major changes to the areas regulated in the policy will require new signs to be installed. There are no legally prescribed requirements about dog control signage, but we know that signs help people to understand the rules.

6.3 Dog control activities are funded from dog registration fees, including compliance and enforcement activities. Signs installed in parks and reserves come from the Parks budget, with some funding from the Animal Management Unit.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 Undertaking a review of the bylaw and policy complies with legislative requirements, and is necessary for good regulatory stewardship to ensure they are up to date and fit for purpose.

7.2 The proposed changes will provide better protections for wildlife (by prohibiting dogs or requiring leashing in specified areas) and better protection for both the public and other dogs (by increasing where dogs must be leashed, such as on pathways).

7.3 Dog owners may be unsatisfied with having to limit where they can take their dogs or with having to leash them in new areas. Conversely, survey feedback suggests dog owners want other dogs in public places to be better controlled (to protect their own dogs) and are accepting of limits in some areas to better protect wildlife. Some of the proposals prohibit dogs from areas that are unsuitable or undesirable for recreation, such as in wetlands, mudflats and saltmarshes. Regulation is necessary to prevent owners walking around the margins and letting their dog(s) run free, not realising this can be damaging to wildlife.

7.4 Dog owners may not know the current rules, so may assume greater restrictions are being imposed than are being proposed. They may not be aware of where they can take their dog (for example, some people assume the only off-leash areas are dog parks or exercise areas).

7.5 A key message is that any area not specified as leashed or prohibited (or regulated by a general rule)[14] is an under effective control area – meaning dogs can be exercised off-leash. We only limit access where necessary (the reason for each limitation is set out in the policy schedule). Some councils require leashing in all public places, by default.

Our approach	Apply dog rules in specified areas	Allow dogs to be exercised off-leash in any area not specified
Alternative approach	Require leashing in all areas Specify prohibited areas	Allow dogs to be exercised off-leash only in specified areas

7.6 There is a danger that over time the areas regulated become increasingly numerous and complex. An alternative approach would be to require leashing in all public places, by default, and to only allow dogs to be exercised off-leash in specified places. The downsides of this approach are that it would be more limiting in effect than the approach we currently take, and the specified areas for exercising dogs could become similarly numerous and complex.

7.7 Despite having many areas specified as leashed or prohibited, much of the public land in the district is not subject to specific controls.

7.8 As the dog population increases, the social licence enjoyed by dog owners and their access to public spaces may be threatened, unless good dog behaviour is maintained. This includes things like picking up after dogs and appropriately disposing faeces, keeping dogs under good control, and understanding and following the leashing and prohibited rules.

7.9 Some risk of opposition to the proposed changes has been mitigated by undertaking a survey to gauge the views of both dog owners and the general public on some early ideas as part of the review and development process (see later section on Community Views).

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

· The statutory authority to undertake the review of the Council’s Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw comes from both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2002.

· The Council is required under the Dog Control Act to have a policy in respect of dogs in its district. The Council must make any necessary bylaws in order to give effect to the policy.

· Any bylaw authorised by the Dog Control Act must be made in accordance with the Local Government Act.

· Under the Local Government Act, a new bylaw must be reviewed within five years of being made, and then subsequently reviewed within ten years after the date of any previous review. The Dog Control Bylaw 2016 is an amended version of the Dog Control Bylaw 2008 and therefore the statutory deadline is within ten years of the last review.

· Section 10AA(2) of the Dog Control Act provides that the Council must review the bylaw by making the determinations required under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 in the context of a reconsideration of the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act. Only the Council can make these determinations and this authority cannot be delegated. The section 155 report is attached to this report (see the Bylaw and Policy Review Report).

· Section 10AA also outlines the processes that must be followed after the review has been completed. If the Council considers that the bylaw should be amended, revoked, or revoked and replaced, it must deal with the bylaw under section 156 of the Local Government Act (relating to consultation requirements) and if appropriate amend its policy.[15] If the Council considers that the bylaw should continue without amendment, it must use the special consultative procedure as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act.[16]

· The Dog Control Act requires the Council to review its policy if the bylaw implementing the policy requires review. Section 10 of the Dog Control Act allows the Council, in accordance with the special consultative procedure, to adopt an amended policy at any time.

· The regulatory scope and requirements are set out in section 10 of the Act for dog control policies, and section 20 for dog control bylaws.

· Section 10(2) of the Dog Control Act requires that the Council give notice of any draft policy to all registered dog owners.

· As the bylaw is made under the authority of two Acts, the requirements of both must be considered. The bylaw must be made using the processes set out in the Local Government Act and may be made to address a range of matters set out in section 20 of the Dog Control Act. As the policy must be reviewed when the bylaw is reviewed, it is recommended that the Council use the special consultative procedure for both the policy and the bylaw, and that these processes be conducted concurrently.

· Section 83 of the Local Government Act requires that a Statement of Proposal be prepared and adopted as part of the Special Consultative Procedure. Accordingly, a Statement of Proposal has been attached to this report.

Local Government Act section 155 analysis determination regarding the bylaw

7.11 As outlined above, the review of the bylaw requires a section 155 analysis under the Local Government Act. This analysis involves a determination of whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem. If it is identified as being the most appropriate way of addressing a problem, the Council must decide whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA). A section 155 report is attached which details the above considerations.

7.12 The NZBoRA protects certain rights and freedoms, including freedom of movement. Section 5 of the NZBoRA allows limitations to these rights where a limitation can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

7.13 The attached Bylaw and Policy Review Report contains the section 155 analysis and concludes that:

· The bylaw is appropriate for addressing the identified issues with dog control in the district. Improvements are proposed in response to changes in the district.

· The proposed changes to the bylaw are appropriate in form.

· The Dog Control Act expressly allows councils to develop bylaws that restrict access to specified public places for the purposes of dog control. Given that restrictions are permitted, a corresponding restriction on freedom of movement (if any) can be understood as a reasonable and justified limitation. In summary, there are no NZBoRA implications relating to the activities regulated in the Dog Control Bylaw.

7.14 In addition to the specific statutory requirements above, the law requires that any bylaw must be intra vires (within the statutory powers that authorise the bylaw), certain and reasonable. There is a considerable body of case law on ‘reasonableness’ in the bylaw context. The Courts have noted that in ascertaining the reasonableness of a bylaw, they will look to the surrounding facts, including the nature and condition of the locality in which it is to take effect, the problem it seeks to solve or proposes to remedy, and whether public or private rights are unnecessarily or unjustly affected.

7.15 The Act requires councils, in their dog control policies, to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community from dogs, and to enable the community to access public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs.[17] This means that the overall sense of community safety and how people feel in public places is relevant, not just reported incidents.

7.16 The Act has broad bylaw-making powers. It includes a power to regulate “for any other purpose that… is, in the opinion of the territorial authority, necessary or desirable to further the control of dogs.”[18] On this basis, the dog control policy and bylaw focus on wildlife, biodiversity and habitat protection, which has strong alignment with other work the Council is doing.

7.17 We have considered both the section 155 analysis, as well as the proposed changes to the bylaw and policy. It is our view that the proposed changes to the bylaw and policy are within the authorising provisions of the Dog Control Act and the Local Government Act; that the proposed amendments to the bylaw are not inconsistent with the proposed amendments to the policy; and that the attached report shows how the Council has considered its section 155 obligations for the purposes of both the review of the policy and the bylaw.

7.18 The recommendations in this report reflect that the requirements in sections 10 and 10AA of the Dog Control Act and sections 155 and 159 of the Local Government Act have been met.

8. Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.1 Updating and consulting on a replacement dog control policy and bylaw aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, including the community outcomes:

· Collaborative and confident (Our residents have the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, have a strong sense of belonging and identify, and feel safe)

· Green and liveable (Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected, supporting our goals to…protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity…).

8.2 Updating and consulting on a replacement dog control policy and bylaw is of medium significance, based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

· The level of significance was determined by the widespread nature of dog access to public places across the district and our relatively high dog ownership rate - meaning potentially widespread interest and impacts. The Dog Control Act requires the use of the special consultative procedure (regardless of the level of significance), and that every registered dog owner is notified (over 39,000 people).

8.3 Updating and consulting on a replacement dog control policy and bylaw is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, and ensures they are up to date and fit for purpose.

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

· Strategic Planning and Policy

· Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.19.4 Bylaws and regulatory policies meet emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements - Carry out bylaw reviews in accordance with ten-year bylaw review schedule and statutory requirements

8.4 The approach to dog control enforcement aligns with the Council’s Compliance Strategy, which sets out a high-level approach to regulatory compliance activities. This targets resources and interventions to achieve the best possible outcomes for the community and the environment.

8.5 The review has considered the Council’s approach to the protection and enhancement of local biodiversity set out in its Biodiversity Strategy 2008-2035 and in the Urban Forest Plan.[19] It has considered how dogs may negatively impact on biodiversity outcomes, and proposed reasonable limits where necessary.

8.6 We have also considered the following Long-Term Plan 2024-34 Activity Plans, particularly in relation to changing land and water management, habitat and biodiversity outcomes, and recreational access, including:

· Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) – the regeneration plan, restoration of the delta landscape, ongoing ecological and habitat restoration programme, wetland and aquatic habitats, increasing local biodiversity, recreational activities, mahinga kai, pest management, stormwater and flood management;

· Parks and Foreshore – activities and aspirations for community parks, cemeteries, inner city parks, regional parks, residential red zone, foreshore and marine access;

· Stormwater Drainage and Flood Protection and Control Works – naturalised waterways and green assets; improving our landscapes and biodiversity; treatment swales, wetlands and basins; water quality in our waterways, wetlands and estuaries; greening of our infrastructure; nature based design; and water sensitive urban design; and

· Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and Events - active recreation creates happier, healthier people, better connected communities and a stronger Christchurch.

9. Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

9.1 This report seeks agreement to consult on the proposed changes to the dog control policy and bylaw and a result of their review. Legislation requires the use of the Special Consultative Procedure, which will seek the views of the community. The attached Bylaw and Policy Review Report explores the options and matters that were considered for how best to update and improve the policy and bylaw in more detail.

9.2 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas: All.

· Staff presented to community boards between February and April 2024 to seek early input into the review, giving members the opportunity to raise any concerns or make any suggestions about how to update or improve the bylaw or policy.

9.3 There was general support for the need to undertake the review to update dog controls in the district, plenty of questions about the current rules, and recognition of the known issues and direction (including better protecting wildlife in the estuary, former red zone and engineered stormwater basins).

9.4 Staff sought some initial feedback from the public via an online survey in July 2024. Over 6,000 responses were received, 84% of whom identified themselves as a dog owner. The survey is covered in more detail in the attached Bylaw and Policy Review Report, but in summary:

Question summary	Yes	No	Not sure
Requiring a leash
On shared paths?	76% yes	20% no	4% not sure
On footpaths in parks and reserves?	57% yes	38% no	5% not sure
On formed tracks in parks and reserves?	44% yes	49% no	7% not sure
Better wildlife protections
In the Avon Heathcote Estuary Te Ihutai?	77% yes	12% no	11% not sure
In the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (former Red Zone)?	69% yes	19% no	12% not sure
In engineered wetlands (stormwater basins)?	64% yes	24% no	12% not sure
Owner/caretaker responsibilities
Short leash on roads, footpaths (roadside and in parks), on shared paths, and on formed tracks?	51% yes	42% no	8% not sure
Change the definition of 'under effective control' to make it easier to understand?	54% yes	38% no	9% not sure
Limit the number of dogs a person can manage in a public place?	48% yes	37% no	15% not sure
Leashing in community spaces
On sports fields during games and practice sessions?	80% yes	15% no	5% not sure
At community gardens?	72% yes	17% no	11% not sure
On jetties and wharves?	72% yes	19% no	9% not sure

9.5 The question about leashing on formed tracks was the only negative majority response. It may indicate a misunderstanding of the current rules, as most formed tracks tend to have a leashing requirement in the current policy (eg in the Port Hills).

9.6 When asked if we should limit the number of dogs a person should be able to be in charge of in a public place, 48% of people said yes (37% said no and 15% were not sure). When asked what the limit should be, we received the following responses, on average:

What should the limit be?
Maximum number of dogs when leashed	Three to four dogs
Maximum number of dogs when off-leash	Two to three dogs

9.7 In the recent Life in Christchurch Survey, a public safety theme emerged in relation to dogs. In response to questions about negative experiences in playgrounds and associated parks spaces, people indicated not feeling safe around dogs, dogs not being well controlled, aggressive dogs, and people not picking up after their dogs.[20]

9.8 Staff also met with two groups to discuss the review:

· the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust to discuss the protection of migratory birds from dogs in Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary; and

· a small group of professional dog walkers to discuss the limit on how many dogs one person can be in charge of in a public place, and the proposed exemption process.

10. Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

10.1 The decisions in this report do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. The decisions may involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

10.2 There are some areas already in the dog control policy where dogs are prohibited at the request of rūnanga. For example, Takapūneke Reserve (in Akaroa) and Rāpaki Bay foreshore (near Lyttelton).

10.3 A new prohibited area is being proposed for Ōnawe Pā Historic Reserve (between Barry’s Bay and Duvauchelle). Ōnawe is held and administered by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and is publicly accessible. A draft reserve management plan is underway.[21] It outlines tikanga and kawa set jointly by Ōnuku and Wairewa Rūnanga, which identifies dog access as incompatible with the land’s wāhi tapu status. To support this approach, the dog control policy proposes prohibiting dogs.[22]

10.4 There are two other areas we are proposing that dogs are prohibited to protect cultural values – one is the Kaputone Confluence Conservation Area, which contains a rongoā Māori demonstration area[23], and the other is Janet Stewart Reserve, which contains a pa harakeke traditional flax harvesting area. Both of these are in the Lower Styx area, either side of Marshland Road.

11. Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

11.1 The proposals in this report are likely to have very little impact on adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

11.2 Any changes are unlikely to significantly impact the number of dogs in the district. There may be an impact on where dog owners choose to exercise their dogs, but whether this increases or decreases vehicle emissions is not clear.

11.3 Climate change is having an effect on our biodiversity and habitats, and the proposed changes seek to reduce the negative impacts from dogs in priority wildlife protection areas.

12. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

12.1 If the Council is comfortable with the proposed changes outlined in this report and in the attachments, staff will proceed with undertaking a special consultative procedure to seek the views of the community, including notifying every registered dog owner, which is required by the Dog Control Act.

12.2 Elected Members will be invited to form a Hearings Panel, which will provide submitters with the opportunity to be heard. The Hearings Panel will then make recommendations to the Council on the final form of the bylaw and policy.

12.3 If the Council adopts the amended policy and bylaw, the bylaw will then be enforceable, and will give effect to the policy.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Bylaw and Policy Review Report - Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2016 - 2024 review	24/978879	136
b ⇩	Clause-by-clause analysis - Dog Control Bylaw 2016 - 2024 review	24/608222	157
c ⇩	Proposed changes Dog Control Policy (2024) for consultation	24/1389798	174
d ⇩	Proposed changes Dog Control Bylaw (2024) for consultation	24/1332196	217
e ⇩	Statement of Proposal - Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review 2024	24/1461024	229

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Lionel Bridger - Manager Animal Services

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Review of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1591022
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Adam Eggleton, Senior Policy Analyst Naomi Soper, Senior Legal Counsel
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Nigel Cox, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out the review of the Council’s Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 and to seek Council’s agreement to go out to public consultation on the proposed improvements from the review.

1.2 The review has been undertaken to comply with legislative requirements that require bylaws to be reviewed within 10 years. This bylaw was last reviewed in 2016 and the current review does not propose significant changes.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Review of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 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. Determines, in accordance with the requirements of section 155, of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 (incorporating the changes in the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2024 (Attachment C of this report), and based on the assessment in the Bylaw Review report (Attachment A of this report) and the clause-by-clause analysis (Attachment B of this report):

a) is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified problems;

b) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and that

c) the bylaw gives rise to some implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, but none that are inconsistent with that Act, as is the required test.

4. Agrees to undertake public consultation on the proposed changes to the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 to seek the community’s views, in accordance with section 156(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report and its attachments present a review of the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.

3.2 The bylaw enables the Council to provide for the orderly management and control of parks and reserves vested in, administered by or under the control of the Council for the benefit and enjoyment of all users of those parks and reserves.

3.3 The bylaw has generally been working well since it was last reviewed and adopted in 2016, and staff do not propose any significant changes to it.

3.4 The bylaw is made under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Reserves Act 1977 (RA). It is required to be reviewed now to comply with section 159 of the LGA, and in accordance with the bylaw review procedure set out in section 160 of the LGA.

3.5 The analysis of issues, options and proposed improvements are set out in more detail in the attached documents, including the section 155 assessment required under the LGA in the Bylaw Review Report.[24]

3.6 It is recommended that the proposed amended bylaw be approved for public consultation.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Parks and reserves are public places that require particular protection that is different from other public places. While the Council has management plans which set the overall direction for the development and use of a park or reserve, these management plans cannot bind the public to act in accordance with those statements.

4.2 It is important that activities in all Council parks and reserves are subject to reasonable limitations through a bylaw to protect them from damage and also protect the public legitimate use and enjoyment of those places.

4.3 Many parks and green spaces under the Council’s control are not reserves under the RA and the bylaw controls are therefore particularly relevant for those areas not protected by provisions of the RA.

4.4 The bylaw has a significant role in authorising the Council to carry out certain management activities, such as the closure of parks or reserves or control vehicles in parks or reserves.

4.5 The review has involved substantial cross council work and has included feedback from staff from:

· The Parks Unit – (including parks planning and asset management, regional parks, metropolitan parks, community parks, botanic gardens and garden parks, and residential red zone).

· Strategic Policy.

· Legal.

4.6 The review and proposed changes have been based on information and approaches including:

· Observations, feedback and advice from Council staff about parks issues, problems, bylaw use and practical enforcement.

· The Council’s community outcomes, in particular protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and a green liveable city

· Looking at any new developments that might require special controls.

· Simplifying the rules and future proofing them where possible; and

· Any relevant trending national issues and the approaches of other councils.

4.7 The following related information sessions have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
18 June	Combined Community Boards Information session on the Parks and Reserves bylaw to inform them the review was underway, the purpose of the bylaw, issues identified to date and to gather any other views or issues they had at that stage.
26 August	A follow up individual session with the Banks Peninsula Community Board to gather their views on the bylaw review progress and to understand issues that were relevant to them.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.8.1 Update and improve the bylaw.

4.8.2 Review and retain the bylaw with no changes.

4.8.3 Do not review the bylaw.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.9 Preferred Option: Update and improve the bylaw

4.9.1 Option Description: Legislation requires a review, and there are some matters that need to be updated since the bylaw was last reviewed in 2016.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements.

· Will ensure the bylaw is up to date and fit for purpose.

· The bylaw can be improved to address issues that have been identified since 2016.

· Consultation on the proposed changes will enable us to check in with our communities to see if there are any issues we need to address.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· None.

4.10 Option Description: Review and retain the bylaw with no changes

4.10.1 Option Advantages

· None, other than reduced staff time.

4.10.2 Option Disadvantages

· Misses a chance to make needed improvements and changes to provide clarity.

· Means some references made within the bylaw to other legislation will continue to be out of date.

· Means the bylaw will not keep pace with changes in technology and parks use.

4.11 Option Description: Do not review the bylaw

4.11.1 Option Advantages

· None, other than reduced staff time.

4.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· The bylaw will eventually be revoked if not reviewed by the statutory deadline and the Council will lose an effective tool.

· A new bylaw would need to be made should Council wish to provide similar protections in the future.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 Bylaws made under the LGA have special analysis requirements for bylaw reviews (including section 155 of the LGA). Detailed analysis of issues, options and proposed improvements are set out in the attached documents, including:

Bylaw review report

Attachment A

· Sets out the bylaw-making powers and penalties.

· Describes the activities the bylaw regulates and the issues and problems that require regulation.

· Sets out proposed changes to the bylaw, and reasons for the proposed changes.

· Contains the section 155 analysis, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 assessment.

Clause-by-clause analysis Attachment B

· Contains commentary and staff advice on proposed changes and reasoning.

Proposed replacement bylaw Attachment C

· Sets out the 2016 bylaw, with the recommended changes incorporated.

· Changes are indicated with a blue background. Detail on the changes is contained in the clause-by-clause analysis (Attachment B).

5. Summary of Proposed Changes

5.1 The review has considered how the bylaw can best help manage, regulate and protect parks and reserves from misuse or damage whilst also protecting the public from nuisance and maintaining public health and safety.

5.2 A summary of the key changes proposed to the bylaw is included below:

5.3 Wider Bylaw: Terminology across the bylaw has been aligned to refer to “parks and reserves” throughout instead of just “reserves” when both are intended to be covered. This change is intended to make the document clearer to understand without having to refer to the interpretation section to understand both are covered.

5.4 Introduction: Updated legislation statement to refer to enabling provisions, amended definition of Aircraft, Authorised Officer, Vehicle, Park or Reserve and new definition of Emergency Services.

5.5 Part 1- Access to Parks and Reserves: No changes

5.6 Part 2 – Prohibited and restricted activities in Parks and Reserves:

We now propose:

· Section 7 – Amended clause 7.1 to clarify how the dog bylaw applies in parks and reserves.

· Section 8 – Inclusion of electric bicycles, electric scooters and scooters (alongside bicycles) as parking exclusions in clause 8.2.

· Section 8 - Inclusion of vessels and other mechanical devices in clause 8.4 also being prohibited from being dumped in a park or reserve.

· Section 9 – Amended clause 9.3 to reflect that the Christchurch City Council Urban Fire Safety Bylaw has been revoked when Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) became the responsible agency for managing fire risk nationally.

· Section 9 – New explanatory note to inform of the role of FENZ in issuing restriction on fires, fireworks and fire risks and to encourage residents to use their fire risk web page.

· Section 10 – New explanatory note setting out how camping can be regulated across the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021 and the Park and Reserves Bylaw.

· Section 12 – Inclusion of updated terms lightweight drones or Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems in clauses 12.3 and 12.4.

· Section 12 – New explanatory note referring users to check the Councils guidance and map on areas you can fly drones and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.

5.7 Part 3 – Special Areas:

We now propose:

· Section 15 – Inclusion of electric bicycles, electric scooters and scooters (alongside bicycles) as prohibited things to ride in the Botanic gardens without permission.

5.8 Part 4 – Other Matters:

We now propose:

· New Section 19 – New section on Offence and Penalty. States that a person who breaches the bylaw could be liable for a penalty as set out in the RA or LGA (as applicable).

· Section 20 – New clause 20.5 setting out clearly that any permission given under this bylaw may be reviewed and revoked at any time.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 The main costs from changes to the bylaw would include updating the Council’s website information, installing new or updating existing signage, and undertaking communication with the general public on any new or changed rules.

6.2 Many of these costs are difficult to quantify until the changes to the bylaw are confirmed. There are no legal requirements about signage, but we know that signs help people to understand the rules. Signs installed in parks and reserves come from the Parks budget.

6.3 There may be reduced damage and associated costs to parks and reserves with updated and improved bylaw provisions.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 The main risk to the Council in relation to the bylaw review is the risk of judicial review.[25] A bylaw (or part of it) can be quashed by the High Court if it is deemed invalid.[26] This is a risk for any bylaw the Council makes, and our bylaw review processes are intended to minimise this risk as much as possible.

7.2 Bylaws can be challenged by judicial review and in relation to the Bylaws Act 1910. Challenges can be on grounds such as unreasonableness, for being ultra vires (outside of legal powers) or being repugnant to the laws of New Zealand.[27]

7.3 This includes challenges in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA). Section 155 of the LGA states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the NZBoRA, noting that section 5 of NZBoRA enables reasonable limits to be imposed where they are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires that a council determines whether the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZBoRA. Assessment of the implications is included in the attached Bylaw Review Report, and the requirements are reflected in the recommendations to this report.

7.4 The bylaw may give rise to implications and limitations on people’s freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of movement under the NZBoRA. However, our assessment is that any limitations imposed by the bylaw are the minimum impairment, and the limit is proportional to the overall objective of the bylaw.

7.5 The attached documents, particularly the Bylaw Review Report, set out the relevant matters that have been considered, and confirm that any NZBoRA implications have been appropriately addressed.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.6 The Parks and Reserves Bylaw is made using the following bylaw-making powers:

· The LGA – Section 145 and 146 (protecting from nuisance, keeping public safe and managing and protecting land)

· The RA – Section 106 (control of reserves)

7.7 The bylaw must be reviewed to comply with section 159 of the LGA (ten-year review requirement), and in accordance with the bylaw review procedure set out in section 160 of the LGA (the procedure follows the same process as making a bylaw).

7.8 Section 155 of the LGA requires that a council makes certain determinations as part of the bylaw review process. This includes determining that the bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified problems, and that is the most appropriate form of bylaw. It also requires an assessment of the NZBoRA implications.

7.9 The review of the Parks and Reserve Bylaw where minimal and non-significant amendments are proposed to be made is assessed as having a low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This means that it will follow the consultation requirements set out under section 156(1b) of the LGA.

7.10 Staff has considered both the section 155 analysis, as well as the proposed amendments to the bylaw. It is their view that the amended bylaw is within the authorising provisions of the RA and the LGA and that the attached section 155 report shows how the Council has considered its section 155 obligations for the purposes of the bylaw. The recommendations in this report reflect that the requirements of the RA and sections 155 and 159 of the LGA have been met.

Other Legal Implications:

7.11 The bylaw is made under two different pieces of legislation, and both can only be enforced by prosecution. Breaches enforced under the RA are covered in section 104 of the Act. This states that on conviction a person who commits a breach is liable to a fine not exceeding $5000 and where an offence continues a further fine of $500 dollars for every day the offence continues. Breaches enforced under the LGA are liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

7.12 Bylaws made under the RA need to be signed off by the Minister of Conservation before they are enforceable under the RA. This process will be undertaken following any future formal approval of the proposed amendments to the bylaw.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.13 Updating and consulting on an amended Parks and Reserves Bylaw aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework:

· Collaborative and confident (Our residents have the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, have a strong sense of belonging and identify, and feel safe)

· Green and liveable (Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected, supporting our goals to…protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity…)

7.14 Updating and consulting on the proposed amended Parks and Reserves Bylaw is of low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined as the bylaw has been largely working well and the changes and amendments suggested are not considered to be significant or have a high impact on residents use or enjoyments of our parks and reserves.

7.15 The review has taken into account and is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

7.17 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.17.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

7.18 The approach to compliance, monitoring and enforcement activities in relation to the Parks and Reserves Bylaw aligns with the Christchurch City Council Compliance Strategy, which sets out a high-level approach to regulatory compliance activities undertaken by the Council. The strategy approaches compliance activities strategically, targeting resources and interventions in accordance with a range of risk-based factors to achieve the best possible outcomes for the community and the environment.

7.19 The review has considered the Council’s approach to the protection and enhancement of local biodiversity set out in its Biodiversity Strategy 2008-2035 and the Urban Forest Plan. It has considered how the bylaw may also enable positive biodiversity outcomes.

7.20 As part of this review we have also considered the agreed approaches in a number of Long-Term Plan 2024-34 Activity Plans. These have included the Parks and Foreshore and Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and Events plans.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.21 The report recommends public consultation on the proposed amended Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

7.22 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas: All

· Staff presented to the Combined Community Boards Information Session in June to seek early input into the review, giving members the opportunity to raise concerns or make any suggestions about how to update or improve the bylaw.

· Staff also presented an individual information session after a request from the Banks Peninsula Community Board in August and more feedback was received.

7.23 The Community Boards views received were largely supportive that the bylaw was an effective tool and that the early areas identified for improvements would be beneficial.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

7.26 The proposed amended bylaw does not propose changes to the current bylaw that are likely to impact Mana Whenua. When the bylaw was last reviewed in 2016 extensive consultation was undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao prior to the adoption of the bylaw. Staff are engaging with Mahaanui Kurataiao on the proposed review to seek any views they may have on the proposed bylaws contents and changes.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.27 The decisions in this report may have some impact on adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The bylaw proves an effective tool to manage and protect our parks (including tools to protect biodiversity on our parks and reserves).

7.28 The changes suggested to the bylaw will not significantly change these protections but rather build on the existing protections of the current bylaw.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 If the Council is comfortable with the proposed changes outlined in this report and in the attachments, staff will proceed with undertaking public consultation to seek the views of the community. All Community Boards will also be invited to participate.

8.2 Elected Members will be invited to form a Hearings Panel, which will provide submitters with the opportunity to be heard. The Hearings Panel can then make recommendations to the Council on the final form of the bylaw.

8.3 If the Council is comfortable with the amendment to the bylaw, the Council can adopt it. Sign off by the Minister of Conservation is also required to be enforceable under the RA.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Bylaw Review Report - Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016	24/1736963	243
b ⇩	Clause by Clause table - Review of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016	24/1736970	252
c ⇩	Draft Amended Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2025	24/1736978	272

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Adam Eggleton - Senior Policy Analyst

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Nigel Cox - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Elected Member Professional Development Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1136750
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Corlett, Democratic Services Advisor, Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek agreement from the Council to replace section 9 of the Elected Member Allowances and Expenses Policy 2019 with a separate stand-alone policy document, and to agree revised provisions pertaining to elected member professional development.

1.2 The revised provisions acknowledge the need for a more responsive policy, that better acknowledges the considerable responsibilities that elected members have and the professional development training needs arising from their roles. The revised policy also provides an authorisation process in accordance with recommendations by Audit New Zealand.

1.3 This report has been prepared following workshops with the Mayor and Councillors on 16 May and 24 September 2024 on elected member professional development.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the Elected Member Professional Development report.

2. Agrees to remove and rescind Section 9 of the Elected Members Allowances and Expenses Policy 2019 and replace it with a standalone Elected Members Professional Development Policy (refer to Attachment A of this report).

3. Agrees that:

Either

a. The Mayor and Councillor receive an annual allocation of up to $6,900.00 for individual professional development.

b. The Mayor and Councillors receive a triennial allocation of up to $20,700.00 for individual professional development.

4. Agrees that the balance of the Elected Member training budgets of approximately $43,000 per annum is allocated towards group training and representative activities.

5. Authorises the General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services to make any amendments of minor effect, or to correct minor errors, to the Elected Members Professional Development Policy.

6. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report sets out proposed amendments to section 9 of the current Elected Member Allowances and Expenses Policy 2019 and set it up as a separate standalone policy document.

3.2 Section 9 covers the entitlement of elected members to allowances and contributions towards conferences, courses, training, professional development and associated travel.

3.3 The proposed amendments recognise the responsibilities that Councillors have, and a streamlined authorisation process for Councillors.

3.4 The amended policy seeks to reflect the feedback provided by Councillors and the Mayor at a workshop held on 16 June and 24 September 2024.

3.5 In assessing the options consideration was given to effective coverage and flexibility, equity, administrative efficiency, and the guidance provided in the Auditor-General’s document Controlling sensitive expenditure: Guide for public organisations (link given at the end of this report).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Elected Member Allowances and Expenses Policy 2019 covers the entitlement of elected members to allowances and contributions towards expenses related to travel, milage, communication, childcare, and travel, conference and training attendance and professional development. The policy is guided by the Remuneration Authority which sets, on an annual basis, the remuneration and allowances for all Elected Members through the Local Government Members Determination.

4.2 Section 9 covers the entitlement of elected members to allowances and contributions towards conferences, courses, training, professional development and associated travel. Section 9 is not covered by Local Government Members Determination.

4.3 The current policy in section 9 provides for:

· An annual allocation of up to $4,000 per councillor for individual training (course and conference fees, accommodation, travel).

· Up to $2,000 for Committee chairs to attend conferences, courses, or training directly relevant to the business of their committee.

· Elected members formerly appointed to an external organisation to attend conferences or seminars held by the relevant external organisations (no express budget allocation).

4.4 As part of the discussion on the Council’s Long-Term Plan Councillors asked staff to come back with options for the allocation of the budget for elected member professional development within existing budget limits. That budget has increased as part of the savings from the Council’s decision to not renew its membership with Local Government New Zealand.

4.5 Workshops were held on 16 May and 24 September 2024 with the Mayor and Councillors where elected member guidance was sought on whether they were content with the current policy, and if not, what aspects they would be interested in changing.

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

Date

Subject

14 May 2024

24 September 2024

Elected Member Professional Development presentation

Professional Development Training Budget

4.7 A link to the recording of the information session/workshop is set out below.

Date

Subject

16 May 2024

24 September 2024

Council Information Session/Workshop https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/05/ISCC_20240516_AGN_10026_AT.PDF

Council Information Session/Workshop (at 28 minutes 20 seconds)

https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/meeting/24-09-24-council-information-session-workshop/

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 In reviewing the professional development policy staff sought advice from the Audit and Risk Management Committee (at its meeting on 20 June 2024) in relation to two specific matters, and invited it to make any other comments it considered appropriate for the Council to consider.

4.9 The first specific matter was the identification of an appropriate person(s) to approve Mayoral training/professional development requests. The Committee confirmed that the Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee is the appropriate person to approve the Mayor’s expenditure on professional development, and related expenses.

4.10 The second matter was whether it would be appropriate for elected members to receive an allocation on a triennial basis for individual professional development, as opposed to the current annual allocation. Although from an accounting perspective it is preferable not to have operational expenditure carry overs, it is feasible to do so.

4.11 In the discussion the Audit and Risk Management Committee did not indicate a preference for either an annual or triennial allocation but noted the need to follow appropriate and transparent processes in relation to decisions to approve the expenditure. However, the Audit and Risk Management Committee requested that the expenditure is reported publicly.

4.12 The guidance from the Audit and Risk Management Committee has been used in the assessment of the options considered in this report.

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

· Option 1: An amended status quo.

· Option 2: All funding to go into a biddable funding pool.

· Option3: (Preferred) Continue to provide an individual allocation to elected members (on either an annual or triennial basis), better acknowledge the potential demand for professional development training arising from the role and responsibilities of Mayor and Councillor, specifically allow for group training opportunities, and include a streamlined authorisation process for Councillors.

· Option 4: As for option 3, but to include a reallocation of a portion of the budget available to part fund a new position to provide additional support to members that would include the duties of identifying and supporting professional development. This option reduces the amounts for individual allocation and group training.

4.13.2 For all options, any unspent portion of the budget will be applied to the Council’s general operating surplus/deficit.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Option 3.

4.14.1 Option Description: A streamlined funding authorisation process with an individual allocation of up to $6,900 per financial year or $20,700 per triennium to Councillors and the Mayor with the remaining funding used to fund:

· Councillors (subject to budget availability and subject to the Council approving the attendance) to represent the Council on external bodies to attend meetings and conferences of those external bodies.

· Group training including elected member induction following the next triennial elections (an increase in budget has already allocated for this purpose).

· Approval of Councillor applications for professional development to be given by the Mayor.

· Approval of the Mayor’s applications for professional development to be given by the Chair of the Council’s Audit and Risk Committee.

· This is a prospective policy only.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Acknowledges the responsibilities arising from the roles of Mayor and Councillor, and the need to be able to provide professional development training to support these roles where required.

· Incorporates the additional funding for Councillor Professional Development Training agreed to by Council at its meeting on 19 June 2024.

· Provides for a streamlined authorisation process for Councillors.

· Introduces greater transparency in the elected member expenditure on professional development.

· Aligns with guidance from the Office of the Auditor General in relation to sensitive expenditure.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· The limited funding pool available for those elected members who have additional responsibilities is on a first in first served basis, so if this funding is exhausted late applications may miss out.

· Should the per triennium option be considered, then this would in practice be available for the next Council term.

4.15 Amended Status Quo: Option 1

4.15.1 Option Description: An annual allocation of up to $4,000 per councillor (plus an additional amount to Councillors from the annual allocation agreed to by Council on 19 June 2024) for individual training (course and conference fees, accommodation, and associated travel); and

· Up to $2,000 for Committee chairs to attend conferences, courses, or training directly relevant to the business of their Committee; and

· Elected members formerly appointed to an external organisation to attend conferences or seminars held by the relevant external organisations (no express budget allocation).

· Approval of Councillor applications by the Mayor, and approval of the Mayor’s requests by the Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Current entitlements and processes are understood.

· The approval process aligns with guidance from the Office of the Auditor General in relation to sensitive expenditure.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· No recognition or provision for group training (e.g. post-election induction).

· No provision for professional development training for the Mayor.

4.16 All funding to go into a biddable funding pool: Option 2.

4.16.1 Option Description: All funding to go into a biddable funding pool.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· Provides an expanded funding pool for those who are motivated to undertake professional development.

· Priorities for professional development can by agreed by the Council.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Not equitable because some elected members may miss out if the pool is oversubscribed.

4.17 Staff support component variation on preferred option: Option 4.

4.17.1 Option Description: As for option 3, but with reduced allocations and a permanent transfer of a portion to part fund staffing support to professional development for elected members. This would be a position which would also provide additional advice and support for elected members. If this option were to be preferred, further details could be analysed and provided before the end of this financial year. A breakdown of the budget could look like:

· $50 000.00 reallocated to part fund additional staff resource to support elected members including identifying options for professional development.

· $4 000 annual allocation (or $12 000 triennial allocation) for each Mayor and Councillor.

· Approx $32 000 balance available for either group training and representative duties.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· This would part fund a staff resource that provides additional advice and support for elected members.

· Councillors would still be able to apply their allocation across the council term.

· There would still be resource for group training and representative duties.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· This would reduce the amount of funding available for self-directed professional development and maintain at the level set in the 2019 policy.

· Once the funding is reallocated to a staffing resource, the budget for professional development would reduce.

· The balance of the funding for the staff position would need to be found from other funding sources.

· This position would not be able to be created until the next financial year when the budget increases.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.18 In assessing the options consideration was given to effective coverage and flexibility, equity, administrative efficiency, and the guidance provided in the Auditor-General’s document Controlling sensitive expenditure: Guide for public organisations.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 No changes are proposed to the current budget allocation for 2024/2025, and the amount currently budgeted for the 2026 and 2027 financial years are to remain.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no identified risks caused by the proposed changes to Section 9: Attendance at Conferences, courses training, professional development and travel, and splitting it out as a separate stand-alone policy document.

6.2 As the implementation of the policy may require the approval of sensitive expenditure, the internal audit work programme may include sampling of expense claims and allowances paid to Elected Members. An external audit work programme may be undertaken.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 As the provisions in the current section 9 are not covered by the Local Government Members Determination 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 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The on-going professional development of elected members will assist them in their governance activities.

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the criteria of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

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 Governance

6.6.1 Activity: Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive, and Treaty Partner Relations

· Level of Service: 4.1.25.1 Provide direct advice and administrative support to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors - Provide information, support and advice within 48 hours, or as priorities are agreed.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision in this report does not have any direct community impacts and makes no changes to the policy position in relation to Community Board training.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the policy is adopted by the Council then the Elected Member Professional Development (2024) policy document will be placed on the Council’s website.

7.2 Expenditure pursuant to the policy will be published at least six monthly on the Council’s website and reported to the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

7.3 Staff will work with the Mayor and Councillors, on an on-going basis, to identify professional development training need and a delivery program that can meet that need.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Elected Member Professional Development Policy October 2024	24/1700579	294

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

Controlling sensitive expenditure: Guide for public organisations

Part 3: Preparing suitable policies and procedures — Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand (oag.parliament.nz)

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	David Corlett - Democratic Services Advisor
Approved By	Helen White - General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

[1] Pp.78-79 in the draft Plan. Note these figures may change depending on the outcome of the final consultation.

[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] A review must be undertaken at least once every ten years, but can be undertaken sooner (the review must be undertaken by 23 June 2026 at the latest). This review has been undertaken ahead of the deadline to respond to changes in the district and as part of the coordination of the Council’s bylaw review programme.

[7] Dunedin has a slightly higher per capita rate of one dog for every seven people (with around 19,000 dogs in total). Auckland has around 115,000 dogs, but a per capita rate of one dog for every 15 people).

[8] The flyway is an international network of wetland sites used by migratory birds in their annual migrations. See Minister of Conservation press release (2018): International recognition for Christchurch’s Avon-Heathcote Ihutai Estuary | Beehive.govt.nz

[10] Section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002

[11] Dogs would still be able to be off-leash and under effective control in greenspaces off the paths and tracks, unless otherwise specified in the policy. There is a related proposal to require leashing on all roads, and on footpaths, shared paths, pedestrian areas on or near roads, and car parking areas (the current rule is leashing on roads and footpaths alongside roads)

[12] The Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is 602 hectares, including over 200 hectares of mown grass area.

[14] The general rules include things such as dogs are prohibited in all Council playgrounds, or dogs must be leashed on all roads and areas where vehicles manoeuvre.

[15] See section 10AA(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996

[16] See section 10AA(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996

[17] Section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996

[18] Section 20(l) of the Dog Control Act 1996

[19] From p.9 of the Plan: “The urban forest comprises native and exotic trees, other vegetation, and also the surrounding or supporting environment – air, soil, fungi and water. All the trees in our streets, parks and other open spaces, along our waterways and wetlands are part of our urban forest…”. See also p.18 and goal 2.4.

[20] At the time of writing, the Life in Christchurch Survey results had not been published, but early analysis shows this as a theme.

[21] Consultation on the plan closed on 9 August 2024, and at the time of writing, had not been finalised.

[22] The Dog Control Act 1996 enables regulation of public places and defines this broadly (ie it does not require the land to be Council-managed or owned land), but land that is open to the public. We have restrictions in place on Godley Head, which is Department of Conservation land, and some land at the request of Environment Canterbury eg in Brooklands.

[23] Rongoā is traditional Māori medicine, which includes herbal medicine made from plants

[24] This requires a council to determine whether a bylaw is appropriate – including determining whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem that it is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that whether it gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s.155 of the LGA).

[25] A judicial review is where a judge is asked to review an action or a decision that has been made under a legal power. The judge looks at whether the way the decision was made was in accordance with the law. (Judicial review summary, Ministry of Justice, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/media/rules-and-resources/Judicial-reviews.pdf)

14. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/795975
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Mayor Phil Mauger

Date	Event
17 October	National Lifeline Utilities Forum
18 October	Greater Christchurch Partnership meeting
18 October	Opening of Hungarian Honorary Consulate
19 October	City Mission Plate Up dinner
20 October	I Am Climate Hope Ride
21 October	Canterbury Water Management Scheme Zone Committee Review
22 October	Wuhan Business University delegation
23 October	Canterbury Antarctic Network reception
24 October	Antarctic Season Opening
26 October	New Brighton Community Gardens Open Day
26 October	Diwali Festival opening
27 October	Akaroa Yacht Club 60th Anniversary
31 October	2/1 Battalion RNZIR Colours Parade
4 November	Seattle City Council delegation
5 November	Refugee Driving Programme Graduation Ceremony
7 November	Central City Development Forum
8 November	Canterbury and Westland Contractor of the Year Awards dinner

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
16.	Appointments to Committee	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	Protection of Privacy	With the agreement of the Chief Executive

12. Elected Member Allowances and Expenses Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1136729
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

13. Libraries and Information Unit Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1426514
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Carolyn Robertson, Head of Libraries and Information
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Nigel Cox, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community