Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 4 December 2024

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

There were no apologies received.

Secretarial Note: The Chair noted that Councillor Johanson was a potential apology for lateness.

Withdrawal of Agenda Items

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8, Item 18.Three Waters Activities Report – July, August and September 2024, Item 19. Planning and Consents Unit Update, and Item 20. Building Consenting Unit Update: July to September 2024 were withdrawn from the agenda.

Secretarial Note: Item 14. Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme Endorsement, Item 16. Discretionary Responses Fund and Place Partnership Fund, and Item 17. Miscellaneous amendments to delegations were considered at the reconvened Council meeting of 12 November 2024 (refer below).

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 9.33 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Bradley Nicolson

Bradley Nicolson spoke regarding the Oxford Terrace Baptist Church’s experience engaging with the Council on rates and remissions issues and processes.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 9.40 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2

Moana Vā

Lana Shields and Suli Tuitaupe spoke on behalf of Moana Vā regarding the services and supports their organisation provides to Pacific Rainbow communities in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

Attachments

a Moana Vā - Impact Report 2023 - Presentation to Council

3.1.3 Akaroa Civic Trust

Mike Norris spoke on behalf of the Akaroa Civic Trust regarding the Akaroa Wastewater Scheme and the Council’s resource consent application.

Attachments

a Akaroa Civic Trust - Presentation to Council

3.1.4 Akaroa Ratepayers & Residents' Association

Harry Stronach and Cameron Jasper spoke on behalf of the Akaroa Ratepayers & Residents' Association regarding the Akaroa Wastewater Scheme and the Council’s resource consent application.

Attachments

a Akaroa Wastewater Disposal Managed Aquifer Recharge Option - Presentation to Council

Councillor MacDonald returned to the meeting at 9.59 am during consideration of Item 3.1.5.

3.1.5 Kim Annan / David Lynch

Kim Annan spoke regarding parking and safety issues related to the redevelopment of the former City Care site near Sydenham Park and Bradford Park.

Attachments

a Sydenham Park Bradford Park Map - Presentation to Council

b Council Meeting Sydenham Park FINAL - Presentation to Council

3.1.6 Cody Cooper

Cody Cooper spoke regarding Item 22. Notice of Motion – Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution.

3.1.7 Heathcote School Students

Amalia Harris and other student representatives from Heathcote Valley School, Te Aratai College and Hagley College spoke regarding Item 22. Notice of Motion – Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.15 am and returned at 10.18 am during consideration of Item 3.1.8.

3.1.8 Heathcote Commuters

Steve Harris and Bianca Sullivan spoke regarding Item 22. Notice of Motion – Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution.

3.1.9 Spokes Canterbury

Fi Bennetts and Anne Scott spoke on behalf of Spokes Canterbury regarding Item 22. Notice of Motion – Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution.

3.1.10 Thomas Healey

Thomas Healey spoke regarding Item 22. Notice of Motion – Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 26 August 2024

The meeting block resolved Minute Items 5 – 9.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00168

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Civic Awards Committee meeting held 26 August 2024.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

6. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 17 October 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00169

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 17 October 2024.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

7. Council Minutes - 2 October 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00170

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 October 2024.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

8. Council Minutes - 16 October 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00171

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 16 October 2024.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

9. Council Minutes - 30 October 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00172

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 30 October 2024.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

28. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00173

Decision

That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Wednesday, 6 November 2024.

Open Items

12. Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Options

21. Notice of Motion - Brougham Street Upgrade Funding

22. Notice of Motion - Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at 10.28 am and returned at 10.30 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Peters left the meeting at 10.28 am and returned at 10.30 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 10.28 am and returned at 10.36 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.35 am and returned at 10.43 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 10.35 am and returned at 10.37 am during consideration of Item

10.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.39 am and returned at 10.43 am during consideration of Item 10.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting via audio/video link at 10.40 am and returned at 10.51 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - October 2024
Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Bridget Williams, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Helen Broughton, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Jess Garrett, Community Board Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00174 Officer Recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - October 2024 Report. Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried
	Attachments a Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board- Presentation to Council b Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to council c Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council e Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board PowerPoint - Presentation to Council f Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 10 October 2024

11. New Deed of Lease-Physiosouth Limited at Pioneer Recreation and Sport Centre

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00175

Community Board recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Notes that public consultation has been carried out with no unresolved objections.

2. Agrees to depart from its Lease Policy for the Creation of New Leases and Extension Requests Prior to Expiry-Property (Lease Policy) and deal unilaterally with the current tenant, Physiosouth Limited; and

3. Notes, in accordance with Sections 76-82 of the Local Government Act 2002 that:

a. The granting of a further lease to the current tenant is inconsistent with the Council’s Lease Policy.

b. The reason for the inconsistency is due to the proposed unilateral dealing with the current tenant who maintains an existing level of service, noting there may potentially be a broader market and public interest.

c. There is no intention that the Lease Policy be amended to accommodate this decision.

d. Approves the granting of a lease to Physiosouth Limited, located at the Pioneer Recreation and Sport Centre, more accurately described as being Part Lot 30-33 Deposited Plan 1968 at Centennial Park for a term of up to nine (9) years commencing on 1 October 2024.

4. Requests the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.03 am and reconvened at 11.29 am. Councillor McLellan was not present at this time.

21. Notice of Motion - Brougham Street Upgrade Funding

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00176

Councillor Moore’s recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Requests that the Mayor meet with the Minister of Transport, and send a letter to both the Minister of Transport and the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform regarding the potential reconsideration of Brougham Street Upgrade funding in light of the Government’s recent fast-tracking of 4,200 homes in Rolleston.

Councillor Moore/Mayor Carried

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 11.40 am during consideration of Item 22.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 11.47 am and returned at 11.49 am during consideration of Item 22.

22. Notice of Motion - Scruttons Road Rail Crossing Solution
	Council Comment 1. Councillor Templeton, as Mover of the Notice of Motion, and with the agreement of the meeting, added a further recommendation requesting that staff provide advice back on options for keeping the Heathcote Expressway open (refer Resolution 4). The updated Notice of Motion was Seconded by Councillor Peters. 2. It was clarified that the advice requested from staff would be brought back to the Council on Tuesday, 12 November at which time the meeting would be reconvened. Refer Item 29 - Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing) below. 3. Council Officers Lynette Ellis and Jacob Bradbury joined the table to answer questions from Elected Members. At the conclusion of questions, the meeting voted on the Notice of Motion, which was declared carried.
	Councillor Templeton’s Recommendations That the Council: 1. Notes the information provided to the Mayor and Councillors in the Scruttons Road Level Crossing – Partial Closure of Heathcote Expressway MCR Memo on 25 October 2024. 2. Expresses its concern at the approach KiwiRail is taking to crossing upgrades when the Council is working in the adjacent area. 3. Writes, with urgency, to the KiwiRail board and shareholding ministers encouraging them to find a solution to the Scruttons Road rail crossing that enables the completed Heathcote Expressway Puari ki Kakuhura Major Cycle Route to stay open.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00177 That the Council: 1. Notes the information provided to the Mayor and Councillors in the Scruttons Road Level Crossing – Partial Closure of Heathcote Expressway MCR Memo on 25 October 2024. 2. Expresses its concern at the approach KiwiRail is taking to crossing upgrades when the Council is working in the adjacent area. 3. Writes, with urgency, to the KiwiRail board and shareholding ministers encouraging them to find a solution to the Scruttons Road rail crossing that enables the completed Heathcote Expressway Puari ki Kakuhura Major Cycle Route to stay open. 4. Request that staff provide advice on keeping the Heathcote Expressway open in time to inform a Council decision ahead of the proposed closure date on 14 November. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12.17 pm during consideration of Item 12.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting via audio/video link at 12.20 pm during consideration of Item 12.

12. Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Options
	Council Comment 1. The Mayor Moved and Councillor McLellan Seconded the Officer Recommendations with an amended Recommendation 4 specifying that the remaining transport works would come from project(s) deferred beyond the first three years of the 2024-34 Long-Term Plan and have no further impact on rates (refer Recommendation 4). 2. Council Officers Jacob Bradbury, Jenny Rankin, and Tony Richardson then joined the table to provide an update on the project and answer questions from Elected Members. 3. During discussion, the meeting had further questions regarding the Public Excluded Attachment A to the Officer report and the funding update from Waka Kotahi NZTA. As a result of these questions, the meeting resolved to go into a Public Excluded session.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Options Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Instructs staff to proceed with the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3 (SP3)). This is specified as: a. Lichfield Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, b. Tuam Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, c. Madras Street between Moorhouse Avenue and Tuam Street; and d. Remaining works on Lichfield Street between Manchester Street and Madras Street. 4. Notes that completing the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3) will be an additional 0.06% impact on rates. 5. Notes that the Public Excluded Attachment A can be reviewed for potential public release after 22 October 2025.
	Amended Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Options Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Instructs staff to proceed with the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3 (SP3)). This is specified as: a. Lichfield Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, b. Tuam Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, c. Madras Street between Moorhouse Avenue and Tuam Street; and d. Remaining works on Lichfield Street between Manchester Street and Madras Street. 4. Agrees that the revenue for completing the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3) will come from a transport project or projects that has been deferred beyond the first 3 years of the Long Term Plan 2024 – 34, and staff will advise Council of the nominated specific project or projects through the Annual Plan process, noting that this will have no impact on rates. 5. Notes that the Public Excluded Attachment A can be reviewed for potential public release after 22 October 2025. Mayor/Councillor McLellan Moved/Seconded

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00178

That at 12.18 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 27 to 28 of the Supplementary Agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillors Coker and Johanson requested their votes against the resolution be recorded.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.31 pm.

12. Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Construction Options - Continued

Council Comment

1. As a result of discussions with Council Officers during the Public Excluded session of the meeting, the wording of Recommendation 4 as Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor McLellan (refer to Item 12 above) was changed for clarity (refer Resolution 4 below).

2. The Motion, including the updated Recommendation 4, was then put, voted on by division, and declared carried.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00179

That the Council:

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

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

3. Instructs staff to proceed with the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3 (SP3)). This is specified as:

a. Lichfield Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue,

b. Tuam Street between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue,

c. Madras Street between Moorhouse Avenue and Tuam Street; and

d. Remaining works on Lichfield Street between Manchester Street and Madras Street.

4. Agrees that the revenue for completing the remaining scope of the transport works associated with the Te Kaha Surrounding Streets Project (Separable Portion 3) will come from within the Transport three-year programme, noting that this will have no impact on rates.

5. Notes that the Public Excluded Attachment A can be reviewed for potential public release after 22 October 2025.

The division was declared carried by 11 votes to 5 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Against: Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown and Councillor MacDonald

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.36 pm during consideration of Item 13.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at 12.40 pm and returned at 12.47 pm during consideration of Item 13.

13. Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Jane Cameron, Mark Stevenson, and Hannah Ballantyne joined the table to present Item 13 and answer questions from Elected Members. 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor Templeton. The meeting asked Council Officers for clarification regarding the hearings process and options available to consider written and oral submissions. 3. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, Recommendation 3 was then amended to reflect the advice provided and the Elected Members’ preference to receive written and oral submissions through the public engagement process (refer Resolution 3). 4. The Motion as amended was then voted on and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy Report. 2. Approves that the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy (Attachment A to this report) proceed to public consultation. 3. Agrees to either: a. Include hearings in the public engagement process for this draft strategy; or b. Not include hearings in the public engagement process for this draft strategy 4. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00180 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy Report. 2. Approves that the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy (Attachment A to this report) proceed to public consultation. 3. Agrees to receive written and/or oral submissions as part of the public engagement and Council decision-making process. 4. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Councillor Coker/Councillor Templeton Carried Councillor Keown requested his vote against the resolutions be recorded.
	Attachments a Draft Ōtautahi-Christchurch Future Transport Strategy - Presentation to Council

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00181

That at 12.51 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 382 to 383 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.41 pm.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 2.43 pm during consideration of Item 15.

15. Review of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00182

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Review of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 Report and its attachments.

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. Determines, in accordance with the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the proposed amended bylaw – the draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 (Attachment A to this report), based on the assessment in the Bylaw Review Report (Attachment B to this report) and the clause-by-clause analysis (Attachment C to this report):

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

b. is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c. does not give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and is not inconsistent with that Act, as is the required test.

4. Adopts the draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 (Attachment A to this report) and agrees to undertake public consultation on the proposed amendments to the bylaw in accordance with sections 148 and 156(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002.

5. Convenes a hearings panel to hear submissions on the draft bylaw, deliberate on these submissions, and report the recommendation to the Council on the final form of bylaw.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Adjournment of Meeting

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00183

That the Council:

1. Adjourn the meeting until 10.00 am Tuesday, 12 November in the Council Chambers.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Secretarial Note: The meeting adjourned at 2.48 pm on 6 November and reconvened at 10.03 am on 12 November. Deputy Mayor Cotter assumed the Chair at this time.

Apologies – Reconvened Council Meeting 12 November 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00184

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

Councillor Peters/Councillor Henstock Carried

28. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00185

That the report be received and considered at the Council meeting on Tuesday, 12 November 2024.

Open Item

29. Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing).

Councillor Barber/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.08 am and returned at 10.09 am during consideration of Item 29.

29 Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing)
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Lynette Ellis, Jacob Bradbury, and Elizabeth Neazor joined the table to answer questions from Elected Members. At this time, Officers informed the meeting that they had received further correspondence from KiwiRail that morning (refer Attachment A to this Item), specifying that the date of closure for the Heathcote Expressway MCR would be deferred to a later date to allow for continued discussions with the Council. 2. In response to the new information and questions about the legal advice outlined in Public Excluded Attachment A to the Officer report, including whether the Officer Recommendations required updating, the meeting resolved to move into a Public Excluded session.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing) Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves the temporary closure of part of the Heathcote Expressway: a. between Vaila Place and Scruttons Road, and b. between Scruttons Road and Truscotts Road. 4. Notes that staff will re-open the cycleway should KiwiRail rescind its request for immediate closure until permanent works are completed. 5. Requests further information before the end of April 2025 to allow the closure to be reviewed. 6. Notes that $2.5M is available in the current Annual Plan to commence design and pre construction work. 7. Requests that staff instruct KiwiRail to continue design and pre-construction works to enable confirmation of construction costs. 8. Agrees that the construction works will be funded from within the approved Long Term Plan Transport Capital Programme budget.
	Attachments a Scruttons Road - moving date

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.13 am during consideration of Item 29.

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00186

That at 10.13 am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 16 to 17 of the second supplementary agenda be adopted.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

Councillor Johanson requested his vote against the resolution be recorded.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.12 am.

29. Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing) - Continued
	Council Comment 1. As a result of discussions with Council Officers during the Public Excluded session of the meeting, the original Officer Recommendations were updated to reflect the new information received (i.e., the KiwiRail correspondence) and the legal advice provided (refer Resolutions 1 to 8). 2. Upon return to the Public session of the meeting, Council Officers continued to answer questions from Elected Members. 3. Further amendments were raised by Councillor Templeton (refer Resolution 10), Councillor Peters (refer Resolution 9), and Councillor Fields (refer Resolution 11). With the agreement of the meeting, each of these amendments were incorporated into the revised Officer Recommendations. 4. The Substantive Motion was then Moved by the Deputy Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Barber. At the conclusion of debate, the meeting voted on the Substantive Motion by division, which was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing) Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves the temporary closure of part of the Heathcote Expressway: a. between Vaila Place and Scruttons Road, and b. between Scruttons Road and Truscotts Road. 4. Notes that staff will re-open the cycleway should KiwiRail rescind its request for immediate closure until permanent works are completed. 5. Requests further information before the end of April 2025 to allow the closure to be reviewed. 6. Notes that $2.5M is available in the current Annual Plan to commence design and pre construction work. 7. Requests that staff instruct KiwiRail to continue design and pre-construction works to enable confirmation of construction costs. 8. Agrees that the construction works will be funded from within the approved Long Term Plan Transport Capital Programme budget.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00187 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing) Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Notes that staff have the delegations to close the Heathcote Expressway under temporary traffic management if directed by KiwiRail and would close the below sections if required: a. between Vaila Place and Scruttons Road, and b. between Scruttons Road and Truscotts Road. 4. Notes that staff would re-open the cycleway should KiwiRail rescind its request for immediate closure until permanent works are completed. 5. Notes the safety concerns raised by residents about cycling on Port Hills Rd and Bridlepath Rd should the closure of the Heathcote Expressway go ahead as requested by KiwiRail, and: a. Requests staff advice on the comparative risks of the Scruttons Rd level crossing and Port Hills Rd and Bridlepath Rd as soon as practicable. 6. Notes that $2.5M is available in the current Annual Plan to commence design and pre construction work. 7. Agrees that the construction works will be funded from within the approved Long Term Plan Transport Capital Programme budget. 8. Notes the public excluded Attachment A to the report will be released upon the review and approval of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Chief Executive. 9. Seeks to meet as soon as possible with KiwiRail’s Board to discuss this current impasse at Scruttons Road and the wider ongoing relationship and expectations whereas organisations we intersect with each other’s assets. 10. Writes to the KiwiRail Board and appropriate ministers requesting a change to policy direction and/or legislation that would enable KiwiRail to take into account broader transport network safety when making decisions on level crossings. 11. Should closure occur, requests that staff ask Environment Canterbury to consider extending its recently implemented service to mitigate the national restriction on use of bike racks on buses, to include Martindales Rd and terminate at The Tannery. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock and Councillor Keown Deputy Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried Councillors Harrison-Hunt, Johanson, and Templeton requested their votes against Resolution 3 be recorded.

The meeting adjourned at 11.55 am and reconvened at 1.03 pm. Councillors Keown and Gough were not present at this time.

Councillor Field left the meeting at 1.06 pm during consideration of Item 16 and did not return.

16. Discretionary Response Fund and Place Partnership Fund
	Council Comment 1. Council Officer Josh Wharton joined the table to answer questions from Elected Members regarding the Place and Partnership Fund and Officer Recommendation 5. 2. Councillor Donovan then raised an amendment to provide a grant of $12,000 to Greening the Rubble Trust (refer Resolution 5). The Motion, including the amendment was then Moved by Councillor Donovan and Seconded by Councillor Barber. 3. At the conclusion of debate, the meeting voted on the Motion as amended, which was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund and Place Partnership Fund Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves a grant of $15,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to Objectspace towards staffing costs. 4. Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to Christchurch Resettlement Support Services Inc. towards the Bilingual Community Work Support programme. 5. Declines the application to the 2024/2025 Place Partnership Fund from Greening the Rubble Trust toward Community co design landscaping and workshops.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00188 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund and Place Partnership Fund Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves a grant of $15,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to Objectspace towards staffing costs. 4. Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to Christchurch Resettlement Support Services Inc. towards the Bilingual Community Work Support programme. 5. Approves a grant of $12,000 to the 2024/2025 Place Partnership Fund from Greening the Rubble Trust toward Community co design landscaping and workshops. Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried *Secretarial Note:* The meeting further requested a Memo from Council Officers outlining the points of difference and points of alignment between Greening the Rubble, Gap Filler and Life in Vacant Spaces , noting there may be opportunities for administrative alignment between the groups.

17. Miscellaneous amendments to delegations

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00189

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Miscellaneous amendments to delegations Report.

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

3. Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of the efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business, and any other applicable statutory authority:

a. Revokes and amends the delegations set out in Parts B of the Delegations Register (as shown and highlighted in Attachment A); and

b. Revokes and amends the delegations set out in Parts D of the Delegations Register (as shown and highlighted in Attachment A).

4. Notes that these delegation changes take effect on the date of this resolution, and that Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Coker Carried

Secretarial Note: The meeting further requested that Attachment A to the report (the Delegations Register), particularly Part B – Sub Part 3 – Other Matters, reflecting that the Chairperson of the Mayor’s Welfare Fund Charitable Trust Committee is the Deputy Mayor be amended to reflect the correct Chairperson (currently Councillor Johanson).

14. Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme Endorsement

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00190

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme Endorsement Report.

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

3. Endorses the Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme set out as Attachment A to this report, as a foundation for network and local area planning.

4. Notes that the programme is not being consulted on as it is essentially an implementation of existing strategic direction and the resulting local area plans will involve consultation.

5. Notes that the document will form a public and stakeholder information and planning resource.

6. Notes that the programme will remain responsive to an evolving city and changing government direction, continuing to be developed and updated over time.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Scandrett Carried

18. Three Waters Activities Report - July, August and September 2024
	This Item was withdrawn from the agenda consistent with Standing Order 6.8.

19. Planning and Consents Unit Update
	This Item was withdrawn from the agenda consistent with Standing Order 6.8.

20. Building Consenting Unit Update: July to September 2024
	This Item was withdrawn from the agenda consistent with Standing Order 6.8.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 1.18pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Secretarial Notes:

The Chair noted that Councillor McLellan was an apology for lateness.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillors Gough and Keown declared an interest in Item 5 – Local Alcohol Policy Update.

Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor McLellan declared an interest in Item 6 – 2024/25 Sustainability Fund Allocation in relation to application 33 from the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust.

Councillor Coker – Item 6. 2024/25 Sustainability Fund Allocation in relation to application 3 from the Summit Road Society.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 9.37 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3.1.1

Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust

Jimmy Chen (Trust Deputy Chair) and Emily Verhoeven (Trust Member) spoke on behalf of the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust regarding the Multicultural Centre and to provide an update on the first seven months since its opening on 5 March 2024.

Attachments

a Multicultural Community Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust - Presentation to Council

3.1.2

Comcare Trust

This public forum did not proceed.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 9.48 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2.1 Community Action on Youth and Drugs (CAYAD)

Paul McMahon spoke on behalf of Community Action on Youth and Drugs regarding Item 5. Local Alcohol Policy Update.

Deputy Mayor Cotter returned to the meeting at 9.49 am during consideration of Item 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Communities Against Alcohol Harm

Dr Liz Gordon spoke on behalf of Communities Against Alcohol Harm regarding Item 5. Local Alcohol Policy Update.

Attachments

a Communities Against Alcohol Harm - Presentation to Council

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.09 am during consideration of Item 3.2.3.

3.2.3 Governors Bay Jetty Trust

Prue Miller and Louisa Eades spoke on behalf of the Governors Bay Jetty Trust regarding Item 7. Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust – Community Loan Options.

Attachments

a Governors Bay Jetty Trust - Presentation to Council

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 10.14 am during consideration of Item 5.

The meeting adjourned at 10.29 am and reconvened at 10.46 am during consideration of Item 5.

5. Local Alcohol Policy Update
	Council Comment 1. Council Officer Elizabeth Wilson joined the table to present the report. 2. Officer Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 and an updated Recommendation 3 was Moved by Councillor Peters and Seconded by Councillor Templeton. The updated Recommendation 3 noted that the Council will confirm the timeframe to adopt a final version of a Local Alcohol Policy when staff report back on the issues and options. 3. When put to the vote the Motion was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00176 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. Notes it will confirm the timeframe to adopt a final version of a Local Alcohol Policy when staff report back on the issues and options. 4. Resolves that all decision-making on matters relating to a Local Alcohol Policy sit with the full Council with the Mayor as Chair. Councillor Peters/Councillor Templeton Carried Councillors Gough and Keown declared a conflict of interest and took no part in the discussion or voting on this Item.

7. Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust - Community Loan Options

Council Comment

1. Following the deputation received from the Governors Bay Jetty Trust the meeting included an additional Recommendation 4 to pay instalments 2 and 3 of the existing Jetty Grant in December 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations 1 to 3 and the additional Recommendation 4 were Moved by Councillor Fields and Seconded by the Mayor and when put to the vote declared carried.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00177

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.

4. Pays instalments 2 and 3 of the existing Jetty Grant in December 2024.

Councillor Fields/Mayor Carried

Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the resolutions be recorded.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 11.08 am and returned at 11.10 am during consideration of

Item 9.

9. Consideration of Offer Backs for Residential Red Zone Port Hills Properties

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00178

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 11.21 am and returned at 11.22 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 11.38 am and returned at 11.31 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Three Waters Activities Report - July, August and September 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00179

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Three Waters Activities Report - July, August and September 2024 Report.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

11. Planning and Consents Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00180

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 11.38 am and returned at 11.39 am during consideration of Item 12.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 11.38 am and returned at 11.51 am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Building Consenting Unit Update: July to September 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00181

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

13. Quarterly Governance Report - Q1 2024/2025 (July to September 2024)

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00182

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.01pm and returned at 12.03pm during consideration of Item 14.

14. Resource Recovery Unit Update Q1 FY25

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00183

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Report July to September 2024.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00184

That Helen Broughton remain after the public have been excluded for the public excluded attachments of Item 8 to present a deputation regarding this item.

AND

That at 12.14pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 160 to 162 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolutions be recorded.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.39pm.

The meeting adjourned at 1.09 pm and reconvened at 2.18 pm during the consideration of Item 8.

8. Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation
	Council Comment 1. Prior to considering the open section of the report, the Council resolved to move to Public Excluded to consider the related deputation and the Public Excluded Attachments A to D Under Separate Cover (refer to Item 16 above). 2. Upon returning to the open section of the report, the Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett (Original Motion). 3. Councillor Moore Moved the following amendment to Officer Recommendation 3, which was later Seconded by Councillor Johanson: Requests staff to undertake public consultation on whether the Council should continue investigating the feasibility of relocating the Kart Club from the Carrs Reserve to a private property, including seeking resource consent and negotiating associated property matters. 4. Councillor Coker Moved a Foreshadowed Motion to discontinue the Kart Club relocation project which was Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 5. Upon the meeting reconvening, the Mover and Seconder of the Foreshadowed Motion agreed to incorporate additional wording to the Foreshadowed Motion, resulting in the amendment from Councillor Moore no longer being required (refer to Foreshadowed Motions 5 and 6). 6. The meeting held one debate and when put to the vote the Original Motion was declared a Tie. 7. The Chief Executive later clarified the Tied vote resulted in a status quo position, therefore staff will report back to the Council regarding the previous related decisions and next steps associated with the project.
	Officer Recommendations 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.
	Council Decision 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. The division was declared a tie* the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett *Against:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Tie
	Foreshadowed Motion Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter 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. Discontinues the Kart Club relocation project. 4. 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. 5. Requests staff to provide advice on alternative uses for the funding on budget for Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation as part of the 25/26 Annual Plan process. 6. Engages on the future use of Carrs Reserve. Councillor Coker/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded

6. 2024/25 Sustainability Fund Allocation

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00185

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor McLellan declared a conflict of interest in application 33 and took no part in the discussion or voting on this Item.

Councillor Coker declared a conflict of interest in application 3 and took no part in the discussion or voting on this Item.

15. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00186

Mayor’s Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 2.49pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

7. Taylors Mistake Baches - Update on Licensee Status and Requests for Council Services
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/610912
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
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:

1.1.1 Update the Council on the status of the Licences to Occupy Legal Road for Baches on Taylors Mistake Road following the recommendation made by the Taylors Mistake Hearings Panel and subsequent Council resolution of 11 April 2019.

1.1.2 Seek a resolution on a process to determine matters outstanding and arising from the process to implement the subsequent Council resolutions. Those matters being:

· Unsigned licences resulting in unlicenced occupation.

· Clarification on "museum" status licences and decisions in that regard.

· Treatment for licenced baches in the moderate/high risk areas that have exceeded the licenced timeframes and extension for risk mitigation.

· Treatment for demolition and/or removal of abandoned/unlicenced baches in the moderate/high risk areas i.e. demolition and/or removal.

· Requests to connect to the Council's potable water supply and wastewater services.

1.2 This report has been prepared by staff because some of the decisions being sought fall outside the delegations and recommendations of the 11 April 2019 resolution. Additionally, while certain decisions fall within staff delegations, due to their significance and the need for a comprehensive, consistent approach, these decisions are deemed more appropriately handled through the process that this report recommends.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Taylors Mistake Baches - Update on Licensee Status and Requests for Council Services 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. Resolves that a Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party be appointed to consider the matters raised in this report and report back to the Council with recommendations to seek resolutions on the outstanding matters.

4. Appoint the members of the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party when considering this report and passing the resolutions.

5. Adopt the terms of reference to task and finish the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party as set out in Attachment A of this report.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 On 11 April 2019, the Council considered a report from a Hearings Panel regarding the future of the baches located on public unformed legal road at Taylors Mistake, Boulder Bay, and Hobsons Bay. The resolutions arising from that are in Attachment B and summarised below in paragraph 4.3. Staff have been working toward implementing those resolutions. While doing that several issues have emerged, and the point has been reached where decisions are required.

3.1.1 Unsigned licences: Several owners of the baches on legal road at Taylors Mistake have not entered into occupancy licences. A decision is required regarding the continued occupation of these structures on legal road.

3.1.2 There is an abandoned bach that will not be entering into a licence, the future of this therefore needs to be determined.

3.1.3 There are two baches to be considered for Museum Status and another two that are possibilities.

3.1.4 A request has been made for connection to Council services i.e. the reticulated water supply and wastewater services; further requests are anticipated if approval is granted.

3.2 Although the Chief Executive has some authority on certain matters as per the Council's resolution from 11 April 2019, this authority does not cover all the issues mentioned above. Given the importance of these decisions, it is recommended that a Working Party be formed to review all the issues and present a report to the Council for a decision.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Privately owned baches have been part of the landscape at Taylors Mistake, Hobsons Bay and Boulder Bay since the early 1900s. In total, there are 45 baches currently occupying the unformed legal road adjoining the coast: 19 at Taylors Mistake, 17 at Hobsons Bay, and 9 at Boulder Bay. There is an extensive history and background to the consideration of the baches’ occupation of the publicly owned legal road, and whether to authorise their continued occupation.

4.2 On 22 November 2018 the Council endorsed public consultation on a proposal for the future of the baches on publicly-owned unformed legal road at Taylors Mistake, Boulder Bay and Hobsons Bay and appointed a Hearings Panel comprised of Councillor Sara Templeton (as Chairperson), former Councillor David East, Councillor Yani Johanson, former Councillor Anne Galloway and Community Board Member Jake McLellan, to consider and hear any submissions received and report the outcome of the consultation and hearings process to the Council for decision.

4.3 That Hearings Panel reported back to the Council on 11 April 2019 which resulted in the resolution in Attachment B. The actions that arise from those resolutions and relevant to this report are summarised as follows:

4.3.1 The bachs were categorised into:

· Low Risk from slope instability hazard - 31 baches

· Moderate to high slope instability hazard - 14 baches

4.3.2 That the low risk bach owners enter into a 35-year licence of the land. The principal terms and conditions of which are set out in the resolution.

4.3.3 That the moderate to high risk bach owners enter a 2-year licence where they intend to either seek certification of acceptability or to mitigate the natural hazards.

4.3.4 That the moderate to high risk bach owners enter into a 35-year licence of the land upon the relevant natural hazards being reassessed or mitigated to councils’ satisfaction.

4.3.5 Delegated authority to the Chief Executive to:

· Extend the 2-year licence period for the moderate to high risk baches if the bach owner has made reasonable progress towards completing the mitigation work.

· Issue a licence for “Museum purposes” where a licence for a moderate to high risk bach, for either the 2 year or 35-year term, is not granted or accepted, and the affected bach is of high heritage value.

· Implement the resolutions and to do all things necessary and take such steps as they shall consider appropriate in their discretion to give effect to the same. Excluding approving and signing off on mitigation works on council owned land, which shall be referred to the Rockfall Protection Structures Committee of Council for decision.

· Take enforcement action to require removal of any bach, and to bring an end to residential use of any bach, that is not authorised by a licence issued pursuant to the resolutions.

4.3.6 That the Council discharge the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party, acknowledging that its work has been completed.

4.3.7 Note: The former Chief Executive exercised her delegated authority on 17 March 2021 to extend the timeframe for the moderate/high risk bach owners to mitigate the risks associated with their baches. The timeframe was extended for three (3) years to 30 April 2024.

Status of Implementing the Resolutions

4.4 Unsigned Licences: Licences are in place for the majority of baches, except for the following:

4.4.1 Low Risk: Licences have been prepared but not returned for Council execution for the following Bach numbers:

· 34 and 36 - staff follow-up on a regular basis.

4.4.2 Moderate/High Risk (Refer to Summary of Technical Information – Attachment C)

· Licences have been prepared but not returned for Council execution for the following Bach numbers: 67 - staff follow-up on a regular basis.

· There has been no commitment to enter into a Licence for the following Bach numbers: 8, 9, 10, 68.

· Follow-up correspondence and discussions:

· Bach 8 – recent conversation with Bach owner has produced documentation from engineers that is being reviewed by Council engineers to determine what work was completed or recommendations made for rockfall mitigation.

· Bach 9 - numerous attempts through written and email correspondence to reach a resolution; last email 11 June 2024. (See comments Bach 10).

· Bach 10 - email on 27 August 2021 from owner indicating "it is my intention to remediate rock fall behind Bach number 10 if possible. Also ... Bach 9 has indicated to me they will be doing the same". Email 23 October 2023 from Bach 2 owner indicated that Bach 10 may be interested in "museum status"; last email 11 June 2024 - no response from Bach 10 owner. Telephone conversation with Bach 10 owner on 11 November 2024 indicating the costs to remediate were very high and they would like a museum licence as a holding measure until money could be secured to fully mitigate the risk of rockfall collapse.

Note: Bach 10 owners organised, on behalf of Bach 8 and 9, engineer assessment for the rockfall risk reduction works. Council’s principal geotechnical advisor followed up with the engineering firm to understand the scope of the works and/or recommendations. Bach 10 will liaise with Bach 8 and 9 and report back to the Council.

· Bach 68 - numerous attempts through written and email correspondence to reach a resolution; Email from Brent Gilpin of Taylors Mistake Bach Association on 15 February 2024 indicated that Bach 68 was not going to enter into a licence. Council emailed the Bach owner on 11 June 2024 for confirmation but has had no response from owner. On 19 June 2024, Brent Gilpin indicated that the bach owners would be interested in a Museum licence.

4.5 Abandoned Baches: The following Bach owners have indicated that they will not enter into a Licence:

· 63 - advised 5 July 2019 that owner did not wish to seek a licence due to rock fall and wants to know next steps.

In following up with all the above mentioned bach owners we have solicited the support of the bach owners’ association who have attempted to follow up with them at their regular meetings.

4.6 Request for Museum Status

4.6.1 The following Bach owners have indicated they would like to consider a Museum Status licence:

· 1 and 2 - refer to specific reasons from the Bach owners below (words in italics are those of the Bach owners):

· The owner of Bach 1 has indicated that cost to protect both baches with a rock catchment fence to protect Bach 1 and 2 is prohibitive.

The total cost (December 2023) to install a barrier was $244,000 including GST.

This doesn't include any CCC fees.

Variations are likely for bad weather or if bad ground conditions were found.

Helicopter fees were based on five hours flying time and any excess would be charged at $3600 plus GST per hour.

Both baches would be sharing the costs 50/50.

· The owner of Bach 2 advised that they cannot afford the costs of making the bach safe to the standard Annual Individual Fatality Risk (AIFR) - a 1 in 10,000 chance of an individual dying in a particular year with all the debatable assumptions that go with that, especially full occupancy and ignoring within the safety model of the very effective tree protection behind the Bach.

There is also the cost of having a specialist run a prescriptive and complicated model to assure the owner and Council of sufficient safety.

Bach 1 (Stone End) and 2 (Rosy Morn) went a long way down the route of looking to install rockfall fencing, but the costs quoted to make the baches safe to CCC standards are upwards of $100,000 for that Bach, "money that we just don't have"

4.6.2 Possible Museum Status:

· Bach 10 - bach owner would prefer Museum licence as an interim measure due to cost of remediation.

· Bach 68 - no direct correspondence from Bach owner(s) supporting request.

4.6.3 Museum Status – expectation from Bach Owner(s):

· Bach 2 has indicated that they do not want to demolish their historic bach and would rather have a licence that allows them to:

· Open it to the public one or two days per year for events such as Heritage Week; further access to the public being negotiable.

· Continue to maintain it so that the Bach is tidy inside and out and buildings are weatherproof.

· Continue to have leaflets in the Bach window outlining the history of the Bach.

· No annual licence fee.

· No overnight stays, however, would appreciate the ability to stay a few nights each year.

· Ability to continue to visit the Bach during the day to keep up maintenance and pest control and ensure security of the Bach.

4.6.4 Heritage Matters

· Comments from the Council’s heritage team are contained in Attachment F to this report. These comments pertain to heritage items in the District Plan and those scheduled for plan change 13/14.

· A number of baches are already scheduled in the District Plan. This is to ensure all baches of value are scheduled (where not subject to high hazard of cliff collapse or rock fall risk), following Council decisions on leases for the baches in 2019. Of the baches to be added, 13 adjoin each other at Rotten Row, which is listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as an Historic Area.

4.7 Request to Connect to Council Services – Wastewater and Potable Water Supply.

4.7.1 Bach 48 - The owner of Bach 48 made an inquiry to the Council’s Water & Wastewater Asset Planning Team for approval to connect to the sewer main. No new connections will be considered until a decision is made by the Council.

4.7.2 Bach 49

· The owners of Bach 49 have requested a connection to the existing Taylors Mistake gravity sewer line which runs behind the western side of the bach.

· The owners would like to connect to the gravity sewer line and want to install an Ecoflow E/One low pressure sewer pump station adjacent to the existing dwelling and discharge the sewer via a standard boundary kit to the manhole in the existing road formation.

· The owners have indicated that they want to install and maintain the low-pressure sewer pump station and lateral at no cost to the Council and wish to discuss options to revise the area of land covered in the Licence to Occupy agreement to include these improvements. Additional conditions in the licence could include that all costs for the sewer system and connection to the gravity main will be met by the owner.

· The owners have indicated that Bach 49 is unique in its scale and location and feel the sewer connection will not set a precedent as very few baches can install a low-pressure sewer system and connect to the existing CCC gravity network.

· Council officers considered the request and email correspondence between both parties is found in Attachment D.

· Council officers advised that the mandate and authority to licence the land for the baches does not extend to consenting to sewer line connections for individual baches and that any application would not be supported by and come with a positive recommendation from staff.

4.7.3 Refer to Attachment C for Site Plan and Technical Overview of Baches 48 and 49.

4.7.4 Feedback from Taylors Mistake Bach Association regarding Provision of Services as detailed in their email to staff dated 19 June 2024:

· All Baches have Council supplied drinking water.

· Each Bach has a water meter except for Boulder Bay which has a single shared water meter for those Baches. Council has intermittently invoiced for water and staff have been seen reading the meters over summer periods.

· Baches have a range of toilet solutions including composting toilets, tanks which a contractor empties, chemical toilet, use of the public toilets and one Bach connected to the Council sewer. In Boulder Bay there are some long-drops.

· Bach owners would enthusiastically connect to the sewer. Their understanding is that there are limitations on capacity but connecting all the Baches north of the surf club (Hobsons Bay, Beach area) would technically be achievable, would add minimal extra load to the sewer network and eliminate any perceived issues with disposal.

4.8 Refer to Attachment G for a summary of the bach status.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Recommended Option: Establish a Working Party.

· Delegate authority to a senior council officer or Committee. Not recommended.

· Reconvene the Hearings Panel. Not recommended

· Council Report and Decision.

4.10 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Direct Enforcement Action for Non-Compliance - There are inadequate resolutions and delegated authority. Some of the decisions are contentious.

· Expand Consultation with Affected Stakeholders and Mana Whenua - The initial report and resolutions were the result of a significant consultation process. Relitigating matters is not warranted, effective or efficient.

· Status Quo – Continue Handling Matters within Existing Framework and hope for an outcome. The point has been reached where further time and effort will reap diminishing returns. Certainty and decisions are required.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Establish a Working Party

4.11.1 Option Description: A Working Party is established to consider the ongoing and future issues related to the Taylors Mistake baches with a term of reference that in summary provides for all outstanding matters to be considered and reported to the Council with recommendations for resolution. It is suggested that the Working Party be comprised of 3 – 5 elected members.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Consistent Oversight: A permanent group could provide consistent and ongoing oversight, addressing both current and future issues as they arise.

· Efficient Decision-Making: Ongoing issues could be resolved more efficiently without needing to reestablish a panel for each new matter.

· Comprehensive Approach: This group would effectively become subject matter experts with the support of staff and therefore well place d to put forward resolving recommendations.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Resource Intensive: Maintaining a working party would require continuous resources, including staff time and administrative support, until they finish the task.

· Risk of Bureaucracy: Could create additional layers of decision-making, slowing down the resolution of simpler issues.

4.12 Delegate Authority to a Senior Council Officer or Committee

4.12.1 Option Description: Council could endorse and expand the delegated authority granted in the subsequent resolutions to a specific senior officer or an existing more suitable committee to make decisions on the outstanding matters.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Streamlined Process: Delegating authority could result in faster decision-making, as fewer approvals would be required.

· Lower Costs: This option would reduce the need for ongoing meetings and administrative support for a separate panel.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reduced Transparency: Delegating authority might reduce the visibility and transparency of decision-making to the public and affected stakeholders.

· Risk of Inconsistent Outcomes: Without the focused attention of a dedicated group, decisions may lack consistency or fail to address broader concerns.

· Public Pushback: Stakeholders may feel their concerns are not adequately considered if decisions are made by a smaller group or individual.

· Lack of political/governance support.

· Some of the matters may require controversial decisions.

4.13 Reconvene the Hearings Panel

4.13.1 Option Description: The Council could reconvene the Hearings Panel to hear submissions from the public and make informed decisions based on relevant legislation and policy in a formal and focused setting.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Structured Decision-Making: The formal process ensures that decisions are made based on evidence and relevant legislation, promoting transparency and accountability.

· Expertise: Panels can include members with specialised knowledge which can enhance the quality of decision-making. Two members of the original panel are no longer CCC elected officials and would need to be replaced.

· Public Participation: The hearings allow for community input, giving residents a voice in matters that affect them.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· Time-Consuming: The formal process can be lengthy, potentially delaying important decisions.

· Limited Flexibility: The rigid structure may not allow for nuanced discussions or creative solutions.

· Resource Intensive: Conducting hearings requires significant resources, including staff time and facilities.

· Potentially Adversarial: The formal nature of hearings can lead to situations which might discourage community engagement.

4.14 Council Report and Decision

4.14.1 Option Description: This report could have attempted to deal with all the outstanding matters and seek decisions on them.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Cost-Effective: Quick resolutions and fewer meetings with less need for external input for both the council and the community.

· Efficiency: The process can be quicker and more streamlined, as it typically relies on staff reports and established procedures for decision-making.

· Clear Accountability: Decisions made directly by the Council are often easier to attribute, enhancing accountability in governance.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Limited Stakeholder Input: The process may provide fewer opportunities for direct community involvement and feedback, potentially sidelining local concerns.

· Potential lack of Depth: The matters outstanding are too complex and comprehensive to be presented in a single report with options identified for each and analysed.

· Unwieldy: Decisions may be limited by existing policies and regulations, restricting flexibility in addressing specific issues.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.15 Time.

4.16 Complexity.

4.17 Focused effort.

4.18 Skilled and appropriate resources.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The financial implications for the decision sought in this report, i.e. to convene a Working Party, are the operational costs within existing budgets involving staff time, elected member attendance and facility resources.

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Staff time included in operational budgets
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No maintenance/ongoing costs in Working Party set-up.
Funding Source	Operational budgets
Funding Availability	Operational budgets
Impact on Rates	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The risk in not adopting the recommended resolution could result in negative publicity and dissatisfaction of the Council. To mitigate this risk the Council would be required to make decisions on matters without full consideration of the technical matters involved.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Schedule 7 Clause 30 of the Local Government Act provides that a local authority has the option to establish a formal decision-making structure including committees, subcommittees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

6.2.2 Working Parties can be used to consider a particular issue or provide complex information to members.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision:

6.3.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. “Manage ratepayers’ money wisely” and “Balance the needs of today and the future”.

6.3.2 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.

6.3.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. “Infrastructure Strategy”.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.4 The decision sought in this report does not have a direct impact on the community.

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

6.5.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote.

6.6 The Community Board view is not sought for this decision as it is a matter for the Council to consider.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.8 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.

6.9 The decision sought, to convene a Working Party, does not have direct impacts on Mana Whenua. The draft Terms of Reference will consider the agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Working Party members and terms of reference to be confirmed.

7.2 Working Party to commence and report back to the Council with recommendations.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Draft Terms of Reference Working Party	24/1746551	50
b ⇩	Attachment B - Minutes of Council - 11 April 2019 - Taylors Mistake Report	24/1752654	52
c ⇩	Attachment C- Technical Site Plans - Unlicenced Moderate/High Risk Baches	24/1305187	57
d ⇩	Attachment D - Bach 49 Request for Sewer Connection	24/1305189	61
e ⇩	Attachment E - Bach 48 and 49 - Technical Site Plan	24/1305191	63
f ⇩	Attachment F - Heritage Comments re Bach Significance and Museum Status	24/1752643	65
g ⇩	Attachment G - Taylors Mistake - Summary of Bach Status	24/1758183	73

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

8. Mayor's Welfare Fund Delegation Amendments
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2046778
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Leader
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 provide the Council with an update on the activities of the Mayor’s Welfare Trust over the last 12 months; and to provide for specific staff delegation changes.

1.2 The report comes following the Mayor’s Welfare Advisory Committee meeting of 13 November 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Mayor's Welfare Fund Delegation Amendments Report.

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

a. Revokes and amends the delegations set out in Part B of the Delegations register (as shown and highlighted in Attachment A of this report.

b. Notes that these delegation changes take effect on the date of this resolution, and that Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Mayors Welfare Trust (Trust) exists to provide relief to those residents and visitors to Christchurch suffering hardship or distress. It achieves this through providing various grants, advice and referrals.

3.2 The successful operation of the Trust relies on the Mayor’s Welfare Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) who meet quarterly, to provide advice to staff and elected members on matters relating to the operation and purpose of the Trust, and on larger grants. The organisations currently represented on the Advisory Committee are:

Ministry of Social Development Collective for the Homeless Methodist Mission

Petersgate NZ Police Kainga Ora

Salvation Army St Vincent de Paul He Waka Tapu

City Mission Birthright Catholic Social Services

Presbyterian Support Upper SI Tangata Atumotu Trust Mayor's Representative

3.3 This report recommends changes to staff delegations, which are supported by the Advisory Committee that will:

· Ensure that the Trust can respond promptly and effectively to community need, effectively and efficiently delivering its purpose within Council’s legislative framework.

· Ensure that any larger grants, between $2,000 and $10,000 are fully informed and recommended by the Advisory Committee prior to approval.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Activities of the Trust

4.1 From July 2023 to June 2024 the expenses of the Trust totalled $229,313.00. As with previous financial years the most frequently granted areas from the Trust continue to be rent and power arrears. However, unexpected or significant dental fees have become increasingly common of late.

4.2 The Trust continues to observe broader challenges in its applicants, wrought by the misuse of Afterpay and Online Gambling. While outside of the scope of the Trust’s direct activities, the Advisory Committee and other community partners continue to look for ways to positively support the damage from these sources.

4.3 The complexity of Mayors Welfare applicants also continues to increase. Many have broader familial or behavioural challenges, learning disabilities, mental health challenges, obligations or bad debts. As practicable, staff guide these individuals to seek support from appropriate avenues.

4.4 Staffing for the Trust and Advisory Committee is provided by Council representatives from the Community Funding Team, the Financial Accounting Team, and Legal Services.

4.5 The Trust maintains its registration of charitable status through the Charities Services register (CC25434). Annual auditing of the Trust is provided by Audit NZ.

4.6 The Council is bringing on a new Community Funds Management Platform (SmartyGrants), which will allow for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers of applications, recipients, average size of support to individuals and high-level demographic information on those being supported by the Trust.

4.7 The aim is that in partnership with the social service partners on the Advisory Committee, the Trust can begin to support proactive work on the issues identified as being particularly prevalent in applicants such as Online Gambling, misuse of Afterpay/Credit Cards, and the need for quality Budget Mentoring services.

Delegations

4.8 Part B of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council delegations in respect of the Trust as well as other matters where the Council delegates directly to staff because, for the most part, the law does not allow for sub-delegation of these matters to the Advisory Committee (or similar).

4.9 To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of the Trust, the Advisory Committee has recommended the following changes to the delegations to clarify the types of applications each staff member can approve. The recommended changes are:

4.9.1 Community Funding Advisor to approve a single application of up to $1000.

4.9.2 Team Leader Community Funding to approve a single application of up to $2000.

4.9.3 Head of Community Support and Partnerships to approve a single application of up to $10,000 – following a recommendation from the Advisory Committee.

4.10 The rationale behind the recommended changes to delegations is:

4.10.1 Council cannot delegate authority to approve grants to the Advisory Committee (see section 4.11 of this report below).

4.10.2 Represents a small increase in the existing delegated authority to staff providing for the larger grants that reflect cost increases over time.

4.10.3 Ensures that larger grants of between $2,000 and $10,000 are fully informed and recommended by the Advisory Committee prior to approval.

4.10.4 Grants of over $10,000 are presented to the Council.

4.10.5 Consistent with other financial delegations to staff.

4.11 External legal advice has confirmed that the role of the Advisory Committee, as provided in clause 7.9 of the Trust, is to provide advice and recommendations on policies and procedures of the Trust. Its role is strictly advisory with the ability to make recommendations to Council staff, who can execute the decision under delegated powers.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The Trust has sufficient funds available to accommodate the recommendations in this report ($918,395.00), without any immediate risk of limiting the BAU of the Trust in assessing daily/weekly requests for support.

5.2 There is an additional historic ‘Harry Philpott’ bequest of $723,000.00 made to the Trust in 1996 that is retained in long-term investments, with interest compounding.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a minor risk that the Trust may find itself in a tenuous financial position in the future.

6.1.1 This risk is mitigated by the fact that at current spending levels, the Trust has ~3years of expenditure available and easily accessible for distribution. This is without considering any additional funding that may be sourced over that time period.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council is the Trustee of the Mayor’s Welfare Trust Deed. The Council has an obligation as trustee to only use or allocate the trust fund in furtherance of the purposes of the trust which is confined to providing relief to those residents and visitors to Christchurch suffering hardship or distress.

6.2.2 Council as a body corporate per section 12(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 works through its members, officers and staff. Things done by members, officers and staff in the name of Council are acts of Council. Therefore, Council can manage and delegate decision making functions within the Council in the normal way.

6.2.3 Clause 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that:

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) [Repealed]

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

6.3 The proposed changes to the delegations also don’t infringe the restriction in the Local Government Act 2002.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Specifically, the strategic priority to “Be an inclusive and equitable city”.

6.4.2 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically, the operations of the Trust support those most vulnerable in the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula Community.

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

6.6 Communities & Citizens

6.6.1 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

· Level of Service: 2.2.1 Community issues, imperatives and trends are understood, recorded, and made available for stakeholders - 6 community profiles and supporting information at Board level and 1 at a city – wide level updated annually

· Level of Service: 2.2.2 Locally focussed community resilience, development and/or recreation initiatives are identified, prioritised, and delivered - 85% of identified initiatives /projects delivered

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.8 The decisions will not be a matter of significant interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The proposals in this report will not contribute to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Delegations Register	24/2084501	80

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

9. Addington Brook Enhancement: Stage 2
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1934665
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Mullaney, Project Manager, Stormwater and Waterways Delivery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Council to remove an additional 29 trees to enable Stage 2 of the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project to proceed.

1.2 The Hagley Park Reference Group is supportive of the project proceeding and the additional tree removals.

1.3 The project will plant approximately 500 new trees to allow for a range of tree species of various ages and heights.

1.4 Stage 1 and 1A of the project has been completed and achieved exceptional outcomes for the community. Please see Section 4: Background/Context - Te Horopaki for project stage locations and before and after photos of Stage 1 and 1A.

1.5 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Addington Brook Enhancement: Stage 2 Report.

2. Approves the removal of an additional 29 trees for stage 2 of the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project to achieve the following project objectives:

a. Improve health and safety for the public.

b. Improve water quality, biodiversity and ecology.

c. Improve erosion and provide protection for Hagley Park assets.

d. Improve drainage reducing peak stormwater flows.

e. Improve landscaping with plants, trees and in-stream ecological features.

f. Improve culture by providing opportunities to connect with nature through safe access at select locations.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In 2014, ECan’s Christchurch West-Melton Zone Committee decided to focus on improving the health of Addington Brook because it was one of the zone’s most polluted waterways and flows directly into the Ōtākaro-Avon River.

A map of the city of christchurch

Description automatically generated

3.2 Addington Brook has erosion issues showing clear signs of slumping and undercutting following storm events.

A dirt road with grass and a fence

Description automatically generated

3.3 Several trees have grown within the waterway edges creating blockages.

A stream with trees in it

Description automatically generated

3.4 There is a health and safety risk as the waterway banks of Addington Brook have a sharp 3-meter-high drop in several locations, with previous fatalities having occurred.

3.5 The Hagley Park Master Plan 2007 includes Objectives and Projects that relate to the enhancement of Addington Brook.

3.6 At its meeting on 30 November 2022 the Finance and Performance Committee (decision FPCO/2022/00052) approved the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project and the removal of 45 existing trees (17 existing trees (including 2 groups of poplars) in stage 1 & 1A and 28 existing trees in stage 2). The project has retained and transplanted as many good candidate trees as possible (25 trees to date have been accepted by the city arborist, which is 5 more trees than the 20 trees approved as per Finance and Performance Committee decision.

3.7 The project will plant approximately 500 new trees to allow for a range of tree species of various ages and heights.

3.8 Following detailed design work for stage 1 & 1A an additional 13 trees were required to be removed to achieve the project objectives and were approved by the Head of Parks (stage 1 & 1A works have been completed).

3.9 After detailed design work for stage 2 an additional 29 trees will be required to be removed to achieve the following project objectives:

· Improve health and safety for the public

· Improve water quality, biodiversity and ecology

· Improve erosion and provide protection for Hagley Park assets

· Improve drainage reducing peak stormwater flows

· Improve landscaping with new plants, trees and in-stream ecological features

· Improve culture by providing opportunities to connect with nature through safe access at select locations

3.10 The Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project supports the following Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes from the Council’s Strategic Framework:

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

· Strategic Priority: Champion Ōtautahi-Christchurch and collaborate to build our role as a leading New Zealand City.

· Strategic Priority: Reduce emissions as a Council and as a city, and invest in adaptation and resilience, leading a city-wide response to climate change while protecting our indigenous biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy.

· Strategic Priority: Manage ratepayers’ money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community and addressing the issues that are important to our residents.

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

· Community Outcome: Green and Liveable. Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Stage 1 and 1A of the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project have been completed with exceptional outcomes for the community. Please see location of the project stages and before and after photos below.

Locations of Stage 1, 1A & 2

Before and After Stage 1 & 1A

Before and After Stage 1 & 1A (note utilities stretching across the Brook have been lowered or removed)

A comparison of a stream

Description automatically generated

Before and After Stage 1 & 1A

4.2 The Christchurch City Council Tree Policy 1.7 states: For every tree removed a minimum of 2 new trees will be planted with the projected canopy cover replacing that which is lost within 20 year (additional planting may be required). The project will plant approximately 500 new trees creating new tree canopy in Hagley Park in excess of the requirement under the Tree Policy.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.3.1 Do nothing.

4.3.2 Minimal enhancement of Addington Brook. Remove the existing trees as approved per Finance and Performance Committee decision FPCO/2022/00052.

4.3.3 Enhancement of Addington Brook. Remove an additional 29 trees in stage 2 of the project to achieve the project objectives.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.4 Preferred Option: Enhancement of Addington Brook. Remove an additional 29 trees for stage 2 of the project to achieve the project objectives.

4.4.1 Option Description: Enhancement of Addington Brook

4.4.2 Option Advantages

· Improve health and safety for the public.

· Improve water quality, biodiversity and ecology.

· Improve erosion and provide protection for Hagley Park assets.

· Improve drainage reducing peak stormwater flows.

· Improve landscaping with plants, trees and in-stream ecological features.

· Approximately, 500 new trees will be planted to allow for a range of tree species of various ages and heights.

· Improve culture by providing opportunities to connect with nature through safe access at select locations.

4.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· An additional 29 trees for stage 2 of the project will need to be removed.

4.5 Do Nothing.

4.5.1 Option Description: Do not continue with The Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project.

4.5.2 Option Advantages

· No disturbance of existing trees.

4.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· Continued health and safety risks for the public. Therefore, a fence would likely need to be constructed in Hagley Park to keep the public safe reducing the interaction, connection and enjoyment of the waterway.

· Addington Brook, which flows directly into the Ōtākaro-Avon River has potential to remain one of the most polluted waterways in Christchurch’s West-Melton Zone as sediment mobilisation would continue.

· Biodiversity and ecology will remain poor.

· Erosion issues including damage to Hagley Park assets and risks of undermining trees on top of the bank will continue.

· Drainage issues will continue.

· Landscaping will not meet the outcomes as indicated in the Hagley Park Masterplan for landscape diversity.

· Stage 2 would not have the range of tree species of various ages and heights compared to enhancement.

· There will be no opportunity to connect with the waterway as access remains unsafe.

4.6 Minimal enhancement of Addington Brook. Remove the existing trees as approved per Finance and Performance Committee decision FPCO/2022/00052.

4.6.1 Option Description: Addington Brook is located in an area with dense trees on both sides of the steep banks of the waterway. This options criteria to remove only a relatively small number of trees would prevent enhancement works beyond plantings at the top of the bank for significant stretches of the waterway. Stated another way, significant stretches of the waterway’s banks would have no regrading so the steep banks would remain in their current condition.

4.6.2 In addition, since there are areas where regrading could occur next to areas where regrading could not occur this would result in several trees on the edge of a steep bank with the upstream bank being removed. Stated another way, the areas of the waterway that could be regraded would be immediately downstream of an area that could not be regraded due to existing trees. This would create a situation with protruding trees in the waterway which would likely experience erosion and could potentially cause the trees to fall. To avoid the health and safety issue and potential damage to Hagley Park assets a more complicated engineered solution in front of trees would likely be required. However, the engineered solution has potential to exasperate erosion on the opposite banks or at the transition between banks and hard structures. The engineered solution would also not look natural in the waterway. Further, there is potential an engineered solution would not be feasible due to the bank and tree load which would result in additional areas not being able to be regraded and even less areas where enhancement could occur.

4.6.3 Please see the sketch below which shows the project outcomes of a large area of Addington Brook if only the existing trees approved per Finance and Performance Committee decision FPCO/2022/00052 were removed.

4.6.4 Note areas highlighted in green would have no regrading and minimal enhancement, other than plantings next to the waterway. The steep banks would remain, and the undercutting and sediment mobilisation issues would continue. The areas highlighted in orange would only have small, localised enhancements which would not actually change the slopes of the waterway banks very much and achieve little with regards to water quality, biodiversity, erosion, drainage, landscape, culture and safety.

4.6.5 In addition, the project has found on site during the construction of stage 1 & 1A that in several areas the project was unable to cut or excavate as far as the grade lines show on the drawings since the underground roots of the trees have been found to be much larger and more spread out than anticipated. This would further reduce the areas highlighted in orange which could be enhanced and would likely cause some areas to no longer be viable for enhancement.

4.6.6 Last, due to significant sections of the waterway having no regrading, i.e. steep waterway banks, the health and safety risk for the public would remain. Therefore, a fence would likely need to be constructed around Addington Brook in Hagley Park reducing the interaction, connection and enjoyment of the waterway for the public. This was originally one of the key outcomes of the project which would not be realised with this option.

4.6.7 Option Advantages

· Less disturbance of existing trees.

4.6.8 Option Disadvantages

· Poor outcome in comparison to the funding required.

· Biodiversity and ecology will remain poor.

· Erosion issues including damage to Hagley Park assets and risks of undermining trees on top of the bank will continue.

· Drainage and flooding issues will continue.

· Landscaping will not meet the outcomes as indicated in the Hagley Park Masterplan for landscape diversity.

· Stage 2 would have less of a range of tree species of various ages and heights.

· There will be no opportunity to connect with the waterway as access remains unsafe.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do Nothing
Cost to Implement	CapEx Estimate $50,000	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$0	Estimate $15,000 annually to repair banks and remove trees with safety issues
Funding Source	LTP	LTP
Funding Availability	Currently $4.5 million for project	Maintenance Budget
Impact on Rates	Negative due to reduced maintenance costs	Positive due to larger annual maintenance costs

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a moderate reputational risk to approve the removal of an additional 29 trees in South Hagley Park.

6.2 This risk will be mitigated by a Newsline article, social media, a project website and project signs which will communicate to the community the rationale for removing the existing trees and the importance and benefits of the project.

6.3 The mitigation strategy would result in the moderate reputational risk to be shifted to a minor reputational risk.

6.4 If nothing or only minor enhancements are done to Addington Brook there is an extreme health, safety and well-being risk as there have already been one or more fatalities. In this case Addington Brook in Hagley Park will most likely be fenced off.

6.5 There is a major environmental risk as Addington Brook would likely remain one of the most polluted waterways in the Christchurch West-Melton Zone.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.6.1 Council has the ability to undertake all the waterway related work recommended in this brief under a raft of legislation, including the Local Government Act 2002, the Christchurch District Drainage Act of 1951 and the Land Drainage Act 1908.

6.6.2 The key concepts of the Addington Brook Naturalisation wholly align with various publicly notified documents specific to Hagley Park such as Council authored and endorsed The Hagley Park Management Plan 2007, The Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007, the Ōtākaro/Avon River Catchment Vision and Values Document, and the Improving the Health of Urban Waterways, Addington Brook “Living” catchment Management Plan June 2019 prepared by the Christchurch West-Melton Zone Committee.

6.6.3 Hagley Park South is a recreation reserve subject to Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977. The publicly consulted Hagley Park Management Plan 2007 and the Hagley Park and Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007 provide the vehicles for the management of the park to be in alignment with the requirements of the Reserves Act. Additionally, the Christchurch City Reserves Empowering Act 1971, states what activities can or cannot occur in the park, but only in relation to new car parks and public works. With the Addington Brook Naturalisation according with the Hagley Park Plans and the Reserves, further public consultation is not required.

6.6.4 The philosophy of tree removal and replacement accords with the Christchurch City Council Tree Policy.

6.7 Other Legal Implications:

6.7.1 The legal consideration is Council has an obligation under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 to maintain and clear / clean watercourses, drains and sewers (including the stormwater network) so that they are not a nuisance or damage to health. The continued erosion and slumping of the banks during rain events causes damage to public assets and ongoing sediment mobilisation. Council has a role to provide for watercourses that are safe and in a suitable condition within the drainage district under the Act.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.8 The required decision:

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

6.8.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the author.

6.8.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.9.1 Stormwater Drainage

· Activity: Stormwater Drainage

· Level of Service: 14.0.4.1 Minimum length of 500m of bank naturalised per year (based on a single side of the waterway) - >=95%

6.10 Stage 2 of the project will naturalise approximately 1000m of bank.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 The decision affects the Hagley Park Reference Group

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

6.12.1 The Central Ward / Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.13 The Hagley Park Reference Group view is supportive of Stage 2 of the Addington Brook Waterway Enhancement Renewal project proceeding and the removal of an additional 29 trees.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.16 Mana Whenua have a strong interest in stormwater management. The preferred approach is consistent with plans and policies that have had Mana Whenua engagement.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.17 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.17.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.18 This project will assist with the mitigation of climate change by providing an increase in flood capacity within Addington Brook due to the battering or sloping back of the banks.

6.19 The plantings will increase shading of the water reducing the effects of any resulting temperature increase on water quality i.e. macrophyte growth.

6.20 The enhancement of Addington Brook is a nature-based solution instead of a hard protection structure.

6.21 The approximate 500 additional trees will remove carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen into the atmosphere.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Tender civil drawings will be completed to allow works to start in the beginning of 2025, if a fair price can be negotiated with the contractor that performed the stage 1 & 1A works. If not, Council reserves the right to tender the project and in this case the project would start in the later part of 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Council Addington Brook Enhancement Stage 2 - 30% Civil Drawings	24/1997224	93

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Mark Mullaney - Project Manager

Approved By

Grant Stowell - Team Leader Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Gavin Hutchison - Acting Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

10. Food Resilience Network - Community Loan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1637013
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Leader
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 a second Community Loan to the Food Resilience Network Inc (the Network) to;

· complete their Ōtākaro Orchard Café building project, and

· subsidise their operational costs until the café is operational and producing a revenue stream to cover their loan repayment and ongoing operational costs.

1.2 The report has originated by request of the Food Resilience Network INC (Network), as the existing Community Loan and subsequent Better off Funding grant have not been sufficient to bring the café project to completion.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Food Resilience Network - Community Loan 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. Declines the request from the Food Resilience Network Inc. for a secondary Community Loan of $350,000.00.

4. Makes a grant of $34,939 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to cover the next 12 months of the existing Community Loan repayments on behalf of the Food Resilience Network Inc.

5. Notes that the information contained in Attachment C of this report can be publicly released one year after the sustainable operation of the Network café.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Network has an existing community loan of $150,000, at a 2% interest rate over a 7-year term. It was extended by one year in 2023, so that the Network could pay interest-only until September 2024, to allow enough time for the café build project to be completed. The Network are in arrears and have advised that they cannot met the repayment schedule. This is now considered an, at-risk, loan.

3.2 A Better Off Fund grant of $200,000 was made in 2023 to support the Network to complete the café construction project and secure the sustainable operation of the enterprise.

3.3 The Network has approached the Council with a request for a second community loan of $350,000 to support them in bringing the café project to completion and cover operational costs until the completed café brings in its own revenue stream.

3.4 The Council does not have sufficient funds in the community loans scheme to accommodate the request for an additional $350,000.

3.5 Staff believe there are significant risks associated with granting a second, and larger loan, primarily:

· That the Network cannot afford the repayments of a total loan of $500,000, even with a completed café facility.

· $350,000 may be insufficient to complete the café and keep the organisational operational until café revenues are sufficient to repay the loans and cover the costs of running the organisation.

· The financial and project information supplied by the Network is insufficient to allow staff to recommend that the Council grant a second loan, particularly in light of the café projects’ recent history and the current status of the project.

3.6 If the existing $150,000 loan was not repaid, this would represent a permanent decrease to the community loans scheme and a cost to the Council.

3.7 The staff recommendation to decline a second loan and to grant funds from the Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) reflects a desire to:

· Continue to support the Network towards the successful completion of a valued community project by a hardworking and committed group by providing one year’s repayment of the existing loan and so give them the “room” to focus on fund raising.

· Supporting the Network to achieve financial independence from the Council.

· Enable the Network to find the remaining funds to complete the project elsewhere, and to repay the existing community loan.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Community Loans Scheme has a budget of $3,303,000. $3,094,000 of the total budget has been allocated to the groups listed below (4.1.3). There is an available balance of $209,683.69

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

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

4.1.3 The existing Community Loan holders are:

· 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.

4.2 The Network has an existing community loan of $150,000, at a 2% interest rate over a 7-year term. The purpose of the loan was to complete cold shell project, to allow the Network to secure substantial third-party funding and to allow the café facility to generate revenue to repay the loan. It was agreed that the first two years of this loan would be interest-only to support the Network to gain financial reserves and enable future principal payments.

4.2.1 The repayment of the community loan is contingent on the ability of the Network to raise sufficient funds to complete the café project, as it is through the projected income of the café that the Network intends to meet its quarterly repayments. It is also contingent on the Network raising funds through donations.

4.2.2 The Network have historically not met repayment schedules resulting in follow up action from staff. The loan was extended by one year in 2023, so that the Network could pay interest-only until September 2024, to allow enough time for the café build project to be completed. The Network have not received sufficient third-party funding to repay the loan to date.

4.2.3 From September 2024, loan repayments have transitioned from interest-only of $750.00 per quarter to a total of $8,734.76 per quarter, accounting for principal. The September 2024 payment is overdue and the Network have verbally advised that they will not be able to pay the September 2024 or December 2024 instalments. This is now considered an, at-risk, loan.

4.3 The Council’s October 2020 decision to award a loan of $150,000 to the Network was predicated with an assurance from the Network that the project was sustainable, albeit with identified risks that could be sufficiently mitigated, risks included:

· The requirement for the Network to raise between $81,000 and $212,000 in donation revenue each year.

· The financial viability of Network and ability to service a loan being made more difficult by the competition for café and office lease space currently being experienced and also the effects of COVID-19.

· The ability of the Network to draw down previously secured third party funding.

· Due to the community-based nature of the project the security available to the Council in the event of a failure to repay is low.

4.4 A Better Off Fund grant of $200,000 was made by the Council in 2023 to support the Network to complete the café project. The Network advise that the grant was spent on:

4.4.1 Subsidising the costs of running the organisation, particularly through the lease and set up of the Urban Farm.

4.4.2 Improvements and opportunities including but not immitted to the Green Roof.

4.4.3 Purchase of building materials.

4.5 The Network as an organisation contribute positively to building strong communities, for example:

· Weekly working bees at the Ōtākaro Orchard. Quarterly school hui.

· Distribution of native trees. Guided tours to community groups.

· Educational workshops on various topics (brickmaking, composting, planting, etc.)

· Support of interns & students from Ara and UC.

4.6 Staff have visited the site. The cold shell of the café building is complete as is the green roof. The building interior and immediate surrounds are substantially incomplete and require considerable work. The Network advise much of this will be completed by volunteers. Amongst other areas, the access routes, some interior walls, plumbing and café fit-out are substantially incomplete.

4.7 Completion costs are estimated by the Network at $634,284. However, after in kind contributions, volunteer assistance and materials already procured are taken into account the Network advise the nett cost to complete, and support the organisation during this process, is $350,000. This includes some start-up costs. See publicly excluded Attachment C.

4.8 This estimate has not been validated or assessed by a Quantity Surveyor. It is not produced in the context of a wider project and cost plan including provision for escalation, design, project and general contingency. Given the above, and the condition of the site, staff are unable to confirm that $350,000 will be sufficient to complete the café and keep the organisational operational until café revenues are sufficient to repay the loans.

4.9 There are sufficient reserves in the 2024/25 DRF to accommodate the recommendation. At the time of writing the balance is $348,906, if the Council approve the grant of $34,939 the residual balance will be $313,987.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.10.1 The Council declines the application for an additional loan of $350,000 and approves a grant of $34,939 from the DRF to provide a loan holiday of one year. Preferred option.

4.10.2 The Council declines the application for an additional loan of $350,000.

4.10.3 The Council approves a partial loan, at the balance of the Loans Scheme ($209,683).

4.11 The following options were considered but are not recommended:

4.11.1 The Council approves a loan of $350,000.00 – there are not sufficient funds available in the community loans scheme and this would require additional borrowing outside of the Community Loan Scheme envelope.

4.11.2 The Council forgives the existing loan – this risks the sustainability of the Community Loan Scheme as the community loan budget is financed by interest payments covering Council’s cost of borrowing. As the principal is repaid it becomes available for future loans.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: To decline the application for an additional loan of $350,000 and approve a grant of $34,939 from the DRF to provide the Network a one-year loan holiday in order to allow them “room” to focus on fundraising.

4.12.1 Option Advantages:

Loan

· The Council does not have sufficient funds in the community loan pool to accommodate a new loan of $350,000. Additional funds would need to be found at a cost to rates.

· There is significant risk that even with an additional loan of $350,000, that the project will not reach completion, and the Council is faced with a larger at-risk loan.

· There is limited evidence of the ability for the proposed café to make enough profit to sustain a $500,000 community loan. There is a significant risk that the loan will not be repaid.

· Other funders have indicated their reservations, due to the remaining cost to complete and lack of security on lending.

· The Council does not have the ability to leverage sufficient security against the proposed loan, as the assets of the Network are limited.

DRF Grant

· The Council will continue to support the Network towards the successful completion of a valued community project by a hardworking and committed group by proving a one-year loan repayment holiday without deferring and increasing the debt.

· Will allow a focus on the café project rather than the wider aims of the Network.

· The grant will repay the community loan so the cost will not be sunk.

4.12.2 Option Disadvantages:

Loan

· There is a risk that the café will remain in a state of incompletion in a prominent city location.

· There is also a risk that if the project remains uncompleted, that the Better off Fund grant, and $150,000 loan that has already been made to the Food Resilience Network would be a sunk cost.

· There is potential negative impact on the sustainable operation of the Network.

DRF Grant

· There is a reputational risk that the Council will invest a further $34,939 in a project with substantial risks, primarily that the café will remain incomplete.

4.13 Option 2: To decline the application for an additional loan of $350,000.

4.13.1 Option Advantages: See section 4.12.1 (Loan) of this report above.

4.13.2 Option Disadvantages: See section 4.12.1 (Loan) of this report above.

4.14 Option 3: To recommend the Council make partial loan, at the balance of the Loans Scheme (~$200,000).

4.14.1 Option Advantages

· There is sufficient funding available in the Community Loans Scheme for this approach.

4.14.2 Option Disadvantages

· This option does not provide sufficient funds to enable to project to progress to completion, risking not only the current loan, but the additional loan as well.

· The café project will not be completed.

· The loan will not be repaid.

· Other funders have expressed similar concerns about the viability of the project.

· The Council does not have the ability to leverage sufficient security against the proposed loan, as the assets of the Trust are limited.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.15 Analysis criteria includes but is not limited to:

· The inherent viability of the café project given its history and the Council funding to date.

· The robustness of the project and financial information supporting the application.

· The value to the community of the Network and the wider project along with the continued work of dedicated volunteers in a difficult environment.

· The balance of the community loan pool.

· The historic reliability of the Network in repaying the existing community loan.

· This risk of the Council and others effectively losing their existing investment.

· The degree to which Council has already invested in the project through a community loan at a subsidised interest rate and a $200,000 grant.

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

5.1 If an additional loan is not granted, there is a risk of the café remaining unfinished. If the café is not be open and trading, the Network will struggle to meet their existing loan repayments.

5.1.1 This risk is partially mitigated by the potential for other funders to support the Network to bridge the funding gap.

5.1.2 This risk is also partially mitigated by the recommended grant from the DRF, which would allow the Network a further year to raise the required remaining funds from sources outside of the Council. It will also allow the network to be much better placed to secure funding elsewhere.

5.2 If an additional loan were to be granted, there are concerns over the organisation’s ability to service both loans via the income generated by the on-site café. This could overleverage the organisation and risk loss to the Council of up to $500,000, rather than the existing $150,000. See publicly excluded Attachment C. The existing loan is in default and considered at risk.

5.2.1 This risk cannot be mitigated based on the existing information available.

5.3 There is a risk that a loan of $350,000 will not allow the completion of the project. There is no robust validated project plan detailing costs, available budget, consents, programme and key milestones etc. Based on the intermittent nature of the café project to date, the condition of the site at the time of the staff visit, and the size of the loan required, this is considered important.

5.3.1 This risk cannot be mitigated based on the existing information available.

Financial Considerations

5.4 All the options considered can be accommodated within existing loan and grant funding budgets and levels of service. However, there will be a cost to rates if the Network default on their existing loan and any additional loan. There is no budget to cover the Council forgiving the existing loan.

5.5 There are insufficient funds available in the community loans scheme to accommodate a loan of $350,000.00, this would require further borrowing outside the Community Loans Scheme.

5.6 Council staff from the Funding, Community Support, Facilities and Finance teams have reviewed the updated budget for the Café operation supplied by the Network. Based on the information supplied, staff do not have confidence that the café operation will be able to fund the repayment of a larger community loan. For more information see publicly excluded Attachment C.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

5.7.1 The authority to make decisions relating to the awarding of Community Loans sits with the Council.

5.8 Other Legal Implications:

5.8.1 The Council currently has a first registered mortgage, with security over the assets of the Trust. These assets include the partially completed building, the garden next to this facility, and the limited cash reserves of the Incorporated Society.

5.8.2 Rata has also been approached by the Network with a similarly sized loan request. However, if another funder were to grant this loan, they would only be eligible for a second-degree mortgage over the assets of the Network, as the Council’s agreement would supersede any other agreements made.

5.9 Staff will not often recommend that the Council approve a grant to repay a loan. The DRF application process discourages this. This particular case is considered an exception as there is a desire to alleviate the financial pressure of a loan repayment for one year whilst the Network fundraise. There will be no recommendation to change the operation of the DRF as this particular case is considered relatively unique.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.10 The required decisions:

5.10.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.
Specifically, the priorities to:

· Be an inclusive and equitable City,

· Reduce emissions, and

· Manage ratepayers’ money wisely.

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

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

5.12 Communities & Citizens

5.12.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

5.13 Community views have not been specifically sought as the Community Loan Scheme is a level of service in the recently consulted 2024/34 LTP. This loan application has been discussed with the applicant.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.14 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.16 The recommendations in this report are likely to:

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

5.16.2 Contribute negatively to emissions reductions.

5.17 Network is a strong advocate for renewable food production in Christchurch. They lead the Edible Canterbury Charter project, which contributes significantly to the Council’s Climate Strategy.

5.18 They support education around local food initiatives, reducing emissions, and the benefits of locally produced food. At the Ōtākaro Orchard they run classes on how individuals can grow, cook and preserve their own fruit and vegetables, and the importance of understanding seasons.

5.19 The recommendation to decline this community loan would not stop these positive climate activities directly, but it would affect the cashflow situation of the Network as a whole. It would be a stimulus for possible downstream financial challenges for the society, as they would need to raise the remaining funds to complete the building through a different source whilst still being required to repay their existing loan.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Food Resilience Network Strategic Plan	24/1668890	107
b ⇩	Ōtākaro Orchard Sponsorship Document	24/1668892	119
c	Food Resilience Network Loan Application (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/2064553

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Rose Crossland - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

12. Appointment of Recess Committee 2024/2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/440592
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to appoint a Recess Committee to consider any urgent issues that require a Council decision during the recess period from 20 December 2024 to 19 January 2025.

1.2 The report is staff generated to ensure any matters that may require urgent decisions during the recess period can be brought to the attention of the Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Appointment of Recess Committee 2024/2025 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. Appoints a Recess Committee comprising of the following membership and quorum, to be authorised to make any urgent decisions of the Council required during the period from 20 December 2024 to 19 January 2025 (both days inclusive):

Membership

a. the Mayor or Deputy Mayor; and

b. Councillor [enter name]; and

c. a minimum of three Councillors.

Quorum

d. Notes the quorum of the Recess Committee will include the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and Councillor [enter name].

4. Notes that any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicly notified, and the details forwarded to all Councillors, all of whom can participate.

5. Notes that any decisions made by the Recess Committee will be reported to the Council for record purposes.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 There is a recess period between 20 December 2024 and 19 January 2025 (dates inclusive). It is recommended, as is standard practice, that the Council establish a Recess Committee to deal with any urgent business during this time.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council has previously established a Recess Committee, comprising of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, another named Councillor and a minimum of any three Councillors. The Mayor or Deputy Mayor and the named Councillor are required to make the quorum of the Committee.

4.2 In accordance with legislation any Recess Committee meeting will be publicly notified and all Councillors will be advised and are able to participate in the meeting should they be available.

4.3 Any decisions made by the Recess Committee will be reported to the Council for information and record purposes.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· The appointment of a Recess Committee.

· The calling of an Extraordinary meeting or Emergency meeting.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.5 Preferred Option: Appointment of a Recess Committee.

4.5.1 Option Description: To appoint a Recess Committee to consider and be authorised to make decisions on any urgent matters that may arise between the recess period from 20 December 2024 to 19 January 2025.

4.5.2 Option Advantages

· This option will ensure that any urgent matters that require a decision can be brought to the attention of the Council in a timely and efficient manner.

· This option will mitigate the possibility of not being able to convene a quorum due to Councillor availability.

· All Councillors will receive notification of a Recess Committee meeting and will be able to participate, should they be available.

· Any decisions made by the Recess Committee will be reported to the next Ordinary Council meeting for information and record purposes.

4.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· Due to availability not all Councillors may be able to participate in the meeting.

4.6 The calling of an Extraordinary meeting or Emergency meeting.

4.6.1 Option Description: Alternatives available to the Council under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and the Council’s Standing Orders is the calling of an Extraordinary or Emergency meeting to consider any urgent business required.

4.6.2 Option Advantages

· Any matters requiring an urgent decision would be made by the Council with a quorum of at least nine.

4.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· The inability to call an Extraordinary or Emergency meeting due to the possibility of not being able to convene a quorum due to Councillor availability.

· The inability for the Council to consider any urgent matters that may require a decision due to not being able to convene a meeting of this type.

· This option would not promote efficiency and effectiveness in decision-making for urgent matters.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.7 In assessing the options above, the analysis criteria used relates to the statutory provisions available under the LGA, LGOIMA and the Council’s Standing Orders.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Appoint a Recess Committee	Option 2 - Call an Extraordinary or Emergency meeting
Cost to Implement	There are no additional costs associated with this decision.	There are no additional costs associated with this decision.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Not applicable.	Not applicable.
Funding Source	Within existing operational budgets.	Within existing operational budgets.
Funding Availability	Within existing operational budgets.	Within existing operational budgets.
Impact on Rates	Not applicable.	Not applicable.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no identified risks associated with the decision sought to appoint a Recess Committee.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council can appoint a Recess Committee and authorise the Committee to consider any matters that require an urgent decision between ordinary meetings of the recess period.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The provisions of the LGA, LGOIMA and Council’s Standing Orders are relevant to this decision.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the fact that this relates to administrative matters to ensure a continuation of governance meetings during the recess period.

6.4.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Governance

6.6.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

· Level of Service: 4.1.28.1 Schedule, support and record governance meetings. - Between 500 and 650 governance meetings are supported, unless committee structure provides otherwise

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Any Recess Committee meeting will be publicly notified, and members of the public can attend a Council meeting, unless there are grounds to exclude the public.

6.8 Any Recess Committee meeting will be livestreamed (where possible) or recorded and published on the Council's website after the meeting.

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

6.9.1 All wards of Christchurch City.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.12 The recommendations of this report relate to the establishment of a Recess Committee, and not any matters that the Recess Committee could potentially consider.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.13 There are no climate change impact considerations related to this decision.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should a Recess Committee be required all usual meeting procedures will be followed including public notification, notification to all Councillors, all of whom can participate and the publication of an Agenda and Minutes of the meeting.

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

Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support

Approved By

Megan Pearce - Manager Democratic Services

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

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

13. Six-Monthly Progress Report - Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1188074
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jessica Allison-Batt, Principal Advisor Climate Resilience
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 On 15 November 2023 Council requested (CNCL/2023/00147) six-monthly reporting on the implementation of Kia Tūroa te Ao: Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy (the Strategy). This is the December 2024 report on actions that the Council is taking.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Six-Monthly Progress Report - Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation.

3. Context Te Horopaki

3.1 This report includes:

· Key policy and programme updates on the Council’s work to implement the Strategy.

· The status of cross Council actions at Attachment A.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Overview of progress against cross Council actions

4.1 Between July 2024 and December 2024 good progress was made against the Strategy. The Council made significant investments that will reduce Council emissions, most notably, decisions on the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant rebuild, which gives the Council an opportunity to significantly reduce emissions from wastewater processing, which currently accounts for around half of all Council emissions. The Council also delivered its first draft adaptation plan (action 81) for Lyttelton Harbour and Port Levy, with final approval by the Council scheduled for early 2025.

4.2 A summary of the status of cross Council actions (Attachment A) shows:

Status of climate actions	Totals
Recurrent	4
Completed since last report^{^[1]}	5
On track	38
Delayed	5
At risk	1
Total	53

4.3 A small number of actions have faced delays or issues, with a key contributor being changes to Central Government policy. For example:

· Mass Rapid Transit route protection and business case development (action 105) has been impacted by Central Government’s changed transport priorities with alternative funding now required.

· Plan Change 7 to limit indigenous vegetation clearance in coastal environments has faced uncertainty due to changing Central Government policies on indigenous biodiversity (action 93).

4.4 Slight delays have also been experienced for actions 116 and 117, which focus on sustainable food systems, while further analysis is undertaken on the Council’s food resilience policy and engagement is undertaken with community boards.

4.5 One tracked action is at risk: Work with and advocate to central government for the building for climate change programme and greenhouse gas emission standards for buildings in New Zealand (action 107). The workstream appears dormant at this time with the Government focused on other projects. This is outside of the Council’s control. Council staff continue to engage with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to maintain our ongoing relationship and keep up to date with developments.

4.6 To achieve our climate goals, significant further work is required. Key actions ongoing at the Council include:

· District Plan changes (actions 76, 86, 93, and 122) to support a resilient and low emissions urban form.

· Endorsement of a Transport Strategy aligned capital programme and initiatives that can increase transport choice and help encourage behaviour change (actions 100 through 105).

· Accelerating the Council’s adaptation planning programme (actions 75,77,79 and 80) to support more timely engagement with communities on climate change induced risks and local responses.

4.7 The Council’s continued leadership on these matters will be crucial to our future success.

Key performance indicators

4.8 Since the previous implementation report, staff have updated the report format to include a summary of progress (see above), and detailed progress updates at Attachment A. The Council’s approach to implement the goals of the Strategy has been to embed climate action within business-as-usual activities and investments to achieve most significant impact. Climate actions are taken across the Council and managed through existing processes, such as the Long Term Plan 2024-34 and its Activity Plans and Levels of Service. As such, much of the reporting to the Council is also through existing processes. The intent here is to provide an overview rather than a duplication of all usual reporting against targets.

4.9 A cross-Council working group has looked at the possibility of including additional key performance indicators for reviewing climate resilience progress. The identification of suitable indicators that can clearly show outcomes has proved challenging for measures such as adaptation and will be added over time. Data on Council emissions will be included in this report as a key performance indicator. The Council has set a clear emissions reduction target, and data is available to enable this reporting on an annual basis. The inventory for FY 2023 set a baseline and showed total gross emissions of 33,727 tCO2-e. The next inventory for FY 2024 has just been independently verified, showing total gross emissions of 32,854 tCO2-e, and staff will provide a detailed report in early 2025.

4.10 Future reports will also include relevant Community Outcomes reporting (when available in early 2025) on delivery of A Green Liveable City and A Thriving and Prosperous City. Over time there may also be other opportunities to explore how climate related Levels of Service can be reported against over time.

Update on the Climate Resilience team’s work programme

4.11 The Climate Resilience team continued to build foundations for effective climate action. Key work in the reporting period included:

· Developing a Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan with the Mayoral Forum to support collaborative action with regional partners (action 71). This was presented to the Council for endorsement on 3 July 2024, was endorsed by other councils also, and subsequently approved by the Mayoral Forum on 30 August.

· Preparing the Council’s submission on New Zealand's Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030, presented to the Council on 21 August 2024. The main point made by the Council’s submission was that Central Government needed to amend the Plan to include bold, robust and proven actions to reduce emissions.

· Delivering a Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for FY 2023 (with data from teams across the organisation, presented to the Council on 15 May 2024). This enables an evidence-based approach for emissions reduction actions for the organisation (action 69).

· Developing a carbon removal policy and implementation plan for counting the carbon sequestered by Council owned and controlled trees (action 92). This was developed with key implementation teams including Parks, Three Waters, Finance and others. It was approved by ELT in July 2024 to support the Council’s net carbon neutral 2030 emissions target. The Emissions Inventory reported gross emissions; however, the data from counting this sequestered carbon will allow us to report a net position in future years.

4.12 Looking to the next reporting period, the team will continue work to implement the Strategy, including:

· Collaborating with other councils on delivery of the Canterbury Climate Partnership Plan (action 71). The Council is leading Action 8.1 of the Plan regarding climate funding.

· Delivering the next annual Council greenhouse gas emissions inventory (action 69). The data is currently being independently verified.

· Development of a Council Emissions Reduction Plan (action 70) to support prioritisation of further initiatives to reduce emissions.

Update on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme (CHAP)

4.13 A draft Adaptation Plan for public assets at risk of coastal hazards in the Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy Adaptation Area has been developed. On 16 October 2024 a report was provided to the Council with potential pathways identified by a Coastal Panel of community and rūnanga representatives.

4.14 This is a significant milestone for the Council and our communities. Since late 2022 work has been underway on this Plan, involving significant engagement with the community, Council, and technical advisors, and investment in a strong evidence base and policy framework^{^[2]} to inform decision making.

4.15 Following adoption of the draft Plan, the Council will invite submissions to understand wider community views and preferences. The Council will hear submissions and make a decision in early 2025.

4.16 This work confirms significant financial impacts on the Council from climate change in the Adaptation Area. It is currently anticipated that over the next ten years $15.9m will be required to fund the adaptation of public assets in this Area^{^[3]}. This reinforces the importance of Council’s current work to establish a Climate Resilience Fund.

4.17 Beyond this draft Plan a number of workstreams remain ongoing. Further updates can be found at Attachment A.

4.18 Looking to the next reporting period the team will be:

· Developing lessons learnt from this pilot adaptation plan, including surveying the Coastal Panel, Specialist Technical Advisory Group, the Independent Chair and others to inform what changes are needed to future adaptation planning processes. A Council decision will then be sought on where next to focus adaptation planning.

· Scoping further technical work to better understand hazard risk across the city to inform future adaptation planning and support related workstreams such as the Coastal Hazards Plan Change.

· Completing policy work required to activate the Climate Resilience Fund.

· Establishing a process for regular cycles of risk screening and reporting.

Update on the Planning Programme

4.19 Land use planning is a crucial part of our response to the impacts of climate change, providing both non-statutory and statutory direction to enable a well-functioning and resilient urban environment. Spatial planning sets the strategic direction for the city, providing the blueprint for future growth. Statutory planning, primarily through the mechanism of the District Plan, provides the framework to manage land-use activities and their effects to ensure that inappropriate development does not occur.

4.20 Key work over the reporting period included:

· Preparation of Coastal Hazards Plan Change 12 which will amend the District Plan to account for the impacts of sea level rise and climate induced hazards in coastal areas. Pre-notification engagement on this Plan Change is scheduled for the first half of 2025.

· Pre-engagement on Plan Change 17, and the extent of Flood Management Areas. Notification is anticipated in the first half of 2025.

· Advice to the Council on local area planning that can support a climate resilient urban form.

4.21 The Council is to receive two papers providing an update on the Council’s planning activities on 20 November 2024 which can be referred to for further detailed information.

Update on the enabling environment

4.22 On 19 September NIWA released updated climate projections with a new tool to support councils and businesses planning for climate change. Christchurch remains subject to a full range of climate change impacts including sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of weather events, flooding, rising groundwater, wildfire, heat and drought. The latest projections from NIWA also indicate that the Christchurch District will get hotter and drier, faster than previously expected. This reinforces the significance of interventions such as the Urban Forest Plan and Port Hills Plan to reduce heat islands in the central city and mitigate fire risk in the Port Hills. Detailed information can be accessed online: https://environment.govt.nz/facts-and-science/climate-change/climate-change-projections/climate-projections-summary-dashboard/.

4.23 On 5 November the Auditor General released a report that explored the climate-related actions of Christchurch City Council, Canterbury Regional Council, Nelson City Council and Whanganui District Council. The report indicated that while good progress was being made by each council, more momentum was needed across central and local government to address the impacts of climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council was pleased to have participated in this review, which provided some useful insights and helped to share examples of good practice (such as our coastal hazards adaptation planning, risk explorer tool and cycleway programme) with other New Zealand councils.

4.24 The Select Committee adaptation inquiry was released in October 2024 and covers known issues such as gaps in legislation that constrain local government, create moral hazard, and increase risks to public and private property. The report positions local government as a source of funding for managed retreat and disaster recovery. This reflects the 50-50 Crown- local government split of costs for buy-outs following the North Island weather events in 2023. The report suggests that climate resilience should be a core component of city deals between the Crown and Local Authorities.

4.25 Central Government’s changing transport priorities mean less funding is available for enabling infrastructure for district emissions reductions (such as cycleways and public transport). Additional housing development is also being enabled in Selwyn and Lincoln (including Central Government fast-track proposals). This may increase private vehicle use by commuters into Christchurch City (as a primary employment centre for the region), adding to our District’s emissions profile and making achieving our district emissions targets more challenging.

4.26 This highlights that the successful implementation of the Climate Resilience Strategy depends on the Council taking action together with other agencies and with our communities.

Next Steps

4.27 The next progress report on the Climate Resilience Strategy is scheduled for June 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Status of Climate Actions December 2024	24/1964480	147

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Kia tūroa te Ao, Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy

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

Council Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (for FY2022-2023)

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/Climate-Change/Christchurch-City-Council-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Inventory-FY23.pdf

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jessica Allison-Batt - Principal Advisor Climate Resilience

Approved By

Lisa Early - Team Leader Climate Resilience

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Report from Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board – 14 November 2024

15. Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2066133
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Sun, Transport Project Manager Kiran Skelton, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

At the Board meeting, Council Officers spoke to the presentation at Attachment N, and provided the responses to the pre meeting questions at Attachment O.

The Board considered the submissions, deputations and staff report on the three options consulted on: Option 1 a bus lane, Option 2 a clearway and Option 3 a T2 lane.

The Board voted in favour of recommending Option 1 a bus lane as opposed to the Officer Recommendation for Option 2 a clearway.

Under the Board’s delegation it resolved the Part C Officer Recommendations in respect of the improvements to the road which would be applicable to all three options. The Board also added the following resolutions:

· Request staff report back to the Board on safety/pedestrian fencing or other measures at the Westminster Street/Cranford Street and Berwick Street/Cranford Street intersections.

· Request staff to take necessary steps toward prioritising the implementation of the school speed zone at St Albans School.

· Note that signage for the bus lane needs improvement and enforcement needs resourcing.

· Note that the Board will advocate for red light cameras at the Westminster Street/Cranford Street and English Park pedestrian traffic signals.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements Report.

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

3. Approves that any previous resolutions pertaining to Special Vehicle Lanes made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the recommendations described in 4 – 7 below be revoked.

4. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of south-east bound cycles only be installed on the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 103 metres, as detailed on Plan TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

5. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of north-west bound cycles only be installed on the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres, as detailed on Plan TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

6. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of north-west bound cycles only be installed on the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 123 metres north-west of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 57 metres, as detailed on Plan TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

7. Approves that, in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004:

a. All road user movements at the Cranford Street/Westminster Street intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

b. All road user movements at the Cranford Street/Berwick Street intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

8. Approves that these resolutions 4 to 7 take effect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

9. Approves that any previous resolutions pertaining to parking, no-stopping restrictions and traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the recommendations described in 10 - 15 below be revoked.

10. Approves all road surface treatments, traffic controls, parking restrictions and road markings on Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 806 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

11. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, the stopping of vehicles is to be prohibited on the days and times specified for Option 2 Clearway:

a. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 199 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for 126 metres. The clearway is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

b. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 350 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 69 metres. The clearway is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

c. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 34 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres. The clearway is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday. Parking is to be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at other times as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

d. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 83 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 90 metres. The clearway is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

e. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 103 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for 30 metres. The clearway is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

f. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 189 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for 119 metres. The clearway is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

g. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 378 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for 45 metres. The clearway is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

h. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 461 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for 30 metres. The clearway is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday. Parking is to be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at other times as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

12. Approves that, in accordance with Sections 4 and 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004:

a. The Malvern Street approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

b. The Dee Street northern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

c. The Dee Street southern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

13. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Vehicles in the lane adjacent to the north-eastern kerb on Cranford Street on the approach to its intersection with Westminster Street are allowed to travel straight through the intersection from the kerbside lane between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00 Monday to Friday. This movement is prohibited at all other times.

b. Vehicles in the lane adjacent to the south-western kerb on Cranford Street on the approach to its intersection with Westminster Street are allowed to travel straight through the intersection from the kerbside lane between the hours of 16:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday. This movement is prohibited at all other times, and

c. Vehicles are prohibited from turning right from Cranford Street north into Westminster Street west between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00, Monday to Friday.

14. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that bus stops be installed in the locations described below and as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B

a. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 287 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

b. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 56 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

c. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 223 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 139 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

e. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 430 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres, and

f. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 182 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

15. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of motor vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 157 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

b. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 163 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

c. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 325 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

d. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 330 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

e. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 429 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 73 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

f. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

g. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 46 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of ten metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

h. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 70 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

i. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 173 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024 and attached to this report as Attachment B.

j. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 239 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 50 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024and attached to this report as Attachment B.

k. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending south-easterly direction for 103 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

l. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 133 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

m. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 153 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of four metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

n. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 163 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

o. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 308 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

p. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 343 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

q. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 423 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of eight metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

r. On the south-western side of Cranford Street commencing at a point 445 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

s. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 491 metres south-east of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of ten metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

t. On the south-western side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 182 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

u. On the south-western side of Cranford Streett, commencing at a point 196 metres south-east its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 137 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

v. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Berwick Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 58 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

w. On the north-western side of Westminster Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

x. On the south-western side of Westminster Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

y. On the north-western side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

z. On the south-eastern side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

aa. On the north-western side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

bb. On the south-easterly side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

cc. On the north-western side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

dd. On the south-eastern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

ee. On the north-western side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B. and

ff. On the south-eastern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

16. Approves that these resolutions 9 -15 take effect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

Part C

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Approves that any previous resolutions pertaining to parking, no-stopping restrictions and traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with resolutions 2 - 7 below be revoked.Approves all road surface treatments, traffic controls, parking restrictions and road markings on Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road, and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 806 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

2. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that the stopping of vehicles is to be prohibited on the days and times specified:

a. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 34 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 12 metres. The clearway is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday. Parking is to be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at other times as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

b. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 461 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for 30 metres. The clearway is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday. Parking is to be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at other times s detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

3. Approves that in accordance with Sections 4 and 10.2 of the Land Trasport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, that:

a. The Malvern Street approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

b. The Dee Street northern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

c. The Dee Street southern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

4. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that

a. Vehicles in the lane adjacent to the northeastern kerb on Cranford Street on the approach to its intersection with Westminster Street are allowed to travel straight through the intersection from the kerbside lane between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00 Monday to Friday. This movement is prohibited at all other times,

b. Vehicles in the lane adjacent to the southwestern kerb on Cranford Street on the approach to its intersection with Westminster Street are allowed to travel straight through the intersection from the kerbside lane between the hours of 16:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday. This movement is prohibited at all other times, and

c. Vehicles are prohibited from turning right from Cranford Street into Westminster Street between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00 and 16:00 and 18:00, Monday to Friday.

5. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that bus stops be installed in the locations described below and as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B

a. On the northeast side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 287 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres,

b. On the northeast side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 56 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres,

c. On the northeast side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 223 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres,

d. On the southwest side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 139 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres,

e. On the southwest side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 430 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres, and

f. On the southwest side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 182 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

6. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of motor vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 157 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

b. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 163 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 21 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

c. The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times adjacent to the northeastern kerb of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 325 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

d. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 330 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

e. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 429 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 73 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

f. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

g. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 46 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

h. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 70 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

i. On the northeastern kerb of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 173 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

j. On the northeastern kerb of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 239 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 50 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

k. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Inness Road and extending southeasterly for 103 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

l. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 133 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 6 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

m. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 153 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 4 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

n. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 163 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 26 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

o. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 308 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 26 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363403, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

p. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 343 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363403, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

q. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 423 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 8 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

r. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street commencing at a point 445 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

s. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 491 metres southeast of its intersection with Inness Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

t. On the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 182 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

u. On the southwestern side of Cranford Streett, commencing at a point 196 metres southeast its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 137 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363403, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

v. On the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Berwick Street, and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 58 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

w. On the northwestern side of Westminster Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southwesterly direction for a distance of 19 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

x. On the southwestern side of Westminster Street, commencing at its intersection at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southwesterly direction for a distance of 55 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

y. On the northern side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

z. On the southern side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

aa. On the northern side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

bb. On the southern side of Malvern Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

cc. On the northern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

dd. On the southern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

ee. On the northern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

ff. On the southern side of Dee Street, commencing at its intersection with Cranford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

7. Approves that these resolutions 2 - 7 take effect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

8. Request staff report back to the Board on safety/pedestrian fencing or other measures at the Westminster Street/Cranford Street and Berwick Street/Cranford Street intersections.

9. Request staff to take necessary steps toward prioritising the implementation of the school speed zone at St Albans School.

10. Notes that signage for the bus lane needs improvement and enforcement needs resourcing.

11. Notes that the Board will advocate for red light cameras at the Westminster Street/Cranford Street and English Park pedestrian traffic signals.

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

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements Report.

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

4. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of southeast bound cycles only be installed on the northeast side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 103 metres, as detailed on plan TP363401, sheet 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

5. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of northeast bound cycles only be installed on the southwest side of Cranford Street, commencing at its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 40 metres, as detailed on plan TP363401, sheet 1-2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

6. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of northeast bound cycles only be installed on the southwest side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point 123 metres northeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 57 metres, as detailed on plan TP363401, sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

7. Approves that in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Trasport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that:

a. All road user movements at the Cranford Street/Westminster Street intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

b. All road user movements at the Cranford Street/Berwick Street intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, as detailed on plan(s) TP363401, sheet 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B.

8. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound bound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point approximately 199 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in an southeasterly direction for a distance of 126 metres as detailed on plan TP363401, sheets 1-2, dated 30/09/2024 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B. The Bus Lane is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday.

9. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound bound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northeastern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point approximately 83 metres southeast of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in an southeasterly direction for a distance of 90 metres as detailed on plan TP363401, sheets 1-2, dated 30/09/2024 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B. The Bus Lane is to apply 07:00 – 09:00, Monday to Friday.

10. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northbound bound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point approximately 103 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 30 metres as detailed on plan TP363401, sheets 1-2, dated 30/09/2024 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B. The Bus Lane is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday.

11. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northbound bound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point approximately 189 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 119 metres as detailed on plan TP363401, sheets 1-2 , dated 30/09/2024 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B. The Bus Lane is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday.

12. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northbound bound road users as defined in Section 1.6 (definition of Bus lane) of the Land Transport ( Road User) Rule 2004 and also as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwestern side of Cranford Street, commencing at a point approximately 378 metres southeast of its intersection with Innes Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on plan TP363401, sheets 1-2 , dated 30/09/2024 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment B. The Bus Lane is to apply 16:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday.

13. Approves that these resolutions 4 - 12 take effect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Consultation page: https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/cranford

Recording of the deputations and Board meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plDwi7o-jB4

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements	24/1535219	190

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	CNC Notice of Requirement Conditions (Under Separate Cover)	24/1579963
b ⇨	Cranford Street (Innes Road to Berwick Street) Preferred Option for Approval (Under Separate Cover)	24/1772549
c ⇨	Cranford St Bus Lane Travel Time Survey (Under Separate Cover)	24/1313516
d ⇨	DEMP_CranfordSt_options_assessment - Updated - Stantec (Under Separate Cover)	24/949148
e ⇨	Updated Cranford Street Options Model Assessment (Under Separate Cover)	24/1777904
f ⇨	Safe System Audit - Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1785639
g ⇨	Consultation Report Improvements on Cranford Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1764675
h ⇨	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Bus lane (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743212
i ⇨	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Clearway (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743215
j ⇨	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - T2 lane (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743218
k ⇨	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Additional information (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743210
l ⇨	Cranford Street Options Review - 23 October 2024 Final (Under Separate Cover)	24/1912034
m ⇨	Background Information for Cranford Street Between Innes Road and Berwick Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1917311
n ⇨	Staff Presentation - Cranford Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/2066134
o ⇨	Pre-Meeting Board Questions and Officer Responses - Cranford Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/2066135

Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1535219
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Sun, Transport Project Manager Kiran Skelton, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Community Board for the recommended solution for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street.

1.2 The report is prepared by Council staff.

1.3 It is to fulfill the Notice of Requirement (NoR) conditions (Attachment A) related to the opening of the Christchurch Northern Corridor (CNC).

1.3.1 The NoR lays out Council’s legal obligations, specifically related to the avoidance, remedy or mitigation of any adverse traffic effects in local streets, resulting from the opening of the CNC.

1.3.2 The Council is required to monitor traffic on affected streets. Where traffic increases by more than 30% as a result of the opening of the CNC, measures to mitigate the impacts by improving the operation of Cranford / Sherborne Streets, or implementing traffic calming measures must be considered.

1.3.3 These obligations remain in effect for the Commissioning Period, nominally ten years from the CNC's opening in December 2020.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements Report.

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

7. Approves that, in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004:

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

12. Approves that, in accordance with Sections 4 and 10.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004:

a. The Malvern Street approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

b. The Dee Street northern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

c. The Dee Street southern approach to Cranford Street be controlled by a ‘STOP’ sign, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheet 1, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

13. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

c. Vehicles are prohibited from turning right from Cranford Street north into Westminster Street west between the hours of 07:00 and 09:00, Monday to Friday.

15. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of motor vehicles be prohibited at all times:

h. On the north-eastern side of Cranford Street,, commencing at a point 70 metres south-east of its intersection with Westminster Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Plan(s) TP363402, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 30/09/2024, and attached to this report as Attachment B.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Notice of Requirement (See Attachment A) lays out Council’s obligations to address traffic impacts for the Commissioning Period (nominally ten years following the CNC’s opening in December 2020).

3.1.1 This includes monitoring traffic in the affected area, to identify streets where traffic volumes have increased more than 30% above the traffic level that would have occurred without the operation of the CNC.

3.1.2 In the event of this, measures must be taken to mitigate the effects from the increases in traffic. These are specified as “improv[ing] the operation of Cranford Street and Sherborne Street and/or calming work” to the affected streets.

3.1.3 The NoR specifically recommended peak-hour clearways as a possible intervention to improve traffic flow on Cranford and Sherborne Streets.

3.2 The Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP) was written by the independent traffic engineer, and defines the affected area and monitoring regime, and proposed ways to reduce the effects based on traffic modelling.

3.2.1 This document proposed a number of preventative measures to reduce the effects. Many of these were installed in advance of the CNC opening: e.g. upgrades to intersections and Cranford Street.

3.2.2 The document also recommended peak-hour clearways or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.

3.3 In the 2018 consultation, 65% (263) of submitters supported the clearway proposal. However, a subsequent consultation in 2019 revealed opposition from the local community and key stakeholders.

3.4 In November 2020 the Council resolved (CNCL/2020/00148) to trial special-purpose bus priority lanes on Cranford Street for three months starting in February 2021 following the CNC's opening.

3.4.1 The bus lanes were installed on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street on 26 February 2021, with the trial extended multiple times, now set to conclude in March 2025.

3.5 A permanent solution needs to be provided on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street as the bus lane trial is a temporary solution. Following investigations, five potential long-term solutions were considered, and three options were publicly consulted between 29 July and 26 August 2024:

3.5.1 Option 1 - Bus Lane

3.5.2 Option 2 – Clearway

3.5.3 Option 3 - T2 Lane

3.6 The public submissions and organisation and business submissions have been summarised in Attachment G.

3.6.1 The consultation received 629 submissions from the public, three organisations did not give a preference.

3.6.2 Submissions showed the following preferences:

· 49% (300) of submitters’ first preference is Option 2 - Clearway

· 43% (262) of submitters’ first preference is Option 1 - Bus Lane

· 10% (64) of submitters’ first preference is Option 3 - T2 Lane

3.7 The recommended option for approval is Option 2 – Clearway

3.7.1 This best meets Council’s obligations under the NoR

3.7.2 This was the recommended option within the DEMP

3.7.3 This aligns best with public feedback through the consultation

3.8 The Independent Traffic Engineer, as required by the NoR, has reviewed the recommended option and provided a positive endorsement (Attachment L).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

History

4.1 The Notice of Requirement lays out Council’s obligations to manage the effects of increased traffic area. This includes:

4.1.1 Appointing an independent traffic engineer to identify the affected area, develop a monitoring plan, and recommend measures to “avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects”.

4.1.2 Monitor traffic within the affected area for the Commissioning Period (which it defines as at least 10 years from the opening of the CNC)

4.1.3 Where traffic volumes exceed 30% above that which would have been expected without the opening of the CNC, “measures to improve the operation of Cranford Street and Sherborne Street and/or calming work will be undertaken by the Council as recommended”.

4.2 The independent traffic engineer produced the Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP). This fulfilled the criteria laid down in 4.1.1, and was consulted on multiple times during development and approval.

4.2.1 Many of the recommended projects within the DEMP were also consulted on individually, and were installed ahead of the opening of the CNC.

4.3 Please refer to Attachment M for more detailed background information on the decision-making process and the operation of Cranford Street since the opening of the CNC.

Relevant Information to Elected Members

4.4 While staff have provided regular updates to the Community Board throughout DEMP, the following information session/workshops have focused on the operation of Cranford Street:

Date	Subject
23/11/2023	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Briefing: Update on CNC Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP) - Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street
27/06/2024	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Information Session/Workshop: Update for the Public Consultation for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street
23/07/2024	Council Information Session/Workshop: Public Consultation for Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.5.1 Option 1 - Peak-hour Bus Lane.

4.5.2 Option 2 - Peak-hour Clearway.

4.5.3 Option 3 - Peak-hour T2 Lane.

4.6 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.6.1 Option 4 - Peak-hour T2 extension from motorway to Berwick Street. This option was a joint study with NZTA to investigate extending the existing T2 lane from where it ends north of the Cranford Street Roundabout to Berwick Street. It was ruled out at this stage due to the following reasons:

· Significant collaboration is required between the Council and NZTA for T2 lane management and enforcement, with timing and certainty not yet established.

· To provide a more consistent journey, the existing T2 lane on the motorway may need to be shifted from the right-hand side to the left-hand side. This would avoid the need for vehicles to switch lanes on the Innes-to-Berwick section.

· There would need to be mitigations developed for potential merging/diverging issues at the motorway on/off ramps if the T2 lane is shifted.

· Due to the longer modelled delay to single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) on Cranford Street, it is thought that many SOVs may re-route via QEII Drive, Innes Road or Westminster Street, increasing local road traffic. This would run counter to the objectives of the NoR.

4.6.2 Option 5 - Urban arterial. This option involved a single traffic lane, cycle lanes, and parking on both sides of the road, with a flush median in the middle. It was ruled out as it does not provide additional capacity at peak times so does not align well with the NoR and DEMP, and due to a lack of stakeholder support.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.7 Preferred Option: Option 2 – Peak-hour Clearway

4.7.1 Option Description: This option creates a second lane (clearway) for all vehicles during peak hours on Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street, with two southbound lanes from 7 AM to 9 AM and two northbound lanes from 4 PM to 6 PM. Outside of these hours, the clearways will revert to parking with spaces for cyclists.

4.7.2 Option Advantages

· Effectively doubles peak-hour capacity on Cranford Street, reducing congestion and delays for all traffic.

· Best meets the NoR conditions, which recommend improving the operation of Cranford Street to mitigate the downstream effects.

4.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· On-road cyclists must share the lane with general traffic during peak hours.

· The higher capacity provides no incentive for mode change and could indirectly result in more trips being made in SOVs.

· The reduction in delays may potentially encourage traffic that currently diverts to other routes or local roads to remain on Cranford Street. While this aligns with the objectives of the NoR conditions, it may not meet the concerns of some local residents.

· The option will mean that when buses use the stops on this section of Cranford Street, it acts as a barrier to traffic. There is an additional in-lane bus stop near Malvern Street on either side of Cranford Street, in addition to the two existing in-lane bus stops between Innes Road and Berwick Street.

4.8 Alternative Option: Option 1 – Peak-hour Bus Lane

4.8.1 Option Description: The option maintains the current bus lane layout with improvements, including extending the southbound merge lane south of Innes Road. This option involves a 365m southbound bus lane from 7 AM to 9 AM and a 320m northbound bus lane from 4 PM to 6 PM. Outside peak hours, the bus lanes will revert to parking with cycle lanes.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· Provides travel time benefits for buses during peak hours.

· Offers a safe space for cyclists to share with buses during peak hours.

· Could encourage mode shift to public transport and reduce SOVS use in the future.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· Traffic modelling shows it causes longer delays for non-bus vehicles.

· Restricts Cranford Street south of Innes Road to a single lane for general traffic, which could lead to increased rat-running on the local road network if traffic volumes on Cranford Street continue to rise in the future.

4.9 Alternative Option: Option 3 – Peak-hour T2 Lane

4.9.1 Option Description: This option converts the peak-hour bus lanes into T2 lanes, allowing buses and vehicles with two or more people, including the driver, to use the lane during peak hours.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Provides travel time savings for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), encouraging ridesharing and potentially reducing overall traffic long-term.

· Flexible for travel demand management, with the option to convert to T3 (vehicles with three or more people) lanes in the future if desired.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· On-road cyclists must share the lane with HOVs and buses during peak hours.

· The option will mean that when buses use the stops on this section of Cranford Street, it acts as a barrier to traffic using the T2 lane. The option will add an additional in-lane bus stop near Malvern Street on either side of Cranford Street, in addition to the two existing in-lane bus stops between Innes Road and Berwick Street.

· The enforcement requires specialist technology and processes which will be new to Council. These are used in Auckland so staff are confident that the supply chain and regulatory framework can support this approach, but it may take time to fully implement.

· Confusion may arise due to the CNC motorway's T2 lane being on the right side, while Cranford Street’s T2 lane would be on the left, requiring lane shifts that could lead to unintended violations.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.10 A Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) was used to evaluate the options based on four high-level criteria: strategic function, local function, road safety, and travel time (See Attachment D for the Options Assessment Report).

4.11 Applying different weightings to the criteria resulted in varied outcomes. Sensitivity testing shows that if greater emphasis is placed on travel time, as required by the NoR conditions, the T2 lane would be the preferred option. However, due to the technical challenges of implementing the T2 lane, the Clearway option is recommended as the preferred option.

4.12 The performance of the options, including travel time and traffic volume, has been assessed using the Paramics microsimulation traffic model (See Attachment E for the traffic model report).

4.13 Table 1 below shows the average travel time for different types of vehicles on Cranford Street between the Cranford Street Roundabout and Berwick Street in 2028. The results indicate:

4.13.1 The Bus Lane option provides a 48-second advantage for buses over other vehicles. However, bus travel times are similar across the options.

4.13.2 The Clearway option improves travel times for all vehicles, though bus travel times are 18 seconds longer than for general traffic.

4.13.3 The T2 Lane option offers better travel times for HOVs compared to SOVs and provides moderate travel times for buses.

Cranford Street Travel Times, 2028	Average Travel time (Minutes)
Options	Single Occupancy Vehicles (85% of total vehicles)	High Occupancy Vehicles (15% of total vehicles)	Bus
Base (Bus lane trial)	6.1	6.1	4.3
Option 1 – Bus Lane	5.1	5.1	4.3
Option 2 – Clearway	4.3	4.3	4.6
Option 3 – T2 Lane	4.6	4.0	4.4

Table 1. Vehicle Travel Times in 2028 (origin from Table 8 of Attachment E)

4.14 The traffic modelling also shows that different options will lead to changes in traffic volume on Cranford Street. The travel time savings for the Clearway and T2 Lane options are likely to encourage traffic that currently diverts to other routes or local roads to remain on Cranford Street. This aligns with the objectives of the Notice of Requirement (NoR) conditions.

A table with numbers and text

Description automatically generated

Table 2. AM Peak Hour Vehicle Southbound on Cranford Street in 2028 (origin from Table 12 in Attachment E)

4.15 A Safe System Audit (SSA) was conducted for the existing conditions and proposed design options (Attachment F). Table 3 below presents the scores (higher scores indicate worse safety outcomes).

Option	Score
Existing layout	192 / 448
Design Option 1 – Bus Lane	200 / 448
Design Option 2 – Clearway	220 / 448
Design Option 3 – T2 Lane	232 / 448

Table 3. Safe System Assessment Score Summary

4.15.1 The SSA indicates that the Bus Lane option has lower kerbside lane exposure than the Clearway or T2 Lane options, offering a slightly safer environment for cyclists and motorcyclists. The Clearway option has the highest exposure, presenting a slightly higher risk for these users compared to the T2 lane. However, given the part-time nature and low overall numbers, the difference in risk is minimal.

4.15.2 Both the Bus Lane and T2 Lane options include a northbound merge before the pedestrian crossing at English Park, increasing pedestrian risk for these options.

Other Improvements Apply to All Options.

4.16 Six additional parking spaces will be provided under all options:

4.16.1 Four parking spaces will be added on the west side of Cranford Street north of the Cranford/Westminster intersection, and four spaces on the east side south of the intersection, due to the extension of the priority lanes.

4.16.2 Two P60 parking spaces outside No.145 Cranford Street will be removed to address safety concerns regarding the northbound merge near the English Park crossing. This change will create a permanent two-lane northbound traffic flow from Berwick Street to Westminster Street for all options.

4.16.3 There will be no changes to parking outside businesses on Cranford Street.

4.17 High-friction coloured road surfacing will be applied to traffic lanes approaching the Cranford/Westminster intersection and the English Park crossing to improve pedestrian safety by enhancing driver alertness and reducing stopping distances in emergencies.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option Option 2 - Clearway	Option 1 – Bus Lane	Option 3 – T2 Lane
Cost to Implement	$130,000 – for road marking and signage changes	$250,000 – including $150,000 for road marking and signage changes and $100,000 for cameras	$690,000 - including $190,000 for road marking and signage changes and $500,000 for cameras (to be confirmed with contractor)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Operational costs for the following: • Tow truck vehicle removal • Staff rates for monitoring and enforcing These costs are allowed for in Transport operational budgets.		In addition to the operational costs, there may be additional costs that need to be confirmed with the contractor and is likely to be minor.
Funding Source	This project has been funded in the Council’s LTP as follows: 17088 Cranford Street Intersection Improvement
Funding Availability	Available
Impact on Rates	None – the costs are accounted for in the Council’s Long Term Plan

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The scope of the DEMP and associated consultation was in line with the project’s designation and NoR conditions. It does not further address broader issues such as strategies to reduce travel demand or increase public transport usage.

6.2 It is acknowledged that the CNC motorway was not supported by the local community. Therefore, there is a risk that the preferred option for improving the operation of Cranford Street, as required by the NoR conditions, may not align with the views of some local residents.

6.3 There is a risk that the alternative options may not result in a significant difference in travel times between modes, which could fail to encourage a mode shift. This may not sufficiently address traffic volume concerns or improve operations on Cranford Street and Sherborne Street. As traffic increases on Cranford Street, congestion or diversion to other routes or local roads could occur, potentially requiring extensive traffic calming measures, as mandated by the NoR conditions.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 Breaching the NoR conditions constitutes a breach of the Resource Management Act.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

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

6.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the large amount of community interest in the project and the number of people affected by the changes.

6.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7.1 While this project does not directly contribute towards any Levels of Service, it ensures Council can meet its legal obligations under the Resource Management Act.

6.7.2 Depending on the options selected, this project could indirectly contribute towards a number of levels of service, for example:

· Maintain the perception (resident satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city (16.0.10)

· Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network (DIA 1) (10.0.6.1)

· Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips (10.0.2)

· Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes (10.5.42)

· Improve customer satisfaction with public transport facilities (quality of bus stops and bus priority measures) (10.4.4)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.8 Early engagement with key stakeholders started in January 2024.These included:

6.8.1 Environment Canterbury

6.8.2 Fire and Emergency New Zealand

6.8.3 New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi

6.8.4 St Albans Residents’ Association

6.8.5 Hato Hone St Johns

6.8.6 Waimakariri District Council and,

6.8.7 St Albans School

6.9 At early stakeholder meetings, staff shared the draft plans and options for the Cranford Street peak-hour lanes and answered questions. Staff also asked for stakeholders to comment on their priority for Cranford Street and their day-to-day operations.

6.9.1 NZTA commented that, as an arterial road that connects a state highway to Central Christchurch, their priority for Cranford Street is to provide safe and efficient access for people in the community and those traveling through the area and that a T2 lane would be the most effective way to achieve this outcome.

6.9.2 Environment Canterbury commented that Cranford Street should operate as a public transport route, providing facilities to achieve a consistent and efficient route for buses. They also commented that their priority is to increase the level of service to meet rising demand for buses.

6.9.3 Waimakariri District Council commented that the number of Waimakariri residents using the park and ride facilities in Kaiapoi and Rangiora has increased significantly, prompting Waimakariri Council to look at expanding capacity. Maintaining and future proofing public transport and the number of services between Christchurch and Waimakariri was a priority and while a T2 lane would be an effective way to achieve this, it would require enforcement.

6.9.4 Fire and Emergency New Zealand commented that Cranford Street is not high priority because of Redwood Station. However, they asked that options that create barriers for emergency vehicles getting to Innes Road or along the CNC,are not considered.

6.9.5 Hato Hone St Johns commented that Cranford Street was their main arterial route to connect Rangiora and Kaikoura to Christchurch’s hospitals. Their priority was for their vehicles to be able to travel effectively and efficiently. They requested that we prioritise options that keep traffic flowing.

6.9.6 St Albans Residents’ Association commented that slow speeds and safety were their highest priority. Safety of children, specifically at Westminster / Cranford Street intersection, was a main priority and any option that reduces safety would not be supported by them. It was asked if a Barnes Dance crossing could be considered by staff for the intersection. There were also strong views that any option that would increase the number of vehicles travelling along Cranford Street would not be supported by them.

6.9.7 St Albans School commented that the safety of students is their highest priority, and it would be ideal if, on top of the safety measures proposed, a Barnes Dance crossing could be considered for Westminster / Cranford intersection.

6.10 Public consultation started on 29 July and ran until 26 August 2024.

6.10.1 An email was sent to 98 key stakeholders, including local schools, businesses, organisations, bus operators, and community advocacy groups.

6.10.2 562 previous submitters on projects in the DEMP area were emailed.

6.10.3 A leaflet advertising the consultation was distributed to 195 directly affected residents along Cranford Street from Berwick Street to Innes Road, Mairehau Library and to community organisations and local schools to distribute to their communities.

6.10.4 Consultation documents and feedback forms were available in Papanui Library, Shirley Library and St Albans Community Centre.

6.10.5 The consultation was posted on the council Facebook page as well as St Albans and Mairehau community pages, inviting submissions on the Kōrero mai / Let’s talk webpage - https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/Cranford.

6.10.6 A public webinar on 7 August 2024, had 11 attendees. The recording of the webinar was uploaded to YouTube and has been viewed 175 times to date - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl3MYor2Ow

6.11 Submissions were made by 17 recognised organisations and businesses and 612 individuals. A full table of submission can be found in Attachment G, H, I, J and K.

6.12 A quick poll was conducted along side the online survey which showed 50% (420) of people preferred the clearway, 40% (330) of people preferred the bus lane and 10% (85) of people preferred the T2 lane.

6.13 Of the 629 submissions, the clearway was highest ranked in terms of first preference. 300 (48%) submitters ranked clearway as their first preference, bus lane was second in ranking with 262 (42%) submitters, T2 lane had the lowest ranking with 64 (10%) submitters. Three organisations did not provide a preference.

A pie chart of a bus lane and clearway

Description automatically generated

6.14 The submitter ranking of options shows the number of submitters who ranked the options 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd. Interestingly, while T2 lane was the lowest ranked in terms of first preference, the number of submitters ranking it second (423, 69%) was significantly higher than clearway and bus lane’s 1^st and 2^nd ranking combined. A small number of submitters ranked clearway (90, 15%) and bus lane (93, 15%) second. Submitters were more split between their first and last preference, with 262 (43%) submitters ranking bus lane last, 222 (36%) submitters ranking clearway last and 122 (20%) submitters ranking T2 last. This trend was consistent across submitter profiles.

A graph with blue and green squares

Description automatically generated

6.15 To find out more detail about these results, please refer to Attachment G.

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

6.16.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.17 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.19 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.19.1 Contribute neutral to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.19.2 Contribute neutral to emissions reductions.

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

6.16 Traffic modelling indicates that due to the short length of the priority lanes and their limited operating hours, these options do not result in substantial differences in travel times or traffic volumes that would lead to significant emissions reductions. As a result, the differences in emissions between these options are generally negligible.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Staff to commence the detailed design of the approved option.

7.2 The construction is anticipated to begin in early 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	CNC Notice of Requirement Conditions (Under Separate Cover)	24/1579963
b	Cranford Street (Innes Road to Berwick Street) Preferred Option for Approval (Under Separate Cover)	24/1772549
c	Cranford St Bus Lane Travel Time Survey (Under Separate Cover)	24/1313516
d	DEMP_CranfordSt_options_assessment - Updated - Stantec (Under Separate Cover)	24/949148
e	Updated Cranford Street Options Model Assessment (Under Separate Cover)	24/1777904
f	Safe System Audit - Cranford Street between Innes Road and Berwick Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1785639
g	Consultation Report Improvements on Cranford Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1764675
h	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Bus lane (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743212
i	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Clearway (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743215
j	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - T2 lane (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743218
k	Cranford Street - Submission Table (Public) - Additional information (Under Separate Cover)	24/1743210
l	Cranford Street Options Review - 23 October 2024 Final (Under Separate Cover)	24/1912034
m	Background Information for Cranford Street Between Innes Road and Berwick Street (Under Separate Cover)	24/1917311

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan – developed by the independent Traffic Engineer

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2019/03-March/DEMP-draft-FINAL.pdf

St Albans, Edgeware and Mairehau transport projects

https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/improving-our-transport-and-roads/transport-projects/stalbans-edgeware-mairehau-projects

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

David Sun - Project Manager

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1930522
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety Krystle Anderson, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1 Consider the results of the public engagement on options for the layout of the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection at Church Corner, to improve safety for all road users, and

1.1.2 To make a decision on the preferred option for implementation.

1.2 This report has been written in response to Council resolution CNCL/2024/00156, from the Council meeting on 16 October 2024 (Agenda, Item 5). At that meeting, the Council resolved to (Minutes, Item 5):

1.2.1 Request staff undertake further engagement on two traffic signal options (as tabled at the meeting) for the layout of the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection, and to report back to the Council.

1.2.2 Include the staff recommended Option A in the further engagement along with a clear indication of the three options’ costs, timeframes for implementation, potential traffic delays and relative safety for all users.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements Report.

2. Notes that consultation was undertaken on the following options as per the Council’s resolution on 16 October 2024 CNCL/2024/00156:

a. Option A: Removal of the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and signalised pedestrian crossing;

b. Option B: Traffic lights with staggered signalised pedestrian crossing; and

c. Option C: Traffic lights with a signalised pedestrian crossing.

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

4. Approves pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Main South Road, Yaldhurst Road, and Riccarton Road as detailed as Option A in Attachment A of this report (plan TG1457S34, dated 20/11/2024), which includes:

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

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

c. Subject to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s future decision regarding the Riccarton Road traffic islands and in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 150 metres east of intersection with Main South Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 114 metres.

i. Notes as requested, staff will prepare a report to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on the Riccarton Road Traffic islands.

d. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of south-westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southeast side of Main South Road, commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 49 metres.

e. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwest side of Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 19 metres east of intersection with Main South Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point 117 metres west of Main South Road.

f. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the south side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at its intersection with Main South Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 86 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004

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

h. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the paths in the traffic island on the south side of Yaldhurst Road and Riccarton Road, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection is part of a wider Church Corner safety improvement programme. Church Corner is a busy area, particularly when people are travelling to and from school and work.

3.2 There have been 83 crashes at the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection (the intersection) in the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. Of the 83 reported crashes, 76 involved people turning right from Main South Road into Riccarton Road and crashing with westbound vehicles. Three serious injuries and seven minor injuries have resulted from this crash type. The recurring crash type is attributed to the current design of the intersection, particularly with people turning right from Main South Road into Riccarton Road. Although the visibility of oncoming traffic travelling west on Riccarton Road is clear to drivers waiting on Main South Road, the combination of the curve in Riccarton Road and the two westbound lanes attributes to poor perception of vehicle speed and gap selection by traffic waiting to exit Main South Road.

3.3 The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board has resolved most recommendations for safety improvements in the wider Church Corner area, following public consultation, other than Officer Recommendations 6-10 (February 2024, Minutes, item 8). The Board requested staff to provide information on alternative options at the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection; and for the decision to be made by the Council.

3.4 On 16 October 2024, a decision report was presented to the Council regarding the intersection (Item 5) outlining options for the intersection improvements. As resolved by the Council, consultation was undertaken on three options from 18 October until 3 November 2024 (Plans are provided in Attachment B):

3.4.1 Option A: Removal of the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and signalised pedestrian crossing;

3.4.2 Option B: Traffic lights with staggered signalised pedestrian crossing; and

3.4.3 Option C: Traffic lights with a signalised pedestrian crossing.

3.5 Submitters were asked to select which of the following options they preferred from the three options, A, B or C. Council received 595 submissions, with Option A being the preferred option with 249 submitters (42%) selecting this option. This was followed by Option C with 219 submitters (37%), Option B with 75 submitters (12%) and 52 expressed no preference (9%). Additional analysis is provided in Section 7 of this report.

3.6 Following this consultation, staff recommend Option A, with some changes. The main changes relate to the facilities for people travelling by bicycle and removal of the islands on the south side of Riccarton Road that were approved as part of the Church Corner programme approved by the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board in February 2024 (Agenda, Item 8).

3.7 Staff recommend Option A, provided in Attachment A, as this presents the lowest risk option to all road users as it:

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

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

3.7.3 Includes improvements for people who cycle to and through the area by providing a cycle facilities on Riccarton Road, Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

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

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

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

4.3 There have been 83 reported crashes at this intersection, or within 50 metres of it, between 2013-2022. Of the 83 reported crashes, 76 crashes involved people turning right from Main South Road into Riccarton Road and crashing with westbound vehicles. Three serious injuries and seven minor injuries have resulted from this crash type.

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

4.5 The Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection is part of the wider Church Corner area safety improvement programme. Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the Council. Providing safe infrastructure is key to ensure people get to where they are going safely, irrespective of their mode of travel.

4.6 Figure 2 below highlights the main areas of risk that are seeking to be addressed through this project. In addition to addressing the main crash risk at the intersection (location 1 below), other areas of risk have been identified (locations 2-4):

A map of a highway

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Locations of risk for all road users

4.6.1 At location 2, it is difficult for people to cross at the existing uncontrolled crossing due to the volume and speed of traffic. There is a lack of connecting footpaths also from the south side of Main South Road to access the crossing. A raised zebra pedestrian crossing was originally consulted on in this location to replace the existing uncontrolled crossing. Through deputations it was requested that the crossing also allow for people on bicycles.

4.6.2 At location 3, traffic must weave from the half seagull arrangement from Main South Road exit to the far lane to turn left at Waimairi Road, while eastbound traffic on Yaldhurst Road is attempting to move over to turn right at Hansons Lane.

4.6.3 At location 4, people of all ages and abilities cross at this location as it provides the most direct connection between the supermarket and the Church Corner Mall, and also the bus stop pair. The proposal approved for the wider Church Corner programme improved accessibility by removing one westbound traffic lane to reduce the crossing distance by implementing three traffic islands on the south side of Riccarton Road. Longer crossing distances increase the likelihood of a crash and makes finding a gap more challenging for slower moving pedestrians or those with impairments.

4.7 Information on the history of this project can be found within the agenda for the 16 October 2024 Council meeting (Item 5). The following paragraphs provide a summary of the key information.

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

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

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

4.11 Staff undertook further investigations to assess options for safety improvements at this intersection.

4.12 Four options were developed, which were independently assessed for safety and network effects. Further refinements were made following the independent assessments, resulting in two additional options that would be safer and more efficient than the original four options which were presented to the Council for a decision on 16 October 2024 (Item 5):

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

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

4.13 At the 16 October 2024 meeting, the Council resolved to (Minutes, Item 5):

4.13.1 Request staff undertake further engagement on two traffic signal options (as tabled at the meeting) for the layout of the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Roads intersection, and to report back to the Council. The two options were Traffic Signals 3 and Traffic Signals 4.

4.13.2 Include the staff recommended Option A in the further engagement along with a clear indication of the three options’ costs, timeframes for implementation, potential traffic delays and relative safety for all users.

4.14 The additional two options for consultation were detailed in a Memo provided in the 16th October 2024 Council Meeting Agenda (Attachment M). Option B in the 16 October 2024 Council report was not considered an option to put forward for consultation. The Option B referenced in the consultation material and this report relates to the Council decision to include an option on traffic lights with a staggered signalised pedestrian crossing (Traffic Signal 3).

4.15 At the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Meeting of 14 November 2024 (Item 12), a Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Mark Peters requesting advice from staff as to the process of removing three new traffic islands that were installed on the south side of Riccarton Road, that were approved as part of the wider Church Corner Programme, and the implications of revoking the previous decision. To ensure that any future Community Board decision around changes to the islands is considered holistically, and to ensure to that safety risks for all our road users are identified and mitigated, the islands and the removals have been considered as part of the overall design of the intersection. However, the decision to remove or retain the islands is a Community Board decision that must be decided at Community Board level but should take into account Council’s decision from this report.

5. Public consultation on options for safety improvements at the Main South Road/Yaldhurst Road/Riccarton Road intersection

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

5.1 Three options were consulted on following the Council resolution on 16 October 2024:

5.1.1 Option A: Removal of the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and signalised pedestrian crossing;

5.1.2 Option B: Traffic lights with staggered signalised pedestrian crossing; and

5.1.3 Option C: Traffic lights with a signalised pedestrian crossing.

5.2 Public consultation started on 18 October and ran until 3 November 2024. The consultation material was available on Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk. An email was also sent to over 500 stakeholders, including all previous submitters, anyone who made deputations to the Board or to Council, and our transport and community stakeholders including local residents’ associations, inviting them to share their views. Submitters were asked to select which of the three options they preferred.

Option A: Removal of the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road and signalised pedestrian crossing

5.3 Option A was the option proposed for approval in the 16 October 2024 meeting (Item 5).

5.3.1 This option:

· Removes the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn from Main South Road onto Yaldhurst Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn into Main South Road from Riccarton Road.

· Cycle lanes through the intersection on both sides of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

· A signalised pedestrian crossing that would operate on demand (when someone pushes the button to cross).

· A short section of bus lane on Riccarton Road eastbound.

· Speed humps on all approaches to the intersection.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Simplifies the road layout for all road users.

· Eliminates the right hand turn crash risk.

· Pedestrians and cyclists can cross Yaldhurst Road safely with signalised crossing.

· Traffic on Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road only need to stop when someone is there to cross the road.

· Section of bus lane allows easier access into and out of the bus stop.

· Cycle lanes are included through the intersection on both sides.

· Retains all trees and adds greenspace to the area.

· Eastbound traffic from Main South Road will need to use alternative routes.

Artists impression of Option A

Option B: Traffic lights with staggered signalised pedestrian crossing

5.4 This option was proposed by the Council to be consulted on. It was addressed in the memo attached to the 16 October 2024 report and described as Traffic Signals 3 in the memo.

5.4.1 This option:

· Retains the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn from Main South Road onto Yaldhurst Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn into Main South Road from Riccarton Road.

· Cycle lanes through the intersection on north side only.

· A staggered signalised pedestrian crossing that would operate on demand (when someone pushes the button to cross). Pedestrians would need to cross one lane of traffic and wait in the centre island to cross the next lane of traffic.

· A bus lane is not included due to lack of space.

· Speed humps on all approaches to the intersection.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Eastbound traffic from Yaldhurst Road to Riccarton Road would not need to stop for the right hand turn as the merge between straight through and right turning traffic would remain on Riccarton Road.

· Reduces the right hand turn crash risk due to Main South Road traffic having to stop at the traffic lights.

· The staggered pedestrian crossing would be signalised so it is safer for pedestrians than the current layout.

· A crash risk remains due to the merge between straight-through and right-turning traffic on Riccarton Road as vehicles will continue to weave through this section to change lanes before the Riccarton Road, Hansons Lane, Waimairi Road intersection.

· Pedestrians and cyclists would need to cross Yaldhurst Road and Main South Road in two stages.

· There is no space for a bus lane through the intersection.

· There is no space for a cycle lane westbound on the south side of the intersection.

· Removes two trees on Main South Road.

Artists impression of option B

Option C: Traffic lights with a signalised pedestrian crossing

5.5 This option was proposed by the Council to be consulted on. It was addressed in the memo attached to the 16 October 2024 report and described as Traffic Signals 4 in the memo.

5.5.1 This option:

· Retains the right-hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn from Main South Road onto Yaldhurst Road.

· Retains the left-hand turn into Main South Road from Riccarton Road.

· Cycle lanes through the intersection on both sides of Riccarton Road and Yaldhurst Road.

· A signalised pedestrian crossing that would operate on demand (when someone pushes the button to cross).

· A short section of bus lane on Riccarton Road.

· Speed humps on all approaches to the intersection.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Reduces the right hand turn crash risk due to Main South Road traffic having to stop at the traffic lights.

· Eliminates the crash risk for vehicles merging on Riccarton Road eastbound by all traffic stopping for the right hand turn from Main South Road.

· Pedestrians and cyclists can cross Yaldhurst Road safely with signalised crossing.

· Section of bus lane allows easier access into and out of the bus stop.

· Cycle lanes are included through the intersection on both sides.

· Retains all trees and adds greenspace to the area.

· The Yaldhurst Road eastbound traffic would experience slightly more delay than the existing layout and the other two options.

Artists impression of option C

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

5.6 Submissions were made by 11 organisations and 584 individuals. All submissions are available online or in Attachment C.

5.7 Submitters preferred Option A most often (249, 42%), followed by Option C (219, 37%). Option B was preferred by the least submitters (75, 12%). An additional 52 submitters (9%) did not select a preference.

A pie chart with different colored sections

Description automatically generated

5.8 The table below shows submitters’ preferred option and the ward that they live in. The most submissions were received from those living in the Riccarton ward, closely followed by Waimairi and Hornby.

Ward	Option A	Option B	Option C	No preference	Total
Riccarton	49	18	61	7	135
Hornby	30	21	58	18	127
Halswell	11	6	18	10	45
Fendalton	9	6	6	2	23
Waimairi	76	8	36	11	131
Harewood	3	1	5		9
Papanui	9	2	3		14
Innes	5		3		8
Central	6		7		13
Spreydon	14	3	8	2	27
Cashmere	5	2	2	1	10
Heathcote	5		2		7
Coastal	4	1			5
Burwood	5	1			6
Linwood		1	1		2
Not supplied (organisations)	2		1		3
Outside Christchurch	16	5	8	1	30

5.9 Submitters were also asked how they usually travel through the area and their age. Option C was selected most often by people whose main method of travel was by car. Option A was most preferred by submitters whose main method of travel was bike, bus, or walking/riding a scooter.

5.10 Option A was selected most often by all age groups except for over 65+ who most often selected option C.

Key themes

5.11 Submitters were asked to provide comments about their preferred option and the key themes are outlined in the table below.

	Theme	Number of mentions
Option A	It’s safer / the safest option	75
	It removes the right-hand turn / It eliminates the crash risk	68
	It seems the simplest / Less complicated	61
	It’s the cheapest option	56
	It includes better/safer infrastructure for cyclists	45
	It includes better/safer infrastructure for pedestrians	37
	It will help traffic flow / Will mean less congestion	34
	It includes better bus infrastructure	10
Option B	It keeps the right-hand turn	20
Option B	It will help traffic flow / Will mean less congestion	20
Option C	It keeps the right-hand turn	94
	It’s safer / the safest option	55
	Includes safer/better infrastructure for cyclists	34
	Includes safer/better infrastructure for pedestrians	31
	It seems the simplest / Less complicated	26
	It includes better bus infrastructure	15

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.12 The options have been developed to address the primary risk of right turn crashes at the intersection. Comprehensive detail can be found within the agenda for the 16 October 2024 Council meeting (Item 5). This included independent analysis on options and further refinement from staff to determine the safest and most effective options. The report also included a memo that investigated a range of traffic signal control options.

5.13 The Council proposed consulting on the original staff recommended Option A and two additional options which are Option B and C in this report.

5.14 The table below provides a summary of how the options manage risk, and address the issues raised for this intersection:

	Option A	Option B	Option C
Main South Road right-hand turn	This option removes the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road.	This option retains the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road.	This option retains the right turn from Main South Road into Riccarton Road.
Mitigates serious crash incidences	Eliminates the risk of a serious crash type involving right turning vehicles from Main South Road.	Manage the risk of a serious crash type involving right turning vehicles from Main South Road. Risk reduction is through signalisation and speed management.	Manage the risk of a serious crash type involving right turning vehicles from Main South Road. Risk reduction is through signalisation and speed management.
Mitigates risk of a crash at weave point	Eliminates the risk as the half seagull arrangement is removed.	Risk is maintained as merge point is retained.	Eliminates the risk as the half seagull arrangement is removed.
Impact on network	Minimal impact. Traffic would divert to other routes to access destinations. Traffic will only need to stop on Yaldhurst Road if a person activates the crossing.	Minimal impact. Eastbound traffic from Yaldhurst Road to Riccarton Road would not need to stop for the right-hand turn from Main South Road as the merge between straight through and right turning traffic would remain on Riccarton Road. Should traffic increase on Main South Road due to the ease of being able to exit through the signalised right turn, delays may increase on this approach.	Minimal impact. The Yaldhurst Road eastbound traffic would experience slightly more delay than the existing layout and the other two options. Should traffic increase on Main South Road due to the ease of being able to exit through the signalised right turn, delays may increase on this approach.
Dual crossing	Signalised crossing provided for people walking and cycling included.	Signalised staggered crossing provided for people walking and cycling included.	Signalised crossing provided for people walking and cycling included.
Speed calming	To align with the safe system principles, traffic calming is provided on the approaches to the signal-controlled crossing.	To align with the safe system principles, traffic calming is provided on the approaches to the signal-controlled crossing.	To align with the safe system principles, traffic calming is provided on the approaches to the signal-controlled crossing.
Cycle Facilities	Through the original consultation, submitters requested additional cycle facilities. The Safety Audit also raised concerns around cycle facilities. These were addressed as part of the process.	Through the original consultation, submitters requested additional cycle facilities. The Safety Audit also raised concerns around cycle facilities. These were addressed as part of the process.	Through the original consultation, submitters requested additional cycle facilities. The Safety Audit also raised concerns around cycle facilities. These were addressed as part of the process.

Preferred Option

5.15 Staff recommend Option A, with some proposed amendments as the preferred option to manage the risks at the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton intersection.

5.16 Following the most recent consultation, staff propose some changes to Option A including:

· Removal of the cycle lane between the two westbound lanes on the approach to the intersection. The on-road cycle lane will guide users along Main South Road for them to then use the crossing points to access Yaldhurst Road. This cycle lane will also connect with the existing cycle lane on Main South Road.

· Provision of a shared path on the south side of Yaldhurst Road from Main South Road to the island at Brake Street. People can then cycle on the lower traffic streets of Brake Street and Bowen Street. This will improve access to Villa Maria for school children and residents north of Yaldhurst Road who use the Puari ki Niho-toto South Express Cycleway.

5.17 The Community Board has also requested additional information from staff on the removal of the islands that were implemented on the south side of Riccarton Road as part of the Church Corner programme. The removal of the islands will re-establish two westbound traffic lanes, and therefore could reduce safety of users travelling outside vehicles. Therefore, it is proposed to maintain safety for all users by retaining slower speeds through this busy location, through the provision of a safer speed platform as shown on the plan in Attachment A. As a result of the new safe speed platform, the two speed humps on the approaches to the crossing points that were shown on the consultation plan have been removed. The removal of these islands will require a Community Board decision.

5.18 Option A, with the amendments discussed in 5.16 paragraph above:

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

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

5.18.3 Includes improvements for people who cycle to and through the area by providing cycle facilities on Riccarton Road, Main South Road and Yaldhurst Road.

Other options considered

5.19 Other options were also considered but were not assessed as being reasonably practicable and these can be found in the previous report to Council (16 October 2024, Item 5).

5.20 Options that have been considered, but were not assessed as being reasonably practicable, for the following reasons:

5.20.1 Do Nothing: There have been a high number of crashes that have occurred at this intersection resulting in a recurring crash type. If safety improvements are not made to this intersection, the risk that crashes can continue to occur would remain. The safety improvements at this intersection are part of a wider Church Corner project. The Community Board has been working closely with its community for some time to ensure that this area is safer for all road users. Therefore, not making any improvements at this intersection is not a recommended option.

5.20.2 Stop control: Use of a Stop Control was raised as an option at the 16 October 2024 Council meeting. The Traffic Control Devices manual provides guidance on the use of Stop Controls. A Stop Control should be provided where, at a point 9 metres from the limit line on a controlled approach to the intersection, there is a lack of visibility for the exiting driver. The guidance also states that Stop Controls should not be provided where the sight distance is adequate for give way control nor as a routine response to an actual or perceived safety problem. This is because inappropriate use of Stop Controls can reduce the effectiveness of stop-controlled approaches used correctly in other locations. The intersection discussed in this report has too much visibility for a Stop Control to be effective.

5.20.3 Alternative options for this intersection: Staff have considered numerous options for this intersection, which were discussed in the report to Council on 16 October 2024 (item 5). These options were independently assessed and refined by staff to two safer and more efficient options for this intersection. At the 16 October meeting, Option B to retain right hand turn from Main South Road and install a traffic signal-controlled crossing on Riccarton Road was not considered a preferred option by the Council therefore it is not recommended that this option (or the independently assessed options) be revisited. At that meeting, the Council proposed two options for further engagement in addition to the staff recommended option, and these have now been consulted on. Staff do not recommend reconsidering any of these options again as the public engagement process has now been completed.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option A	Option B	Option C
Cost to Implement	$1.3m	$1.56m	$1.5m
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.
Funding Availability	Funding available in the abovenamed budget.
Impact on Rates	None

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

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 There is a risk that crashes will continue to occur at this intersection.Option A eliminates the risk of the highest risk crash with the removal of the right turn. Option A also includes other traffic safety measures that will reduce risk for all road users at that location.

7.2 Option C reduces the risk of a collision involving the right turn movement from Main South Road. It also addresses a large number of the identified risks for other users.

7.3 In Option B, risk remains for people exiting Main South Road and weaving through traffic to access Waimairi Road due to the retention of the half seagull arrangement.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

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

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

7.4.5 Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides that the Council may, by resolution, determine the length, route and/or location of a shared path.

Local Government Act 1974

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

· divert or alter the course of any road

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

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

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.5 The required decision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.7 Transport

7.7.1 Activity: Transport

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

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network (DIA 1) - 4 less than previous FY

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <100 crashes per year

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within 15 minutes to key destination types by walking (to at least four of the five basic services: food shopping, education, employment, health, and open spaces) - >=49% of residential units with a 15- minute walking access

8. Community Views and Preferences Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

8.1 This information is provided in Section 5 of this report. The options discussed in this report were consulted on.

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

8.2.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

8.4 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.6 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

8.6.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

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

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

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

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

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

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

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	For Approval Plan - Option A	24/2055408	230
b ⇩	Consultation Plans - Option A, B & C	24/2055432	231
c ⇨	Submission Table - New options for Church Corner (Public) (Under Separate Cover)	24/2062728

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Krystle Anderson - Engagement Advisor

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

[1] This is a total of actions since the previous six-monthly report, not a total of all completed actions. A round-up of key completed actions was provided in the previous report in June 2024.

[2] Including the Coastal Adaptation Framework adopted by Council in 2022.

[3] The bulk of costs ($164m) are projected to occur between 2035 and 2065 with the remainder in the decades after that ($35m).

5. Council Minutes - 6 November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2061472
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

Total Budget 2024/25	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$449,802	$82,896	$366,906	$358,906

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
10.	Food Resilience Network - Community Loan
	Attachment c - Food Resilience Network Loan Application	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The information contained in the memo is commercially sensitive and its release may impact the ability of the applicant to deliver the project.	18 November 2029 One years sustainable operation of the Network cafe.
18.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 6 November 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
19.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 20 November 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

6. Council Minutes - 20 November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2109594
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

11. Discretionary Response Fund - The Food Resilience Network Inc.
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1943650
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

14. Annual waterbody monitoring update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1805948
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Noakes, Principal Waterways Ecologist, Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure