Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 20 November 2024

5. Local Alcohol Policy Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1777482
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Philip Henderson, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is:

1.1.1 To provide an update on progress to develop a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP).

1.1.2 To seek decisions from the Council on:

· The timeline for continuing development of a LAP.

· Governance arrangements for making decisions on a LAP.

1.2 Staff prepared this report to fulfil the Council’s request, set out in Council Resolution CNCL/2024/00072 of 5 June 2024, to receive a progress report before the end of the year.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Alcohol Policy Update .

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. Confirms its intent to consider adoption of a final version of a Local Alcohol Policy before the local elections in October 2025, and requests staff to progress work accordingly.

4. Resolves that all decision-making on matters relating to a Local Alcohol Policy sit with the full Council with the Mayor as Chair.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Following the Council’s direction in June 2024 to commence work to develop a LAP, staff have progressed essential foundation work on this project. Statutory-required data and information was requested from New Zealand Police, Ministry of Health and Alcohol Licensing Inspectors. Its collation and analysis are a precursor to engaging with stakeholders and the wider community, to ensure that the policy development is evidence-based and robust.

3.2 The opportunity was taken to gather local views on alcohol sale and supply in local communities, through the regular ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey which asked a range of questions about their views about their local neighbourhoods. We heard from 5,248 people who shared their opinions on levels of satisfaction or concerns about local alcohol-related matters. A summary of these views was presented to Council on 5 November 2024, with detailed findings available soon.

3.3 In summary, there are geographic differences in the impact that alcohol has on our communities and neighbourhoods. Survey respondents think their community should have more say regarding licensed premises in their neighbourhood, and although most do not want to see the number of licenced premises in their neighbourhood grow, around a third indicated that they would like to see more neighbourhood places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed on the premises with a meal (e.g. restaurants or cafes). Respondents were divided as to whether the hours of licensed premises are about right or too long.

3.4 Mindful of the Council’s direction to engage with stakeholders and the community in the development of a draft LAP, a comprehensive three-phase plan will include stakeholder and community engagement and public consultation. Actions so far include:

· Councillors’ Information Session on 5 November 2024 (Attachment A).

· Commencement of initial meetings with statutory and key stakeholders.

· A dedicated Council webpage has been set up to keep people informed of progress.

· An email was sent widely to stakeholders and licensees explaining the policy process, inviting sharing of additional statistical data, and outlining opportunities for participation.

· Community Boards’ information sessions (November/December) are explaining the policy process, the Boards’ role in it, and opportunities for local communities’ participation.

3.5 To enable staff to plan the next stages of work, and to give the community and other stakeholders’ assurance about the process, the Council is asked to decide on the timeline for the continuation of work on a LAP and its preferred arrangements for decision-making.

3.6 In alignment with the Council’s resolution in June 2024 for staff to commence work on a LAP, staff recommend that the project proceeds within the current Council term (timeline Option 1), noting that this schedules consultation during April, submissions’ analysis, hearings and deliberations during May/June and considering adoption of a LAP in late July/early August 2025.

3.7 Two other timeline options are provided, that either:

3.7.1 pause the process from February 2025 (at identification of issues and policy options) and leave all decision-making to an incoming Council; or

3.7.2 defer all further LAP policy work until the new Council term.

3.7.3 All options avoid split decision-making across two electoral cycles.

3.8 Staff recommend that the full Council with the Mayor as Chair make all decisions leading to and approval of a LAP (decision-making Option 1) on the basis these decisions would be of high significance. Several other options are assessed also.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 At the 5 June Council 2024 meeting, Councillors directed staff to commence work on developing a LAP and undertake initial engagement with stakeholders.

4.2 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) provides for councils to develop local alcohol policies. The Act is prescriptive in requiring councils to have regard to a comprehensive range of data and information sourced from external agencies and stipulates stakeholders who must be consulted. These requirements underpin project planning.

Update on project progress

4.3 The Council received an Information Session update on 5 November 2024 on progress with early development of a LAP (Attachment A).

4.4 Since this Information Session staff have revised the proposed timeline for the project’s completion, to better accommodate and balance the time required by community, staff and decision-makers to participate in several other significant community-wide consultations and hearings’ processes the Council must make in 2025. The recommended Option 1 is timed for the Council to consider adoption of a final LAP in late July/early August 2025.

4.5 Essential foundation work to inform ensuing engagement has included:

4.5.1 Requesting and collating requisite data and information: overall health indicators; nature and severity of alcohol-related problems in the district (including Police data); objectives and policies of the District Plan; number, location and hours of licensing information; alcohol bans and bylaw information, demography of the district.

4.5.2 Looking at other New Zealand councils’ LAPs (42 currently), completing a comprehensive review of information and literature about the impacts of LAP or similar provisions in New Zealand and relevant overseas districts, and engaging an independent review of literature regarding economic impacts of LAPs’ provisions.

4.5.3 Developing a three-phase engagement plan, which will ensure stakeholders and communities will have fair opportunities to participate through the process.

4.5.4 Running the ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey and subsequent analysis of feedback.

4.6 With this background data and information collection well-progressed, in October and November we have been able to commence early external engagement:

4.6.1 Meeting with statutory and key stakeholders to hear and understand their views on alcohol-related issues and asking if they have relevant data to share.

4.6.2 Emailing key stakeholders, known interested groups and organisations explaining the policy process and asking if they have relevant data to share.

4.6.3 Building a webpage with information about the policy process, inviting people to opt in to updates, asking for relevant data, outlining opportunities for public participation.

4.6.4 Providing an Information Session at each Community Board, explaining the process and Boards’ role in it and opportunities for community participation.

4.7 Cross-organisation staff resource and senior management oversight ensure that the recommended timeline for completion of a LAP’s development in this current triennium can be met. This timeline allows time for comprehensive engagement with stakeholders and the community and completion of all requisite steps set out in the Act.

‘Life in Christchurch’ survey – summary findings

4.8 Between August and September 2024, as part of a regular ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey, participants were asked for their views on the alcohol sale and supply in their local community.

4.9 The survey asked for views on whether current rules, regulations and restrictions are adequate for addressing alcohol related harm, the impacts of alcohol and alcohol related harm on our neighbourhoods, feedback on the current number and hours of licensed premises and the proximity of licensed premises to community facilities.

4.10 5,248 responses were received. A full analysis of the results is currently undergoing an external peer review and will be released in due course.

4.11 It is important to acknowledge that the survey is only one source that the Council will need to consider in developing a LAP – the breadth of which ranges from data, information and research findings to stakeholders’ views and community preferences.

4.12 The survey highlighted geographic differences in the impact that alcohol has on our communities and neighbourhoods. In some areas, respondents were much more likely to disagree that the current rules, regulations, and restrictions are effective.

4.13 Respondents indicated that they think their community should have more say regarding licensed premises in their neighbourhood. In most instances respondents did not want to see the number of licenced premises in their neighbourhood grow, however around a third of respondents indicated that they would like to see more places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed on the premises with a meal (e.g. restaurants or cafes) in their local neighbourhood.

4.14 Respondents were divided as to whether the hours of licensed premises are about right or too long. Just under half indicated that they think the hours that most of the premises can sell alcohol are too long, while on the other hand just under half also indicated that they think they are about right.

Engagement

4.15 Staff have developed a three-phased engagement process which considers the Council direction to engage with stakeholders prior to development of a draft LAP:

4.15.1 Phase one: Research and inform – informing stakeholders of the process, the research being gathered and what it tells us to date, gaining understanding of what other data stakeholders may have that they are willing to share, and what existing channels/networks they may have that we could utilise in later engagement phases.

If specific demographics are not reflected in the ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey results this phase will also aim to find ways to understand such groups’ perceptions about the access to and operating hours for purchase of alcohol.

4.15.2 Phase two: testing ideas with stakeholders and the public - sharing research analysis and identified issues, testing policy options and their implications.

4.15.3 Phase three: consultation on a draft LAP (using the Special Consultative Procedure, as required).

4.16 As described above, the first phase of engagement is underway with statutory and key stakeholder meetings underway, Community Boards’ sessions occurring, direct email to a wide number of stakeholders and interested organisations, and a dedicated webpage set up (Draft local alcohol policy : Christchurch City Council).

4.17 As part of the initial engagement phase the Council’s Te Tiriti Partnerships team has provided a LAP factsheet to each Rūnanga and asked how they would like to be involved in the development of a LAP. Once we gain an understanding of the level of involvement sought, we will develop specific opportunities for them to be involved.

4.18 Staff expect to report on their findings from the first phase of engagement early in 2025.

4.19 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for Councillors.

Date	Subject
5/11/2024	Development of a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) – update on progress

5. Options Analysis

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.1 The Council is asked to consider options for

5.1.1 The timeline for progressing the development of a LAP:

· Timeline Option 1: Complete all steps before the 2025 local elections (staff recommendation).

· Timeline Option 2: Pause after identifying issues and options (circa February 2025) and leave the next Council to make all decisions.

· Timeline Option 3: Defer all further work until after 2025 elections, so there is continuity throughout the process.

Note: The Council can decide to stop development of a LAP at any stage of the process.

5.1.2 The nature of the decision-making process for a LAP, specifically the composition of a hearings panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions on a draft LAP:

· Decision-making Option 1: The full Council with the Mayor chairing.

· Decision-making Option 2: Committee of the Whole.

· Decision-making Option 3: A smaller group of Councillors are the hearings panel, and they make recommendations to Council.

· Decision-making Option 4: A smaller group of Councillors and Community Board members are the hearings panel, and they make recommendations to the Council.

· Decision-making Option 5: A mixture of Elected Members and externals, such as a Commissioner, and they make recommendations to the Council. The appointment of external members would need to be made by the Council; this is not provided under staff delegations.

· Decision-making Option 6: External Commissioners only and they make recommendations to the Council. The Council would need to make any appointments of external members; this is not provided under staff delegation.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

Timeline for progressing the development of a LAP

5.2 All three options enable delivery of a robust, statutorily compliant policy process. None reduce opportunities for stakeholders and the community to engage in development and submit on a draft LAP. Also, it is noted that the Council can, at any point in the process, decide to stop development of a LAP.

5.3 Along with the assessment criteria listed below, options have been based on:

5.3.1 Estimated duration of each stage of work required, including delivery and analysis of statutory-required information.

5.3.2 Council’s direction to staff in June 2024, to include stakeholders in the development stage before consulting on the draft LAP.

5.3.3 Known and anticipated high level of community interest in alcohol-related matters.

5.3.4 Importance of adequate time to hear the views of stakeholders and community.

5.4 Preferred Option: Timeline Option 1: Complete all steps before the 2025 local elections.

5.4.1 Option Description: The current Council approves a draft LAP, completes the Special Consultative Procedure as required, and decides whether to adopt a final LAP in late July/early August 2025 (in advance of the 11 October 2025 local elections). Note: the date of adoption is not necessarily the implementation date.

5.4.2 Option Advantages

· This enables completion of the LAP process during one triennium.

· This option continues momentum at the current pace on a policy process that the Council decided in June 2024 to commence.

· This would deliver in a timely way on Councillors’ expectations for the project.

5.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· This does not allow any time to accommodate unforeseen circumstances or delays and still complete the process in this triennium.

· The community will be invited to participate in a number of significant Council consultations and decisions before the 2025 local elections (e.g. delivery model for water services, annual plan, bylaw reviews) and the special consultative procedure required for a daft LAP adds to this onus on citizens and groups.

· The requisite Special Consultative Procedure (April), including hearings and deliberations (June) will be undertaken towards the final months of the current triennium.

5.5 Timeline Option 2: Pause after identifying issues and options (circa February 2025) and leave the next Council to make all decisions.

5.5.1 Option Description: The current Council, receives information on issues and options which an incoming Council could use as a basis for resuming a LAP’s development, including all decision-making.

5.5.2 Option Advantages

· This reduces the onus on the current Council to complete what is anticipated may be a demanding hearing and deliberation process towards the end (June 2025) of this triennium.

· This enables an incoming Council to have continuity across all decision-making on a LAP.

· This reduces the number of significant decisions the Council consults with its community on during an already-busy period of consultations (e.g. delivery model for water services, annual plan, bylaw reviews).

5.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· This extends the LAP process over two cycles of Council.

· This may leave some stakeholders/community dissatisfied with a perceived slow pace of the process and low prioritisation by the Council.

· An incoming Council may decide to start the LAP process again (or re-do parts of it) - at additional cost and time to Council.

· An incoming Council may not wish to pursue the LAP process, which could be perceived as wasted cost and effort by some stakeholders and parts of the community.

5.6 Timeline Option 3: Defer all further work until after 2025 elections, so there is continuity throughout the process.

5.6.1 Option Description: The current Council defers progressing further development of the draft LAP until after the local government elections in late 2025, to enable the incoming Council to sign-off the draft LAP and to consult, hear submissions, deliberate, and decide whether to adopt a LAP.

5.6.2 Option Advantages

· This reduces the onus on the current Council to complete what is anticipated may be a demanding hearing and deliberation process towards the end (June 2025) of this triennium.

· This enables an incoming Council to have continuity across all consultation and decision-making on an LAP.

5.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· This extends the LAP process over two cycles of Council.

· This may leave some stakeholders/community dissatisfied with a perceived slow pace of the process and low prioritisation by the Council.

· An incoming Council may decide to recommence the whole LAP process - at additional cost and time to Council.

· An incoming Council may not wish to pursue the LAP process, which could be perceived as wasted cost and effort by some stakeholders and parts of the community.

Decision-making Options’ Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

Decision-making process options

5.7 Given the significance of this issue, it is recommended that decision making remain at the level of full Council and not with a committee of smaller membership. In addition, it is recommended that all aspects of the development, hearings, consideration and determination sit with full Council with the Mayor as Chair - as with the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan.

5.8 Should the Council wish to appoint a smaller group of Elected Members as a hearings panel, the current delegation to appoint membership sits with the Manager Democratic Services. However, the Manager Democratic Services considers the LAP of such significance that they would choose not to exercise their delegation and request that the Council appoint membership of the hearings panel.

5.9 Preferred Option: Decision-making Option 1: The full Council with the Mayor chairing.

5.9.1 Option Advantages

· This is appropriate to the subject matter, which is metro, high profile, and potentially controversial.

· The Mayor is the Chair of Council and as such should be fully involved in such a large decision.

· This will ensure the whole Council is involved and invested in the process for the duration of the project.

5.9.2 Option Disadvantages

· It is time consuming and resource intensive for Elected Members and the organisation.

5.10 Decision-making Option 2: Committee of the Whole.

5.10.1 Option Advantages

· This is appropriate to the subject matter, which is metro, high profile, and controversial.

· A Chair, other than the Mayor, may have greater availability to lead the project on behalf of the Council rather than the Mayor.

· This will ensure the whole Council is involved and invested in the process for the duration of the project.

5.10.2 Option Disadvantages

· It is time consuming and resource intensive for Elected Members and the organisation.

5.11 Decision-making Option 3: A smaller group of Councillors are the hearings panel, and they make recommendations to the Council.

5.11.1 Option Advantages

· The hearings panel could be made up of members with a variety of perspectives.

· A smaller group would be easier to schedule than full Council.

5.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· There may be a public perception that a smaller panel will mean less variety of perspectives.

· The majority of Councillors would be removed from the development of the LAP and may not want to leave such an important decision in the hands of a smaller group. While the Council would still be the final decision maker, it may be perceived that it will be difficult for the Council to deviate too far from the recommendations of the hearings panel if so desired.

5.12 Decision-making Option 4: A smaller group of Councillors and Community Board members are the hearings panel, and they make recommendations to the Council.

5.12.1 Option Advantages

· The hearings panel could comprise a mix of metropolitan and local community members and perspectives.

· A smaller group is easier to schedule.

5.12.2 Option Disadvantages

· This is a citywide issue and as such, the Community Boards are likely to want to submit on the consultation. Panel members would need to refrain from the Board submission process.

· The majority of Councillors would be removed from the development of the LAP and may not want to leave such an important decision in the hands of a smaller group. While the Council would still be the final decision maker, it would be difficult to deviate too far from the recommendations of the hearings panel.

5.13 Decision-making Option 5: A mixture of Elected Members and externals, such as a Commissioner, and they make recommendations to the Council. The appointment of external members would need to be made by the Council; this is not provided under staff delegations.

5.13.1 Option Advantages

· A smaller group is easier to schedule.

· A Commissioner may be perceived to add a greater level of impartiality.

5.13.2 Option Disadvantages

· There would be an additional cost (amount unknown) for the Commissioner.

· Potentially most Councillors would be removed from decision-making on a high significance decision.

5.14 Decision-making Option 6: External Commissioners only and they make recommendations to Council. The Council would need to make any appointments of external members; this is not provided under staff delegation.

5.14.1 Option Advantages

· This would transfer the majority of the workload from the elected members and should be easier to schedule.

· Commissioners may be perceived to bring a greater level of impartiality.

5.14.2 Option Disadvantages

· This would be costly, but an exact amount is unknown as it would depend on the number of submitters and the length of time involved.

· The public may expect to be able to address the elected panel directly on such an important issue.

· The Councillors would be removed from the development of the LAP and may not want to leave such an important decision in the hands of Commissioners. While Council would still be the final decision maker, it would be difficult to deviate too far from the recommendations of the Commissioners.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.15 The criteria used to assess both the options for the timeline for the continued development of a LAP, and decision-making arrangements were:

5.15.1 Appropriateness of an option given the assessed high significance of the decision to develop a LAP and known level of stakeholder and community interest in the policy process.

5.15.2 Appropriateness of where consideration of evidence and information, deliberation on submitted stakeholder and community views, and decision-making, rests.

5.15.3 Implications of decision-making being split across two Council terms.

5.15.4 Stakeholder and community perception of the Council’s progress on considering policy matters related to minimising harm from the sale and supply of alcohol.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option 1 – pre elections’ completion	Option 2 - Pause	Option 3 - Defer
Cost to Implement Excludes: · Staff time costs · Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: $20,000 to $100,000 Minimum estimated cost in the region of $20,000 for mandatory SCP, plus additional (discretionary) research and engagement costs up to an estimated maximum of $100,000	As Option 1	As Option 1
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs Excludes: · Staff time costs · Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: $20,000 to $100,000 once every six years - cost of reviewing LAP estimated as matching cost of developing LAP	As Option 1	As Option 1
Funding Source	Strategic policy, legal and licensing operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and licensing operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and licensing operational budgets
Funding Availability	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets
Impact on Rates	Neutral, as withing existing budgets	Neutral, as withing existing budgets	Neutral, as withing existing budgets

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act prescribes local data, information and consultees that a council must have regard to in developing policy options. All three options for a timeline for continued development of a LAP provide for these legislative requirements to be met.

7.2 A decision on the Council’s preferred timeline for development of a LAP and composition of a hearings panel is required at this stage in the process, to ensure that adequate resourcing, stakeholder and community engagement and required consultation steps can be programmed into the Council’s wider programmes of work and decision-making. This will mitigate the risk of untimely completion of steps and potential stakeholder or community dissatisfaction with progress.

7.3 Pausing parts or delaying all further steps in the LAP process until the next triennium may increase the risk that some stakeholders and parts of the community perceive a lack of commitment by the Council to developing a policy that has been assessed as high significance. If the Council decides to pause or delay the process across two Council terms, this risk will need to be managed by clear communication to all interested parties.

7.4 Mindful of the potential implications of splitting decisions on LAP matters across two terms of elected members (who may not all have the same level of knowledge of the issues and options in making decisions), the three options assessed and the hearings panel composition propose that all decision-making is made by one council – either this side of the 2025 local elections (Timeline Option 1) or in the new term (Timeline Options 2 and 3).

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

7.6 Other Legal Implications:

7.6.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision as it is process-focussed as against a policy decision, in that, the purpose of the report is to receive the project update, make a decision on the process timeline (all options comply with the statutory requirements of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the Local Government Act 2002), and the structure and membership of the decision-making body on adoption of the draft LAP.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.7 The required decisions:

7.7.1 Align with Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The following Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes are particularly relevant for this project:

· Be an inclusive and equitable city which puts people at the centre of developing our city and district, prioritising wellbeing, accessibility and connection.

· Our residents have the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, have a strong sense of belonging and identity, and feel safe.

· Our city is a great place for people, business and investment where we can all grow our potential, where enterprises are innovative and smart, and where together we raise productivity and reduce emissions.

7.7.2 The decisions required in this report will enable effective project management to continue with appropriate resourcing and schedule planning undertaken.

7.7.3 It is noted that the June 2024 Council decision to commence development of a LAP was assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The decisions sought today are subsidiary to this assessment.

7.7.4 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

7.9 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.9.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.10 Staff assessed the Council’s decision on 5 June 2024 to commence development of a LAP as high significance, advised that it would affect the district as a whole, and that all community boards are expected to engage in the process of developing a LAP.

7.11 However, the subsidiary decisions required now are considered low significance as they do not alter these assessments and expectation of the likely level of community interest and impacts.

7.12 The planned comprehensive stakeholder and community engagement and consultation are the same for each of the options for the timeline to complete policy development.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.13 The decisions required from this report do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. It is expected that issues and impacts relating to the sale and supply of alcohol in the community is likely to be of interest to some Mana Whenua.

7.14 The Council’s Te Tiriti Partnerships team is seeking advice from Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga about how they wish to participate in the development of a draft LAP to ensure their views are heard. Early community engagement on policy issues and options, and formal consultation processes will include opportunities for Mana Whenua to participate and submit on proposals.

7.15 It is noted that comprehensive local demographic, health indicators and Police data and review of relevant research, include whatever available data and information relating to impacts of alcohol sale and supply on Māori.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.16 The proposals in this report will not directly contribute to adaptation planning nor the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 Once the Council decides on the timeline for progressing the development of a LAP (including hearings process), detailed project planning will reflect this schedule.

8.2 If the Council decides to proceed with Timeline Option 1 (i.e. completion of the process before the 2025 local elections), it is noted that staff will report again to Council circa February 2025. By this time, staff will have completed initial stakeholder meetings and analysis of statutory-required and other data and information and will be providing the Council with advice on identified issues and potential options for provisions in a draft LAP.

8.3 If the Council decides to slow or defer the development of a LAP (i.e. Timeline Option 2 or 3), staff can return to the Council with a revised timeline as soon as practicable, for Elected Members, stakeholders and the community’s clear understanding.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A LAP Update Councillors Information Session 5 November 2024	24/1910101	18

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Philip Henderson - Senior Policy Analyst

Adair Bruorton - Principal Advisor Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

6. 2024/25 Sustainability Fund Allocation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1510942
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katherine Manning, Senior Adaptation Advisor Jane Morgan, Team Leader, 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 for the allocation of the 2024/25 Sustainability Fund which supports projects that address the Council’s climate change objectives.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2024/25 Sustainability Fund Allocation Report.

2. Approves the recommended allocations from the 2024/25 Sustainability Fund as outlined in the following table:

No.	Organisation	Project	Panel Rec
1	3. Pūharakekenui Styx Living Laboratory Trust	Community Resilience and Connection: Free Trees Project and Sustainable Transport	$10,000
2	Predator Free Eastside	Predator Free Waimairi Beach Dune Restoration	$3,858
3	Summit Road Society Inc	Horotane Valley Community Reforestation	$15,000
4	Conservation Volunteers NZ	CVNZ Nursery	$25,000
5	New Brighton Community Gardens	Funding for Propagating Young Gardeners school programme and composting	$20,000
6	Canterbury Horticultural Society Inc	Orchards in Schools (OIS)	$20,000
7	Garden to Table Trust	Garden to Table Christchurch	$20,000
8	Christchurch Transitional Architecture Trust	Christchurch Conversations 2025	$30,000
9	Sea Cleaners	Sea Cleaners	$21,000
10	Richmond Community Garden/Riverlution Eco Hub	Riverlution Precious Plastic	$15,000
11	4. Clever Green Ltd	Recycling workshops and kits	$4,820
12	Sumner Bays Union Trust	Morgans Valley Bush and Regeneration	$2,314
13	Avon Ōtākaro Network Inc	Ōtākaro Avon River Clean Phase two	$20,000
14	Richmond Residents and Business Association	Trial Dog Poo Bokashi bin in Petrie Park	$3,345
15	Orton Bradley Park Board	Te Wharau stream tributaries restoration project	$15,000
16	RAD Bikes Charitable Trust	‘Find a Bike’ Expansion 2025	$17,000
17	The Wednesday Challenge HQ Ltd	The Wednesday Challenge Schools Programme	$35,000
18	The Idea Consultancy	Packaging-Free Ōtautahi	$4,519
19	Sustained Fun Limited	World Sustainable Toy Day 2024	$5,400
20	Wai-ora Forest Landscapes Ltd	Helping People Grow – Community Sustainability Workshops	$4,500
21	Ecobulb Limited	Christchurch Home Energy Saver Extension	$10,000
22	The Idea Consultancy Limited	Regenerative Business Accelerator	$8,000
23	Project Lyttelton Inc	The Lyttel Sew and Sew’s	$10,000
24	Digital Futures Aotearoa	Recycle a Device	$10,000
25	Para Kore Marae Incorporated	Para Kore ki Ōtautahi	$10,000
26	Sustain Ōtautahi Inc	Moana/Marine Sustainability Workshops	$7,900
27	A Rocha Aotearoa New Zealand	Eco Church Aotearoa	$10,000
28	Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust	Circular Phillipstown	$10,000
29	Untouched World Foundation	Rangatahi Sustainability Leadership Capability Building Programmes	$14,100
30	Blue Cradle Foundation	Ocean Literacy Education for Christchurch	$5,000
31	Nōku Te Ao Charitable Trust	Kō Mahi Ko Ora – ki Te Ōraka	$16,244
32	Food Resilience Network INC	Ōtākaro Orchard Urban Farm Community Composting scheme	$1,000
33	Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust	Kaingaki Māra - Addington Sustainable Food Programme	$12,000
34	Ferrymead Park Ltd	Predator Control Programme	$0
35	Eat New Zealand	Local Procurement Pledge	$0
36	Planetary Accounting Network	Planetary Accounting in Tourism	$0
37	Offspring Directory Ltd	Overnight Success	$0
38	Superhome Movement	Superhome App	$0
39	St Christopher’s Anglican Church - Avonhead	Solar Panels on the roof of St Christopher’s Church and Halls	$0
40	Pathway Trust	Pathway Affordable Housing Solar	$0
41	Christchurch Chinese Church	Switch to LED Lighting	$0
42	Greening the Rubble Trust	Living facades	$0
43	Southwest Baptist Church	Solar Panel Installation	$0
44	Natural Extraction Technologies	Energy reduction extraction process for food products	$0
45	Kapa Limited	Chunky Loan Cup System	$0
46	Silver Boutique	Silver Boutique – Recycle, revamp and reuse	$0
47	Cook Brothers Construction	Sustainability Carpenter	$0
48	Renew Brighton Charitable Trust	Preparing Greater New Brighton community for the climate change impacts	$0
49	Narix FSD Ltd	Aerial Fire Suppression System	$0
50	Belfast Community Network	Our Future – Resilience and sustainability	$0
51	Lyttelton Energy Transition Society Inc	Lyttelton Recreation Centre – A Community Resilience Hub	$0
52	Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu	Marae Preparedness Planning Waitaha	$0
53	Seed the Change/He Kākano Hāpai	Drinkable Rivers	$0
54	Big Dreams Trust	Community Supported Transport	$0
55	Food Resilience Network Inc	Edible Canterbury Charter Workstreams	$0
56	Terra Nova Foundation	One Year, One You, One Planet	$0
57	Water Cremation Aotearoa	Christchurch Water Crematorium	$0
58	Ao Tawhiti Climate Campus	Ōtakaro Climate Action Campus Connections	$0
Total funds allocated			$416,000

5. Approves the transfer of any unallocated funds from the 2024/25 Sustainability Fund to the 2025/26 Sustainability Fund.

6. 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 The purpose of the Sustainability Fund (fund) is to support community, school, social enterprise or business projects that help meet Council’s climate change objectives from the Kia tūroa te Ao Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy.

3.2 The fund has $416,000 available for allocation. Of this, $380,000 was budgeted for this year, and $36,000 was carried forward after being unallocated last year. However, the fund is heavily over-subscribed this year, with 58 applications seeking $1,796,613 in total.

3.3 Technical assessors from across Council evaluated the applications against the funds criteria and prioritised the applicants for funding. A cross-Council Evaluation Panel then moderated these assessments and made funding recommendations.

3.4 Of the 58 applications, 33 were assessed as Priority One or Two, meaning that funding is recommended, and 25 were assessed as Priority Three or Four meaning that funding is not recommended.

3.5 Priority One and Two applications sought a total of $764,826, leaving the Evaluation Panel with a challenge to cut $348,826 for the final allocation of the total funds available of $416,000.

3.6 The Evaluation Panel took the approach of fully allocating the funds by spreading partial funding across Priority One and Two applicants, with the aim of maximising the benefit to the community.

3.7 This report seeks Council approval of the recommended allocation of funds.

3.8 Please note that appended to this report are:

3.8.1 Attachment A which provides summary information about each application and rationale for the recommendations from the Evaluation Panel.

3.8.2 Attachment B which provides more details about each application (organisation details, project details, and high-level financial information, and an assessment from the staff technical assessors.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 In June 2021, the Council approved the Kia tūroa tea o, Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy which sets out four climate change goals to future proof our district, and ten related climate action programmes that will help us deliver on these goals. The goals are:

· Net Zero Emissions Christchurch.

· We understand and are preparing for the ongoing impacts of climate change.

· We have a just transition to an innovative low-emission economy.

· We are guardians of our natural environment and taonga.

4.2 The Sustainability Fund provides a mechanism to support community action that contributes to these climate goals by encouraging community, school, social enterprise, or business projects that deliver climate action.

Process

4.3 The Sustainability Fund opened on 29 July 2024 and closed on 30 August 2024 with 58 applications.

4.4 A technical assessment of each application was undertaken by the Council’s subject matter experts on emissions reduction, biodiversity, freshwater, transport, waste, sustainable building design, energy efficiency, red zone, community resilience, innovation and business, sustainable events, climate and sustainability education, and coastal issues.

4.5 Each application was evaluated against the following criteria:

· Relevance – alignment with the Council’s climate change objectives.

· Benefit – the nature and scale of public good being delivered.

· Legacy – the ability to deliver ongoing benefit.

· Deliverability – the project is ready and able to be delivered.

· Measurability – has clear measures of success.

4.6 The technical assessment considered a range of information provided by applicants including budgets, letters of support, and job descriptions; as well as reviewing reports associated with previous funds allocated to these projects where applicable.

4.7 The technical assessors prioritised each application as follows:

· Priority 1 - Highly recommended for funding. Project meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund.

· Priority 2 – Recommended for funding. Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes well to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund, but to a lesser extent than Priority 1 projects.

· Priority 3 – Not recommended for funding. Meets eligibility criteria, meets most evaluation criteria, and contributes to the fund purpose and outcomes, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 projects.

· Priority 4 – Not recommended for funding. For example, it may not meet eligibility criteria, insufficient information was provided, other funding sources are more appropriate, or the project offers a limited or uncertain benefit.

4.8 On 2 October 2024, the technical assessors presented their assessments to an Evaluation Panel of cross-Council staff for moderation and funding recommendations.

4.9 Lastly, staff note that seven applications requested funding towards energy efficiency, and renewable energy sources such as solar panels. These applications were all declined, primarily due to limited wider community impact. While there is a demand for funding in this space, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority confirm that there is no national funding available.

Recommendations

4.10 58 applications were received by the Council, seeking $1,796,613 in total. Of these, applications were prioritised as follows:

· Priority One (18 applications) and Priority Two (15 applications) totalling 33 applications which were recommended for funding.

· Priority 3 (23 applications) and Priority 4 (2 applications) totalling 25 applications which were not recommended for funding.

4.11 Priority One and Two applications sought a total of $764,826, leaving the Evaluation Panel with a challenge to cut $348,826 for the final allocation of the total funds available of $416,000.

4.12 The Evaluation Panel took the approach of fully allocating the funds by spreading partial funding across Priority One and Two applicants, with the aim of maximising the benefit to the community. All $416,000 funds available were allocated.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.13.1 The Council can endorse the recommendations of the Evaluation Panel; or

4.13.2 The Council can determine which, if any, applicants receive funding, and the amount allocated. Should unspent funds remain, they will be added to the amount available in the 2025/26 financial year.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Endorse the Evaluation Panel recommendations.

4.14.1 Option Description: Endorse the recommendations made in this report.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· This approach ensures that funding is allocated in alignment with the process of expert assessment undertaken by multiple staff against the fund’s criteria.

4.15 Alternative Option: Councillors distribute funds.

4.15.1 Option Description: Councillors opt to distribute funds differently from the recommendations made in this report and/or hold funds back.

4.15.2 Option Disadvantages

· This approach does not align with the process of expert assessment undertaken by multiple staff against the fund’s criteria.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Alternative Option
Cost to Implement	$416,000	Up to $416,000
Funding Source	LTP 2024-34	LTP 2024-34
Funding Availability	Within budget of $416,000	Within budget of $416,000
Impact on Rates	No additional	No additional

5.1 The available balance of the 2024/25 Sustainability Fund is $416,000. This consists of $380,000 budgeted in the Long-Term Plan, and $36,000 carried over from the 2023/24 Sustainability Fund. This report recommends allocating $416,000 to applicants, which if approved would leave a balance of $0 in the fund.

5.2 Adhering to the fund’s Terms of Reference, any unspent funds will be carried forward into the 2025/26 Sustainability Fund.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Grant Funding Agreement that each successful applicant must sign before funds are allocated aims to minimise the risks to the Council. Despite this, some risk remains that projects don’t proceed, fail to deliver against outcomes, or timeframes change. A detailed accountability report is required from applicants to help manage these risks.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 The Council has the authority to allocate grant funding from the Sustainability Fund.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and the Kia tūroa te Ao Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy 2021.

6.4 This decision is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. :

6.5 Communities & Citizens

6.5.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide and manage funding for initiatives that facilitate resilient and active communities owning their own future - 100% of funding assessments detail rationale and demonstrate benefits aligned to Council’s strategic priorities, and where appropriate, Community Board Plans.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.7 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.

6.8 Many of the projects supported through this Fund aim to help improve water quality, support the regeneration of nature and encourage environmental understanding and action by whānau and Tamariki. These projects would be aligned to the interests of Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The purpose of the Sustainability Fund is to encourage community, school, social enterprise or business projects that help to meet the Council’s climate change objectives and targets.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Once grants are approved by the Council, a Grant Funding Agreement will be sent to successful applicants with funds released upon signature. Ideally this process is concluded by the end of November/early December 2024.

7.2 Recipients of the Sustainability Fund must provide a Project Report to the Council no later than three months after completion of the project, or within 13 months of receiving funding.

7.3 Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by email and will be directed to alternative Council funding streams if applicable.

7.4 A Newsline article will announce that the fund has been allocated.

7.5 A lessons learned process will be undertaken to inform next year’s process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Sustainability Fund Spreadsheet	24/1846548	47
b ⇨	Decision Matrix (Under Separate Cover)	24/1821533

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Sustainability Fund information on the Council webpage

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Morgan - Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning

Katherine Manning - Senior Adaptation Advisor

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

7. Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust - Community Loan Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1689591
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider options to reduce the financial impact of the community loan to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust (Trust).

1.2 The origin of the report is by request of the Council, who through the Long-Term Plan (LTP) process resolved (CLP/2024/00100):

“A20b. Request advice on the best options to reduce the financial impact of the [community] loan to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.”

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust - Community Loan Options Report.

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

3. Retains the existing Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust community loan at a 4% interest rate.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Trust has a standing community loan with the Council of $465,000, at an interest rate of 4.0% per annum.

3.2 The Council have asked staff to investigate options to reduce the financial impact of the Community Loan on the Trust. This report presents options, with the financial implications and contextual information, for the Council to consider. The staff recommendation:

· Reflects a preference to keep a consistent and sustainable approach across the community loans scheme. This preserves clarity of process for both existing community loans as well as any prospective future community loan holders.

· Acknowledges the impact of the existing additional LTP grant in favour of the Trust, of $58,000 per annum in FY24/25, FY25/26 and FY26/27, toward reducing the financial impact of the loan on the Trust. Particularly as the Trust are able to use this grant to repay principal and interest as they see fit.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 At the time of writing, the Trust has $465,000 remaining on its community loan of $850,000.

4.1.1 The initial loan agreement allowed for drawdown of up to $1,575,000, however this full amount was not required.

4.1.2 The loan allows for a term of 4.5 years, at a 4% interest rate.

4.1.3 The Trust is currently paying interest-only on this loan, and then making bulk repayments as their fundraising efforts allow. This inherent flexibility is specifically customised to reduce the financial impact of the loan on the Trust.

4.2 In the 2024/34 LTP:

The Council resolved (CLP/2024/00100)

“A20. The Council agrees to:

A20a. Provide to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust the following amounts from the 41949 - Marine Structures Planned Renewals ((Execute) Procure) programme budget, noting that this is approximately 50% of the outstanding cost of the jetty and sundries:

· FY24/25 - $58,000

· FY25/26 - $58,000

· FY26/27 - $58,000.

A20b. Request advice on the best options to reduce the financial impact of the loan to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.”

4.3 The Trust intends to utilise these annual payments towards its quarterly loan repayments.

4.4 The Trust has been very diligent and creative with its fundraising efforts – such as selling the handrails, sleepers, and other quality timber from the old Jetty, as well as running pub quiz nights and selling sponsorship plaques on the Jetty itself. The Trust work constructively and collaboratively with the Council.

4.5 There is no evidence to support the Trust not being in a position to repay the principal and interest on the existing loan.

4.6 The Community Loans Scheme has a fluctuating total budget of $3,303,000. $3,094,000 of the total loan budget has been allocated the groups listed below:

· Canterbury Bowls, Cashmere Tennis Club, Kilmarnock Enterprises.

· Mount Pleasant Community Centre, Halswell Community Centre.

· Piki Te Ora Clinic, Governors Bay Jetty, Burnside Rugby Football Club.

· Burnside Squash Club, The Food Resilience Network, Canterbury Softball.

· The Christchurch Heritage Trust.

4.7 The loan budget is financed by interest payments covering the Council’s cost of borrowing. As the principal is repaid it becomes available for future loans. This ensures the sustainability of the Scheme.

4.7.1 There is currently $209,000 available for community loans.

4.7.2 The current interest rate for community loans is 5.15%. This reflects the Council’s cost of borrowing over a 5-year term.

5. Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro(Provide credible analysis and impartial advice on all the reasonably practicable options)

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

· Retain the current interest rate of 4%p/a.

· Reduce the loan interest rate to 2%p/a.

· Make the community loan interest-free.

5.2 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· Provide a further grant to the Trust to partially or fully repay/forgive the loan - This option is not recommended as it is outside the scope of the Council resolution and the Council have already recently agreed to provide a further three-year grant to the Trust in the 2024/34 LTP for this purpose.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3 Preferred Option: Retain the current interest rate of 4%p/a.

5.3.1 Option Description: This option would keep the existing loan agreement with the Trust.

5.3.2 Option Advantages

· It retains the loan as initially agreed to by the Council and the Trust.

· The Trust has the flexibility within the current loan structure to make loan repayments; with the quarterly interest payments (currently $4,650), reducing as it makes each principal payment.

· Interest payments cover most of the Council’s cost of borrowing supporting the sustainability of the community loan scheme.

· This option is beneficial to the Trust when compared with other community loans. Even at 4%, the interest rate charged on the loan is effectively discounted as it is lower than the current cost of borrowing for the Council at 5.15%. Over the remaining course of the loan, this reduces the burden on the Trust by roughly ~$16,042 (dependant on repayments).

5.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option does not further reduce the financial impact of the loan on the Trust.

5.4 Second Option: Reduce the loan interest rate to 2%p/a.

5.4.1 Option Description: This option is not recommended as it would not significantly reduce the financial impact of the loan on the Trust, retains all of the administrative burden of the existing loan agreement. It comes at an unbudgeted cost of roughly $27,900 to Council (dependant on repayments) in reduced income revenue used to offset the cost of community loan scheme.

5.4.2 Option Advantages

· This would reduce the size of the quarterly interest repayments of the Trust in half. Based on the current loan balance this is approximately $2,325.00 per quarter.

5.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option does not create any efficiencies in the administration of the community loan for either the Council or the Trust.

· It does not represent a significant reduction in the required quarterly interest repayments for the Trust, when considering it against the quantum of the loan still to be repaid.

· There will be an unbudgeted cost to Council of roughly $27,900 over the anticipated life of the loan (dependant on repayments) in reduced interest revenue.

· Interest payments will not cover the Council’s cost of borrowing risking the sustainability of the community loan scheme.

5.5 Third Option: Make the community loan interest-free.

5.5.1 Option Description: This option is not recommended, as the Trust entered into the formal loan agreement as a partner-organisation with the Council in full knowledge of the repayment schedule, interest rate and conditions. Additionally, there is no evidence to support the Trust not being in a position to repay the principal and interest on the existing loan.

5.5.2 Option Advantages

· This option would reduce some administrative burden for both the Council and the Trust found in regular invoicing, repayments, and recalculating of interest payments/schedules when one-off principal reductions are made.

· It would remove all quarterly interest repayments for the Trust, leaving them only with principal repayments to be made, as they are able, before the term of the loan completes in June 2027.

5.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option will create a difficult precedent for the Council to maintain when it comes to the management of its community loans.

· There will be an unbudgeted cost to Council of roughly $55,800 over the anticipated life of the loan (dependant on repayments) in reduced interest revenue.

· Interest payments will not cover the Council’s cost of borrowing risking the sustainability of the community loan scheme.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Retain the loan at 4%	Option 2 - Reduce the Loan to 2%	Option 3 – Make the Loan Interest Free
Cost to Implement	No additional cost	$27,900 reduced interest	$55,800 reduced interest
Ongoing Costs	No additional cost	As above	As above
Funding Source	N/A	None, no budget set aside	None, no budget set aside
Funding Availability	N/A	None	None
Impact on Rates	None	0.0012%	0.0024%

6.1 There is no budget set aside to fund a reduction in interest costs. This will either be an unbudgeted additional cost to rates or recovered from community grant funding such as the Discretionary Response Fund.

6.2 Financial information supporting this report has been provided from Council’s Finance Unit.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 There is a small risk that the Trust may not be able to fundraise sufficient funds to accommodate both the principal and interest repayments within the remaining loan term.

7.1.1 This risk is mitigated by the Community Loans scheme being considered impaired by finance, the success of the Trust’s fundraising efforts so far, and the annual grant made by the Council in support of this purpose.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.2.1 The Council holds the statutory authority to make/amend Community Loan Agreements as a registered financial services provider (FSP).

7.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The required decision:

7.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Specifically:

· “Build trust and confidence in the Council through meaningful communication, listening to and working with residents”, and

· “Manage ratepayers' money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community and addressing the issues that are important to our residents.”

7.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected or with an interest in the result.

7.4.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically:

· The Place Pillar of the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

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

7.6 Communities & Citizens

7.6.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

7.7.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

7.8 The Community board view is supportive of the Trust and the Jetty. It has not been consulted with in regards to the conditions of the loan being considered in this report, as the Community Loans Scheme is managed by the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

7.10 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.

7.11 The decision in this report pertains primarily to the terms and conditions of the community loan repayment with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust, rather than the Jetty or Bay itself.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.12 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions as they relate primarily to the terms and conditions of the community loan repayment with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust, rather than the Jetty or Bay itself.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding
Approved By	John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

8. Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/901997
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Hansen, Manager Parks Planning and Asset Management
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Council to either invest further resources to continue to investigate the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a private property or to discontinue the Kart Club relocation project.

1.2 The report is staff initiated to seek direction on whether or not to proceed with a capital project.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation 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. Requests staff to continue investigating the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a private property, including seeking resource consent and negotiating associated property matters.

4. Notes that the outcome of the Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation investigations will be reported back to the Council confirming additional capital funding requirements and sources as may be required to deliver the project.

5. Approves the release of public excluded information (Attachments A to D of this report) at the conclusion of investigation work and negotiations with the private property owner.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 For many years, the Council has aimed to relocate the Christchurch Kart Club away from Carrs Reserve to address noise concerns and enable development of the surrounding area. Despite extensive search efforts, identified site options have all been deemed unsuitable for various reasons.

3.2 Currently, staff are exploring the feasibility of one site on private property. However, the site presents four challenges that could render it unfeasible: resource consent, land acquisition, cost, and community views.

3.3 Meanwhile, development has proceeded around parts of Carrs Reserve enabled by the construction of acoustic barriers to mitigate noise effects along with other design requirements. All these requirements add to the cost of development and building in this area.

3.4 Staff are seeking a decision from the Council on whether to invest further resources into investigating the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club to an alternative site or to acknowledge that relocation is impractical and discontinue the relocation project with the implication that noise will remain a problem for some residents and some areas at Awatea will not be able to be developed for residential housing, while the Kart Club continues to occupy the site for up to another 30 years when the lease expires.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

History and Previous Council Decisions

4.1 The Christchurch Kart Club established its track and facilities at Carrs Reserve, Halswell, in the early 1960s. It has held a lease at Carrs Reserve from the Council (and its predecessor, Paparua County Council) since 1988. The term of this lease arrangement, including rights of renewal, continues until 31 January 2054.

4.2 From the early 1990s, noise complaints were generating from the Kart Club activities and a search for a new site began.

4.3 In 2011, land to the southwest of Carrs Reserve was rezoned for residential use (plan change 5) but, due to noise issues, urban development was delayed until the Kart Club ceased motor sport activities on Carrs Reserve. The expectation at the time was that the Club would be relocated off the reserve.

4.4 Multiple sites for relocation were investigated but were deemed unsuitable for various reasons.

4.5 In September 2012, the Kart Club entered into a conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement with a landowner at McLeans Island for the relocation of its track and associated facilities.

4.6 On 24 June 2013, the Council resolved (subject to the adoption of the 2013-16 Three Year Plan) to agree to funding the resource consent processes and the relocation of the track and facilities. The total cost of a replacement track and facilities was estimated at $3.5 million, and funding was approved in subsequent LTPs.

4.7 An additional $450,000 was also budgeted for relocation of the Canterbury Greyhound Breeders, Owners, and Trainers Association Incorporated from Carrs Reserve. The Greyhound Association ceased operation at Carrs Reserve in 2023 and have vacated the site. Funding of $450,000 that was budgeted for their relocation remains in the Long-Term Plan and can be utilised to offset redevelopment costs as a local park.

4.8 In 2015, staff reported to the Council with an update on significant issues and delays to the proposed relocation, and an increase in the cost estimate to $7.4 million. At its meeting on 13 August 2015, the Council resolved to cap payment for relocation to a fixed sum of $3.5 million plus GST and contribution to the consenting process at $100,000. A time restriction for the uptake of the offer was set to February 2016 and a date was to be set by which the Club must have moved and surrendered their lease.

4.9 The Kart Club took up the offer but in 2018, staff reported a shortfall in funding for the resource consent and requested a Council decision on whether to stop the project or allocate an additional $70,000 Opex. The Council resolved to continue with the Kart Club relocation process and agreed to provide additional operational funds of up to $70,000 for the consent process.

4.10 Ultimately, there was community opposition to the proposed location at McLeans Island and the planned relocation was cancelled. The capital funding, however, has remained in subsequent Long-Term Plans and the search for a site has continued.

4.11 The Kart Club made a submission on the 2019-20 Annual Plan requesting the Council to review the amount of funding offered and retrospectively link it to the Consumer Price Index to enable the same amount of buying power as first proposed, but this was not approved.

4.12 The relocation project was added to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy 2021 to be 100% funded by development contributions ($3.7million). Approximately $377,000 incl GST has been collected in development contributions to date.

4.13 The Kart Club’s activities are governed by the noise limits imposed by the District Plan. It generally operates from 1-5pm on Wednesdays and 9am to 5pm on weekends. Club days typically involve 10-20 races per day. The club’s biggest event of the annual race calendar is the Garden City Championships which involves approximately 100 races over two days. During this peak time there are approximately 300 people (excluding spectators).

4.14 Noise complaints have been minimal in recent years. We have two recorded complaints about noise from the Kart Club over the last five years.

Awatea Residential Development

4.15 In 2011, the land surrounding Carrs Reserve and the existing Kart Club facilities was rezoned for residential use, contingent on the cessation of motorsport activities. While the Kart Club persists, residential development within Area 2 of the Awatea Outline Development Plan (outlined in red on the aerial photo below) remains a non-complying activity.

4.16 Resource consent has been granted for development of much of the area with the construction of acoustic barriers to mitigate noise effects along with other conditions such as primary outdoor living spaces being positioned so that they are shielded by dwellings, restrictions on first floor balconies facing the Kart Club, and if windows are required to be closed to achieve acceptable internal sound levels then mechanical ventilation and air conditioning systems are required. The resulting development can be seen in the aerial photo below, and much of the benefit expected from relocating the Kart Club has already been realised. Ongoing maintenance of bunds and acoustic barriers is required.

4.17 The blue shaded areas have had subdivision consents granted recently and can be developed for housing. However, development of the southern-most blue shaded area adjacent to Wigram Road is on hold as their consent required the developer to construct a bund on Council land, which is proving uneconomic for them.

4.18 The areas shaded in pink currently have subdivision consents or amendments being processed that allow for housing which are likely to be granted soon.

4.19 The remaining areas of land, highlighted in orange, may be able to be consented for subdivision and housing subject to further acoustic investigations and additional acoustic barriers to mitigate the noise and reverse sensitivity effects. It is the developers of these areas who will benefit most from relocation of the Kart Club. The area equates to an estimated 178 lots. However, consent will be challenging for the southwest orange area immediately adjacent to the Kart Club due to its proximity and orientation to the Kart Club. If consent is not achievable, development of these areas will continue to be restricted while the Kart Club continues to operate from the site.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Continue to investigate the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a private property, including resource consent, land acquisition, costs, and funding options.

· Discontinue the Kart Club relocation project.

4.21 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Discontinue investigation of the current private property relocation option but retain budget and continue to search for an alternative option. This option has been ruled out as, having conducted an exhaustive search over many years, it is highly unlikely an alternative relocation site will be found.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.22 Preferred Option: Continue to investigate the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a private property.

4.22.1 Option Description: See Public Excluded Attachment A for details.

4.23 Alternative Option: Acknowledge that relocation is impractical and discontinue the Kart Club relocation project.

4.23.1 Option Description: Accept that there is no cost-effective relocation option available and cancel the project and budget. The development contributions already collected can go towards redeveloping the former greyhound site as a local community park. The Kart Club will continue to operate at Carrs Reserve until its lease expires in 2054.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· No further Council resources required.

· The Kart Club will get some certainty about their future on their current site allowing them to make decisions about investing in their existing facilities until their lease expires in 2054. Once their lease expires, they will need to apply for a new lease which will require community consultation and Council approval.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· The final portion of the Awatea area may not be able to be consented for subdivision while the Kart Club remains on site.

· Developer expectations will not be met and there is reputational risk for the Council.

· There is a risk that noise complaints may escalate from the Carrs Reserve site.

· The future of the Kart Club at Carrs Reserve is uncertain beyond the expiry of their lease in 2054. They may apply for a new lease, but the outcome is unknown.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.24 Community benefits for residents, developers, and the Kart Club if the Kart Club relocates.

4.25 Improved city form and function with relocation.

4.26 Further investment in a project that may not be feasible.

4.27 Relocation costs and current budget.

4.28 No contribution to emissions reductions.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Continue to investigate relocation	Option 2 – Discontinue relocation project
Cost to Implement	Refer to Public Excluded Attachment A.	The development contributions collected may need to be returned to the relevant development unless they are applied to another Reserves project per paragraph 6.6.2 below. Estimated at $377,000.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost to the Council for the new facilities. The Council will take over development and maintenance of Carrs Reserve once it is vacated. The area is approximately 6 hectares with an annual cost of $3,500 per hectare. Additional Opex ($20,000) would be required at the time the project was completed.	N/A
Funding Source	61789 Carrs Reserve Club Relocation	N/A
Funding Availability	CPMS 61789 FY25 $190,216 FY27 $3,974,467 Total $4,164,683 includes $450,000 for greyhound relocation	N/A
Impact on Rates	There is an initial impact on rates of 0.02% for capital changes but overall, the project is 100% DC funded once the additional cost is included in the next DC Policy update. This would still be the case if the Council choose to increase the value of the lease to cover the Club’s shortfall, but only up to the amount of independent valuation. Any further support above the valuation (e.g. for the building) may have an impact on rates depending on the form of support and related funding source.	Loss of potential future rates revenue up to $700,000 per annum when the area is developed to full residential potential noting this will be offset by increased direct service costs incurred for Transport, Three waters, Parks and Solid Waste activities.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a medium risk that a suitable land acquisition will not be able to be negotiated.

6.2 There is a medium to high risk that resource consent will not be able to be gained.

6.3 There is currently insufficient funding available to buy out the lease at full cost of relocation. There is a high risk that the Kart Club won’t be able to fund the shortfall and will therefore be unwilling to relocate.

6.4 There is a high risk of community opposition to the Kart Club at the private property location.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.5.1 The Council has the relevant delegation to decide whether to proceed with the relocation (i.e. only the Council can determine to cease the relocation project).

6.6 Other Legal Implications:

6.6.1 Investigation of a potential land swap of Council reserve land for the private property would involve a section 15 process under the Reserves Act. This includes public notification calling for submissions with a hearings panel to consider these and presenting their decision to the Council. The Minister for Conservation has the statutory power to authorise such a swap (following a resolution of the administering body), however, the Minister has delegated that authorisation to the Council.^{^[1]} The Council only needs to consult the Minister if the land is Crown-derived. This would be investigated further and confirmed if this process is pursued.

6.6.2 Cancellation of the relocation project would require consideration as to how to address Development Contribution funds already received under the Development Contributions Policy. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to refund Development Contributions collected for a specific project if that project does not provide the reserve that the Development Contributions were collected for (LGA, s 209(1)(d)), or if Reserve Development Contributions are not applied to a reserve purpose within 10 years (LGA, s 210(1)). However, where the Development Contributions were collected for a reserve purpose, the Council has a wide discretion to use collected Development Contributions for another project other than the one they were collected for if the new project is of the “same general function and purpose” as the asset that the Development Contributions were originally required for (LGA, s 201A(7)(a)). If the relocation does not go ahead, and the Council uses the Development Contributions collected for another asset of the same general function and purpose, we would need to amend the asset in the Development Contributions Policy Schedule as part of the Development Contributions Policy review (LGA, s 201A(7)(b)).

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decision:

6.7.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. It contributes to the community outcome of Thriving and Prosperous.

6.7.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the project being of localised interest with significant impact on affected developers and residents, and significant costs.

6.7.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The District Plan anticipates relocation of the Kart Club.

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

6.9 Regulatory and Compliance

6.9.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.8 Develop and guide the implementation of spatial plans at a district and local area level to achieve higher order policy direction and Council’s community outcomes - Implementation of ŌCP (2024) process, plans (priority areas), projects and platform (tools and resources)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Views of the Kart Club

6.10 See Attachment A.

Other Community Views

6.11 There is pressure from neighbouring developers and landowners around Carrs Reserve to proceed with the relocation.

6.12 No community consultation has taken place yet regarding the proposed relocation and details of the private property are to remain confidential at this stage.

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

6.13.1 Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board. The existing track is in Halswell ward, and the private property under consideration is in Hornby ward.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.16 The Council would consult with Ngāi Tahu as part of the proposed land swap, but no offer back is required.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.17 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.17.1 Contribute negatively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.17.2 Contribute negatively to emissions reductions.

6.18 Motorsport is inherently a high-emission activity. While the Kart Club is an established presence, any expansion of their activities could lead to increased emissions. By supporting the development of a larger track with potentially expanded use, the Council may be perceived as endorsing the continuation and potential growth of this high-emission activity in the long term.

6.19 The carbon footprint of the new facility could be minimised by incorporating green technologies and sustainable products wherever possible.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Seek resource consent for the new facilities. If successful then agree details of proposed land acquisition with the private property owner, update the Council on funding requirements, undertake community consultation, and report to the Council for final approval to proceed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Kart Club Relocation Option Description (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/2039134
b	Proposed track Layout (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1380368
c	Indicative Track Cost Estimate (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1631051
d	Building Estimate for Kartsport Canterbury (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1683470

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

9. Consideration of Offer Backs for Residential Red Zone Port Hills Properties
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1344254
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Property Consultancy Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, General Manager Corporate Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to address inconsistencies in prior decisions relating to the disposal of Residential Red Zone Port Hills (RRZPH) properties.

1.2 The report has been prepared by staff to establish a clear direction to implement the sale of the RRZPH properties declared surplus in the 2024 – 34 Long Term Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Consideration of Offer Backs for Residential Red Zone Port Hills Properties 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. Revokes the following resolutions passed at its meeting of 24 August 2017, Item 43 - Cost Share Agreement Discussion (CNCL/2017/00218):

8. Approves pursuant to section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 the sale by the Council of any of the properties identified in Appendix A (Appendix E in this report) (attached to this report excluding 1/20 and 2/20 Nayland Street) at no less than market value (with a tolerance of up to 10% on the downside) as determined by a registered valuer appointed by the Council, and

a. Delegates to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take such steps as he considers necessary or expedient to maximise value (where practical and possible including, in conjunction with LINZ removing the ‘red zone’ classification), to prepare and market those properties for sale, and to dispose of them (including the power to negotiate, enter into, implement and enforce agreements for sale and purchase with third party purchasers), and

b. Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager, for reasons of practicality, to depart from the Council’s policy of tendering all properties for sale (subject to resolution 8.c.) so long as the process adopted is open, transparent and public. The Council notes that there is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision.

c. Requires that the properties referred to in Appendix A (attached to this report) shall be available as part of the disposal process to the following person(s) or parties in the following order:

i. person(s) or parties who sold the particular property to the Crown as a consequence of the Crown’s Port Hills Residential Red Zoning following the earthquakes; and

ii. person(s) or parties generally who sold properties to the Crown as a consequence of the Crown’s Port Hills Residential Red Zoning following the earthquakes.

iii. current owner(s) of adjoining properties;

iv. all other parties.

4. Notes that the future sale of Residential Red Zone Port Hills properties will follow the Council’s policy and normal practices as communicated in the two most recent Long-Term Plans:

• Policy – publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise.

• Practice – in an open, transparent, well-advertised and public manner at market value. This may include methods other than tender, such as auction, deadline sale or general listing.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council has on four previous occasions considered the sale of Port Hills properties that were purchased by the Crown through the “residential red zone” process and handed over to the Council under the Global Settlement Agreement.

3.2 Those considerations have declared 104 properties surplus but have resulted in inconsistencies across the resolutions and contradictory terms for the method of disposal.

3.3 24 August 2017 Council Meeting - 71 properties were subject to a resolution (resolution 8. which is set out in recommendation 3. above) which contains a complex and prescriptive offer back process. When this decision was made the Council did not own the properties and had not completed full due diligence on their retention. Therefore, this resolution was not able to be actioned at the time.

3.4 The Annual Plan 2023/24 - Declared 16 properties surplus; 10 were subject to the 24 August 2017 resolution, 6 were not. The following Annual Plan 2023/34 resolution contained the following: 5. Rescind any previous resolutions relating to these properties. Consequently, all 16 properties are being, or have been, sold in accordance with the Council’s normal policies and practices.

3.5 The Long-Term Plan 2024/34 - Declared 39 properties surplus; 12 were subject to the 24 August 2017 resolution, 27 were not. The 2024/34 LTP resolution provided: Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to initiate their disposal including determining the method of disposal. This Long-Term Plan decision has not been actioned pending a decision on the method of disposal which is sought through this report.

3.6 18 September 2024 Council Meeting - In the Public Excluded session of the meeting, the Council resolved to sell a property, and the nature of that resolution contradicts with the August 2017 resolution. Revoking the 2017 resolution will resolve this issue (refer to the Public Excluded Attachment B to this report).

3.7 This report recommends tidying up the inconsistent resolutions by revoking the 24 August 2017 resolution that declared the 71 properties surplus and adopted a unique and prescribed method of disposal. This recommended option creates consistency and compliance with the Council’s policy, practices and statutory requirements.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 There are 444 Residential Red Zone Port Hills (RRZPH) properties that have transferred from the Crown to the Council under the Global Settlement Agreement. That transfer occurred for the majority of properties on 31 May 2021.

4.2 These properties are administered by the Parks Unit. In terms of future use and planning the Parks Unit have reviewed all the properties. This review has resulted in the following initial categorisation and strategies:

· Those that clearly add public value e.g. additions to parks, walking tracks, firefighting etc. and will therefore be retained;

· Those that were too risky for any future use other than revegetation and will therefore be retained and managed accordingly; and

· Those not falling within the first two categories and possibly suitable for sale subject to further investigation.

4.3 The properties that were identified as possibly suitable for sale were subject to a more detailed Geotech review in terms of establishing the site-specific risk profiles and issues associated with mitigation. This process also considers boundary reconfiguration options as a means to manage geotechnical risk.

4.4 The properties identified by the Parks Unit and subject to further investigation were then added to the Council’s standard process. This includes consideration against the Council’s retention criteria (refer to Attachment C), consideration by other Council Units, and public consultation through the Annual Plan/Long Term Plan engagement document.

4.5 Properties that are declared surplus for sale will be incorporated in a work programme over the following years. Sale of those properties will be conducted in accordance with the Council’s policies and practices, i.e. in an open, transparent and public manner. The consultation documents for the Annual and Long-Term Plans set this out as follows:

How do we dispose of properties that are no longer required?

We follow the Council’s policy and normal practices:

• Policy – publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise.

• Practice – in an open, transparent, well-advertised and public manner at market value. This may include methods other than tender, such as auction, deadline sale or general listing.

4.6 In the 2024-34 LTP we received just over 1000 submissions of which 57% were in support of sale, 12% opposed and 21% provided alternative suggestions such as use of the land for environmental protection, ecological reserves, green spaces. The process undertaken with Parks set out in section 4.2 has ensured that the vast majority of land with public value or which was too risky for future use other than revegetation will be retained. Only a very small number of submissions supported some form of offer back.

4.7 On 24 August 2017, the Council considered a list of 71 properties that the Crown were promoting as suitable for immediate sale when they were transferred to the Council. Setting aside the detail, this paper and decision were premature as the Council did not at that stage own the properties (transfer did not occur until 31 May 2021) nor had it done the appropriate due diligence in terms of risk and mitigation to support suitability for sale.

4.8 As part of its decision, the Council resolved, for these 71 RRZPH properties, as follows:

4.8.1 Requires that the properties referred to in Appendix A (attached to this report) [Appendix E in this report) shall be available as part of the disposal process to the following person(s) or parties in the following order:

i. person(s) or parties who sold the particular property to the Crown as a consequence of the Crown’s Port Hills Residential Red Zoning following the earthquakes; and

ii. person(s) or parties generally who sold properties to the Crown as a consequence of the Crown’s Port Hills Residential Red Zoning following the earthquakes;

iii. current owner(s) of adjoining properties;

iv. all other parties.

4.9 The Annual Plan 2023/24 included:

· 16 RRZPH properties declared surplus

· Ten were subject to the 24 August 2017 resolution – three have been sold and one is under contract.

· Six were not subject to the 2017 resolution – three have been sold.

· The remaining 9 properties will be sold in upcoming years.

4.9.2 The Annual Plan 2023/24 resolution - Disposal of Council owned properties (CAPL/2023/00028), included in part - 5. Rescind any previous resolutions relating to these properties.

4.9.3 The consequence of the resolution in 4.8.1 is that all 16 properties are being sold in accordance with the Council’s normal policies and practices.

4.10 The 2024/34 Long-Term Plan included:

· Thirty-nine (39) RRZPH properties declared surplus.

· Twelve are subject to the 24 August 2017 resolution:

o Eight will be subject to boundary adjustments to manage risk prior to sale. Therefore, any offer back will not be of the same title in the 2017 resolution.

o Four will be comprised within their original title.

· Twenty-seven (27) are not subject to the 24 August 2017 resolution.

o Nine are to be resurveyed/reconfigured.

o Eighteen will be comprised within their original title.

4.11 The significance of reconfiguration is that the original title will not exist therefore it complicates any offer back proposal, as required by the 24 August 2017 resolution, as there will be multiple interests as shown in the example in Attachment D.

4.12 On 18 September 2024 in the Public Excluded session of the meeting, the Council resolved to sell a property, and the nature of that resolution contradicts with the August 2017 resolution (Refer public excluded Attachment B to this report). Revocation of the 2017 resolution addresses this contradiction.

4.13 In summary the issues arising are:

	AP 2023/24	LTP 24/34	18-Sep-24
Total Declared Surplus	16	39	2
2017 Resolution Does not apply	6 (3 Sold)	27 (8 to be reconfigured)	1
2017 Resolution Rescinded	10 (4 sold)	0	1
2017 Resolution Applies	0	12 (9 to be reconfigured)	0

4.13.1 The 24 August 2017 resolution was premature and is no longer relevant in terms of the properties that were declared surplus. Not all the properties declared surplus in that resolution will ever be sold, with some retained for revegetation or held for other values e.g. ecological. In addition, the resolved method of disposal in the 2017 resolution has subsequently been overridden by the 2023/24 AP resolution therefore creating an inconsistency.

4.13.2 There is now a confusing landscape of decisions consisting of:

· The 2017 resolution related to a handful of properties, with a bespoke sales method.

· The 2023/24 AP resolution to rescind the 2017 resolution as it relates to a small handful of properties with all being sold in accordance with normal practices.

· The 2024/34 Long Term Plan resolution with some properties clearly subject to the 2017 resolution, reconfigured sites where it will be difficult to apply the 2017 decision, and other properties where the 2017 decision does not apply.

4.13.3 A decision on the method of sale for the properties declared surplus in the 2024/34 Long-Term Plan is required (refer 4.10 above for the composition and relevance which is complex). Applying the 2017 resolution to the relevant properties declared surplus creates a confusing situation which will result in inconsistencies, put the Council at risk and cause complications for future decision making.

4.13.4 Given the inconsistent and contradictory resolutions the recommended approach is to revoke the 24 August 2017 resolution that declared the 71 properties surplus and adopted a unique and prescribed method of disposal.

4.13.5 In addition to resolving the issues that have arisen there is no sound reason to offer the properties back to original owners for the following reasons:

· The Council did not contract with the original owners and has no legal transactional relationship with them in respect of these properties.

· The Public Works Act sets out when the Council has “offer back” obligations. Those circumstances do not exist in this instance. Creating options outside that statutory framework is not necessary and creates confusion, risk, complexity and inconsistencies.

· The original transactions between the private property owners and the Crown:

o Were not compulsory, they were conducted based on a voluntary offer.

o Were based on the 2007 rateable value. The rationale was that this was acknowledged as being above the market value and, therefore, a generous offer and way to incentivise people to move on. Proof of that is reflected in the extremely high take up.

o Did not create any offer back obligations as the purchases were voluntary and not the result of a public work.

4.14 The Council has previously received advice through officer feedback on Annual Plan submissions and other mechanisms on this matter. This advice was that the offer back process was practically difficult, not justified and could create other challenges. To reiterate this advice:

4.14.1 Offering land back to previous owners is not practical or advisable. Officers have previously provided advice that the red zoned properties are not offered back to the former owners and be disposed of using normal processes, on the grounds that most former owners are likely to be well settled, and that the original process created no expectation that the property would ever be offered back. Previous owners will generally have an option to purchase a property on the open market if they wish to do so. While there might be the possibility of a previous owner advocating for an offer back option there is no obligation on the Council to do so nor any legal risk as set out in section 6.6.2 to 6.6.4 below.

4.14.2 With the expiration of time, the ties to the land may also have diminished for many former owners. By 2015, 74% of former owners of red zone properties were satisfied by the location of their new property, 77% thought that their new neighbourhood suited their needs and 82% felt that the type of property meets their needs (Nielsen, 2016). Nielsen (2016) also reported that 52% felt a sense of community in their new neighbourhood, which was comparable to the 46% of greater Christchurch residents who felt the same. Being contacted by the public bureaucracy now may have negative impacts on those who are now well settled into new lives.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

The following criteria have been applied when assessing the options available:

· Adherence to the principles of the Local Government Act.

· Consistency.

· Equitability.

· Practicalities and application.

· Objectiveness.

· Endurance and applicability over time.

· Fairness and expectations.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.15.1 Recommended Option 1: Revoke the 2017 resolution and adopt standard Council practices.

4.15.2 Option 2: Apply the 2017 resolution to the properties it relates to. Not recommended.

4.15.3 Option 3 Apply the 2017 resolution to all properties. Not recommended.

4.15.4 Option 4 Hybrid application of the 2017 resolutions. Not recommended.

4.16 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.16.1 Apply the various resolutions as passed – Under this option there would be inconsistency across the sale of these properties.

· The 16 declared surplus in 2023/24 Annual Plan have and are being sold in accordance with the Council’s normal practices i.e. the 2017 resolution offer back process is not being applied even though 10 of the 16 were captured within the previous 2017 decision.

· Notwithstanding the delegation to the Chief Executive the 39 properties declared surplus in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan would be sold as follows: 12 subject to the offer back provisions of the 2017 resolution and 27 sold in accordance with normal practices. This would lead to inequities, unfairness, confusion, reputational risk and put the Council at risk in terms of challenges to its decision making.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.17 Preferred Option 1: Rescind the 2017 resolution and adopt standard Council policy and practices.

4.17.1 Option Description: The 24 August 2017 resolution is no longer relevant and very prescriptive in terms of how the relevant properties are to be sold and contains some complex and potentially unmanageable offer back requirements. The resolution relates to 71 properties, 23 of which have been declared surplus for disposal. This option proposes that resolution is revoked, and all properties subsequently declared surplus are sold in accordance with the Council’s policy this report seeks to put in place i.e. in an open, transparent and public manner.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Establishes consistent practices and methodology of sale across the portfolio.

· Supports the practical circumstances that exist.

· Clean, clear and simple.

· Reflects legal and statutory obligations.

· Creates clarity for stakeholders.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Inconsistent application of sale methodology across the portfolio.

· Not revoking the resolution leaves it in consideration if future properties captured by that decision are considered for sale.

4.18 Option 2 Apply the 2017 resolution to the properties it relates to.

4.18.1 Option Description: Of the 57 properties (excluding the 2017 list) declared surplus to date, 13 are still captured within the 2017 resolution. This includes 12 of the of properties declared surplus in the 2024/34 LTP.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

· Gives effect to the 2017 resolution.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· Creates inconsistencies in terms of sale methodology for properties from this portfolio.

· Giving effect to the resolution and its framework is practically challenging due to the mix of inconsistent resolutions and practices.

· The prescriptive 2017 offer back resolution is unlikely to be enduring or have relevance over time.

· Favours previous property owners.

· Creates scope for value arguments and inequity.

· In some instances, it would be impracticable, unreasonable, or unfair to implement an offer back strategy as the properties will have been reconfigured - refer Attachment D.

4.19 Option 3 Adopt the 2017 resolution for all property sales.

4.19.1 Option Description: Applying the 2017 resolution to all properties sold from this portfolio, whether listed in that resolution or not.

4.19.2 Option Advantages

· Establishes consistency.

4.19.3 Option Disadvantages

· Giving effect to the resolution and its framework is practically challenging and too late in some instances.

· Some of the properties from this portfolio have already been sold or are in the process of being sold as per the 2023/24 Annual Plan and therefore applying this option would manifest an inconsistency.

· Favours previous property owners.

· Creates scope for value arguments and inequity.

· In some instances, it would be impracticable, unreasonable, or unfair to implement an offer back strategy as the properties will have been reconfigured refer Attachment D.

4.20 Option 4 Hybrid application of the 2017 resolutions.

4.20.1 Option Description: Applying a process that supports the sentiments of the 2017 resolution but does not follow it precisely e.g. undertake public advertising public advertising to seek expressions of interest from previous owners/RRZ sellers.

4.20.2 Option Advantages

· Ease of application.

4.20.3 Option Disadvantages

· Doesn’t adhere to the Council resolutions.

· This approach is haphazard.

· Creates scope for value arguments and inequity.

· A decision would be needed to determine whether this applies just to the properties incorporated in the 2017 resolution or all subsequent property sales.

In some instances, it would be impracticable, unreasonable, or unfair to implement an offer back strategy as the properties will have been reconfigured refer Attachment D.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – revoke 2017 Resolutions	Option 2 – Apply the 2017 resolution to the properties it relates to.	Option 3 – Adopt the 2017 resolution for all property sales	Option 4 – Hybrid application of the 2017 resolutions
Cost to Implement	Nil	Estimate $1000 - $2000 per property to implement offer back process x approx. 19 properties = $19,000 - $38,000	Estimate $1000 - $2000 per property to implement offer back process x approx. 48 properties = $48,000 - $96,000	$1,000 - $2,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	The cost of property sales is offset against the sales revenue
Funding Availability	The cost of property sales is offset against the sales revenue
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

5.1 Progressing sale of the properties declared surplus in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan is on hold pending the decision on methodology as sought with this report. This puts financial delivery of capital revenue from property sales against that plan at risk.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Adopting the recommended option reduces the risk to the Council as it provides for:

· Consistency

· Fairness

· Equity

· Compliance with Council policy and practices.

· Supports statutory principles and intent.

6.2 Not adopting the Officer Recommendations and thereby preserving the 2017 offer back resolution:

6.2.1 Is a high-risk option as that would maintain the inconsistencies, inequities and not support statutory requirements and policy. The risk of challenges would be increased and have a better chance of success.

6.2.2 Creates scope for risk of application and challenges as the 2017 resolution is silent on detail like process, successors in title, how value is established and where costs land.

6.2.3 Is administratively risky and compounded by the very complex nature of the specific 2017 resolution process. Establishing prior owners and or successors can be difficult, creating a risk of omissions.

6.2.4 Presents value risk when there is not a transparent, open and public sale process.

6.3 It is relevant in respect of the Port Hills properties to understand that future use and ownership or sale of these may well be considered over the coming years. Therefore, any decisions at this time need to be consistent with future disposals and must consider the circumstances that may prevail in the future, i.e. should any be resolved to be sold in years to come would an offer back arrangement in any form still be relevant and appropriate.

6.4 Risk Summary

	Recommended Option – revoke 2017 Resolutions	Option 2 – Apply the 2017 resolution to the properties it relates to	Option 3 – Adopt the 2017 resolution for all property sales	Option 4 – Hybrid application of the 2017 resolutions
Financial	No risk - current practice ensures best value.	High risk – A value-based approach carries increased risk, also different approaches to different properties could deliver different outcomes.	Moderate risk - A value-based approach carries increased risk.	Moderate risk - A value-based approach carries increased risk.
Governance	No risk - Complies with statutes, policies and practices.	High risk – delivers inconsistent decision making that has no foundation in statute, policies or practices.	High risk – While going forward consistency across the RRZPH properties is created, some have already been sold. In addition, this practice would have no foundation in policy, statute and practices and be inconsistent with other non RRZPH properties.	High risk - While going forward consistency across the RRZPH properties is created, some have already been sold. In addition, this practice would have no foundation in policy, statute and practices and be inconsistent with other non RRZPH properties. It would also be a bit hit and miss in terms of implementation and pick up.
Reputational	Low risk. There are possibly a few individuals that may advocate for an option, but that would ultimately have no foundation.	High risk – people will be treated differently and different outcomes will occur.	High risk - people will be treated differently and different outcomes will occur.	High risk – reaching people would not be reliable. It would also be a bit hit and miss in terms of implementation and pick up. The process doesn’t follow Council resolutions.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

6.6 Other Legal Implications:

6.6.1 The Local Government Act 2002 Section 14 – Principles relating to local authorities. This states that in performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

· Conducting business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.

· Giving effect to identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner.

· Have regard to the views of all its communities.

· Undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices.

The recommendations in this report support those principles.

6.6.2 The Public Works Act 1981 section 40 – Disposal to former owner of land not required for public works is as set out below:

40 Disposal to former owner of land not required for public work

Where any land held under this or any other Act or in any other manner for any public work—

(a) is no longer required for that public work; and

(b) is not required for any other public work; and

the chief executive of the department within the meaning of section 2 of the Survey Act 1986 or local authority, as the case may be, shall endeavour to sell the land in accordance with subsection (2), if that subsection is applicable to that land.

6.6.3 This sets out the obligations and framework for the disposal of public land no longer required for public works. Departing from this statutory framework creates confusion and an expectations precedent, albeit not a legal one. In this instance, creating an offer back arrangement that falls outside the statutory requirements lacks foundation and sound rationale and should therefore be avoided.

6.6.4 For an offer back obligation to exist under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA), the land must be held for a public work. To meet that requirement, the land must also have been acquired for a public work. In the case of residential red zone properties, the properties were held by the Crown under either the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 or the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (“the Acts”) and disposed of by the Crown to Council pursuant to the Acts as part of Council’s lead role in the regeneration of Christchurch (RRZ properties). Council did not acquire these properties under any legislation for the purpose of a public work. As that requirement is not met, section 40 of the PWA cannot apply and no offer back obligation applies in respect of RRZ properties.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions:

6.7.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework in particular:

· Build trust and confidence.

· Manage ratepayers’ money wisely.

6.8 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by an evaluation utilising the Council Significance and Engagement assessment tool. The level of significance was determined by reflecting on the small number of people potentially affected by the decision. The fact that the substantive decision to sell the properties was adopted through the Long Term and Annual Plan processes and this report just relates to the method of implementation of those decisions. Additionally, the recommendations are designed to reduce risk.

6.8.1 Are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.10 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.10.1 Activity: City Growth and Property

· Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, (e.g., easements, leases, and purchases) is delivered to agreed timeframes - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum

6.11 The Council’s current policy adopted 16 December 2000 states:

Disposal of Council property within the central city area.

1. That the Council's policy of publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise be confirmed as applying to all areas of the City with the exception of the area in which the (interim) Central City Board is active in pursuit of Council revitalisation goals.

2. That it be confirmed that all such sales of Council land must be approved in the normal way by the full Council.

6.12 The consultation documents for the Annual and Long-Term Plans set this out as follows:

How do we dispose of properties that are no longer required?

We follow the Council’s policy and normal practices:

• Policy – publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise.

• Practice – in an open, transparent, well-advertised and public manner at market value. This may include methods other than tender, such as auction, deadline sale or general listing.

In both the Annual and Long-Term Plans there were few submissions on this matter.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.13 The decision to dispose of these properties has generally been considered by the Council following consultation with the community through the Annual and Long-Term Plan processes. In doing so, the related consultation documentation set out the properties to be disposed of in an open transparent and public manner.

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

6.14.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula

6.14.2 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

6.15 The Community Boards have not been presented this report as the subject of it relates to prior Council resolutions and the application of Council policy, practices and strategies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.18 This report relates to land that was relatively recently acquired from private individuals by the Crown and then subsequently transferred to the Council under the Global Settlement Agreement. The subject of this report is about whether there are residual private property interests to the original owners who sold to the Crown.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.19 The decisions in this report have no relationship to climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the recommendations are adopted, the next step will be to implement the property disposal decisions agreed to as part of the 2024/34 Long-Term Plan, i.e. move to sell the properties declared surplus.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Property Disposal Policy 2000	24/1895474	89
b	September 2024 Resolution Related to 2 Properties (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1738448
c ⇩	Retention Criteria	24/1738450	90
d ⇩	Reconfiguration Example	24/1738454	91
e ⇩	2017 Resolution List of Properties	24/1738442	93

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Lynn McClelland - General Manager Corporate Services

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

11. Planning and Consents Unit Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1998602
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning and Consents
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8 this Item was withdrawn from the 6 November 2024 Council Agenda.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the programmes and projects of the Planning and Consents unit as a 6-monthly update, in accordance with Council’s decision of 21 February (Resolution CNCL/2024/00012).

1.2 As the first update, the report covers the various activities of the Planning and Consents unit including Resource consents, Resource Management Compliance (Compliance with Resource Consents), Plan Changes, Greater Christchurch Partnership work programme, local area planning incl. Suburban Priority Master Plans, Strategic Transport, Urban Regeneration, Heritage and Urban Design.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Planning and Consents Unit Update Report.

3. Summary

3.1 The following is an overview of the activities and is not intended to include a detailed overview of each project/ programme, having regard to reports to Council and Information Sessions on specific matters.

3.2 Staff would welcome elected member feedback to the general nature and content of the report to consider for future 6 monthly reports.

Programmes / Projects Update

3.3 Resource consents
The Resource Consent teams are responsible for administering the Christchurch District Plan. This includes processing resource consent applications for subdivisions and activities that don’t comply with the Plan, carrying out planning checks on building consents, providing general planning information advice via our Duty Planner phone and email service, and providing project-specific pre-application advice.

3.3.1 2023/24 overview

3.3.2 A total of 2,847 resource consent applications were processed during the 2023/24 financial year. This was a decrease of approximately 10% from the previous year as post-Covid development activity slowed.

3.3.3 Performance against statutory timeframes improved significantly with 94% of applications processed on time, compared to only 79% in 2022/23. Approximately 15% of applications were outsourced to external consultants to process to assist with meeting timeframes.

3.3.4 Subdivision consenting activity remained high. This was primarily due to subdivision of the large volume of multi-unit residential developments consented in the previous two years, together with ongoing greenfield development. 817 subdivision consents were granted and 603 completion certificates were issued. The Monitoring and Research Team publishes information about development of greenfield land on the Council’s website: GreenfieldReport - Power BI Report Server

A graph with numbers and a red line

Description automatically generated

3.3.5 Approximately 84% of consents were for residential activity, with the remainder being non-residential or mixed use.

3.3.6 Customer satisfaction is another key area of focus for the teams, in addition to meeting statutory timeframes. The 2023/24 survey showed a satisfaction level for the resource consenting service was 86%, well above the 70% LTP target and an excellent result for a regulatory service.

3.3.7 Our Pre-application Planning Advice service is currently suspended due to a shortage of senior planning staff. We know this service is valued by many of our customers and hope to be in a position to resume it in early – mid 2025.

3.3.8 Two appeals were received during the year:

· 228A Opawa Road, Opawa (RMA/2022/2828). The Council’s decision to decline consent for a 20-unit residential development was appealed by the applicant. Following mediation, a smaller 17-unit development was granted by the Environment Court via consent order in July 2024.

· Portlink Industrial Park, 320 Cumnor Terrace, Woolston (RMA/2023/2806, 3100 and 3102). The Council’s decisions to decline to issue certificates of compliance for stacking of containers and other materials were appealed by the applicant. The appeals are yet to be determined. A hearing was recently held on a Declaration to the Environment Court of whether containers are a building.

3.3.9 No judicial reviews were lodged against Council resource consent decisions.

3.3.10 July – September 2024

3.3.11 Application numbers remain high, averaging approximately 62 per week for the July – September period.

3.3.12 Performance against statutory timeframes is 94% for the year to date. The LTP target is 95% and achieving this is a key priority for the teams.

3.3.13 Approximately 25% of consents issued during the July - September period were outsourced to external consultants for processing. Ongoing use of consultants is likely until additional staff can be employed and trained, and to deal with peaks in application volumes.

3.3.14 We continue to see a lot of applications for multi-unit residential developments. 83 consents were granted during this period, comprising approximately 14% of total land use consents. Building consent information about the location and type of residential development (multi-unit vs standalone dwellings) is collated by the Monitoring and Research Team and made available on the Council’s website: Built environment reporting : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz).

3.3.15 Monthly lists of all resource consent applications received and issued are now available on the Council’s website: Resource consent applications of interest : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz).

3.4 Development contributions

3.4.1 Development Contributions (DCs) are administered within the Planning and Consents unit. The total value of revenue from DCs received in 2023/24 was $35,189,918 (excluding GST). Between 1 July and 30 September 2024, the total revenue has been $7,625,786 (excluding GST).

3.4.2 Over the first quarter of 2024/25 the team have completed 2,273 assessments which include applications for PIM’s, certificate of acceptance, building consents and resource consents. In addition, we typically review 15-20 building consent exemptions per day.

3.4.3 Objections, Rates remissions and other issues

3.4.4 There has been one objection in progress with the property developer arguing that their tenant, Cottonsoft, will place lower demand on infrastructure than what has been assessed. It has not yet been considered by a commissioner.

3.4.5 We recently received a remission application from the Art’s Centre, who propose to increase the number of food trucks on site. A report will be presented to Council for a decision, with the date yet to be confirmed. The resource consent hasn’t yet been granted. The Council may, at its discretion, consider and grant a full or partial remission of development contributions in unique and compelling circumstances.

3.4.6 Separate from the above, a Central City developer argues credits for their building that has been unoccupied since the Canterbury Earthquakes should be granted. The credits expired after 10 years in accordance with the

3.4.7 DC Policy

3.4.8 The Local Government Act 2002 requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and to review it every three years. As the Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is currently under review. Elected members received three briefings on this policy in 2024: 30 April, 13 August, and 29 October. The Finance and Performance Committee of the Whole will consider endorsement of the draft policy for public consultation on 27 November. If the Committee agree, consultation on the draft will run from early December through to mid-February 2025 and will be followed by hearings. Staff expect the policy review to conclude in May 2025.

3.5 RM Compliance

3.5.1 For the period, 1 July 2023 – 30 June 2024, 1468 consents were received for monitoring and 1419 Completed. For the quarter from July to September 2024,422 were received and 431 completed. Key issues include the following -

3.5.2 Temporary carparking within the Central City: The team has worked closely with the Urban Regeneration team to address non-complaint carparking i.e. Vacant car parks with resource consent where conditions have not been complied with. As a result of this work, approximately 32 temporary carparks have been upgraded in the year end June 2024.

3.5.3 Waterway compliance: Work is ongoing with private owners to address a number of incidences of work occurring in waterway setbacks in breach of resource consents. Compliance action has been undertaken including abatement notices issued for a property in Riccarton.

3.5.4 Erosion and Sediment Control: The team continues to work with the Three Waters team to ensure building sites are meeting requirements. The Council’s compliance strategy is to educate and in cases where compliance is not achieved, enforce requirements.

3.5.5 Portlink Industrial Park: The most significant compliance matter has been monitoring of container storage at the northern end of Portlink industrial Park. This has included ongoing monitoring of noise as well as site visits to assess the effects of glare on nearby residential properties. This has been in the context of the Resource consent issued by Council and subsequently objected to and appeals to the Environment Court as noted earlier.

3.5.6 As noted in paragraph 3.3.8, the owner/operator successfully objected to conditions imposed by council and appeals to the Environment Court, including a declaration sought on whether containers are considered a building, is currently pending a decision.

3.5.7 Cleanfil sites: The team currently monitors 19 clean fill sites across the district. These are visited quarterly to ensure compliance with the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw.

3.6 Plan change status/ updates

3.6.1 Attachment A to the report includes an update on plan changes identified as a priority in the current work programme as well as projected timeframes for future stages.

3.6.2 Plan Change 14 has drawn on significant resources of the City Planning team and consultants over the last 12 months, with hearings completed in April 2024. Council received the recommendations of the IHP on 29 July 2024 and made decisions on part of the City Centre zone on 18 September. Decisions on the remaining parts of PC14 are required by December 2024 to implement Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development) and the balance by December 2025. It is anticipated that amendments will be made to the Resource Management Act to make Medium Density Residential Standards optional. Council will need to consider further changes to implement Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme thereafter.

3.6.3 Plan Change 13 (Heritage) remains on hold until decisions on plan change 14, the next step being hearings. An Information Session will be scheduled for early in 2025 to brief Council.

3.6.4 Plan Change 12 (Coastal Hazards) is being progressed, following earlier engagement. Reflecting on the findings of the IHP on Plan Change 14, staff are working through the evidential requirements to inform the plan change. Staff will report back to Council on this plan change with further engagement proposed on a revised draft plan change.

3.6.5 Work is also ongoing for two plan changes, namely the Industrial/Residential Interface, and Central City Noise in Mixed Use Areas the latter being one of methods to address the conflict around live music venues.

3.6.6 In the last financial year (2023/24), two plan changes have been made operative. Plan change 4, made operative in November 2023, addressed the issue of short term accommodation. The last element of Plan Change 5 which addressed noise sensitive activities near road and rail corridors, enabled all of Plan Change 5 to be made operative in January 2024.

3.6.7 The private Plan Change seeking to enable medium density housing on the corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Harvey Terrace is on hold, pending Council’s decisions on plan change 14, which seeks the same relief.

3.6.8 There have been enquiries from landowners and developers for the rezoning of land elsewhere in the City. Any request lodged with Council will be reported to Council in the future.

3.7 City Planning – other work

3.7.1 Staff have been reviewing the rural zones surrounding the city to consider the appropriate outcomes for these areas, which will inform Council’s response to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

3.7.2 A draft of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement was consulted on and staff prepared feedback in July on matters of particular importance to the City. This included the direction on urban form, airport noise, natural hazards amongst other matters

3.7.3 Submissions have been prepared on a number of proposals from Central Government over the course of the last year including but not limited to Making it easier to build Granny Flats discussion document (July 2024); Resource Management (Freshwater and other Matters) Amendment Bill (June 2024); Fast Track Approvals Bill (April 2024).

3.7.4 Further changes are signalled by Central Government including a second amendment to the RMA late in 2024.

3.8 Greater Christchurch Partnership – implementation of programme

3.8.1 Key elements of the Greater Christchurch programme are being progressed with our partners. In March 2024 the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan was adopted, which will be implemented through Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme (ŌCPP) and local area planning across the city including Priority Development and Regeneration Areas. The ŌCPP is addressed in more detail, under separate cover, on the same agenda as this update.

3.8.2 The Joint Housing Action Programme (JHAP) was also adopted in March 2024. The partners are currently progressing actions under that programme which investigate the feasibility of methods to increase the supply of affordable housing through the Greater Christchurch sub-region.

3.9 Local Area Planning

3.9.1 Separate reports canvass:

· The Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme is on the agenda for Council’s consideration at this meeting.

· An annual cross-agency ‘round up’ and commentary on progress on Central City and suburban regeneration activities. The most recent suburban regeneration and Central City biannual reports were presented to Council on 5 June and 21 August 2024 respectively.

3.9.2 Further updates on recent progress for local area planning priority locations are noted below.

Central City

3.9.3 South-East Central neighbourhoods:

· South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan adopted by the Council on 21 August 2024.

· Cashel/Clarkson Enliven Places Programme project agreed by the Council on 18 September 2024. The mural has been completed (in partnership with Elim Church, Tagata Moana, YCD and SALT Trust, and painted by Kophie Su’a-Hulsbosch), the bike corral manufactured, and the project is on track for delivery this financial year.

· Welles Street Enliven Places Programme project is in an inception phase, with targeted engagement closing on 27 October 2024 and a concept plan in preparation ahead of further consultation.

· Southwark Street Enliven Places Programme mural completed, with coordination from SALT Trust and artwork by Dcypher.

3.9.4 Vacant sites:

· Enliven Places Programme project at 691 Colombo Street completed, with post-construction surveying underway.

3.9.5 Noise Programme:

· Webpages further developed: Sound in the Central City

· Identity building: staff have commissioned work to grow neighbourhood connections (via Neat Places articles), noting that ‘getting to know your neighbours’ projects are a recognised method to support noise issues across mixed use communities. This further delivers on the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan.

Suburban priority master plans (Lyttelton, Sydenham, Linwood Village, New Brighton) – implementation

3.9.6 Vacant sites:

· City Vacant Differential and accompanying remission extended to the above four centres via decisions on the Long Term Plan 2024 – 2034.

· Enliven Places Programme projects have been completed at:

· Colletts Corner, Lyttelton, to improve safety and access; and

· 89 Stanmore Rd, Linwood Village.

3.9.7 Streetscape upgrades delivered in Linwood Village.

3.9.8 Work progressed on Brighton Mall upgrade and temporary activation of 56 Brighton Mall (ahead of delivering the Oram Ave extension).

Linwood (Eastern Regeneration Priority Area – Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan)

3.9.9 As identified in the unit’s Activity Plans, a regeneration focus toward Linwood has been commenced, with initial work completed to assess the area against the team’s Great Neighbourhoods framework.

3.10 Strategic Transport

3.10.1 An updated draft Ōtautahi-Christchurch Future Transport Strategy has been completed for consideration at this meeting. This strategy is the Council’s 30-year non-statutory strategy which frames and guides the Council’s transport investment, planning and policy programmes. A decision will be sought from Council to proceed to public consultation in Nov-early Dec as a next step.

3.10.2 Council staff are currently undertaking an assessment with Greater Christchurch partner agencies to determine next steps for protecting the Mass Rapid Transit corridor in a budget constrained environment.

3.10.3 A joint Parking Policy work programme has been commenced with Transport Operations. The initial focus is on residential parking permitting and developing improved approaches to gathering parking occupancy data in urban growth areas to support more proactive parking management as the city becomes more intensively developed.

3.10.4 The first phase of a project to develop a criticality framework in support of climate adaptation planning for the transport network is close to completion. This project has been designed to support transport asset managers to implement risk-based adaptation planning for the transport network. It is a cross-Council collaboration with the Transport Asset Management, Strategic Asset Management and Climate Resilience teams.

3.10.5 Work has commenced on a review of the Council’s EV Charging and Car Sharing Policies to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose in what is a rapidly changing area. Councillors will be updated when this project is more fully scoped and progressed.

3.11 Urban Regeneration

3.11.1 In addition to the work noted under ‘Local Area Planning’ above, the following mahi has been progressed.

3.11.2 Great Neighbourhoods: A framework for assessing neighbourhoods against the Council’s stated intentions in various policy documents has been developed. This has been tested and incorporated into the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan.

3.11.3 Enliven Places Programme: Rationalised and replanted the footpath planters in the Richmond commercial area.

3.11.4 Derelict buildings: Preparing information to respond to the councillors’ requested advice on options for a derelict buildings programme.

3.11.5 Central City Business Association: ongoing liaison with the board, towards completion of the annual grant agreement.

3.12 Heritage

3.12.1 Heritage festival

3.12.2 The Christchurch Heritage Festival 2024 ran from 12 to 28th October. The Christchurch Heritage Festival is an opportunity to share the stories of the past that link us to this place. He tātai muka, he tātai tangata – weave together the strands, weave together the people. A wide range of events ran throughout Christchurch, with Selwyn and Waimakariri events also part of the programme. The theme this year was ‘Active Heritage – Sport, Recreation and Leisure’. This year marked the 50-year anniversary of the 1974 British Commonwealth Games in Christchurch which was the starting point for the theme for this year's festival.

3.12.3 Many events in the community programme referenced the theme to share how sport, recreation and leisure have shaped our diverse communities here in Ōtautahi-Christchurch, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū-Banks Peninsula and the wider Canterbury region. The festival included walks, talks, music, open days, activities, and exhibitions.

3.12.4 Heritage Grant Funding

3.12.5 The ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga’ Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 was developed in partnership with the six papatipu rūnanga and together with the communities of the district. This engagement affirmed a strong community desire to understand, celebrate and protect its heritage and a recognition of the responsibility to future generations to safeguard Ōtautahi Christchurch’s rich and diverse taonga. Whāinga Goal 4, Action 4 of the strategy includes the ongoing provision of Heritage Incentive grant funding.

3.12.6 Although no new heritage grants are available this financial year, Council staff have been continuing to administer heritage grants which were approved in previous years. Most outstanding grants were approved in FY 2023/2024 and were approved by Council on the 15 May and on the 19 June 2024. These applications resulted in all remaining heritage grant funds being fully allocated, a total of $532,856. These grants have or will support a number of heritage events and physical items including residential and commercial buildings as well as church stained glass windows, family gravestones and a Lew Summers Sculpture. A grant was also given to help with the relocation and restoration of a former school building owned by Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke at Rāpaki.

3.12.7 As a result of the grants, a number of buildings will have an extra layer of protection via a conservation covenant, which is a legal agreement between the Council and the owner to preserve the item either in perpetuity or for a stated timeframe.

3.13 Urban Design

3.13.1 Updates on grant funds managed within the team:

· City-making partner funding – third and final year of grant funding agreements through to August 2024.

· Place Partnership Fund – 100% allocation of funding at 2023/24 year end. First applications for 2024/25 considered by a staff evaluation panel 24 September. Three applications have been funded via staff delegation, and one application is underway for reporting to Council 6 November for a decision.

· Sustainability Fund – 100% allocation of funding at 2023/24 year end. Following confirmation of funding through the Long Term Plan, technical oversight has been transferred to the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning team with technical advice and participation in evaluation panel ongoing.

3.13.2 Approximately 140 resource consent applications were reviewed within the period (April to September 2024) and urban designers have continued to provide pre-application advice with 23 discussions supported. External consultant advice was sought for just one application.

3.13.3 Multi-unit residential developments have been reviewed across all existing residential zones. Monitoring of consents assesses overall design quality and identifies issues regularly arising so these can be proactively managed and inform development of external guidance and training for staff. For example, guidance has been revised to support improved lighting .

3.13.4 Within the period, advice for at grade car parks (temporary and permanent) has focussed on the street interface and improvements are evident across recently developed sites as noted earlier. Advice for new homes within Character Areas is regularly provided and supported by design guidance. Applications for digital billboards are steady with more challenging locations from a visual impact perspective now being sought, including adjacent to residential areas and within smaller centres.

3.13.5 Independent, multi-disciplinary design review advice was provided through two Christchurch Urban Design Panel meetings during the period (proposals for a hotel/office development and an apartment building).

3.13.6 Urban design advice is provided across a range of Council projects and to varying levels. Projects have included the Performing Arts Precinct, Cathedral Square improvements, Gloucester Street, New Brighton projects, transport schemes, public transport improvements, Council owned properties, and advice on third party proposals affecting the public realm.

3.13.7 Analysis, scoping, concept designs, evidence and visualisations are provided for projects delivered within the unit including Plan Change 14, Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme, Transport Strategy, City Spine, Kerrs Reach Plan Change, Diamond Harbour land use and spatial planning, South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan, and the Enliven Programme.

3.13.8 Education and advocacy occurred through staff attendance and presentations at professional institute discussions, Christchurch Conversations, and Ara and Canterbury University programmes. Support has also been provided to Honiara City Council through the MFAT funded Pacific TA programme, a local government initiative providing technical support to the South Pacific.

3.14 Projects we have input to

3.14.1 Diamond Harbour’s Hunters Road spatial plan and Outline Development Plan.

3.14.2 Akaroa’s BP Meats site evaluation of land use options.

3.14.3 New Brighton’s governance group, chaired by ChristchurchNZ, created to ensure alignment of key public and private projects in and adjacent to Brighton Mall.

3.14.4 Little River’s community-led refresh of the Little River Big Ideas community plan.

3.14.5 Gloucester Street’s Streets for People project (use of Enliven Places assets).

Forward Work Programme

3.14.6 A summary of the next steps for various projects and programmed of work is summarised below:

3.14.7 Plan change programme: as noted, the attachment to this report details the next steps for individual plan changes including, where known, anticipated milestones.

3.14.8 New local area planning priorities: The report on the agenda for this Council meeting outlines next steps, pending the decision of Council.

3.14.9 South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan: A focus on identifying land purchase opportunities (using Development Contributions funding) to deliver the agreed green links.

3.14.10 Linwood regeneration: The next step is to form up the project, including discussion with community boards, Council briefing and cross-agency liaison.

3.14.11 Linwood Village:

· Post-construction monitoring report for recent streetscape upgrade (via community survey);

· Support implementation of the community’s Inner City East Linwood Revitalisation Plan.

3.14.12 Central City lighting: installation of catenary lighting at Guthrey Lane and consolidation of the current gobo footpath projectors into a more impactful arrangement.

3.14.13 Vacant sites:

· End of year audits to commence later this calendar year, to identify which owners of potentially liable sites in FY26 need to be contacted.

· Confirm and commence delivery of Enliven Places support on a site in either Sydenham or Lyttelton (pending landowner agreement).

3.14.14 Design guidance and practice will be developed to support implementation of Plan Change 14 as decisions are reached. This will include guidance on new provisions within the city centre for taller buildings and to support quality outcomes for medium and high-density residential development.

3.14.15 Certification by urban design experts on a Council approved list will be reviewed relative to Plan Change 14 decisions and process and requirements updated.

3.15 Upcoming reports/ briefings to Council (excluding plan changes – refer to Attachment)

Topic	Date/timing for report/ info session	Forum e.g. Council, Community board
Rural land review	November 2024	Council information session
Central City Noise Programme	February 2025	Council information session
Linwood regeneration	Late 2024 Early 2025	Community Boards Council
Derelict buildings	Later this calendar year	Council information session
Central City and Suburban Regeneration Biannual reports	Central City (covering July ’24 – June ’25): likely Aug/Sept 2025 Suburban (covering April – Dec ’24): likely March 2025	Council

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment 1 Status and Milestones of Plan Changes	24/1876979	121

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents
Approved By	John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. Building Consenting Unit Update: July to September 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1998623
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Steffan Thomas, Head of Building Consenting
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8 this Item was withdrawn from the 6 November 2024 Council Agenda.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Ngā Tūtohu

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Building Consenting Unit activity during the period July, August and September 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Building Consenting Unit Update: July to September 2024.

3. Building Consents

3.1 Year to date, 1565 building consents have been issued. This is approximately 20% higher than the same time in the previous financial year.

Table 1: Residential and Commercial Consents Granted Per Year

Financial Year	Residential Consents Granted	Commercial Consents Granted	Total Consents Granted
2023/24	4321	822	5143
2022/23	4289	728	5017
2021/22	4340	762	5102
2020/21	4062	729	4791
2019/20	3676	828	4504

4. Levels of Service Summary

4.1 Levels of Service results for the period July to September 2024 are shown on Table 2:

Table 2: Levels of Service

Measure:		July	Aug	Sept	YTD	Target
Grant Building Consents	LOS	83%	83%	88%	85%	95% within 19 working days
Grant Building Consents (STF)	STF	89%	90%	92%	90%	20 working days
Ensure % satisfaction with building consents process	LOS	80%	77%	80%	79%	Target is 79%
Grant Code Compliance Certificates	LOS	80%	85%	89%	84%	95% within 19 working days
Grant Code Compliance Certificates (STF)	STF	86%	91%	92%	89%	20 working days
Carry out building inspections in a timely manner	LOS	92%	88%	89%	90%	98% booked within 3 working days
Customer satisfaction with building consenting pre-application service	LOS	100%	100%	100%	100%	Target is 90%
Audit Building Warrant of Fitness to ensure public safety and confidence	LOS	132	114	98	344 (28%)	Audit 20% of stock annually (1250 audits)
Pools are inspected in accordance with legislative requirements	LOS	151	180	133	464 (33%)	Inspect 1410 pool and spas annually
Process PIM applications within statutory timeframes	LOS	100%	100%	100%	100%	PIM only 90% within 20 working days

LOS = LTP Level of Service			Will meet target
STF = Statutory Time Frame			Requires remedial action

4.2 All levels of service are currently being met except the following three levels of service that are currently tracking just under the targets.

Building Consents Granted (processing timeframes)

4.2.1 Year to date, 90% of consents have been processed within statutory timeframes. Against the LTP target of 95% of consents granted within 19 days, the year to date result is 85%.

4.2.2 There has been a significant month on month improvement from 56% in the month of August 2023 to the current month’s result of 92%.

4.2.3 For information, the full year results for the previous three financial years were:

2023/24	73.0%
2022/23	64.5%
2021/22	42.4%

Inspections

4.2.4 Year to date, 90% of inspections have been carried out within agreed timeframe.

4.2.5 Demand for inspection services remains high as a result of higher consenting numbers last year and through the start of this year.

4.2.6 Each day around 180 inspections are booked and undertaken (3,300 per month, 39,000 per year). Traditionally, around 30% of inspections have resulted in a failed inspection and this puts additional pressure on inspection resources. Inspections fail for a number of reasons including quality of work, not being ready for the inspection, required information not present. The team has been working with the industry to bring down this number which has resulted in a reduction to the current failure rate of around 19%.

Code Compliance

4.2.7 Year to date, 89% of code compliance certificates issued within statutory timeframes. Against the LTP target of 95% of consents granted within 19 days, the year to date result is 84%.

4.2.8 There has been an increase in the number of code compliance certificates (CCC's) issued as a result of increased consent numbers and the high volume of inspections being completed. However, there has been a significant month on month improvement from 50% in the month of August 2023 to 92% in the month of September 2024.

5. Building Warrants of Fitness

5.1 Year to date 344 building warrants of fitness have been audited. The annual target is 20% of the building stock or 1250 buildings. As such, after 3 months, this level of service is currently on track to achieve the annual target.

5.2 Operation Magazine.

5.2.1 Following the tragic event at Loafers Lodge in Wellington on 16 May 2023, the then Minister for Building and Construction directed MBIE to investigate whether there were other buildings in New Zealand with similar fire vulnerabilities.

5.2.2 Consequently, inspections were carried out across the country on properties that met a similar profile to Loafers Lodge, with the aim of identifying and addressing any immediate fire safety concerns. These inspections were also intended to guide future efforts to strengthen fire safety requirements in boarding houses.

5.2.3 In Christchurch, two buildings were identified as falling within the criteria for ‘Operation Magazine,’ which include:

· Being a boarding house

· Being three storeys or more in height

· Lacking a sprinkler system

5.2.4 Following inspections by MBIE, FENZ, and the Council, several fire safety issues were identified that required immediate attention. MBIE has continued to monitor the progress of all nine councils involved in Operation Magazine, ensuring that they followed up with building owners regarding the identified issues.

5.2.5 Christchurch City Council has successfully resolved all identified issues and recommendations.

6. Earthquake Prone Buildings

6.1 During July, August and September 2024, the Council received confirmation that 16 buildings were removed from the register, with 7 buildings being demolished, 9 buildings strengthened. No buildings were reassessed in this period.

6.2 There have been 1386 Christchurch based buildings registered on the National Earthquake Prone Building Register. 850 buildings have since been removed with 536 remaining.

7. Significant Building Consents (July, August & September 2024)

Address	Value of Building Work ($)	Building Consent Details
1 Lincoln Road	$90m	Construction of hospital (Waitaha Hillmorton) – 80 bed adult acute mental health facility
11 Rolleston Ave	$80.4m	Alterations to Museum (Canterbury Museum) – Stage 4 of 4 – internal fit out
115 Orchard Road	$42m	Construction of engine preparation and test facility
231 Milton Street	$36.58m	Construction of National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
32 Halwyn Drive	$33.4m	Alteration to Coldstore warehouse (Americold)
115 Orchard Road	$29m	Construction of workshop with associated office (CEC)
107 Cambridge Tce	$34m	Construction of office building - granted
40B Johns Road	$23.4m	Construction of a care home – Radius Care - granted
20 Lunns Road	$16.5m	Construction of a factory building – Stage 2 of 2 - granted

8. Eco Design

8.1 The Eco Design Service has focused on individual consultations for residential building and have carried out 83 of the 300 consultations required for the financial year (28%).

9. Other items

End-to-End Customer Experience Improvement Project

9.1 This goal of this project is to review and improve the customer journey through the entire building consenting process by understanding areas of friction and identifying opportunities to make the process smoother for our customers. This initial phase involved working with customer service staff on the front-end experience and aims to improve public information on website by understanding how customers access and use this information and what does and doesn’t work for them.

9.2 A number of recommendations have been made. Many are small quick wins but should have a positive impact on the customer experience.

Government led BCA Reform

9.3 The Government has agreed to investigate significant reform of the building consent system in New Zealand. The aim is to drive consistency, certainty and efficiency and make it easier for Kiwis to build. Building consent system reform | Building Performance

9.4 The Government will be engaging with the sector over the coming months, and we look forward to collaborating with them to create and develop new innovative ideas and becoming part of the solution.

Overseas Building Products Bill

9.5 Introduced to the house in early September, the Bill introduces changes to the Building Act which will reduce barriers to using quality overseas building products in building work throughout New Zealand.

9.6 The Bill aims to increase competition and reduce the cost of building products, improve the country’s resilience to supply chain shortages and give homeowners, builders and designers more choice in products and systems already available and in use overseas.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Steffan Thomas - Head of Building Consenting
Approved By	John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

13. Quarterly Governance Report - Q1 2024/2025 (July to September 2024)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1572806
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sean Rainey – Manager Official Information Matt Boult – Team Leader Governance Process
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This Quarterly Governance Report is the first in a new series of updates to keep the Council informed on key governance activities and compliance with statutory obligations. It covers the first quarter of the 2024/2025 financial year, from July 1 to September 30, 2024. The purpose of these updates is to enhance governance transparency.

1.2 This staff-generated report reviews governance process performance, including Council, Committees, and Community Board meeting management, decision-making, and progress toward key governance-related targets.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Quarterly Governance Report - Q1 2024/2025 (July to September 2024) Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Governance is a core responsibility of the Council, and ensuring efficient decision-making is vital to achieving its long-term goals. Since August 2020, the Governance Process team has worked to support the improvement of decision-making through regular reporting, drawing down data from Infocouncil and related systems.

3.2 This quarterly report builds on those efforts by tracking performance and, for the first time, includes governance data from the Official Information team, covering LGOIMA requests and elected member information inquiries.

3.3 Attachment A to this report details the approach to researching and compiling this report and the key definitions used.

3.4 The next section summarises key quarter results, while Attachment B provides more detailed statistics on the reported areas.

3.5 This report demonstrates that the Council is meeting all its 2024 – 20234 Long Term Plan Governance Levels of Service, especially transparency and efficiency.

4. Highlights in this Quarter

Quarterly Highlights

4.1 The following dashboard compares key governance metrics from Quarter 1 of the 2023/2024 year with the current quarter.

Key Metrics Comparison (Q1 2023/2024 and Q1 2024/2025):

Metric	Q1 2023/2024	Q1 2024/2025	Change (%)
Number of meetings held	130	119	🔻 -9%
% of eligible meetings live-streamed	New Metric	98%	N/A
Meetings compliant with legislation and process standards	96%	98%	🔼 +2%
% of overall reports in Public Excluded (PX)	4.7%	5.1%	🔺 +0.4%
% of 2022 – 2025 PX Reports reviewed for release	New Metric	68%	N/A
New meeting actions generated from meetings	421	290	🔻 -37% *
Meeting actions closed	413	442	🔼 +7%
% Ombudsman requests compliant	100%	100%	No change
% LGOIMA requests compliant	99.4%	99.6%	🔼 +0.2%

Key Points to Note:

4.2 *Efficiency: New actions generated from meetings have dropped by 37% primarily due to:

· A change in the report cycle whereby decision-making reports contain more information, options and analysis; and are considered at a decision-making meeting only - often avoiding a pre-briefing with associated actions

· A changed report template requiring the inclusion of more detailed options and analysis.

· The quality of advice has improved particularly around the analysis of options and supporting financial information. One measure of this is that only one report was left to lie on the table at a meeting this quarter compared to 17 last year.

· There are slightly less meetings.

4.3 Transparency: 98% of all eligible meetings are live streamed, 78% of all Information Sessions are open to the public and 5.1% of reports are considered in PX.

4.4 Compliance: The Council met all statutory requirements for meetings.

4.5 Performance: Progress is on track to meet the Long-Term Plan (LTP) targets for the financial year.

5. Service Level Performance - Meetings

5.1 The Council’s LTP outlines two critical service levels related to meetings:

5.1.1 Service Level 4.1.28.1: Support between 500 - 600 governance meetings annually.

5.1.2 Service Level 4.1.28.6: Ensure that 90% of eligible meetings are live-streamed and available for digital access.

Meeting Activity

5.2 In Q1 2024/2025, the Council held 119 meetings, a 9% reduction compared to last year. This decrease reflects adjustments in the approach to informal meetings, aligning with the Ombudsman’s Open for Business recommendations. More items are now discussed and decided in a single public meeting, reducing the need for a closed briefing before the decision meeting.

Live Streaming

5.3 98% of eligible meetings were live-streamed and made available for on-demand viewing. This represents a successful implementation of d the Ombudsman’s Open for Business recommendations.

6. Service Level Performance - Decision-Making Transparency

6.1 Transparency remains a cornerstone of the Council’s governance efforts. The Council continues to focus on minimising the use of Public Excluded (PX) reports and maximising the release of PX content to the public whenever possible. It is important to note that the legislation and the Ombudsman recognise that there are times when it is reasonable and appropriate for matters to be considered in PX. The LTP contains two related service levels:

6.1.1 Service Level 4.1.28.4: A maximum of 6.5% of reports considered in PX.

6.1.2 Service Level 4.1.28.5: 85% of all PX reports from the current triennium are reviewed for potential release.

PX Report Summary:

6.2 In Q1, 78% of Information Sessions and Workshops were open to the public. In contrast, during the same period last year, all informal meetings were closed, with 0% accessible for in-person attendance or recorded viewing.

6.3 5.1% of new staff reports were considered under Public Exclusion in Q1 2024/2025. This is an increase of 0.4% from the previous year, but still under the LTP target.

6.4 Since the beginning of the current triennium, 68% of PX reports from this term have been reviewed and 33% have been released publicly.

6.5 86% of PX reports from the previous two terms have been released.

7. Service Level Reporting Governance Process Compliance

7.1 The following two Levels of Service Levels relate to governance compliance:

7.1.1 Service Level 4.1.22: Provide services that ensure all Council and Committee meetings are held with full statutory compliance (98% compliance)

7.1.2 Service Level 4.1.28.3: 100% of governance processes are maintained and published on the Website that ensure statutory compliance

7.2 Governance compliance remains a high priority, with the following performance metrics for Q1 2024/2025:

7.2.1 Statutory Compliance: 98.2% of meetings were held in compliance with legal requirements.

7.2.2 Timely Reporting: 100% of meeting agendas and minutes were published within the required timeframes, and 97% of meeting records were archived on time.

7.2.3 Monthly audits of the Council’s website confirmed that all 100% of core governance process documents were current and accessible.

8. Service Level Reporting - LGOIMA Requests and Elected Member Inquiries

8.1 The LTP has two Levels of Service related to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests:

8.1.1 Service Level 4.1.29.1: 100% of investigations into process and compliance by the Ombudsman's Office are responded to within their requested deadlines.

8.1.2 Service Level 4.1.29.2: Provision of information is in accordance with LGOIMA principles and requirements (99% compliance).

8.2 No investigations into process or compliance were received from the Ombudsman this quarter.

8.3 The Council continues to handle a high volume of LGOIMA requests.

8.3.1 368 LGOIMA requests were received in Q1 2024/2025, up 24% from last year.

8.3.2 Compliance Rate: The Council maintained a 99.6% compliance rate in responding to requests within the statutory timeframe.

8.4 Elected member requests increased slightly, with 364 requests logged in Q1 2024/2025 compared to 336 in the same quarter last year.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The Council met its governance obligations for Q1 2024/2025 and continued to improve its processes, particularly in decision-making transparency and action follow-up.

9.2 Focus areas include reducing the number of actions closed late (see Attachment B), limiting publicly excluded reports to essential cases, and maintaining adherence to the established Level of Service targets.

9.3 As the Council moves into the next quarter, the focus will remain on maintaining high levels of compliance and transparency while improving the efficiency of governance activities.

15. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/795990
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Mayor Phil Mauger

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the external activities undertaken by the Mayor in his role as the city's and community's leader. It also highlights key matters that require the attention of the Council.

1.2 This report has been compiled to ensure a record of the Mayor’s engagements and any pertinent issues that have arisen.

2. Mayor’s Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

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

3. Mayor’s Activities

3.1 In recent weeks, the Mayor participated in a variety of events that underscore Christchurch’s focus on community, international collaboration, and local development.

3.2 The Mayor welcomed new citizens at a Citizenship Ceremony on 16 October and joined milestone celebrations for the Akaroa Yacht Club’s 60th anniversary and Burwood Park Tennis Club’s 90th anniversary, recognising the contributions of Christchurch’s longstanding community organisations. He also presented awards at the Keep Christchurch Beautiful event, highlighting local efforts to maintain and enhance the city’s environment.

3.3 On the cultural front, Christchurch’s role as a gateway to Antarctica was evident as the Mayor attended the Antarctic Season Opening civic reception and the Canterbury Antarctic Business Network reception. He also hosted a delegation from Wuhan Business University on 22 October, reflecting the city’s commitment to fostering international educational partnerships.

3.4 The Mayor engaged with various industry and interest groups, offering a welcome at the New Zealand Property Investors’ Federation event and attending the opening of the Hungarian Honorary Consulate. He supported local development initiatives by speaking at the Christchurch Engine Centre announcement and participating in the Central City Development Forum, which focused on urban growth strategies for the city.

3.5 Workshops focused on the Canterbury Water Management Scheme highlighted the city’s ongoing commitment to sustainable water management. The Mayor also supported local welfare initiatives by attending the City Mission’s Plate Up dinner, an event aimed at helping community members in need.

3.6 Finally, the Mayor attended the 2/1 Battalion RNZIR Colours Parade and participated in the Tuia programme wānanga, further demonstrating his engagement with community and regional activities. Collectively, these engagements reflect Christchurch’s dedication to strengthening local communities, building international partnerships, and supporting sustainable growth.

National Lifeline Utilities Forum 2024

3.7 The Mayor opened the 2024 National Lifeline Utilities Forum at Te Pae, Christchurch Convention Centre, on 17 October. This event, a crucial gathering for New Zealand’s infrastructure resilience sector, brought together representatives from critical infrastructure organisations, Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM), and research agencies to discuss and collaborate on building resilient, sustainable infrastructure systems.

3.8 In his opening remarks, the Mayor highlighted the importance of proactive planning and collaboration to build infrastructure resilience, drawing on Christchurch’s experiences with natural disasters. He highlighted the city’s commitment to resilience and readiness, recognising the collective responsibility of all stakeholders in protecting essential services for the wellbeing of communities across New Zealand.

3.9 The two-day forum included sessions on Canterbury-specific resilience strategies, national perspectives on infrastructure recovery, and interactive discussions on planning for significant events.

4. Key Updates and Acknowledgements

A Century of Remembrance at the Bridge of Remembrance

4.1 On 11 November, Christchurch held a commemorative Remembrance Day ceremony at the Bridge of Remembrance, drawing attendees to honour the Armistice that ended World War I and to mark the bridge's 100-year legacy as a memorial site. Originally built by the citizens of Christchurch, the bridge serves as a tribute to Cantabrians who served in the Great War and in subsequent global conflicts.

4.2 Representing the city, Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter laid a wreath to pay respects to those who served. She reflected on the bridge's significance, noting that since its foundation stone was laid on Anzac Day in 1923, the site has become a place where generations of New Zealanders can honour the memory of those who fought overseas. Plaques on the bridge continue to commemorate veterans of World War II and other conflicts.

4.3 The ceremony featured a six-gun salute, with three rounds fired at 10 am symbolising service members advancing into battle, and three more rounds at 11 am to signify the Armistice. In a final tribute, crosses were placed in Remembrance Park, adjacent to the bridge, to remember those who lost their lives, and these will remain in place until Friday.

2024 Annual Report Highlights Strong Financial Performance and Key Investments

4.4 The Council’s 2024 Annual Report reflects a year of strong performance despite financial challenges, with a reported surplus of $49 million and a capital investment of $706 million into critical infrastructure, community facilities, and services across the city.

4.5 The report, adopted at the 30 October Council meeting, underscores a solid year of financial management. Revenues reached $1.183 billion against expenditures of $1.135 billion, with total assets rising by $731.5 million to $20.8 billion.

4.6 Major achievements include the completion of Te Ara Ihutai, the Christchurch Coastal Pathway, and the opening of the Matatiki Hornby Centre, both of which have already become valuable community assets.

4.7 Additionally, significant progress was made on Te Kaha, the $603 million stadium, which remains on track and budget, and the Performing Arts Precinct’s new Court Theatre building nears completion.

Christchurch Resident Wins International Rose of Tralee Title

4.8 Christchurch resident Keely O’Grady has proudly represented New Zealand on the international stage by winning the prestigious Rose of Tralee title in Ireland. As only the second New Zealander to win the title, Keely’s success highlights the strength of our international ties and celebrates our local connections to Irish heritage. The city congratulates Keely on her achievement.

5. Upcoming Engagements and Hui

5.1 Summary of the Mayor’s upcoming engagements and hui include:

Date	Event
19 November	Residents’ Group Forum
20 November	NZ Spinal Trust 30th Anniversary
21 November	Speech at Zonta ‘Say No to Violence’ event
22 November	Christchurch Charity Hospital Trust’s 20th Anniversary Ball
23 November	Speech at Empower Church Reopening
24 November	Christchurch Christmas Parade
25 November	Business Canterbury Workshop on Economic Priorities for Canterbury
	Citizenship Ceremony
26 November	Speech at Christchurch Rotary Club
27 November	New Zealand India Business Forum
28 November	3rd Field Squadron RNZE Charter Parade in Akaroa
	Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee meeting
29 November	Canterbury Mayoral Forum
	Speech at NZ Labour Party Annual Conference
30 November	Korea Day
3 December	Speech at Close China-NZ Early Childhood Education Symposium
4 December	Official Visit by Prime Minister of Samoa
5 December	Present Christchurch City Council Civic Awards
7 December	Speech at AFFIRM Community Day
9 December	HMNZS Pegasus Change of Command Parade
12 December	Gansu Sister City Delegation
	Speech at Civic & International Relations End of Year Reception
13 December	Greater Christchurch Partnership
	Launch of Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan
14 December	Speech at Global Cities NZ Forum
19 December	Christchurch Consular Corps Reception

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Per Instrument of Delegation dated 12 June 2013.

10. Three Waters Activities Report - July, August and September 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1998462
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Acting Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

14. Resource Recovery Unit Update Q1 FY25
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1765920
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dr Alec McNeil, Manager Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
8.	Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation
	Attachment a - Kart Club Relocation Option Description	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The private property owner has requested confidentiality due to commercial sensitivity	12 November 2025 Once negotiations are concluded and approved by the Council
	Attachment b - Proposed track Layout	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The private property owner has requested confidentiality due to commercial sensitivity	12 November 2025 Once negotiations have concluded and been approved by the Council
	Attachment c - Indicative Track Cost Estimate	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The private propety owner has requested confidentiality due to commercial sensitivity	12 November 2025 Once negotiations have concluded and been approved by the Council
	Attachment d - Building Estimate for Kartsport Canterbury	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The private property owner has requested confidentiality due to commercial sensitivity	12 November 2025 Once negotiations have concluded and been approved by the Council
9.	Consideration of Offer Backs for Residential Red Zone Port Hills Properties
	Attachment b - September 2024 Resolution Related to 2 Properties	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(g), s7(2)(j)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Prevention of Improper Advantage	This report contains information that is legally privileged and may impact the commercial position of the Council and/or a third party.	When in the view of the General Counsel - Head of Legal & Democratic Services, the grounds to withhold the information no longer apply.