Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 5 February 2025

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00001

That the apology for partial absence from Councillor Gough be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

5. Suspension of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00002

That pursuant to Standing Order 3.5 (Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders), the following Standing Orders be suspended to enable a more informal discussion:

17.5 members may speak only once.

18.1 general procedure for speaking and moving motions.

18.8 foreshadowed amendments.

18.9 lost amendments.

19.5 revocation or alteration by resolution at same meeting.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

3. Confirmation of content - Draft Annual Plan 2025-26
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Bede Carran, Russell Holden and Peter Ryan joined the table to present the report. 2. Officer Recommendations 2 and 4 were updated as follows: · Recommendation 2 – Correction to update the year to 2024. · Recommendation 3 – Inclusion of the following text to specify that the rates number provided in Option 3 is “subject to any changes made by resolution at this meeting, including any changes to the staff recommendations contained in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report”. · Recommendation 4 – Update that the matters in the report are of high significance. 3. The updated Officer Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 4. The updated Officer Recommendation 3 for Option 3, (lever mix of subvention receipts and operating surplus to achieve the 2024-34 Long Term Plan rate of 8.48% plus Crown levies), was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 5. Councillor McLellan put forward a Foreshadowed Motion to Recommendation 3, for Option 1 of the staff report (the use of subvention receipts and surplus to reduce debt). This was Seconded by Councillor Coker later in the meeting. 6. The meeting adjourned to allow Councillors to put forward potential other Motions relating to the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, excluding transport related matters. (Refer to Sections 3a to 3c of the Minutes below for the decisions and voting records for Item 3.)
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information and options; and 2. Notes that as per the direction provided by the Council in August 2025, the information and options provided are designed to support the requested Annual Plan process; and 3. Confirms the staff recommendation (Option 3) as the preferred option upon which to base development of the draft Annual Plan, noting that key components include: a. a rates increase of 8.76%, comprising 8.48% as per year 2 of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan and a further 0.28% being Central Government imposed costs for water services regulators. b. the use of $6 million of subvention receipts to reduce rates; and c. the use of $6 million of forecast current year operating surplus to reduce rates $3.35 million) and reduce debt ($2.65 million). d. a breach of the balanced budget financial prudence benchmark for 2025/26 (and 2026/27 as indicated in the LTP). e. pausing rating for the Cathedral targeted rate for the remaining three years. 4. Notes that the matters in the report are of significant as set out in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and will be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan process.
	Updated Officer Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 – Moved/Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information and options; and 2. Notes that as per the direction provided by the Council in August 2024, the information and options provided are designed to support the requested Annual Plan process; and 4. Notes that the matters in the report are of high significance as set out in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and will be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan process. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Updated Officer Recommendation 3 – Moved/Seconded 3. Confirms the staff recommendation (Option 3) as the preferred option upon which to base development of the draft Annual Plan, subject to any changes made by resolution at this meeting, including any changes to the staff recommendations contained in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report, noting that key components include: a. a rates increase of 8.76%, comprising 8.48% as per year 2 of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan, a further 0.28% being Central Government imposed costs for water services regulators. b. the use of $6 million of subvention receipts to reduce rates; and c. the use of $6 million of forecast current year operating surplus to reduce rates ($3.35 million) and reduce debt ($2.65 million). d. a breach of the balanced budget financial prudence benchmark for 2025/26 (and 2026/27 as indicated in the LTP). e. pausing rating for the Cathedral targeted rate for the remaining three years. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Foreshadowed Motion for Recommendation 3 (Option 1 of the staff report) – Moved/Seconded 3. Confirms Option 1 (use of subvention receipts and surplus to reduce debt) as the preferred option upon which to base development of the draft Annual Plan, subject to any changes made by resolution at this meeting, including any changes to the staff recommendations contained in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report, noting that key components include: a. a rates increase of 10.07% in 2025/26 (notes this includes 0.28% Central Government imposed costs for water services regulators). b. the use of $6 million of subvention receipts to reduce debt; and c. the use of $6 million of forecast current year operating surplus to reduce debt. d. a breach of the balanced budget financial prudence benchmark for 2025/26 (and 2026/27 as indicated in the LTP). e. pausing rating for the Cathedral targeted rate for the remaining three years. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Coker Moved/Seconded

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.13 am.

The meeting adjourned at 10.18 am and reconvened at 11.09 am.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 11.21 am and returned at 11.23 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at 11.54 am and returned at 11.55 am during the debate of Item 3.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 11.58 am and returned at 12 pm during the debate of Item 3.

3a. Other motions relating to the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan (excluding Transport) - Decision

Council Comment

1. During the adjournment Councillors put forward Motions (refer to M1 to M6 below), relating to the 2025/26 Draft Annual Plan (excluding transport related aspects).

2. Upon reconvening, each Motion was Moved and Seconded and Councillors were provided with the opportunity to ask questions of clarifications of the Mover and Council Officers.

3. During discussions Motion M3 was withdrawn by the Mover.

4. During discussions, with the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, M5 was updated to include the word “renewals”.

5. The meeting held one debate for the updated Officer Recommendations 1 to 4, the Foreshadowed Motion from Councillor McLellan and Motions M1 to M6.

6. During debate, with the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, part of Motion M6 was updated as follows: “and the use of the accumulated fund to reduce rates”

7. The meeting voted on Motions M1 to M6 individually, refer below for the decisions and individual voting records.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00003

M1. Rating for Renewals

Requests staff provide advice on increasing rating for renewals in FY26 of the Annual Plan, including the impact on rates and total costs/savings to ratepayers over the remaining 9 years of the Long-Term Plan, in time for consideration of whether to include this in the Draft Annual Plan consultation.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00004

M2. Washington Skatepark

Includes $75,000 in the draft Annual Plan (FY26) for the feasibility assessment for a skate park upgrade including a potential vert ramp at Washington Skatepark or alternative venue to support potential hosting of national and international events. Notes this will have a rates increase of 0.01%.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Fields Carried

Motion Withdrawn

M3. Kart Club - Templeton

Notes that there is no CAPEX funding allocated to the Kart Club relocation in the 25/26 Annual Plan and note that advice is coming back to the Council regarding next steps for the project, to enable consideration of the removal of future year funding.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Coker Withdrawn

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00005

M4. Plan Change Resource

Agrees to increase the budget in the draft Annual Plan by $1.13million to allow increased capacity for future plan changes. This would have a rates impact of 0.15%.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Decision

M6. Cathedral targeted rate consultation

Requests staff advice regarding an option of consulting on the targeted rate for the Cathedral and the use of the accumulated fund to reduce rates in time for the draft Annual Plan adoption meeting in February 2025.

The division was declared a tie the voting being as follows:

For: Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Against: Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Peters

Councillor Moore/Councillor Templeton Tie

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00006

M5. Non-essential maintenance

Requests staff advice regarding putting a hold on all non-essential maintenance/renewals in all council facilities (i.e. painting, carpet, kitchen and bathroom fit outs etc).

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.13 pm and reconvened at 12.20 pm. Councillor McLellan was not present at this time. Councillor McLellan returned to the meeting at 12.21 pm.

3b. Recommendation 3 (Option 3) - Decision

1. Before voting on the Motion, Council Officers provided a rates update based on the decisions made on Motions M1 to M6 as referred to above. The new proposed rates increases for Options 1 to 4 of the staff report were as follows:

· Option 1 of the staff report: 10.07% in year 1.

· Option 2 of the staff report: 9.31% in year 1.

· Option 3 of the staff report: 8.91% in year 1.

· Option 4 of the staff report: 8.59% in year 1.

2. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the rates number referred to in Recommendations 3a was updated to 8.91%.

3. The meeting voted on the updated Motion 3 (Option 3), which was declared carried by way of division. Therefore, the Foreshadowed Motion was not required.

Secretarial Note: As a result of the decisions made at the meeting in relation to Item 4. Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, Council Officers advised that the new proposed rates number referred to in Recommendation 3a is 8.93%.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00007

That the Council:

3. Confirms the staff recommendation (Option 3) as the preferred option upon which to base development of the draft Annual Plan, subject to any changes made by resolution at this meeting, including any changes to the staff recommendations contained in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report, noting that key components include:

a. a rates increase of 8.91%, comprising 8.48% as per year 2 of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan, a further 0.28% being Central Government imposed costs for water services regulators and a further 0.15% for the motions adopted by Council for Item 3 at the meeting.

b. the use of $6 million of subvention receipts to reduce rates; and

c. the use of $6 million of forecast current year operating surplus to reduce rates ($3.35 million) and reduce debt ($2.65 million).

d. a breach of the balanced budget financial prudence benchmark for 2025/26 (and 2026/27 as indicated in the LTP).

e. pausing rating for the Cathedral targeted rate for the remaining three years.

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

For: Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Against: Councillor Coker, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Moore

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

3c. Recommendations 1,2 and 4 - Decision

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00008

That the Council:

1. Receives the information and options; and

2. Notes that as per the direction provided by the Council in August 2024, the information and options provided are designed to support the requested Annual Plan process; and

3. Notes that the matters in the report are of high significance as set out in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and will be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan process.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.28 pm and reconvened at 1.33 pm. Councillors Gough, Fields, Donovan and Johanson were not present at this time.

Councillors Johanson, Fields and Donovan returned to the meeting at 1.34 pm.

4. Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Bede Carran, Brent Smith and Lynette Ellis joined the table to present the report. 2. Officer Recommendations 2 -5 were updated as follows: · Recommendation 2 – Correction that the matters in the report are of medium significance. · Recommendations 3-5 – Inclusion of the following text to specify that the confirmation of Attachments are “subject to any changes made at the meeting”. 3. The updated Officer Recommendations 1 to 8 were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock. 4. The meeting adjourned to allow Councillors to put forward potential other Motions relating to transport aspects of the 2025/26 Draft Annual Plan and any Foreshadowed Motions to Recommendation 6. (Refer to Sections 4a to 4h of the Minutes below for the decisions and voting records for Item 4).
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as significant based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and therefore will be consulted on as part of the consultation on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 3. Confirms that the Transport programmes and projects in Attachment A (and associated Attachments B – G) of this report were adopted in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 and notes that work has commenced to enable the 2025/26 programme to proceed as planned, with the associated budget included in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 4. Confirms the changes in the Transport programmes and projects, refer Attachment L, resulting from central government legislative and policy changes, and notes that these have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 5. Confirms the changes to the Transport projects in Attachment H of this report, where cost and/or time revisions have been required, noting that these projects have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects: a. Improving Bromley Roads - Resolves that no additional budget is added to the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. b. Simeon Street Cycleway - Resolves that no additional budget is added for the Simeon Street Cycleway project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. c. Te Aratai Cycleway - Resolves that no additional budget is added for the Te Aratai Cycleway project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. d. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Timing Changes - Resolves that the budget phasing for MCR Ōtākaro-Avon Route, MCR Ōpāwaho River Route and MCR Southern Lights is unchanged in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. e. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Wheels to Wings - Resolves that for the MCR Wheels to Wings the staff recommendation Option 8, to deliver the connection at the eastern end linking the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s, and to install the traffic signals and associated improvements at Harewood School, and at Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection is approved in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. Funding will be added to future years to allow completion of the MCR (as shown on Attachment K of this report). 7. Notes that no budget appropriation is in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 for the projects noted in Recommendation 6. 8. Notes that decisions around Recommendations (3), (4) and (5) fall within the financial envelope available for the Transport capital programme ($159.1m - referenced in the Annual Plan report titled “Confirmation of Intent – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26” also being considered at the meeting on 10 December 2024).
	Updated Officer Recommendations 1 to 8 – Moved/Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and therefore will be consulted on as part of the consultation on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 3. Confirms that the Transport programmes and projects in Attachment A (and associated Attachments B – G) of this report, were adopted in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 and notes that work has commenced to enable the 2025/26 programme to proceed as planned, with the associated budget, subject to any changes made at this meeting, included in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 4. Confirms the changes in the Transport programmes and projects, refer Attachment L, resulting from central government legislative and policy changes, and notes that these have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, subject to any changes made at this meeting. 5. Confirms the changes to the Transport projects in Attachment H of this report, where cost and/or time revisions have been required, noting that these projects have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, subject to any changes made at this meeting. 6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects: a. Improving Bromley Roads - Resolves that no additional budget is added to the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. b. Simeon Street Cycleway - Resolves that no additional budget is added for the Simeon Street Cycleway project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. c. Te Aratai Cycleway - Resolves that no additional budget is added for the Te Aratai Cycleway project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. d. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Timing Changes - Resolves that the budget phasing for MCR Ōtākaro-Avon Route, MCR Ōpāwaho River Route and MCR Southern Lights is unchanged in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. e. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Wheels to Wings - Resolves that for the MCR Wheels to Wings the staff recommendation Option 8, to deliver the connection at the eastern end linking the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s, and to install the traffic signals and associated improvements at Harewood School, and at Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection is approved in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. Funding will be added to future years to allow completion of the MCR (as shown on Attachment K of this report). 7. Notes that no budget appropriation is in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 for the projects noted in Recommendation 6. 8. Notes that decisions around Recommendations (3), (4) and (5) fall within the financial envelope available for the Transport capital programme ($159.1m - referenced in the Annual Plan report titled “Confirmation of Intent – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26” also being considered at the meeting on 10 December 2024). Mayor/Councillor Henstock Moved/Seconded

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 1.37 pm during the consideration of Item 4.

The meeting adjourned at 1.58 pm and reconvened at 3 pm.

4a. Other motions (Transport) - Decision

Council Comment

1. During the adjournment Councillors put forward Motions (refer to M8 to M12 below), relating to transport aspects of the 2025/26 Draft Annual Plan.

2. Upon reconvening each Motion (M8 to M12) was Moved and Seconded and Councillors were provided with the opportunity to ask questions of clarifications of the Mover and Council Officers.

3. The meeting voted on Motions M8 to M12 as a block, and when put to the vote all Motions were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00009

M8. MCR to New Brighton

Confirms that the FY24/25 budget for the MCR to New Brighton Project will be carried forward to FY25/26, and is not rephased to FY27/28 in the draft Annual Plan.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00010

M9. Avon-Ōtākaro Major Cycleway

Requests staff advice in time for the draft Annual Plan adoption meeting on the budget required to deliver the planning for Section 3 of the Avon-Ōtākaro Major Cycleway.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00011

M10. Healthy Street Linwood

Requests staff advice regarding funding a Healthy Streets Linwood project in time for the draft Annual Plan adoption meeting.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00012

M11. Wyon Steet

Confirms that Wyon Street and Hulbert Street renewals are prioritised and funded through the existing street renewals programme and will be started in FY25/26.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00013

M12. Lincoln Road PT

That the consultation document highlights the proposed deferral of the Lincoln Road PT project, whilst staff work on the Business Case for NTZA funding.

Councillor Moore/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 3.39 pm and returned at 3.45 pm during the debate of Item 4.

4b. Recommendations 1-8 and Foreshadowed Motions - Process Update

Council Comment

1. During the previous adjournment Councillors put forward Foreshadowed Motions relating to Recommendations 6.

2. Upon reconvening the Foreshadowed Motions were Moved and Seconded.

3. The meeting held one debate for Recommendations 1 to 8 and Foreshadowed Motions relating to Recommendation 6. (Refer to Sections 4c to 4h of the Minutes below for the decisions and voting records).

4c. Recommendation 6a Improving Bromley Roads - Decision

Council Comment

1. Officer Recommendation 6a was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

2. During the previous adjournment Councillors put forward Foreshadowed Motions relating to Recommendations 6. Upon reconvening the following Foreshadowed Motions relating to Recommendation 6a were Moved and Seconded:

a. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 2 of the staff report, to include $10 million over 2 years for the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, Moved by Councillor Johanson and Seconded by Councillor Coker.

b. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 3 of the staff report, to include $5 million over 2 years for the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, Moved by Councillor McLellan and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter.

3. The meeting voted on Officer Recommendation 6a which was declared carried by way of division. Therefore, the Foreshadowed Motions were not required.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00014

That the Council:

6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects:

a. Improving Bromley Roads - Resolves that no additional budget is added to the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

The division was declared carried by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett

Against: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Templeton

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

Foreshadowed Motion Moved/Seconded- Bromley Roads Option 2 -$10 million over 2 years

That the Council:

6a. Improving Bromley Roads - Resolves that $10 million over FY26 and FY27 is added to the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6ai. Notes that this has a rates increase of 0.01% in FY26, 0.05% in FY27 and 0.03% in FY28, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Coker Moved/Seconded

Foreshadowed Motion Moved/Seconded - Bromley Roads Option 3 - $5 million over 2 years

That the Council:

6a. Improving Bromley Roads - Resolves that $5 million over FY26 and FY27 is added to the Improving Bromley Roads project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6ai. Notes that this has a rates increase of 0.01% in FY26, 0.02% in FY27 and 0.01% in FY28, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded

4d. Recommendation 6b Simeon Street Cycleway - Decision

Council Comment

1. Officer Recommendation 6b was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

2. During the previous adjournment Councillors put forward Foreshadowed Motions relating to Recommendations 6. Upon reconvening the following Foreshadowed Motion relating to Recommendation 6b was Moved and Seconded:

a. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 2 of the staff report, to include $750,000 in each of FY26 and FY27 to allow construction of the cycle facility in Simeon Street as designed and approved by the Council through the Transport Choices programme, in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett.

3. With the agreement of the meeting, Officer Recommendation 6b was withdrawn to allow the Foreshadowed Motion (option 2 of the staff report) to be put to the vote as the substantive Motion which was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock.

4. The meeting voted on the Motion for option 2 of the staff report, which was declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00015

Simeon Street Cycleway - Option 2 - Approve funding in FY26 and FY27

That the Council:

6b. Simeon Street Cycleway - Resolves that an additional budget of $750,000 in each of FY26 and FY27 is added to allow construction of the cycle facility in Simeon Street as designed and approved by the Council through the Transport Choices programme. in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6bi. Notes that this has a rates increase of less than 0.005% in FY26, 0.01% in FY27 and 0.01% in FY28, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

4e. Recommendation 6c Te Aratai Cycle Connection Project - Decision

Council Comment

1. Officer Recommendation 6c was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

a. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 2 of the staff report to include $3.5 million across FY26 and FY27 is added to allow construction of the cycle facility in Te Aratai Cycle Connection project as designed and approved by the Council through the Transport Choices programme, in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett.

3. The meeting voted on Officer Recommendation 6c which was declared lost by way of division.

4. The meeting voted on the Foreshadowed Motion which was declared carried.

Council Decision

That the Council:

6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects:

c. Te Aratai Cycleway - Resolves that no additional budget is added for the Te Aratai Cycleway project in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

The division was declared lost by 4 votes to 13 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Keown and Councillor MacDonald

Against: Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Lost

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00016
Foreshadowed Motion - Te Aratai Cycle Connection Project Option 2 - Include $3.5 million over two years

That the Council:

6c. Te Aratai Cycleway - Resolves that an additional budget of $3.5 million across FY26 and FY27 is added to allow construction of the cycle facility in Te Aratai Cycle Connection project as designed and approved by the Council through the Transport Choices programme, in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6ci. Notes that this is a rates increase of less than 0.005% in FY26, 0.02% in FY27 and 0.01% in FY28, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillors Gough and MacDonald requested for their votes against the Resolutions be recorded.

4f. Recommendation 6d Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Timing Changes - Decision

Council Comment

1. Officer Recommendation 6d was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

a. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 2 of the staff report, to bring forward budget to start route analysis and scheme design in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, Moved by Councillor Donovan and Seconded by Councillor McLellan.

3. The meeting voted on the Officer Recommendation 6d which was declared lost by way of division.

4. The meeting voted on the Foreshadowed Motion which was declared carried by way of division.

Council Decision

That the Council:

6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects:

d. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Timing Changes - Resolves that the budget phasing for MCR Ōtākaro-Avon Route, MCR Ōpāwaho River Route and MCR Southern Lights is unchanged in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

The division was declared lost by 8 votes to 9 votes 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 Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Lost

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00017

Foreshadowed Motion - MCR Timing Changes Option 2 - Bring forward budget to start route analysis and scheme design in FY26 for MCR Ōtākaro, MCR Ōpāwaho River Route and MCR Southern Lights

That the Council:

6d. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Timing Changes - Resolves to bring forward budget to start route analysis and scheme in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6di. Notes that this has the following rates impact, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

FY26

Rates

FY27

Rates

FY28

Rates

FY29

Rates

FY30

Rates

FY31

Rates

+$0.7M

<0.005%

+$1.07M

+0.01%

$0M

+0.01%

-$0.67M

-<0.005%

-$0.3M

-0.01%

-$0.2M

-<0.005%

The division was declared carried by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton

Against: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett

Councillor Donovan/Councillor McLellan Carried

4g. Recommendation 6e Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Wheels to Wings - Decision

Council Comment

1. Officer Recommendation 6e was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

a. A Foreshadowed Motion for Option 4 of the staff report, to deliver as much of the approved Wheels to Wings Cycleway as approved by the Council as possible within the existing budget, starting at the eastern end and including the Breens/Gardiners/Harewood intersection signalisation, Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor McLellan.

3. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, Officer Recommendation 6e was updated to specify that Option 8 would not include the raised safety platforms.

4. The meeting voted on the updated Officer Recommendation 6e which was declared carried by way of division. Therefore, the Foreshadowed Motion was not required.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00018

That the Council:

6. Confirms the following staff recommendations in respect of the following capital projects:

e. Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Wheels to Wings - Resolves that for the MCR Wheels to Wings the staff recommendation Option 8, without the raised safety platforms, to deliver the connection at the eastern end linking the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s, and to install the traffic signals and associated improvements at Harewood School, and at Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection is approved in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan. Funding will be added to future years to allow completion of the MCR (as shown on Attachment K of this report).

The division was declared carried by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett

Against: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Templeton

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

Council Decision

Foreshadowed Motion - MCR Wheels to Wings Option 4 - deliver as much of the approved Wheels to Wings Cycleway as approved by the Council as possible within the existing budget, starting at the eastern end and including the Breens/Gardiners/Harewood intersection signalisation

That the Council:

6e. Agrees that Option 4 - Within budget reduced extent option of the Council approved design (deliver as much of the approved Wheels to Wings Cycleway as approved by the Council as possible within the existing budget, starting at the eastern end and including the Breens/Gardiners/Harewood intersection signalisation) contained in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report, is approved for the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

6ei. Notes that this option has a rates impact, in addition to the rates figure resolved at this meeting in relation to Resolution 3a of the Confirmation of content- Draft Annual Plan 2025-26.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Moved/Seconded

The meeting adjourned at 4 pm and reconvened at 4.10 pm.

Process update

1. Before voting on the remaining Recommendations 1 -5 and 7 -8 of Item 4. Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, Council Officers advised that the new proposed rates increase of the previously resolved Resolution 3, in Item 3 above, is 8.93 % (refer to the Secretarial Note in Section 3b of the Minutes).

4h. Recommendations 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 - Decision

Council Comment

1. Updated Officer Recommendations 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Henstock earlier in the meeting.

2. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, Officer Recommendations 7 to 8 were withdrawn as they only applied if the Original Officer Recommendations were accepted without change.

3. When put to the vote, Recommendations 1 to 5 were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00019

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 report.

2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and therefore will be consulted on as part of the consultation on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.

3. Confirms that the Transport programmes and projects in Attachment A (and associated Attachments B – G) of this report, were adopted in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 and notes that work has commenced to enable the 2025/26 programme to proceed as planned, with the associated budget, subject to any changes made at this meeting, included in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.

4. Confirms the changes in the Transport programmes and projects, refer Attachment L, resulting from central government legislative and policy changes, and notes that these have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, subject to any changes made at this meeting.

5. Confirms the changes to the Transport projects in Attachment H of this report, where cost and/or time revisions have been required, noting that these projects have been budgeted for in the proposed Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, subject to any changes made at this meeting.

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

Councillors Johanson, Moore and Henstock requested for their votes against Resolution 4 be recorded.

Motions Withdrawn

That the Council:

7. Notes that no budget appropriation is in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 for the projects noted in Recommendation 6.

8. Notes that decisions around Recommendations (3), (4) and (5) fall within the financial envelope available for the Transport capital programme ($159.1m - referenced in the Annual Plan report titled “Confirmation of Intent – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26” also being considered at the meeting on 10 December 2024).

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Withdrawn

5a Resumption of standing orders

Council Resolved CAPL/2024/00020

That the Standing Orders set aside above, be resumed.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Carried Resolutions

Secretarial Note: A clean version of all carried resolutions for the 10 December 2024 meeting regarding Item 3 Confirmation of content - Draft Annual Plan 2025-26 and Item 4 Transport Capital Programme for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 are attached for ease of reference.

Attachments

a Council 10 December 2024 - Clean version of carried resolutions

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 4.13 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5^TH DAY OF February 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

Moments Silence

A moments silence was held for the passing of Michael McEvedy.

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00187

That the apologies from the Mayor and Councillor Henstock for lateness be accepted.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Coker Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor Johanson declared a conflict of interest in Item 8 - Mayor's Welfare Fund Delegation Amendments.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Student Volunteer Army

Catherine Robertson spoke on behalf of the Student Volunteer Army (SVA) to provide an update on the SVA programmes and how they've grown since their inception and discuss their model for crisis response.

Secretarial Note: The meeting requested for staff to organise a meeting with the SVA to further discuss disaster preparedness.

Attachments

a Student Volunteer Army - Presentation to Council

3.1.2

Speed Freaks Charitable Trust

Anna Christophorou and Kevin Grimwood spoke on behalf of Speed Freaks Charitable Trust regarding what the organisation does.

Attachments

a Speed Freaks Charitable Trust - Presentation to Council

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 9.48 am and returned at 9.51 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Concerned Ratepayers - Dianne Downward

Dianne Downward spoke regarding Item 16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements.

3.2.2 Mike Mora and Cheryl Belowe

Mike Mora and Cheryl Belowe spoke on behalf of the Greater Hornby Residents Association regarding Item 16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements .

3.2.3 Luke Chandler

Luke Chandler (via audio/visual link) spoke regarding Item 16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements.

3.2.4 Spokes - Anne Scott

Anne Scott spoke regarding Item 16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements.

Attachments

a Anne Scott - Presentation to Council

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.12 am during consideration of Item 3.2.5.

3.2.5 St Peter's Anglican Preschool - Liz Orr

Liz Orr spoke regarding Item 16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Council Minutes - 6 November 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00188

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 6 November 2024.

And

That the Council confirms the Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held on 6 November 2024.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

6. Council Minutes - 20 November 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00189

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 20 November 2024.

And

That the Council confirms the Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held on 20 November 2024.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor Gough returned the meeting at 10.17 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Taylors Mistake Baches - Update on Licensee Status and Requests for Council Services
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Angus Smith and Kathy Jarden joined the table to present the report. 2. During discussions, the meeting updated Officer Recommendation 4 and included two further Recommendations as follows: · New Recommendation 6 – a request for the issue regarding abandoned batches to be dealt with as a matter of priority by the Chief Executive exercising her delegation, following a workshop with full Council. · New Recommendation 7 – a noting provision regarding the intention that the Council will work with Mana Whenua regarding the issues. · Updated Recommendation 4 – the inclusion of the elected members appointed to the Working Parting which included: Councillors Templeton, McLellan and Scandrett and request for the Spreydon–Cashmere–Heathcote Community Board to nominate two Community Board Members, if there is interest. 3. The updated Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter and when put to the vote, declared carried.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00190 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. Appoints the following members to the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party: a. Councillor Templeton; b. Councillor McLellan; c. Councillor Scandrett; and d. Requests the Spreydon–Cashmere–Heathcote Community Board to nominate two Community Board Members to the Working Party, if there is interest. 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. 6. Requests that the issue regarding abandoned batches is dealt with as a matter of priority by the Chief Executive exercising her delegation, following a workshop with full Council 7. Notes the intention that the Council will work with Mana Whenua regarding the issues. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried

8. Mayor's Welfare Fund Delegation Amendments

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00191

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

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 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.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Johanson declared a conflict of interest and took no part in the voting on this Item.

9. Addington Brook Enhancement: Stage 2

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00192

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.42 am and returned at 10.45 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.50 am and returned at 10.57 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Food Resilience Network - Community Loan
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers John Filsell, Gary Watson and Joshua Wharton joined the table to present the report. 2. During discussions the meeting included the following Recommendation: · Requests staff to investigate options to modify the Council’s security interest over the Ōtākaro Orchard Project Facility, in order to allow the Food Resilience Network greater ability to secure third party funding, and report back to the Council in February 2025. 3. A Motion to let the report lie on the table to enable a workshop to be held as soon as practicable was Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by Councillor Keown. 4. During the debate, with the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the additional Recommendation regarding the security interest over the Ōtākaro Orchard Project Facility (as referred to above) was included into the Motion. 5. When put to the vote the Motion was declared carried.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00193 That the Council: 1. Agrees for the report to lie on the table to enable a workshop to be held as soon as practicable. 2. Requests staff to investigate options to modify the Council’s security interest over the Ōtākaro Orchard Project Facility, in order to allow the Food Resilience Network greater ability to secure third party funding, and report back to the Council in February 2025. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Keown Carried Councillors Barber, Coker, Gough, Fields, McLellan and MacDonald requested that their votes against the resolutions be recorded.

11. Discretionary Response Fund - The Food Resilience Network Inc.
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Gary Watson and Joshua Wharton joined the table to present the report. 2. A Motion to approve a grant of $20,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to The Food Resilience Network Inc. towards the Otākaro Orchard and Urban Farm Volunteer Co-ordinators was Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor Templeton. 3. A Foreshadowed Motion to approve a grant of $12,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to The Food Resilience Network Inc. towards the Otākaro Orchard and Urban Farm Volunteer Co-ordinators was Moved Councillor Harrison-Hunt and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett. 4. When put to the vote, the Motion to approve a grant of $20,000 was declared lost by way of division. 5. When put to the vote, the Motion to approve a grant of $12,000 was declared carried by way of division.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund - The Food Resilience Network Inc. 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 $8,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to The Food Resilience Network Inc. towards the Otākaro Orchard and Urban Farm Volunteer Co-ordinators.
	Council Decision That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund - The Food Resilience Network Inc. 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 $20,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to The Food Resilience Network Inc. towards the Otākaro Orchard and Urban Farm Volunteer Co-ordinators. The division was declared lost* by 7 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Gough, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Scandrett Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00194 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund - The Food Resilience Network Inc. 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 $12,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to The Food Resilience Network Inc. towards the Otākaro Orchard and Urban Farm Volunteer Co-ordinators. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Scandrett Carried The division was declared carried* by 12 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Councillor Coker, Councillor Gough and Councillor MacDonald

12. Appointment of Recess Committee 2024/2025

Council Comment

1. The Original Officer Recommendations were accepted with the addition of naming Councillor Peters in Recommendation 3b and 3d.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00195

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 Peters; 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 Peters.

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.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.18 am and reconvened at 11.36 am.

Councillor Henstock joined the meeting at 11.36 am.

13. Six-Monthly Progress Report - Climate Resilience Strategy Implementation

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00196

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried

Councillors MacDonald and Gough left the meeting at 11.50 am and returned at 11.56 am during consideration of Item 14.

14. Annual waterbody monitoring update

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00197

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Annual waterbody monitoring update Report.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

3.2.6 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Chair Emma Norrish spoke regarding the Community Board’s recommendations in respect of Item 15. Christchurch Northern Corridor Downstream Effects Management Plan - Cranford Street (Innes Road - Berwick Street) Improvements.

Mayor Mauger joined the meeting at 12.28 pm during consideration of Item 15.

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
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Jacob Bradbury, David Sun and Maryem Al Samer joined the table to present the report. 2. The Community Board Recommendations were Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor McLellan, and when put to the vote were declared carried by way of division. *Secretarial Note:* The Community Board Recommendations were renumbered to allow the Council to vote on the Recommendations regarding extending the cycleway, resetting the intersection controls and the approval of the peak hour bus lane separately, if required.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00198 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. Cycle lane extension and resetting the existing intersection controls 3a. 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 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. 13a. Approves that these resolutions 4 - 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). Bus Lane 3b. 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 8 – 12 below be revoked. 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. 13b. Approves that these resolutions 8 - 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). The division was declared carried* by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.53 pm and reconvened at 2.20 pm. Councillor Gough was not present at this time and Councillor Henstock returned to the meeting via audio/visual link.

Upon reconvening The Mayor resumed the Chair.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 2.24 pm during consideration of Item 16.

16. Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers provided updated scheme designs for Options B and C for the Main South/Yaldhurst/Riccarton Safety Improvements (refer to Attachment A of the Minutes). 2. A Motion to approve the updated Option C was Moved by Councillor Harrison-Hunt and Seconded by Councillor Peters. 3. A Foreshadowed Motion to approve Option A as per the Officer Recommendations was Moved by Councillor McLellan and Seconded by Councillor Templeton. 4. When put to the vote, the Motion to approve the updated Option C was declared carried. *Secretarial Note*: Resolution 4b for updated Option C and Recommendation 4c in the Original Officer Recommendations were amended to include a Recommendation that the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board removes the Riccarton road traffic islands.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00199 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 C of this report (plan TG1457S35, dated 03/12/2024), which includes: a. In accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, all road user movements at the Main South Road/Riccarton Road/Yaldhurst Road intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals, as detailed on plan TG1457S35. b. Recommends the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board removes the Riccarton road traffic islands and subject to the Board’s future decision 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. c. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of 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. 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 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. e. 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 f. 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. g. 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. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Peters Carried Councillors Coker and Templeton requested that their vote against the resolutions be recorded. Councillor Fields requested that his abstention from the vote be recorded.
	Foreshadowed Motion Moved by Councillor McLellan and Seconded by Councillor Templeton 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. Recommends the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board removes the Riccarton road traffic islands and subject to the Board’s future decision 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. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Templeton Moved/Seconded
	Attachments a Updated Option B b Updated Option C

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 2.39 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

The Christchurch City Council Christmas Choir performed a Christmas carol.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00200

That the apology from Councillor Henstock for partial absence be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor McLellan declared an interest in Item 22 – Implementation of Greater Christchurch Partnership – Joint Housing Action Plan – Action 7 – Extending Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust Area of Operations.

Councillor McLellan declared an interest in Public Excluded Item 21 – Sydenham Yard – Community Housing Requirements.

Withdrawal of Agenda Item

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8, Item 8 – Climate Resilience Fund: Policy was withdrawn from the Agenda.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Ali Jones

Ali Jones spoke regarding elected members considering community feedback in consultations.

3.1.2 Harrison McEvoy

Harrison McEvoy spoke regarding elected members considering community feedback in consultations.

3.1.3 Geoffrey King

Geoffrey King spoke regarding graffiti and general tidiness of the City.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1

Barry Harcourt

Barry Harcourt spoke regarding Item 12. Shared Micromobility.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Council Minutes - 2 December 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00201

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 December 2024 noting the addition of the Secretarial Note associated with Clause 44.

Secretarial Note: Resolution 44 should be read in conjunction with Resolution 60 (Town Centre Zone Permitted Building Heights in Hornby) and Resolution 61 (Town Centre Zone Building Heights and Form in Linwood).

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Peters Carried

6. Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update
	Council Comment 1. Resolution 1 was Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor Templeton. 2. The Motion was then voted on and declared carried. 3. Councillor Johanson then requested that Resolution 2 be added, which was agreed upon by the meeting and added to the Resolution.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update Report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00202 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Triannual Water Management Zone Committee Update Report. 2. Thanks the Water Management Zone Committees for the work they have done over the year. Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried
	Attachments a Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee - Presentation to Council

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.21 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Huanui Lane between Gloucester Street and Armagh Street-Traffic Control Changes

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00203

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in Resolutions 2 to 8 below.

2. Approves pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane, commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed in blue on Attachment A, be declared a shared zone.

3. Approves pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

4. Approves pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane, commencing at its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed in blue on Attachment A, be declared a Shared Zone.

5. Approves pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane, commencing at its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

6. Approves pursuant to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the central portion of Huanui Lane, detailed in orange on Attachment A, be declared a shared path.

7. Approves pursuant to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path commencing at the Armagh Street /Manchester Street intersection, and extending in a south easterly direction and detailed in orange on Attachment A, be declared a Shared Path.

8. Approves pursuant to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path commencing at Gloucester Street and extending in a northerly direction, and detailed in orange on Attachment A, be declared a Shared Path.

9. Approves that these resolutions 2 to 8 take effect when signage and/or road markings that evidence the change in traffic controls described in the staff report are in place, (or removed in the case of revocations).

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 10.25 am and returned at 10.31 am during consideration of Item 11.

Councillor MacDonald returned to the meeting at 10.26 am during consideration of Item 11.

11. Remaining infrastructure from Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00204

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Remaining infrastructure from Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project 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. Revokes the resolutions for bus stop upgrades in the first package of the Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project, clauses 1-8 and 10-27, previously approved at the Council meeting on 1 November 2023.

4. Notes that the lists of bus stops provided in Appendixes A – C, would be subject to Community Board approval, and that minor changes may occur due to operational issues, community feedback, and recommendations from the Council and Community Boards. In such cases, Staff will replace bus stops with similar patronage to ensure value for money and optimal patronage outcomes.

Option 1 (Preferred option)

5. Approves that 30 of the remaining 56 shelters from the Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project be installed at the well-used bus stops in Linwood and the Eastern suburbs. These bus stops are listed in Attachment A.

6. Approves that 26 of the remaining 56 shelters from the Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project be installed at the well-used bus stops in Northeast, Southeast, and Central. These bus stops are listed in Attachment A.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

Councillor Keown requested his vote against be recorded.

The meeting adjourned at 10.31 am and reconvened at 10.52 am. Councillors Donovan and Harrison-Hunt were not present at this time.

Councillors Donovan and Harrison-Hunt returned to the meeting at 10.55 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Plan Change 13 - Withdrawal of Some Provisions
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Mark Stevenson and Glenda Dixon joined the table to present the report. 2. An updated set of Officer Recommendations were tabled during the meeting by Council Officers incorporating Elected Member proposed amendments. 3. The updated Officer Recommendations were Moved by The Mayor and Seconded by Councillor McLellan, voted on, and declared carried.
	Original Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 13 - Withdrawal of Some Provisions Report. 2. Note the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Withdraws from Plan Change 13 those amendments to the extent or location of some items or settings which have been decided for PC14 Policy 3 areas. The withdrawn provisions are amendments to the locations or settings of : a. The Citizens War Memorial (Decision 5a, 18 September), b. 59 Hansons Lane (Decision 14a, 2 December), c. New Regent Street Shops setting (Decision 14b, 2 December), d. 135 High Street (Decision 14b, 2 December). 4. EITHER: a. Withdraw from PC13 all Residential Heritage Areas and provisions OR b. Withdraw from PC13 RHA interfaces and all specific built form rules for RHAs and in doing so, continue with the core elements of the RHAs as notified OR c. Withdraw from PC13 those five RHAs which were rejected in PC14 (Inner City West, Chester St East, Heaton St, Lyttelton and Piko/Shand), and in doing so, continue with the six others OR d. Continue with the notified provisions and the 11 RHAs notified in PC13 with no change. 5. IF Option 4a. is chosen, withdraw from Plan Change 13 all remaining provisions relating to the proposed Residential Heritage Areas and proposed RHA interfaces. These are: a. The definitions of defining building, contributory building, neutral building or site and intrusive building or site. b. References to heritage areas in Rules 6.8.4.1.1 P13, 6.8.4.2.4 a, and 6.8.5.1 a and j – Signs. c. Minimum net site areas for all RHAs in Rule 8.6.1 c and f – Minimum Net Site Area and Dimension. d. Amendments to Policy 9.3.2.2.2- Heritage areas. Reinstate operative version of this policy. e. Policy 9.3.2.2.3 - References to heritage areas, and Policies 9.3.2.2.5 and 9.3.2.2.8- references to heritage areas and defining and contributing buildings. f. References in Rule 9.3.3. - How to interpret and apply the rules, to heritage areas, Heritage Area Report and Site Record Forms, Heritage Area Aerial Map, Heritage Area Site Contributions Map, and Heritage Area Interface Sites and Character Area Overlap Map for each heritage area, but not references to the Akaroa Township Heritage Area. g. Rule 9.3.4.1.1 a - References to heritage areas in Permitted activities, P1 - Maintenance, P2 - repairs, P3 - temporary buildings and P4 - signs. P12-demolition or relocation and P13 – new road boundary fences and walls. h. Rule 9.3.4.1.3 a - References to heritage areas in Restricted discretionary activities, all of RD6- new buildings, alterations, fences and walls, exceptions in RHAs, and advice note, RD7 – demolition or relocation of a defining or contributory building in an RHA, RD8 – any new buildings in HRZ or RVA zones sharing a boundary. i. Rule 9.3.6.4 Matters of discretion for RHAs (except Akaroa Township Heritage Area) – new buildings, fences and walls and exterior alterations to buildings. j. Rule 9.3.6.5 Matters of discretion for RHAs – demolition or relocation of defining or contributory buildings k. Rule 9.3.6.6 Matters of discretion for Sites in HRZ or RVA zones sharing a boundary with an RHA l. Appendix 9.3.7.3 – Part B, Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Areas. Reinstate operative version of Part A - Akaroa Township Heritage Area. m. Appendix 9.3.7.7 – RHAs - Aerial Maps n. Appendix 9.3.7.8 – RHAs - Site Contributions Maps o. Appendix 9.3.7.9 – RHAs - Interface Sites and Character Area Overlap Maps p. Rule 14.5.3.1.3 - Medium Density Residential zone – Area specific activities – RD15 q. Rule 14.5.3.2 – MRZ zone Area specific built form standards – Rules 14.5.3.2.3 v – Building height in RHAs, 14.5.3.2.7 b– Number of residential units per site in RHAs, 14.5.3.2.8 b and c – Setbacks in RHAs, 14.5.3.2.9 c – Building Coverage in RHAs and RHA part of advice note, 14.5.3.2.10 – Outdoor living space per unit in RHAs. 6. IF Option 4b. is chosen, withdraw Rule 9.3.4.1.3 RD8 (part of 5h above), Rule 9.3.6.6 (5k above), Rule 14.5.3.1.3 – RD15 (5p above), and Rule 14.5.3.2 as it applies to RHAs (5q above). 7. IF Option 4c. is chosen, withdraw listings for the five areas being rejected from Appendix 9.3.7.3, being Inner City West, Chester Street East, Heaton Street, Lyttelton and Piko/Shand, and withdraw maps of these areas from Appendices 9.3.7.7, 9.3.7.8 and 9.3.7.9.
	Updated Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu 1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 13 - Withdrawal of Some Provisions Report. 2. Note the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Withdraws from Plan Change 13 those amendments to the extent or location of some items or settings which have been decided for PC14 Policy 3 areas. The withdrawn provisions are amendments to the locations or settings of : a. The Citizens War Memorial (Decision 5a, 18 September), b. 59 Hansons Lane (Decision 14a, 2 December), c. New Regent Street Shops setting (Decision 14b, 2 December), d. 135 High Street (Decision 14b, 2 December). 4. Withdraws from PC13 as follows: a. RHA interfaces and all specific built form rules for RHAs and in doing so, continue with the core elements of the RHAs as notified. As a consequence, withdraws Rule 9.3.4.1.3 RD8 (part of 5h above), Rule 9.3.6.6 (5k above), Rule 14.5.3.1.3 – RD15 (5p above), and Rule 14.5.3.2 as it applies to RHAs (5q above). AND b. Withdraws from PC13: (i) The Heaton St and Piko/Shand RHAs; (ii) Blue cottage from the Inner City West RHA; (iii) As a consequence, withdraws listings for the two areas being rejected from Appendix 9.3.7.3, being Heaton Street and Piko/Shand, and withdraws maps of these areas from Appendices 9.3.7.7, 9.3.7.8 and 9.3.7.9. 5. Investigates a reduction in the extent of the Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area and reports to Council separately on the outcome of this investigation ahead of the PC13 hearing. 6. Withdraws from PC13 the proposed listing of the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall and the proposed listing of its interior.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00205 1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 13 - Withdrawal of Some Provisions Report. 2. Note the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Withdraws from Plan Change 13 those amendments to the extent or location of some items or settings which have been decided for PC14 Policy 3 areas. The withdrawn provisions are amendments to the locations or settings of : a. The Citizens War Memorial (Decision 5a, 18 September), b. 59 Hansons Lane (Decision 14a, 2 December), c. New Regent Street Shops setting (Decision 14b, 2 December), d. 135 High Street (Decision 14b, 2 December). 4. Withdraws from PC13 as follows: a. RHA interfaces and all specific built form rules for RHAs and in doing so, continue with the core elements of the RHAs as notified. As a consequence, withdraws Rule 9.3.4.1.3 RD8 (part of 5h above), Rule 9.3.6.6 (5k above), Rule 14.5.3.1.3 – RD15 (5p above), and Rule 14.5.3.2 as it applies to RHAs (5q above). AND b. Withdraws from PC13: (i) The Heaton St and Piko/Shand RHAs; (ii) Blue cottage from the Inner City West RHA; (iii) As a consequence, withdraws listings for the two areas being rejected from Appendix 9.3.7.3, being Heaton Street and Piko/Shand, and withdraws maps of these areas from Appendices 9.3.7.7, 9.3.7.8 and 9.3.7.9. 5. Investigates a reduction in the extent of the Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area and reports to Council separately on the outcome of this investigation ahead of the PC13 hearing. 6. Withdraws from PC13 the proposed listing of the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall and the proposed listing of its interior. Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against Resolutions 1-6 be recorded. Councillor Gough requested that his vote against Resolution 4 be recorded. Councillor Coker requested that her vote against Resolution 4a and 4b(ii) be recorded.
	Attachments a Plan Change 13 - Withdrawal of Some Provisions - Presentation to Council

9. Parking Near Christchurch Hospital
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Stephen Wright, Katie Smith and Gautham Praburam joined the table to present the report. 2. Councillor Keown proposed an Amendment that the Council trials a clearway on Hagley Avenue between 7.30 pm and 7.30 am for a 6 month period. This was Seconded by Councillor Fields. 3. After receiving advice from Council Officers surrounding the ability to make this decision without first receiving Officer advice, Councillor Keown then altered the amendment to defer the report to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on the 18^th of December 2024 to allow time to investigate options. This was Seconded by Councillor Fields. 4. The Council voted on the Motion and this was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Parking Near Christchurch Hospital Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report has been assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves Option 4, maintaining the status quo along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue. 4. Notes that should staff be advised to proceed with options 1, 3, or 5, public consultation will be required.
	Withdrawn 1. Receives the information in the Parking Near Christchurch Hospital Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report has been assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Trials a clearway on Hagley Avenue from 7.30 pm to 7.30 am for a six month period. Councillor Keown/Councillor Fields Withdrawn
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00206 That the Council: 1. Defers this Item to the Finance and Performance Committee on the 18th of December 2024 to investigate options on trialling a clearway. Councillor Keown/Councillor Fields Carried Councillors Coker and McLellan requested their votes against the resolution be recorded.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 11.29 am and returned at 11.36 am during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 11.31 am and did not return.

12. Shared Micromobility

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00207

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Shared Micromobility Report.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 11.44 am and returned at 11.46 am during consideration of Item 13.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 11.58 am during consideration of Item 13.

13. Abandoned Trolley Recovery
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Tania Lees and Alec McNeil joined the table to present the report. 2. Councillor Johanson Moved, Seconded by Councillor McLellan a recommendation requesting advice from Council Officers following findings of Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 and what options could be available to Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys. 3. Councillor Keown proposed an Amendment that the implementation of limitation of distance and time limits on shopping trolleys be investigated. The Mover and Seconder agreed to add the Amendment into the Substantive Motion. 4. The Resolution was then voted on and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Abandoned Trolley Recovery Report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00208 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Abandoned Trolley Recovery Report. 2. Requests advice including: a. findings from Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019. b. what regulatory and non-regulatory options could be available to the Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys. c. the option of distance and time limits around trolley usage. Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried Councillor Moore requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

Deputy Mayor Cotter returned to the meeting at 12 pm during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 12.02 pm during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 12.03 pm and returned at 12.06 pm during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Moore left the meeting at 12.04 pm and returned at 12.06 pm during consideration of Item 14.

14. Parks Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00209

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Parks Unit Update Report.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Gough left the meeting via audio/visual link at 12.20 pm during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 12.24 pm during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.25 pm during consideration of Item 15.

15. Recreation Sport and Events Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00210

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Recreation Sport and Events Unit Update Report.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.28 pm and reconvened at 1.32 pm. Councillors Coker, Fields, Gough, Keown, MacDonald and Templeton were not present at this time.

Councillor Templeton returned to the meeting at 1.34 pm during consideration of Item 16.

Councillor MacDonald returned to the meeting at 1.37 pm during consideration of Item 16.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting in person at 1.39 pm during consideration of Item 16.

16. Vertical Capital Delivery Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00211

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Vertical Capital Delivery Unit Update Report.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

Councillor Coker returned to the meeting at 1.42 pm during consideration of Item 17.

17. Multicultural Portfolio Lead Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00212

Multicultural Portfolio Lead Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information information in the Multicultural Portfolio Lead Report.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Mayor Carried

18. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00213

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

Councillor Fields returned to the meeting at 2 pm during consideration of Item 22.

Councillor Keown returned to the meeting via audio/visual link at 2.13 pm during debate of Item 22.

22. Implementation of Greater Christchurch Partnership - Joint Housing Action Plan - Action 7 - Extending Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust Area of Operations

Secretarial note: This Item was originally included in the Public Excluded Agenda, but was moved to the Open section of the meeting.

Council Comment

1. Cate Kearney, Chief Executive Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, joined the table alongside Council Officer Bruce Rendall to answer questions from Elected Members.

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00214

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Implementation of Greater Christchurch Partnership - Joint Housing Action Plan - Action 7 - Extending Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust Area of Operations Report.

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

3. Notes that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust wishes to change the Purpose in its Trust Deed to allow it to operate outside the Christchurch City Council’s boundaries.

4. Requests the General Manager, Corporate Services to write to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust expressing the Council’s interest in ensuring that any change to their operations does not impact on service delivery or ability to meet loan commitments.

5. Approves, as required by the terms of the Financing Agreements, a material change to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s Trust Deed, being the removal of the geographic restriction on operations, expanding the definition of ‘affordable’ to allow for ownership products, and increasing the focus to be on all those with low incomes that are currently contained in the Purpose of the Trust Deed.

6. Notes that the mechanism for the change to the Trust Deed’s Purpose is an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust initiated Private Bill.

7. Approves, as required under the terms of the Financing Agreements, a material change to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s business to allow it to:

a. provide tenancy management services, lease or own property, and/or to develop social and affordable housing other than in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula with the prior written agreement of Council in its role as lender, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld; and

b. provide paid advice and professional development services elsewhere.

8. Delegates authority to give the approvals as per the Financing Agreements (and any subsequent changes to the Financing Agreements) consistent with the direction in Recommendations 5 and 7 above to the General Manager, Finance, Risk & Performance / CFO.

Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor Scandrett requested his abstention from the vote be recorded.

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

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2024/00215

That at 2.16 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 234 to 235 of the agenda be adopted.

Deputy Mayor/Mayor Carried

Secretarial note: Item 22 was originally included in the Public Excluded Agenda but was moved to the Open section of the meeting.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.46 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 2.46 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

There were no apologies received.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor McLellan declared an interest in Item 5 - Welles Street Proposed Parking Restriction Changes.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2024/00006

That the minutes of the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held on Friday, 1 March 2024 be confirmed.

Deputy Mayor/Member Wright Carried

4. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

Councillor McLellan declared an interest in Item 5 – Welles Street Proposed Parking Restriction Changes and did not take part in voting. Deputy Mayor Cotter assumed position of the Chair for Item 5.

5. Welles Street - Proposed Parking Restriction Changes

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2024/00007

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Welles Street - Proposed Parking Restriction Changes Report.

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

3. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 to 21 below.

4. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

5. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 8 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

6. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 13 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

7. That a loading zone restricted to the use of Goods Vehicles only, and further restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes be installed on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 22 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 7 metres. This restriction is to apply at any time.

8. Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 29 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres. This restriction is to apply at any time.

9. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to Cycles only on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 37 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 3 metres. This restriction is to apply at any time.

10. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 40 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

11. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 73 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

12. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 78 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

13. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 87 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 32 metres.

14. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Wells Street commencing at a point 119 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

15. That a loading zone restricted to the use of Goods Vehicles only and further restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes at any time be installed on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 129 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

16. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Wells Street commencing at a point 135 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

17. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 141 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

18. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 162 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

19. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 176 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

20. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 190 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

21. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Welles Street, commencing at a point 207 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

22. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Welles Street commencing at a point 220 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street.

23. That these resolutions take effect when the infrastructure that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

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

Member Wright/Member Ellis Carried

Councillor McLellan assumed Chair following consideration of Item 5.

6. Hagley College - P3 Parking Restriction

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2024/00008

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Hagley College - P3 Parking Restriction 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 any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the Parking or Stopping restrictions described in recommendations 4 and 5 below.

4. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking of motor vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of three minutes between the times of 8:00am and 8.45am, and between 2:30pm and 3:15pm, on school days only on the south-eastern side of Hagley Avenue, commencing at a point 43 metres north-east of its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

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

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried

7. Kilmore Street - Proposed P5 Loading Zones Changes

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2024/00009

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Kilmore Street - Proposed P5 Loading Zones Changes 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.

4. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and as shown on Attachment A:

a. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 76 metres.

b. That a Loading Zone be installed, on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 76 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 9.5 metres. This Loading Zone is to be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes. This restriction is to apply at all times.

c. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 85.5 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18.5 metres.

d. That a Loading Zone be installed, on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 104 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. This Loading Zone is to be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes. This restriction is to apply at all times.

e. That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 122 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

f. That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes on the north side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 129 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres. This restriction is to apply at all times.

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

Councillor McLellan/Member Wright Carried

Meeting concluded at: 9.17am

CONFIRMED THIS 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.

Councillor Jake McLellan

Chairperson

Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board – 9 December 2024

14. Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/122603
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Griffiths, Senior Project Manager Gemma Dioni, Acting Team Leader, Traffic Operations
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

At the Board meeting, Council Officers in attendance provided an overview of the officer recommendations and consultation feedback.

Following questions from those present, Members took into consideration submissions, six deputations received on this item and responses from Council Officers.

Jo Zervos moved a motion relating to Option A that was seconded by Kelly Barber. The motion was debated, put to the vote and declared lost.

Celeste Donovan moved the officer recommendation that was seconded by Alex Hewison.

Jo Zervos moved an amendment to include resolution 7 below that was seconded by Kelly Barber. The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried.

Jo Zervos moved an additional amendment to include resolution 8 below that was seconded by Greg Mitchell. The amendment was debated, put to the vote and declared carried.

Paul McMahon moved the substantive motion seconded by Celeste Donovan and was declared carried. Jo Zervos requested that her vote against the substantive motion was recorded.

2. Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 22 metres north of Hawke Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 292 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional cycleway.

2. In accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 314 metres north of Hawke Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 947 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path and in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that Council:

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

3. Receives the information in the Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road Report.

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

5. 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 Marine Parade, as detailed in agenda Attachment A of this report.

6. Note: A detailed traffic resolution report will be brought to the Community Board for approval before the completion of detailed design.

4. Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

3. Receives the information in the Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road Report.

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

6. Note: A detailed traffic resolution report will be brought to the Community Board for approval before the completion of detailed design.

7. That staff investigate moving the crossing point by the exit of the North Ramp further south towards He Puna Taimoana.

8. That staff investigate removing/reducing the kerb buildouts on the western side of Marine Parade by Lonsdale Street.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road	24/1144782	237

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Option C Plan for approval (Under Separate Cover)	24/2015639
b ⇨	Community Board Report - 12 September 2022 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958584
c ⇨	Community Board Briefing coversheet - 12 February 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958577
d ⇨	Memo to the Community Board - 23 April 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958580
e ⇨	Option A - Marine Parade (Under Separate Cover)	24/2039930
f ⇨	Option B - Marine Parade (Under Separate Cover)	24/2039953
g ⇨	Improvements on Marine Parade - Submission Table (Public) (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959487
h ⇨	Consultation Plan - Option C 03.10.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1767729
i ⇨	Briefing to the Community Board - 11 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	23/1192321
j ⇨	Marine Parade stage 1 - consultation report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959452
k ⇨	Marine Parade stage 2 - consultation report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959459
l ⇨	A new option for Marine Parade - Submission Table (Public) (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959468
m ⇨	Memo to the Community Board - 5 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958816
n ⇨	Information Session/Workshop Cover Sheet - 22 April 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/362538
o ⇨	Email Community Board - New Brighton CRAF Project 02.11.2023 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2018958
p ⇨	Email UC student research opportunities 25.06.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019063
q ⇨	Email Response - Information Session/Workshop on 12 August 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019064
r ⇨	Email Request for Information on AI Mapping of Marine Parade 14.10.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019066

Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1144782
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Shaleen Prasad-Kumar, Project Manager
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 provide the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board with a summary of submissions received through consultation on the Marine Parade Street Renewal project.

1.2 The report is intended to support the Community Board to deliberate on the engagement feedback and consider advice from staff, to make a decision on the recommended option for detailed design and construction.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that Council:

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

3. Receives the information in the Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road Report.

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

6. Note: A detailed traffic resolution report will be brought to the Community Board for approval before the completion of detailed design.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Marine Parade is located in the New Brighton neighbourhood and runs parallel to the beach and foreshore. It is a busy location used by many people travelling to school or work, accessing the shops, beach, playground and hot pools, or moving across the community. Whether people are travelling through this area on foot, bike, bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely and have the opportunities to choose alternative modes of transportation.

3.2 On 12 September 2022, the Waitai Costal-Burwood Community Board (Agenda Item 8) approved the Marine Parade Street renewal project from the intersection of Hawke Street to Bowhill Road, to be included in the New Brighton Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) programme. They also approved a further two projects, which would be investigated if there was remaining budget in the programme and project budget (See Attachment B).

3.3 In May 2024, three options were presented to the public for feedback. The three options were developed closely with the Community Board through a workshop in February and a memo in April (See Attachment C and D).

3.4 The three options that were consulted on in May were;

3.4.1 Option A – Pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal (Attachment E).

3.4.2 Option B – On-road cycle lanes, safer speed platforms, pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal (Attachment F).

3.4.3 Do nothing option.

3.5 Council received over 1300 pieces of feedback from the local community and people visiting New Brighton for shopping, recreational purpose and events. The feedback received during consultation identified several themes:

· Carparking: Both options A and B had changes to the number of carparks provided for users.

· Cycle Safety: Concerns about the safety of people riding bicycles in the proposed options.

· Cost Effectiveness: The community felt that the proposed options were not cost-effective given the improvements offered.

· A new option that reflected community feedback: Requests for an option that does not result in a loss of any carparks.

3.6 Staff provided the Community Board with a summary of submissions (Attachment G) in July via e-mail. Following this e-mail, the Board requested that a third option be developed, which would address community feedback. This was presented to the Community Board for discussion during an Information Session/Workshop on 12 August 2024 (Agenda Item 2).

3.7 The option presented at the workshop session on 12 August, was a combined bi-directional cycleway and shared path option on the east side of Marine Parade. The proposal also incorporated all features from Option A (from the original consultation). The Board directed staff to further refine this option and undertake community consultation. The bi-directional cycleway and shared path option was subsequently prepared for consultation (Attachment H).

3.8 The feedback period for Option C was open from 9 October to 21 October. Further analysis of submissions from Stage 2 of the consultation can be found under Community Views in section 6.17.

3.9 Based on the submitter feedback during the first and second round of consultation. Staff recommend Option C to the Community Board for detailed design and construction. The cost for this option has been estimated at $5.6M and will need to be reviewed again at detailed design stage.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) is a funding package of $40 million from the Treasury for transport projects in Christchurch. The purpose of the funding is to make a difference to affected communities by improving liveability and to support their ongoing regeneration.

4.2 The CRAF investment in roading and transport improvements is to address condition, safety and access issues. It will act as a catalyst towards the development of a high-quality, safe and reliable transport network, which will improve connectivity and the customer experience across Christchurch City and will also improve safety outcomes and encourage more people to walk, bike or use public transport.

4.3 The CRAF funding includes $30 million for targeted roading and transport improvements to deliver integrated safety, modal choice and asset improvements to communities, which experienced significant damage and disruption, or increased transport demand/travel use due to a change in travel patterns following the earthquakes in five areas - New Brighton, Linwood/Woolston, Richmond, Riccarton and Spreydon/Somerfield/Waltham/Beckenham.

4.4 New Brighton has been allocated $6.5 million from the overall budget, with the largest portion being provided for changes to Marine Parade. At the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting on 12 September 2022 (Agenda Item 8), the Board resolved (Minutes, Item 8) that the upgrade of Marine Parade from Hawke Street to Bowhill Road be investigated by staff, and that a decision report with plans be brought back to the Board for approval before detailed design and construction.

4.5 The Marine Parade Street Renewal project extends from Hawke Street in the south to Bowhill Road in the north. The original objectives for the project include:

· Hawke Street to 187 Marine Parade – remove the existing pavement and replace with a new pavement structure to support new asphalt concrete (AC) surfacing. Assess footpath condition.

· 187 Marine Parade to Lonsdale Street – currently do nothing in this section. If there is surplus funding and agreement from the project team and Community Board, investigate removing the existing pavement and replacing with a new pavement structure to support new asphalt concrete (AC) surfacing.

· Lonsdale Street to 142 Marine Parade – replace the kerb and dish channel with kerb and flat channel. Assess footpath condition.

· 142 Marine Parade to Bowhill Road – a small area of new pavement near the intersection of Bowhill Road. Assess footpath condition.

· Investigate options for cycle facility.

· Address residents concerns around speed on Marine Parade.

· Improve the intersection of Hawke Street and Marine Parade.

4.6 Following the resolution by the Board in September 2022, staff developed eight options, out of which three were presented to the Community Board during a briefing on 11 September 2023 (Attachment N). At the briefing, the Board requested that staff explore options for a two-way transitional cycleway like the temporary facility installed on Park Terrace, which was constructed using bollards and road marking.

4.7 Staff completed investigations to accommodate a cycleway (a wider shared path) and all the features in Option B. The high level estimate was over the programme budget of $6.5M. This option was presented during an Information Session/Workshop on 12 February 2024 (See Attachment C).

4.8 At the briefing on 12 February 2024 (Attachment C), staff were advised by the Board to:

4.8.1 Develop two options for consultation from the three that were recommended to the Board in September 2023.

4.8.2 Include a 'do nothing' option in consultation, to allow submitters the opportunity to provide feedback on this alternative as well.

4.8.3 Undertake no further investigations into the two-way cycleway that was presented.

4.8.4 Return to the Board prior to initiating the consultation on the two options, to present the proposed methodology and tactics for consultation.

4.9 The project team prepared and presented the final designs to the Community Board on 22 April 2024 (Attachment N) and advised the Community Board that consultation would be undertaken in May. The Board requested that staff meet with the New Brighton Surf Club and Emergency Services prior to the consultation. Staff completed these meetings, and the outcomes are summarised as follows:

4.9.1 During the meeting with the Surf Club, a few requests were made, including repairing the retaining wall and extending the no-stopping lines past the second entrance of the surf club. These requests were incorporated into the plans for consultation.

4.9.2 During early engagement, Emergency Services expressed concerns about the number of speed platforms proposed in Option B, which could potentially hinder their response times to emergencies. However, they acknowledged the necessity of the speed calming measures.

4.10 Following consultation, the Board requested staff provide an option that addressed the concerns raised by submitters. The option presented was for a two-way cycleway and a shared path. This addressed many of the concerns raised by submitters and provided a balance between providing car parking and options for active travel. Consultation was then undertaken on this option.

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

Date	Subject
02/11/2023	Email to the Community Board – CRAF project (Attachment O)
5/12/2023	Memo to the Community Board - 5 December 2023 (Attachment M)
23/04/2024	Memo to the Community Board - 23 April 2024 (Attachment D)
25/06/2024	Email UC student research 26 June 2024 (Attachment P)
12/08/2024	Email response – information session 12 August (Attachment Q)
14/10/2024	Email request – AI mapping for Marine Parade 14 October (Attachment R)

4.12 The following related Information Session/Workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
11/09/2023	Community Board Briefing (Attachment I)
22/04/2024	New Brighton Marine Parade Street Renewal Project Agenda: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/04/ISWC_20240422_AGN_10105_AT_WEB.htm
12/08/2024	Marine Parade Street Renewal Project – Consultation Update Agenda: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/08/ISWC_20240812_AGN_10120_AT_WEB.htm

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.13 Three options were identified as being reasonably practicable and were taken to public consultation:

4.13.1 Option A – Pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal (as shown in Attachment D).

4.13.2 Option B – On-road cycle lanes, safer speed platforms, pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal (as shown in Attachment E).

4.13.3 Option C - Includes a road, kerb and channel renewal, with a bi-directional cycleway, shared path with raised platforms, speed humps, pedestrian safety improvements and bus stop upgrades. This option is option A plus the bi-directional cycleway and shared path and speed humps on Rawhiti/Marine Parade intersection.

4.14 A comparison of the options is provided below.

Objective	Option A - Pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.	Option B - On-road cycle lanes, safer speed platforms, pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.	Recommended Option C – Sections of asphalt, kerb and channel replacement and a pedestrian crossing, bi-directional cycleway and shared path
Meets project objectives set by Community Board (2022)	Meets some	Meets some	Meets all
Reflects community feedback	Retains as many on-street carparks as possible. But does not address concerns around active transport choices.	Addresses the concerns around active transport but removes a significant number of car parks.	Retains most carparks and provides cycle safety and increased choices for active transport.
Car parking changes	Only loses two on-street parks.	Loses 101 on-street car parks.	Only loses two on-street parks and 10 parks from parking bays.
Safer speeds	Does not address speed concerns raised by the submitters during early engagement.	Making streets safer with safer speed platforms and cycle lanes. This option is expected to slow speed.	Making streets safer with safer speed platforms and cycleway. This option is expected to slow speed.
Travel by active modes	Does not include specific cycle facilities in this option.	Increase in active modes by providing cycle facilities along Marine Parade.	Increase in active modes by providing options to cycle, scoot or walk along the bi-directional and shared path.
Safer crossings	Safer crossing points for locals accessing the beach.	Safer crossing points for locals accessing the beach.	Safer crossing points for locals accessing the beach.
Amenity	Does not provide any additional landscaping along the section of the project.	Does not provide an additional landscaping along the section of the project.	Increases the landscaping around the shared path along the section of Lonsdale to Bowhill Road. Replacement planting around the dunes and parking bays.
Trees	No changes to trees	No changes to trees	Tree removal and replacement proposal developed with Park Rangers and Arborist.
Pavement Design	Provides asphalt from Hawke Street to 187 Marine Parade. Requires improvements to the road foundation prior to asphalt being laid.	Provides chip seal from Hawke Street to 187 Marine Parade	Provides asphalt from Hawke Street to 187 Marine Parade. Requires improvements to the road foundation prior to asphalt being laid.
Resource consents	No consents required.	No consents required.	May trigger consenting if scope creeps further towards sand dunes.
Other CRAF projects	This option allows for other improvements in the CRAF programme to be investigated with funding left over.	This option allows for other improvements in the CRAF programme to be investigated with funding left over.	This option does not allow for other improvements in the CRAF programme to be investigated.
Coal Tar	Coal tar present within the section of the project and will require removal before laying asphalt.	May not require removal. Further investigation required.	Coal tar present within the section of the project and will require removal before laying asphalt.

4.15 Option C Preferred option - Street renewal including option A and bi-directional cycleway and shared path

4.15.1 Option Description: This option includes a road, kerb and channel renewal, with a bi-directional cycleway, shared path with raised platforms, speed humps, pedestrian safety improvements and bus stop upgrade (See Attachment A). Key features of this option are:

· A road renewal on Marine Parade between Hawke Street and 187 Marine Parade.

· An on-road bi-directional cycleway on the dune side of the road between Hawke Street and Lonsdale Street.

· A shared path between Lonsdale Street and Bowhill Road – between the parking bays and dunes, where there is currently a narrow gravel path.

· The bi-directional cycleway and shared path would also have three 150mm raised platforms along it to slow cyclists down at points along the path where cyclists may join alongside pedestrians. These raised platforms will not affect the main road.

· Narrowing the road on Marine Parade between Hawke Street and Lonsdale Street so the cycleway and car parking can fit together in the road corridor.

· Removing a total of 12 carparks on Marine Parade between Rawhiti Avenue and Bowhill Road (two on-street car parks and 10 parks in parking bays).

· A zebra crossing and pedestrian refuge island on Marine Parade close to Hawke Street.

· A pedestrian island and kerb buildouts at the entrance to New Brighton beach car park.

· Bus stop upgrades along Marine Parade by painting new boundary lines. Tactile pavers will also be installed at some bus stops.

· New speed humps at the Rawhiti Avenue / Marine Parade intersection.

· Renewed kerb and channel between Lonsdale Street and 142 Marine Parade.

· Upgrade the existing island on the intersection of Bowhill and Marine Parade.

· Landscaping around the parking bays.

· Proposes planting near the sand dunes.

· Retains 235 on-street car parks out of 237 that is currently available

4.15.2 Changes made to design based on Consultation feedback (Refer to Attachment A)

· During the October consultation, two submitters requested that the bus stop outside 142–144 Marine Parade be moved 20–30 meters further towards Thompson Park.

· ECAN and CCC reviewed this request in an online meeting held in October and confirmed that relocating the bus stop as suggested would be feasible for their bus route.

4.15.3 Option Advantages

· Meets all of the project objectives.

· Aligns with community feedback.

· Allows for landscaping around the parking bays and dunes.

· Loss of 2 on-street carparks and 10 at the parking bays.

· Increases in active travel modes.

· Delivers most improvements out of the three options consulted.

4.15.4 Option Disadvantages

· May trigger consenting if scope creeps further towards sand dunes.

· This option does not allow for other improvements in the CRAF programme to be investigated.

· Will require removal of coal tar, before laying down asphalt.

· Does not allow for other projects to be delivered within the budget.

· Removes tree and scrubs around the parking bays

4.16 Option A - Pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.

4.16.1 Option Description

· Includes 185 metres of asphalt renewal from Hawke Street to 187 Marine Road.

· Replace deep-dish kerb and channel with flat channel between Lonsdale Street to 142 Marine Parade.

· Pedestrian refuge Island on Hawke Street at the intersection of Marine Parade.

· Pedestrian island at the entrance to the New Brighton Beach Car Park.

· Zebra crossing on Marine Parade near the intersection of Hawke Street.

· Loss of 2 car parks.

· Replacing the pedestrian refuge island on the entrance of the New Brighton Surf Club.

· Installing a zebra crossing on Marine Parade near the intersection of Hawke Street.

· Minor Bus Stop Improvements.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· Meets some of the project objectives.

· Only losses 2 on- street carparks which aligns with community feedback.

· Does not require any work around the sand dunes side of the Marine Parade.

· Allows for other projects to be delivered within the budget.

· Does not require any consents.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not provide any enhancement to the landscaping.

· Does not address speed concerns raised by the submitters during early engagement.

· Does not provide increase active travel modes.

· Will require removal of coal tar, before laying down asphalt.

4.17 Option B - On-road cycle lanes, safer speed platforms, pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.

4.17.1 Option Description

· Includes 185 metres of chipseal renewal from Hawke Street to 187 Marine Road.

· Replace deep dish kerb and channel with flat channel between Lonsdale Street to 142 Marine Parade.

· Painted cycle lanes on each side of the road.

· Seven safe speed platforms with pedestrian crossings.

· One speed hump.

· Loss of 101 carparks.

· Pedestrian refuge island on Hawke Street at the intersection of Marine Parade.

· Pedestrian refuge island at the entrance to the New Brighton Beach Car Park.

· Improve the pedestrian island on Marine Parade near Bowhill Road.

· Zebra crossing on Marine Parade near the intersection of Hawke Street.

· Minor Bus Stop Improvements

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Making streets safer with safer speed platforms and cycle lanes. This option is expected to slow speed.

· Increase in active modes by providing cycle facilities along Marine Parade.

· Allows for other projects to be delivered within the budget.

· Does not require any consents.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantage

· Does not provide any additional landscaping along the section of the project.

· Loss of 101 on-street carparks.

· Offers chipseal treatment which does not align with consultation feedback.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.18 Based on feedback received from the first stage of consultation on Options A and B, a third Option C, was developed to reflect community feedback. This was presented at the 12 August Information Session where staff were given a steer from the Community Board to further develop Option C and prepare for consultation.

4.19 Based on feedback from the first stage of consultation on Options A and B, a third option, Option C, was developed to reflect community input.

4.19.1 Option C was further refined and presented for consultation in October, where Council received 313 submissions. A total of:

· 227 submitters were in favour

· 39 somewhat supported

· 39 did not support

· 5 were undecided

· 3 did not indicate a preference

4.19.2 Overall, the strong support for Option C leads staff to recommend it to the Board for endorsement and to advance it to the Council for final approval.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option A - Pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.	Option B - On-road cycle lanes, safer speed platforms, pedestrian improvements, bus stop upgrades, and kerb and channel renewal.	Recommended Option C – Sections of asphalt, kerb and channel replacement and a pedestrian crossing, bi-directional cycleway and shared path
Cost to Implement	$4,000,000	$4,500,000	$5,600,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered by existing maintenance contract	Covered by existing maintenance contract	Covered by existing maintenance contract
Funding Source	LTP Budget CPMS 72242 and 61030	LTP Budget CPMS 72242 and 61030	LTP Budget CPMS 72242 and 61030
Funding Availability	Funds are available	Funds are available	Funds are available
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A	N/A

5.1 The cost are high-level estimates and are not tendered prices. Costing will be completed at each stage of the project phase to ensure there is enough funding to cover the scope of the project.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a budget risk with spending additional funding to undertake further investigations and not having enough funds for construction.

6.2 During the development of Option C, the project team identified a potential risk related to the requirement for a resource consent, should the proposed option encroach into the sand dunes where the shared path is planned. To mitigate this risk, a high-level assessment was conducted in collaboration with CCC resource planners. This assessment aimed to ensure that the current proposed work avoids triggering the need for consents, which could otherwise result in delays and significant cost increase.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Community Board has the delegated authority to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 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 and facilities in New Brighton for people who walk and cycle will contribute to a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and engagement policy. The level of significance was determined by completing a Significance and Engagement Assessment.

6.5.3 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.

· A masterplan was developed for New Brighton as part of the suburban centres programme, and private investment is delivering on redevelopment within the main central area. This would lead to an increase in the number of people wanting to walk, cycle and scoot to these developments and to cross the road to access the beach and Council facilities.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 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 - <=96 crashes.

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

· 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: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 600 kilometres (total combined length).

· Level of Service: 16.0.20 Maintain the condition of road carriageways - <=4,900 customer service requests.

7. Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero (Stage 1)

7.1 Staff met with emergency services, public transport services, New Brighton Surf Club and local community groups in May and June 2024 to discuss the proposed changes on Marine Parade, prior to public consultation.

7.2 Early stakeholder feedback extended the no stopping lines to the New Brighton Surf Club entrance, reduced the proposed number of speed platforms along Marine Parade and prioritised minimising car park loss.

7.3 Public consultation on two options for Marine Parade started on 31 May 2024 and ran until 1 July 2024. An email was sent to 93 key stakeholders, including emergency services, public transport services, local schools and local community groups. Community organisations and hubs, and local residents were provided with information leaflets, inviting them to learn more online. The consultation was posted on the council Facebook page as well as the Peoples Independent Republic of New Brighton, Southshore and Waimairi Beach Residents’ Association pages, inviting submissions on the Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

7.4 Consultation documents with an invitation to get in touch with staff was distributed to all affected properties along Marine Parade – between Hawke Street and Bowhill Road. Reachable absentee owners were also sent the same information.

7.5 Consultation documents and feedback forms were available in the New Brighton Library.

7.6 On 22 June, staff attended the New Brighton Market, setting up token boxes and collecting public sentiment on the two options. 66 people engaged with staff and expressed a preference for option A (34 people), 18 people expressed preference for option B and 14 people preferred neither option. We also heard a range of feedback which was consistent with the key themes reported in the full analysis of submissions.

7.7 A quick poll was set up on the Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk webpage, 1269 people engaged with the poll with 537 (42%) expressing a preference for option A, 412 (33%) expressing a preference for option B and 320 (25%) expressing a preference for neither option.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

7.8 Submissions were made by 10 organisations and businesses and 330 individuals. All submissions are available on the submission tables in Attachment G.

7.9 Submitters were asked for their preference between option A, option B or neither option, they were also asked to provide written feedback on what they liked and didn’t like about each option.

7.10 Overall, 139 submitters (41%) preferred option ‘A’, 113 (34%) preferred neither option and 86 (25%) preferred option ‘B’. Two submitters didn’t provide any preference.

7.11 A full analysis of themes from the written feedback is available in Attachment J.

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero (Stage 2)

7.12 On receiving consultation feedback and hearing from community advocacy groups, the Waitai Coastal Burwood Linwood Community Board directed staff to develop a new option for Marine Parade.

7.13 Public consultation on option ‘C’ started on 9 October and ran until 21 October 2024. An email was sent to the same stakeholders as the stage 1 consultation and the 338 previous submitters. All other tactics from stage 1 were repeated, with the exception of a quick poll and being at the New Brighton Market, where information was available to the public, but staff did not attend.

7.14 Staff were approached by residents on Marine Parade during consultation who requested for the bus stop to moved further away from the driveways of 142 and 144 Marine Parade. This has been reflected in the updated plan.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

7.1 Submissions were made by 12 organisations and businesses and 301 individuals. All submissions are available on the submission tables in Attachment L. Themes are summarised in Attachment K.

7.2 Submitters were asked whether they supported option C as their preferred option, they were also asked whether they preferred chipseal or asphalt as their preferred road treatment due to the cost differences.

7.3 Overall, 227 submitters (73%) supported option C, 39 (12%) somewhat supported option C, the same amount (39, 12%) didn’t support option C and 5 (2%) didn’t know or weren’t sure. Three submitters didn’t provide any preference.

7.4 208 submitters (66%) preferred asphalt while 101 submitters (33%) preferred chipseal. Four submitters didn’t provide any preference.

7.5 A full analysis of submissions from stage 1 and 2 is available in Attachment J and K.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.6 The decision involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision has the potential to impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions if the project encroaches into the sand dunes.

7.7 The decision may involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and may impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

7.8 There is potential for an archaeological authority to be required due to the close proximity of the sand dunes and may involve consultation with Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.9 The decisions in this report are likely to:

7.9.1 Contribute neutrally to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

7.9.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

7.10 The proposed scheme will reduce emissions by providing a bi-directional cycleway and shared path which will give the locals the opportunity to walk or bike along the beach side of Marine Parade.

7.11 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.

7.12 Improving safety and making Marine Parade 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. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 If approved by the Community Board, the project will proceed into detailed design and construction.

8.2 A report providing the detailed traffic resolutions will be presented to the Community Board for approval.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Option C Plan for approval (Under Separate Cover)	24/2015639
b	Community Board Report - 12 September 2022 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958584
c	Community Board Briefing coversheet - 12 February 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958577
d	Memo to the Community Board - 23 April 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958580
e	Option A - Marine Parade (Under Separate Cover)	24/2039930
f	Option B - Marine Parade (Under Separate Cover)	24/2039953
g	Improvements on Marine Parade - Submission Table (Public) (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959487
h	Consultation Plan - Option C 03.10.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1767729
i	Briefing to the Community Board - 11 September 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	23/1192321
j	Marine Parade stage 1 - consultation report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959452
k	Marine Parade stage 2 - consultation report (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959459
l	A new option for Marine Parade - Submission Table (Public) (Under Separate Cover)	24/1959468
m	Memo to the Community Board - 5 December 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1958816
n	Information Session/Workshop Cover Sheet - 22 April 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/362538
o	Email Community Board - New Brighton CRAF Project 02.11.2023 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2018958
p	Email UC student research opportunities 25.06.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019063
q	Email Response - Information Session/Workshop on 12 August 2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019064
r	Email Request for Information on AI Mapping of Marine Parade 14.10.2024 (Under Separate Cover)	24/2019066

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Shaleen Prasad-Kumar - Project Manager

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

City to Sea East Safety Improvements - Avondale Road Crossing
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1539982
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sam Morris, Project Manager David Little, Residential Red Zone Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to consider proposed safety improvements at Avondale Road associated with the City to Sea Pathway, and to make decisions on the same.

1.2 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the localised area of the project, and number of people affected by the recommended decision.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the City to Sea East Safety Improvements – Avondale Road Crossing 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. Approves that all kerb alignments, road surface treatments and road markings related to this crossing, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

4. Approves that a pedestrian crossing be established on Avondale Road, for the use of pedestrians and riders of mobility devices only, located at a point 154 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan, in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices: 2004.

5. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against the northbound Avondale Road traffic, located at a point 163 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan, in accordance with Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017). The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Avondale Road.

6. Approves that a Give Way control be placed against the southbound Avondale Road traffic, located at a point 144 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan, in accordance with Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017). The purpose of this Give Way control is to create priority for cyclists and riders of wheeled recreational devices only, crossing Avondale Road.

7. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the eastern side of Avondale Road, commencing at its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 150 metres, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

8. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all time on the eastern side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point approximately 156 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 37 metres, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

9. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the western side of Avondale Road, commencing at its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 85 metres, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

10. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all time on the western side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point approximately 118 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

11. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all time on the western side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point approximately 157 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 46 metres, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan.

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

12. Approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw (2017), that the path on the eastern side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point 142 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres be resolved as a Shared Path in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan. 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.

13. Approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw (2017), that the path on the western side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point 148 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be resolved as a Shared Path in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan. 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.

14. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in 2 to 11.

15. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 3 to 13 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This portion of the City to Sea Pathway crosses Avondale Road. There are currently no dedicated crossing facilities in place, which leads to safety hazards for users – including those currently using stopped roads in the area. The expected increase in use of the Pathway following construction will likely exacerbate this issue.

3.2 The proposed crossing is an interim facility due to Three Waters plans to construct the long-term stopbanks in this area in around 5 years. A permanent signalised crossing is planned as part of these works.

3.3 A design has been prepared which aims to improve safety at the crossing point. This has been consulted with the community, receiving generally favourable feedback as detailed in Section 6 of this report.

3.4 The proposal is described in Section 4, and the plan is included as Attachment A.

3.5 In order to enact the proposal, Community Board and Council approval is required.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The City to Sea Pathway is a core element of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan and has been funded by central government via the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF). Its implementation was approved via Council Resolution CNCL/2021/00160 (Implementing the City to Sea Pathway – Key Decisions 12 October 2021).

4.2 Due to its length, delivery of the Pathway has been split into three sections. The decisions in this report relate to the road crossing associated with the eastern section, shown in Figure 1 below. This section runs from Porrit Park to Wainoni Road.

Figure 1. City to Sea Pathway – Eastern Portion

4.3 A Safe System assessment has been completed for the proposed crossing.

4.4 Traffic Information relating to the Avondale Road dual pedestrian/cycle crossing is as below.

4.4.1 Avondale Road is a collector road carrying approximately 8000 vehicles per day (5% heavy vehicles). The posted speed is 50km/h, and the 85th percentile speed is 56.9 Km/h.

4.4.2 Between 2014 and 2023 three crashes were recorded on Avondale Road within 50 metres of the proposed crossing. All three crashes were non-injury crashes involving vehicles. There were no reported pedestrian or cyclist crashes near the proposed crossing.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed below:

4.5.1 Preferred: Adopt the road crossing at Avondale Road as per Attachment A.

4.5.2 Construct a raised crossing at Avondale Road.

4.5.3 Maintain status quo, without crossing facilities.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.6 Preferred Option: Adopt the road crossing at Avondale Road as per Attachment A.

4.6.1 Option Description: Flush road crossing at Avondale Road, with speed humps north and south of the crossing to regulate traffic speeds.

4.6.2 Option Advantages

· Provides a safe crossing point for users of the City to Sea Pathway.

· Reduced cost compared to raised crossing, noting that it is an interim facility.

4.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· Relies on proposed speed humps to reduce the speed of approaching vehicles at the crossing.

· Slightly less comfortable for users of the Pathway due to the level changes.

· Loss of parking near the crossing (common to any crossing intervention).

4.7 Option Description: Construct a raised crossing at Avondale Road

4.7.1 Option Advantages

· Provides the safest and most comfortable crossing facility for users of the City to Sea Pathway.

4.7.2 Option Disadvantages

· Significantly more expensive than the preferred option due to the need to install new catchpits and pipework to deal with stormwater. Given the temporary nature of the facility, this is not an efficient use of funding and would likely be viewed as ‘gold plating’.

4.8 Option Description: City to Sea Pathway constructed to the edge of the road reserve only, existing road corridor remains as is.

4.8.1 Option Advantages

· Avoids physical works costs.

4.8.2 Option Disadvantages

· The lack of a safe crossing point would be confusing for users, and we could expect queries as to why it was omitted, particularly given that the western portion received crossings.

· Safety issues with the current uncontrolled crossing would persist, resulting in increased likelihood of injury as usage of the Pathway increases.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Raised Crossing	Option 3 - Status Quo
Cost to Implement	$100 000	$ 250 000	$ 0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$ 2,500 approx. pa	$ 2,500 approx. pa	$ 0
Funding Source	CRAF, fully funded	CRAF, fully funded	N/A
Funding Availability	On budget in LTP	On budget in LTP	N/A
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil

5.1 The permanent solution of a signalised crossing will be paid for by the red zone parks team out of the City to Sea Budget (WBS 562/04226). This will be delivered in parallel to the installation of the Three Waters stop bank. Removals of this temporary layout will largely be paid by Three Waters as part of the stop bank installation, however, red zone will pay for the removal of the speed humps.

5.2 The works form part of the City to Sea Pathway project, which has been funded by central government, via the Christchurch Recovery Acceleration Facility (CRAF).

5.3 Around 15% of the above costs relate to traffic management.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Pathway is intended to provide a route for active users, and the route should be safe for use. The crossings have been designed to mitigate injury risk. The Safe System assessment concluded that if the design as proposed is not accepted, then then the risk to users is increased.

6.2 There are no further risk and mitigation considerations.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 Part 1, Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017) provides Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.

6.3.2 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 and traffic control devices.

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

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.4.2 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions in this report:

6.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, particularly:

A green, liveable city

· 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, waterbodies and tree canopy.

6.5.2 Are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy.

6.5.3 Are generally consistent with the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, in that they support the City to Sea Pathway.

6.5.4 Are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the localised area of the project, and number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor

· Level of Service: 6.8.12.1 Implementation of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan (Green Spine). Council-led capital investment: Progress integrated Green Spine programme (Parks, Water and Transport) as per the Implementation Plan. Target: 90 % of approved work programmes delivered in the year funded.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero

6.9 Public consultation started on 23 October 2024 and ran until 3 November 2024. An email was sent to 290 key stakeholders, including emergency services and previous submitters on the City to Sea Pathway project. Signage was installed directing passersby to the Korero Mai Let’s talk page by QR code.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.10 Submissions were made by Spokes, Canterbury/West Coast Automobile Association District Council, and 31 individuals. All submissions are available at Korero Mai Let’s talk.

6.11 The Canterbury/West Coast Automobile Association District Council prefers a temporary overhead bridge for cyclists and pedestrians as opposed to the proposed plan. This would be orders of magnitude more expensive and is not recommended for a temporary facility.

6.12 Spokes were generally in support of the plan, supporting the pedestrian crossing, noting the priority for pedestrians and cyclists, paint and speed humps. However, they would like to see additional pedestrian pavers, and speed monitoring and enforcement over the first three months of opening the crossing.

6.13 Submitters were asked how safe they currently feel at Avondale Road, if they felt there was anything we should know before a decision was made on the plan, and how they travel though the area.

6.14 Half of all submitters feel either unsafe (11) or very unsafe (5) as shown in Figure 2.

A yellow and green squares with black text

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Responses to safety question

6.15 As shown in Figure 3, 22 of the submitters mostly travel via bicycle on Avondale Road. Of these, around half said that they felt unsafe (8) or very unsafe (3). Those who travel via car or scooter were more split in their safety rating.

A graph of a number of vehicles

Description automatically generated with medium confidence
Figure 3: Responses to mode of transport question

6.16 When asked whether there was anything decision makers needed to know prior to making a decision, the key themes were:

General positive sentiment / support for plan	15
Speed humps	7
Paint (green / red)	4
Dual crossing	3
Looking forward to pathway being finished	2
Difficult to cross at present / crossing point currently unsafe	6
Would like raised crossing	3
Wider (crossing / footpath)	2
Additional tactile pavers	2
Concerns for visually impaired users	2
Speed humps	2
Money better spent elsewhere	2

6.17 Some submitters (4) also mentioned ‘flashing lights’ which were incorrectly included in the plan originally published on Korero mai Let’s Talk page. Flashing belisha beacons are no longer recommended by the Transport team, and this crossing will feature reflective discs, in line with other crossings around the city.

Supplementary information

6.18 A quick poll was conducted on the Korero Mai webpage to reduce barriers to participate. We received 27 contributions made up of 5 star (19, 70.4%), 4 Star (4, 14.8%), 2 Star (1, 3.7%), and 1 Star ratings (3, 11.1%). This is shown in Figure 4.

A graph with numbers and a number of stars

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 4: Responses to the quick poll question

6.19 As a result of the submissions, no changes were made to the design.

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

6.20.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.23 While the Corridor overall is of high value and interest to mana whenua (and is the subject of co-governance arrangements), the primary focus for mana whenua has consistently been its return to a functioning delta ecosystem where mahinga kai can once more be gathered and processed. Road crossing points are of minor interest only in this outcome. The Co-governance committee have been briefed on the project as it has developed.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.24 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.24.1 Not affect adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.24.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions, by providing safer active transport options for local communities.

6.25 While the crossing is not likely to have a significant impact on adaptation planning, it will encourage use of non-motorised transport options, reducing emissions. Although not strictly a commuting route, the Pathway is likely to be used for this purpose by residents, as well as for short trips to local facilities and shops.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved by both Community Board and Council, this work will proceed as part of the City to Sea East construction contract. This work is on programme to be completed by late 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian / Cycle Crossing	24/2097706

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sam Morris - Project Manager

May Wong - Engineer - Traffic Investigations

Ashley Beaton - Community Travel Adviser

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Olivia Taylor - Engagement Assistant

Approved By

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2200860
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Board’s recommendation to Council to:

a. Commence the acquisition process outlined in Attachment A under the Public Works Act 1981 (the PWA) for a small portion of deeds land as shown in Attachment B.

b. Following the successful completion of the acquisition, stop a portion of road under the Public Works Act 1981 and amalgamate with the adjoining playground.

1.2 The report originates from the investigation surrounding a portion of Harmans Road Lyttelton not being contained within the legal road alignment but having formed road upon it along with the playground occupying legal road.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommend to the Council to:

1. Receive the information in the Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton Report.

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

3. Approve commencement of the acquisition process as outlined in Attachment A to this report for the Deeds land identified in this report (“Deeds land”) to formalise the Council’s ownership of that part of sec 258 comprising 43m² as shown in Attachment B to this report.

4. Approve the stopping of section 1 comprising 61m² as shown as section 1 SO 18144 in Attachment F to this report, and the amalgamation with the immediately adjoining Council-owned title CB193/217 under Section 116(1) of the Public Works Act 1981.

5. Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to take the necessary steps to carry out Resolution 3 above and acquire the Deeds land being part of sec 258 comprising 43m²,including (but not limited to) signing and serving a notice under section 23 of the Public Works Act taking the Deeds land.

6. Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to take the necessary steps to carry out Resolution 4 above to stop the legal road section 1 comprising 61m² as shown as section 1 SO 18144 and amalgamation with CB193/217.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Two parcels of land on the corner of Harmans and Voelas Road Lyttelton require the Council’s attention to correctly define their status and current occupation as depicted in Attachments C and G.

3.2 One parcel is currently held in a deed in private ownership being the remnants of Section 258 which has been used as a road for over 100 years and contains Council and Mobil Oil services within it, this requires the Council’s acquisition. Historical images of the parcel shown as red are included in Attachment D.

3.3 The other parcel being a portion of road which forms part of Voelas Playground which requires stopping of the road and amalgamation with the park once the land described in section 3.2 above is acquired. Attachment H.

3.4 The Public Works Act 1981 is the most appropriate mechanism to achieve both outcomes, with the process being outlined in Attachment I.

3.5 Once the Deeds land is acquired the land will be declared road under the Public Works Act 1981 section 114 by way of a staff delegation and the road stopping and amalgamation of the land with the adjacent playground can occur.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 In late 1890’s / early 1900’s the Lyttelton Borough Council acquired sections of land on Voelas Road Lyttelton - Section 257 and pt section 258, 259 as shown in Attachment E.

4.2 Parts of Sections 257, 258 and 259 became Harmans Road to provide access to adjacent land being developed.

4.3 While Harmans Road has been formed perpendicular to Voelas Road, the legal alignment has a dog leg in it.

4.4 This has resulted in the two situations described in this report:

4.4.1 An area of 43m² contained within a remnant of pt sec 258 being alienated from its parent and remaining in the deeds system of land ownership, - The deeds system was a system where land ownership was recorded in New Zealand before the land titles system was introduced in 1870.

4.4.2 The formed alignment of Harmans Road not being within the legal boundaries of Harmans Road with the Voelas Playground occupying legal road.

4.5 The contour of sections adjacent to Harmans Road resulted in garages being constructed partially on road reserve and partially on Council land. All of the constructed garages have licences to occupy.

4.6 In the late 1980s the owner of a property in Harmans Road applied for a planning consent to develop his property which required purchasing part of the legal road.

4.7 Planning consent was granted subject to a number of conditions, including stopping of the road and the purchase of this land for amalgamation with his title.

4.8 In 1991, a plan was produced (Attachment F) (SO 18144) which would address the conditions of the planning consent as well as partially correct the misalignment of Harmans Road and the garages on road but not the ownership of pt sec 258.

4.9 The road stopping was publicly notified which drew objections. The objections were heard, and an agreement was reached with the objectors. These objections related to the road which is occupied by the garages.

4.10 The landowner’s planning consent lapsed and the road stopping never proceeded with SO 18144 remaining in the LINZ system unactioned.

4.11 In 2008, the landowner wished the road legalisation process to recommence; however, this did not proceed, and he sold his property.

4.12 The new property owner applied for a consent to build a dwelling which did not require Council land and therefore did not involve the road stopping.

4.13 In 2023, Orion and Mobil Oil wished to gain easements for their services through Council land in Harmans Road which had formed road located upon it.

4.14 This highlighted the current situation which showed land which the Council did not own (pt sec 258) and had Council services as well as a Mobil Oil pipeline running through it.

4.15 Part of this problem was resolved following an application to LINZ to use SO 18144 to legalise the land as road.

4.16 However, to resolve the legalisation of status of pt Sec 258 and Sec 1 SO 18144 requires commencement of the processes described in this report.

4.17 Once the processes in this report are completed there will be no need for easements and the land status will reflect the current land occupation.

4.18 The land will be declared as road using delegations of the Manager Property Consultancy.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.19.1 Legalise the current situation using section 18 and 23 of the Public Works Act 1981 to gain ownership of pt 258 and Section 116(1) of the Public Works Act 1981 for the road stopping.

4.19.2 Legalise the current situation by tracing the chain of executorship for pt 258 to declare land as road.

4.20 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.20.1 Do nothing – The Council and Mobil Oil would have utilities and formed road in/on property which they have no legal right to occupy, and easements would need to be obtained. This is not possible given the land pt Sec 258 is within the Deeds system.

4.20.2 Acquire land by adverse possession utilising section 172 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 - As the land has been used for road it would be questionable as to whether the land has been for the exclusive use of the Christchurch City Council. This then provides uncertainty to the acquisition.

4.20.3 Stop the road under the Local Government Act 1974 Schedule 10 – The road stopping under the Public Works Act 1981 meets the Council’s threshold as described in the report.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.21 Preferred Option: Legalise the current situation using section 18 and 23 of the Public Works Act 1981 to gain ownership of pt Sec 258 and stop the road under section 116(1) of the Public Works Act 1981.

4.21.1 Option Description: Public notification of the Council’s intention to gain ownership of pt Sec 258 using section 18 and 23 the Public Works Act 1981 along with stopping road under the Public Works Act 1981 and amalgamation with Voelas playground.

4.21.2 Option Advantages

· This is the most expediate way of legalising the current land use, given the land is held in the Deeds system as a remnant of pt section 258 and has not been dealt with since 1876 before the Land Transfer Act land registration system was established.

· Public notification of the Council’s intention will provide transparency in its decision.

· Negotiations can take place with potential beneficiaries who may come forward and they may consider proving their status may not be worth their cost in participating in the process.

· The Council/Mobil would not require easements through the land.

· The road stopping will be undertaken under delegation following the acquisition of Deeds land.

4.21.3 Option Disadvantages

· Public notification of the intention to compulsorily take the land may produce an unknown quantity of prospective beneficiaries.

4.22 Legalise current situation by identifying the beneficial owner of the property for pt 258.

4.22.1 Option Description: Legalise the current situation by tracing the chain of executorship for pt 258.

4.22.2 Option Advantages

· Would provide a definitive answer as to who has the legal right to claim ownership of land.

· Negotiations can take place with potential beneficiaries who may come forward and they may consider proving their status may not be worth their cost in participating in the process.

· The Council/Mobil would not require easements through the land.

4.22.3 Option Disadvantages

· There may be an indeterminate number of beneficiaries who would need to be dealt with.

· The Council would incur legal and staff costs which are not in keeping with the nominal value of the land.

· The time taken to undertake the investigation could become protracted.

· The cost to undertake the investigation could be significant.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.23 Staff considered all the options which are discussed in this report to provide a long-term cost-effective process for legalisation of the current land occupation.

4.24 The Officer Recommendations in the report achieve the best solution given the historic nature of the occupation and the small amount of land with little or no value.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 This proposal is an operational matter to correct an anomaly with a formed road being on land which the Council does not own along with a playground using legal road.

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Internal staff costs plus survey and legal costs
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No change - the park and road are currently being funded through current budgets
Funding Source	Parks/Roading Unit
Funding Availability	Parks Planning and Roading operational budget.
Impact on Rates	No change

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 A beneficiary may come forward following public notification of the proposal with the cost of them making a claim outweighing the minimal/if any value of the land. Therefore, this risk is considered minimal.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council, under the Public Works Act (PWA) 1981 Sections 18 and 23, can acquire land it does not own but has an interest in. However, the Council has not delegated the commencement of this process to staff and therefore this report recommends that staff be given the authority to commence this process.

6.2.2 Once the land is in Council ownership, the Manager Property Consultancy Services has the delegation to declare the land as road.

6.2.3 The road stopping process can only continue when the Deeds land is acquired as to proceed without this will mean that there will be a playground on unformed legal road and only 1-2metres in width of legal formed road.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.4 Local Government Act 1974

6.4.1 The Local Government Act 1974 road-stopping procedure will not be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

· Where any public right of access to any public space could be removed or materially limited or extinguished because of the road being stopped; or

· If it is found through the review process that the road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

· The road stopping is, in the judgment of the Council, likely to be controversial; or

· If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.

6.5 The Public Works Act 1981 – Process Considerations

6.5.1 The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted only if all the following circumstances apply:

· Where there are no more than two properties, other than the applicant’s property, adjoining the road proposed to be stopped.

· Where the written consent to the proposed road stopping of all adjoining landowners (other than the applicant) to the proposed road-stopping is obtained.

· Where no other persons, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping.

· Where the road proposed to be stopped is to be amalgamated with the adjoining property or properties (as appropriate); and

· Where other reasonable access exists or will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the road proposed to be stopped (i.e. by the construction of a new road); and

· Where the use of the Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure is approved by the relevant Government department or Minister.

6.5.2 If any one of the circumstances referred to in clause 6.4 does not apply, then the Local Government Act 1974 process must be used.

6.6 The legal considerations will be addressed following public notification of the proposal should any beneficial owners come forward.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions:

6.7.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. By managing ratepayers’ money wisely and balance the needs of today and the future.

6.7.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the adoption of the recommendations in this report legalising an existing situation with there being no physical change to the environment but will provide certainty to the requiring authorities whose utilities are through the land to be acquired.

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

6.8 The road stopping has been assessed against the criteria in the Council’s Road Stopping Policy with all criteria being satisfied:

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

6.10 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.10.1 Activity: City Growth and Property

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

6.11 Transport

6.11.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 625 kilometres (total combined length)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.12 There will be no impact on the community. The owner of the property adjoining the Deeds land has been informed and discussions held with them have not resulted in any objection to the proposal. They will also be sent a notice as part of the public notification process.

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

6.13.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.16 The decision is to commence the process of acquiring 43m² of land which has been used as road for more than 120 years with the 61m² land used by the playground for over 40 years.

6.17 The land is a remnant of land which was acquired by the Lyttelton Borough Council for road and land currently used as a playground.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 This is a report to begin a process for acquiring land which currently has formed road upon it and legalising land currently used as a playground.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Survey the Land.

7.2 Lodge a desire with the Registrar-General of Land to acquire the land.

7.3 Publicly notify the Council’s intention to take the land for road and publish a notice in the NZ Gazette.

7.4 Apply to the Minister to proceed with the road stopping if given, then a road stopping notice is published in the New Zealand Gazette stopping the road and automatically amalgamating it with the adjoining title.

7.5 Following Christchurch City Council obtaining ownership of the land, the land will be declared road by the Manager Property Consultancy by way of the delegation given to him by the Council.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A Acquisition Process	24/1541755
b	Attachment B Plan Deeds Land	24/1534893
c	Attachment C Land requiring actions	24/1535161
d	Attachment D Historic photos and street view	24/1534784
e	Attachment E Sections 257,258 and 259 superimposed over roads	24/1538174
f	Attachment F SO 18144 Road Dedication Plan	24/1403793
g	Attachment G Original Sections with Deeds land and Road to Stop	24/1790381
h	Attachment H Road Legalistion Plan	24/1694241
i	Attachment I Road Stopping process	24/427010

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Colin Windleborn - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

3 Bantry Lodge Road, Wainui - Revoke Reserve Status and Sale of Land
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/960084
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Community Board’s recommendation to Council to commence, under the Reserves Act 1977, the reserve revocation process of Reserve 4328 – 3 Bantry Lodge Road Wainui, which holds no public values, for the purpose of sale to the adjoining property owner currently occupying and using the property.

1.2 The report follows an enquiry from an adjoining property owner on maintenance of the trees and grounds which resulted in the Parks Unit investigating the merits of reserve revocation and sale of this property.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends to Council to:

1. Receive the information in the 3 Bantry Lodge Road, Wainui - Revoke Reserve Status and Sale of Land report.

2. Note that:

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

b. The land described in the Schedule is not Crown derived nor is there any offer back obligations under Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

Schedule

Reserve 4328 comprising 797m² held in certificate of title 1144021

3. Approve the commencement of the revocation procedures under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 for the land described in the schedule by undertaking Public Notification as prescribed by Section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

a. If no objections, or other considerations that might require a change in the process, are received through the consultation process:

i. Revoke the reserve status classification of Reserve 4328 comprising 797m² held in certificate of title 1144021.

ii. Declare the land surplus to requirements to be disposed of at a valuation determined by a registered valuer.

iii. Deal exclusively with the adjoining landowner (Te Puna Trustee Limited or nominee) in relation to sale of the land as described in schedule on the basis that there is a clear reason to do so under the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000. Specifically, that they are the only logical purchaser and have initiated the request to purchase.

iv. Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to manage and conclude all negotiations and transactions required to finalise the revocation process, the subsequent registration of a new fee simple title, and sale of the land to an adjoining landowner if an agreement can be reached.

4. Note that:

a. The Minister of Conservation gives the final approval for the revocation.

b. If submissions are received a further report will be written to the Council or a Hearings Panel established to consider the submissions and make a decision and the recommendations to be forwarded to the Minister of Conservation for a determination.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The land at 3 Bantry Lodge Road comprises 797m2 held by the Christchurch City Council under the Reserves Act 1977 as Recreation Reserve by way of a subdivision in 1931. See Attachment A.

3.2 The land has been occupied by successive adjoining landowners, incorporated into their garden, extensively landscaped, and now includes large exotic and indigenous trees.

3.3 There are several water courses (drains) through the reserve draining water from surrounding properties and road including properties at 252 and 254 Wainui Main Road.

3.4 Properties adjoining the reserve were purchased in July 2022 at which time an enquiry was made as to the ongoing management and maintenance of the reserve land including trees, drains, and grounds.

3.5 The Council’s Parks Unit assessed the land and made the decision that there was no need or benefit for this land to be retained by the Christchurch City Council and did not want to incur the ongoing maintenance costs of the property. It has always been privately occupied and not recognised or used as public space.

3.6 Ōnuku Rūnanga have been consulted with, have assessed the property, and have no objection to the proposal to revoke the reserve status and disposal of the property.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Reserve 4328 was vested in the Council by way of a subdivision in 1931 and held in a gazette.

4.2 A title was obtained in the name of the Christchurch City Council on 24th July 2023. See Attachment B.

4.3 Over several years the reserve has been incorporated into the adjoining landowner’s garden, which has been extensively landscaped and now includes large exotic and indigenous trees.

4.4 There are several water courses (drains) through the reserve draining water from surrounding properties and road including 252 and 254 Wainui Main Road.

4.5 The drain from 254 Wainui Main Road is a relief for a spring on the property and has been expanded to form a pond immediately adjacent to the reserve, with an overflow directed through the reserve. This drain then meanders to a culvert under the formed part of Bantry Lodge Road with an open drain that leads through the road reserve under Wainui Main Road and into a tidal area.

4.6 It appears that the culvert within the formed road has had invert levels set to prevent the surcharge of tidal water entering upstream properties (252 and reserve) in times of high tides. This also has the effect of retaining water on the reserve, making the ground extremely wet with stagnant water being retained within the drain and reserve when there is insufficient water to self-flush the drain.

4.7 There are no fences on the property apart from the road boundary fence which is timber and encroaches into the road reserve.

4.8 The current owner has made enquiries with the Council regarding maintenance of the property, including the drains, grass, and trees which will incur annual maintenance costs.

4.9 The land is zoned Open Spaces Community Parks zone with the adjoining properties being a mixture of Residential Small Settlement Zone and Rural Banks Peninsula Zone. See Attachment D. If revocation and sale of the property is successful, the land will be added to the Council’s impending ‘catch all’ plan change and rezoned Residential Small Settlement Zone.

4.10 In 1993 there was a public notice advising of the intention to revoke the reserve and dispose to the neighbour which received no objections.

4.11 In 1996/7 following consultation about the future of the reserve there was two submissions, with one being from the Takamatua Ratepayers seeking “to leave ownership unchanged and develop into a picnic area”. There was no comment with the other submission, however the neighbour was advised of the Council’s intention and there was no response received.

4.12 A rationalisation report for reserves in Banks Peninsula presented to the Banks Peninsula Council Property Committee in 2004 noted that the reserve has never been used for recreation purposes. A resolution passed that following consultation and processes, an application to change the zoning and then dispose of the reserve through Department of Conservation be made. See Attachment E.

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

Date	Subject
28 /08 2023	Revocation and Disposal Process for Recreation Reserve 3 Bantry Lodge Road French Farm

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Revoke Reserve Status and sell the property to an adjoining owner (recommended option).

· Revoke Reserve Status and sell on open market.

4.15 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Do Nothing - Currently the property is being maintained by the neighbour who has indicated that he is not willing to continue with this unless he is compensated. The Council will also be liable for half of the fencing of the property along with addressing the stormwater issues associated with the property. The site has no public values or benefits, and the Parks Unit do not consider creating public use, values, and benefits are warranted.

· Revoke the Reserve Status and retain the Property – the Council would incur costs in the revocation process along with the reasons in the above option.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Preferred Option: Revoke Reserve Status and sell the property to an adjoining owner.

4.16.1 Option Description: A request would be made to the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status and dispose of the property to the adjoining owner.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· If an agreement can be reached, then the Council would not be responsible for any ongoing maintenance and would gain revenue from the sale.

· There are stormwater issues associated with the two adjoining properties which are best managed by them.

· The land will be sold at market value.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· There would be no opportunity to seek a possible higher sale price on the open market.

4.17 Revoke the Status and sell the property on the open market.

4.17.1 Option Description: A request would be made to the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status and dispose of the property.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· The sale is open market.

· The Council would not be responsible for the ongoing costs of maintaining the property and would gain revenue from the sale.

· The Council would not be responsible for any stormwater issues affecting the property.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· There is no guarantee that the property would be sold.

· The Council may be left with the responsibility of ongoing maintenance which is currently unbudgeted.

· There would need to be a conversation around, and possible compensation, for the privately funded landscaping and maintenance over the years and fencing.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.18 Staff considered all the options which are discussed in this report to provide a long-term cost-effective process for the management of the property.

4.19 The recommended option of revocation and disposing to the adjoining property owner will provide this.

4.20 The Council will receive revenue from the disposal, with additional rate intake from having the additional land rated.

4.21 The property came to the Council by way of a subdivision in 1931 with owners of the land which surrounds the property occupying and maintaining it since then. A change of ownership has meant that the owner does not wish to maintain the property as public land and hence this report.

4.22 The decision does not set a precedent as all applications for revocation and disposal will need to come to the Community Board/Council on an individual basis.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2
Cost to Implement	Purchaser is meeting cost	$7000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	nil	$2-3000 per annum if not sold plus Fencing $5000
Funding Source	nil	Parks Operational
Funding Availability	Purchaser	Parks
Impact on Rates	No impact on Rates	yes
Income	Sold at market value	Sold at market. nil if no purchaser

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks associated with this decision.

6.2 This does not mean there are no risks, however, any potential risks (such as the outcome of the public notification process, which cannot be guaranteed) are limited.

6.3 The Minister may not give approval for the revocation, but this risk is considered minimal.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.5 Reserves Act 1977

6.5.1 The Department of Conservation has provided various delegations to Local Authorities to enable the more effective and efficient administration and management of the Reserves Act 1977. However, they have not delegated authority to Local Authorities regarding the revocation of a reserve.

6.5.2 As such, the Community Board may resolve to commence the revocation procedures pursuant to Section 24 of the Reserves Act (Attachment F), the successful outcome of which is subject to:

· Public notification (as prescribed by Section 119 of the Act).

· The consent of the Minister of Conservation.

· Consultation with Mana Whenua.

· Should any objections to the public notice be received and remain unresolved these would need to be presented to the Council and, if upheld, would precipitate the requirement for a Hearings Panel.

· As the title of this portion of land was not derived from the Crown the requirement to offer the land back to the former owner under Section 25 of the Reserves Act does not apply.

· The proposal to revoke the reserve status has been notified to the Department of Conservation under their Statutory Land Management Programme.

· Following no submissions being received then the Community Board can recommend to the Council that the reserve status be revoked.

· This is then forwarded to the Minister of Conservation for ratification.

6.6 Local Government Act 2002

6.6.1 Section 78 LGA requires the Council to consider the views and preferences of affected parties. Given the nature of the land and the low significance the reserve revocation process will be sufficient to enable the Council to consider the views and preferences of affected/interested parties.

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

6.6.3 Section 76AA requires the Council to identify its strategic assets and develop a significance and engagement policy in dealing with those assets with the Council’s Parks and Reserves being strategic assets.

6.6.4 However, the Council can deal with those assets on an individual basis without triggering the significance and engagement policy requiring Special Consultative Procedures. The decision to revoke the reserve status and sell the land meets this requirement.

6.7 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.8 The required decisions:

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

6.8.2 This recommendation is strongly aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the Council’s vision of managing ratepayers' money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community, and addressing the issues that are important to our residents.

6.8.3 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy in that there is no need for the recreation reserve in this location, disposal does not set a precedent for future requests of a similar nature, it provides a benefit to the community by providing additional revenue from the sale and additional rates in the future while decreasing any potential future opex costs.

6.8.4 Decide to deal exclusively with the adjoining property owner (Te Puna Trustee Limited or nominee) in relation to the sale on the basis that there is a clear reason to do so under the Council’s Policy on the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000. Specifically, they are the only logical purchaser and have initiated the request to purchase the property. See Attachment C.

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

6.10 Parks, heritage and coastal environment

6.10.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.10.1 Appropriate use and occupation of parks is facilitated - Formal approval process initiated within ten working days of receiving complete application - 95%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.11.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 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.

6.13 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.

6.14 Ōnuku Rūnanga have been consulted with and have no objection to the proposal.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Community Board agree to the proposals in this report, staff will continue with the statutory processes for the reserve revocation.

7.2 A Sale and Purchase Agreement will be prepared by the Council Legal Services Unit and entered into with the respective property owner which will be subject to obtaining Ministerial and Council approval.

7.3 A request will be made to the Council’s Planning Team to rezone the land if the reserve revocation is successful.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A Aerial and subdivision plans and photos for Property	23/771688
b	Attachment B Title for Land	23/1290299
c	Attachment C Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000	23/774574
d	Attachment D Excerpts of Christchurch City Council Planning Maps	23/774978
e	Attachment E Excerpt from 2004 Reserve Rationalisation Report	23/1479413
f	Attachment F Reserves Act Revocation Process	24/1668689

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Colin Windleborn - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Disraeli Reserve Art Features Decommissioning Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1228347
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Maria Adamski, Senior Parks Asset Planner Jo Grigg, Senior Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere- Heathcote Community Board to recommend to the Council to decommission the Disraeli Reserve Art Features (Artwork) by Ian Lamont and to transfer the Artwork to the artist’s family.

1.2 The report is staff generated due to safety concerns related to extensive corrosion and insufficient structural support throughout the Artwork.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the Disraeli Reserve Art Features Decommissioning 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. Recommends to the Council to:

a. Approve decommissioning of the Disraeli Reserve Art Features, and

b. Approve transfer of the Artwork to the artist’s family.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Artwork, by Ian Lamont, located on Disraeli Reserve in Addington is corroded and has insufficient structural support. The engineering recommendation is to remove the Artwork to ensure public safety.

3.2 Staff are proposing to decommission the Artwork and have the remaining components transferred to the artist’s family for removal.

3.3 The process for incorporating new artwork on the site is detailed in the report.

4. Background /Context Te Horopaki

A group of trees in a row

Description automatically generated

4.1 The Artwork was installed in conjunction with the development of Disraeli Reserve and the Addington Cluster Urban Renewal project in the mid-2000s to enhance the Addington neighbourhood.

4.2 The Artwork was fabricated in 2007 and installed in June 2008.

4.3 The Artwork is made of rusted steel. It consists of a set of nine cabbage trees, ‘Sybil’, and a balustrade section. Sybil holds the ‘maquette’ for the artwork in her right hand.

4.4 The maquette is the artist’s small model of the artwork made to enable visualisation of how the artwork may look and how it might be fabricated.

4.5 At the time of its installation the Artwork had an expected life of 15 to 20 years. It is now 17 years old since fabrication.

4.6 In June 2022, the artworks maintenance team reported concerns with the easternmost cabbage tree. An engineer inspection was carried out in July 2022.

4.7 The Engineering Report (Report) highlighted that moisture was being trapped due to debris accumulation, inadequate internal drainage, and the overlapping steel shell, which created inner lips that retained moisture. This trapped moisture inhibited the formation of a protective rust layer and accelerated corrosion. The corrosion has been further exacerbated by the galvanic reaction between the bolts and the CORTEN steel.

4.8 The Report identified a safety risk of some of the branches falling off in high winds if left to deteriorate, however, due to their distance from the footpath and pedestrian areas the risk of them falling onto someone was deemed low. The internal steel posts would also catch the outer shell to stop them from falling over.

4.9 A follow up inspection was carried out in November 2022 on the easternmost cabbage tree due to it deflecting when pushed, suggesting the internal post was not fixed to the outer shell as was previously thought. The removal of the easternmost cabbage tree was recommended.

4.10 The easternmost cabbage tree was removed in late December 2022. An examination of the internal steel post in January 2023 confirmed it was not connected to the steel shell and it was shorter than expected from the engineering sketches staff had. The section was removed and is in storage.

4.11 Subsequently the Report was updated stating the other sculptures do not pose an immediate risk, but they do have defects which will worsen, and the Artwork should be regularly monitored or removed within the next 12 months.

4.12 Four pieces of the Artwork have been removed from site and are in storage. The remaining components are fenced off for public safety.

4.13 The Council owns the Artwork.

4.14 The Artwork is valued at $138,666.

4.15 The information plaque on the plinth at the eastern entrance to the Reserve includes details of the artwork name, date, and artist.

4.16 If the Council removes the Artwork from public display, the commissioning agreement requires the artist, or artist’s estate on the death of the artist, to be notified in writing.

4.17 The artist, Ian Lamont, recently passed away, and staff have talked to the family about the decommissioning and removal of the Artwork.

4.18 The family wish to retain the Artwork, to distribute amongst family members.

4.19 The only other artwork the Council has in its outdoor artwork collection by Ian Lamont is Poppies over Gallipoli on Anzac Drive which was created in collaboration with Judith Street.

Future artwork on Disraeli Reserve

4.20 Disraeli Reserve was designated as a priority 6 (10 being the highest) site for an artwork on the Artworks Location Prioritization List in the 2004 Artwork in Public Places Five-Year Plan.

4.21 The future options for artwork on Disraeli Reserve are to commission or purchase a new piece of artwork, relocate a piece of artwork, activate the site with temporary artwork in collaboration with SCAPE Public Art or a similar organisation, or do nothing.

4.22 The creation of a new artwork involves initiating a project, defining the scope and brief, commissioning the work, and overseeing its installation.

4.23 Before commencing this process, budget for the project would need to be confirmed. There is currently no funding within Parks capital budget for new artwork, however up to 50% of funding could potentially be sourced through the Public Art Advisory Group.

4.24 The detailed process for commissioning is outlined in the Artworks in Public Places Policy 2002 and varies based on the value of the commission.

4.25 For urban and environmental artwork projects exceeding $20,000, a nominee from the Community Board is appointed to join a community artwork working party. This working party typically comprises specialist staff from various Council departments, including Parks, Community Art, Architectural and Structural Design, the Treaty Partnerships Team (and possibly Whitiora), and Urban Design.

4.26 The Community Board may choose to engage with a community consultation process once the working party has been formed. Depending on the outcomes of the consultation, an appropriate artist commissioning process will then be decided upon; the two most common approaches are an open call for proposals or a limited entry expression of interest process whereby a range of suitable artists are approached to put concepts forward.

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

Date	Subject
31.08.2024	Disraeli Reserve Art Feature “Sybil’ Update

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.28.1 Decommission and return the Artwork to Ian Lamont’s family.

4.28.2 Decommission and sell the Artwork as is where is or recycle.

4.29 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.29.1 Do nothing – This is not an option as the Artwork is corroded and unsafe.

4.29.2 Remove and either repair or repurpose the Artwork – this option is not feasible due to extensive corrosion making it irreparable for public display. It is beyond repair.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.30 Preferred Option: Decommission the Artwork and transfer it to the Lamont family.

4.30.1 Option Description: Staff have notified the family of the removal of the Artwork and the family have expressed their desire to have the Artwork returned to them. The family have offered to organise the transport of the artwork from the site to their home. The Council is not obliged to return the artwork to the family. The family would be required to enter into an agreement to prevent the family from on-selling the Artwork and to remove the Artwork at their cost, which the family have indicated they would do.

4.30.2 Option Advantages

· The family would remove and transport the remaining Artwork pieces from on site and from storage at no cost to the Council.

· The site on Disraeli Reserve is made safe.

· The concrete strip plinth becomes available for new, relocated, or temporary artworks or alternative uses.

4.30.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Artwork is no longer on display and will be lost from the Council’s outdoor artwork collection.

· There is a risk that the community perceive the artwork could have been repaired or replaced. However, this can be mitigated through effective communication surrounding the unsafe nature of the Artwork, which is nearing the end of its design life.

4.31 Decommission and sell the Artwork as is where is or recycle it.

4.31.1 Option Description: – Remove the Artwork from the site and sell as is where is or recycle it through a metals merchant.

4.31.2 Option Advantages

· The site on Disraeli Reserve is made safe.

· The concrete strip plinth becomes available for new, relocated, or temporary artworks or alternative uses.

· There may be a financial return from the sale to scrap metal recycling to offset costs of disposal.

4.31.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Artwork is no longer on display and will be lost from the Council’s outdoor artwork collection.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.32 The options presented were assessed considering the Artwork in Public Places Policy, the internal Asset Disposal Policy (ADP), public safety, and the Lamont family’s wishes.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option - Transfer to the family	Option 2 - Dispose
Cost to Implement	Estimated $500 for temporary fencing until the Artwork is removed Cost of removal would be the responsibility of the family	Estimated $500 for temporary fencing until the Artwork is removed Balance of any removal costs that exceed sale of the scrap metal
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Parks Operational Budget	Parks Operational Budget
Funding Availability	Yes	Yes
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Leaving the Artwork on site is a safety risk.

6.2 This can be eliminated by removing the Artwork from the site.

6.3 The risk is currently mitigated by the removal of the cabbage trees that pose a high risk and fencing of the remaining cabbage trees.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 There is no delegation for the decommissioning of artworks in the delegation register therefore the decision sits with the Council.

6.4.2 The delegation’s register does not align with the ADP, as the delegations register stipulates that all asset disposals must comply with the Long-Term Plan (LTP).

6.4.3 The Artwork has not been identified in the LTP for renewal.

6.4.4 The ADP process does not allow for transfer to the family. Therefore, the Council is required to decide if the Artwork is to be transferred to the family or not.

6.4.5 If it is decided not to transfer the Artwork to the family, then the disposal would be in accordance with the ADP. That is, it is sold or recycled.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The Artwork in Public Places Policy and the commissioning agreement do not prevent the return of the Artwork to the family.

6.5.2 An agreement will be entered into with the family to transfer the Artwork to them for a nominal ($1.00) value and prevent the family from on-selling the Artwork.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. In particular being an inclusive and equitable city that puts people at the centre by ensuring their safety and wellbeing.

6.6.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the removal of the Artwork having a social/cultural impact with its loss from a prominent site. There is the opportunity to engage with Whitiora in a new artwork.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

· The Artwork in Public Places Policy where the Council has the flexibility to de-commission any artwork that requires a high level of maintenance and repair.

· The Artist’s Commissioning Agreement where the artist or artist’s estate, on the death of the artist, is notified in writing.

6.6.4 The decommissioning of the Artwork does not comply with the ADP as it has not been identified in the LTP for disposal or renewal.

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks Heritage Management

· Level of Service: 6.9.1.5 Resident satisfaction with presentation and maintenance of Public Artworks, Monuments, and Artefacts - >=65%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The artist’s estate has been contacted and they have expressed an interest in the Artwork being returned to the family.

6.10 The Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetū has declined the offer to include the maquette in its collection, however, they have advised that the Artwork should be photographically documented for record-keeping purposes.

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

6.11.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere- Heathcote Community Board.

6.12 The Community Board has expressed interest in understanding the process for installing a new artwork.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 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.

6.14 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.

6.15 No consultation was undertaken with Mana Whenua to select and install the Artwork therefore they consider the removal is of no interest.

6.16 If a replacement artwork is to be commissioned, Whitiora have an interest in participating in the early stages of the commissioning process.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 Removing the Artwork and transferring it to the Lamont family prevents it from ending up in landfill. Transporting the Artwork will produce emissions, however, this is a minor impact and would be incurred if alternative options were chosen.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Photographically document the Artwork.

7.2 Transfer the Artwork to the Lamont family for removal.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Internal or External Memos Disraeli Reserve Art Feature 'Sybil' update 31 August 2024 Report	24/1412617

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Maria Adamski - Senior Parks Asset Planner

Jo Grigg - Senior Project Manager

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Wolfgang Bopp - Director Botanic Gardens & Garden Parks

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

20. Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2085482
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tom Lee, Principal Advisor Strategic Policy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is:

1.1.1 To seek decisions from the Council on:

· Undertaking pre-consultation engagement with the community on possible policy options for addressing identified alcohol harm-related issues in Christchurch using the tools available in a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP).

· The timeframe for the remaining stages in the development of a LAP.

1.2 This is a staff generated report produced to support delivery of Council Resolution CNCL/2024/00176 of 20 November 2024, in which Council noted it would confirm the timeframe to adopt a final version of a LAP when staff report back on issues and options.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps Report and attachments.

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. Directs staff to continue work on the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy to enable the Council to consider adopting a final version before the local elections in October 2025.

4. Directs staff to undertake pre-consultation engagement to inform the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Issues and Options

3.1.1 Following last year’s Council decision to commence work on developing a LAP, staff undertook extensive research and carried out initial stakeholder engagement to identify alcohol harm-related issues in Christchurch and possible policy options to address them using the tools available in a LAP.

3.1.2 The attached reports on Issues and Options (Attachment A), Research (Attachment B), and Engagement (Attachment C) are the products of this work.

3.1.3 The three main issues identified are:

· People in our district experience alcohol-related harm, with some communities affected more than others.

· Alcohol-related harm can be associated with supervised and unsupervised drinking.

· Communities want more say on alcohol licensing.

3.1.4 The possible policy options to address these issues are to:

A. Reduce trading hours for off-licences.

B. Implement a temporary freeze on new licence applications in areas of high deprivation.

C. Restrict licensed premises from being located close to sensitive sites.

D. Reduce trading hours for on-licences in suburban areas.

E. Introduce one-way door restrictions.

F. Use other measures to reduce alcohol-related harm (non-LAP option).

3.1.5 These possible policy options were developed to enable the Council and community to consider ways in which the tools available in a LAP could be used to address the alcohol harm-related issues in Christchurch identified through research and engagement.

3.1.6 The above-listed possible policy options are not final policy proposals. Staff have not evaluated the options, and the Council may choose to include any, all, or none of them in any draft LAP.

3.1.7 Staff recommend carrying out early community and stakeholder engagement on these possible policy options, to enable their views to be considered in the development of a draft LAP for consultation.

3.2 Process

3.2.1 The Council is asked to confirm the timeframe for the remaining stages in the LAP process to enable staff to plan and allocate resources, and to manage stakeholder expectations (acknowledging this subject is of high interest to multiple stakeholders).

3.2.2 Three timeline options are considered in this report, all of which take account of the local elections scheduled for October 2025.

3.2.3 The recommended timeline option (Timeline Option 1) provides the Council with an opportunity to adopt the final version of a LAP before the end of the current local electoral term but has very limited scope to accommodate unforeseen delays and will require significant community and Elected Member input during what is scheduled to be an intensive period of Council activity.

3.2.4 Timeline Option 2 enables LAP-related work to continue this term up to but not including production of a draft LAP. Under this timeline option, early engagement with the community and other stakeholders would take place before the local elections in October this year. The incoming Council would receive a briefing on the engagement findings early in the new term and make all subsequent decisions on any draft LAP.

3.2.5 Timeline Option 3 involves pausing LAP related work now and for the remainder of the current council term without engaging the community and other stakeholders on issues and possible policy options. This would enable the incoming Council to make all subsequent LAP related decisions including whether to undertake early engagement with the community and other stakeholders on issues and possible policy options.

3.2.6 All three timeline options avoid split decision-making on a draft LAP across two electoral cycles.

3.2.7 If the Council supports the officer recommendations, the following next steps in the LAP development process will be taken:

Date (all 2025)	Activity/event
Mid-February to early March	· Early engagement with stakeholders and community on issues and possible policy options, using the Issues and Options Report (Attachment A) as the basis of engagement. · Feedback from early engagement analysed and considered in the production of a draft LAP.
Mid-April	· Council adopts a draft LAP for consultation.
Mid-April to mid-May	· Public consultation on draft LAP using Special Consultative Procedure.
Early- to mid-June	· Hearings and deliberations.
Late July	· Council Meeting to decide whether to adopt final LAP. · LAP notification period.
Late August	· LAP enters into force.

3.2.8 The Council may pause or discontinue the development of a LAP at any time before it is adopted.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Council Resolutions

4.1.1 The Council, at its meeting on 5 June 2024, directed staff to commence work on the development of a LAP and report on progress before the end of that year (CNCL/2024/00072).

4.1.2 At the Council’s meeting on 20 November 2024, staff presented an update on progress and recommendations on the timeframe for considering adoption of a final version of a LAP, taking account of the local elections in October this year. The Council resolved to note:

‘[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’ (CNCL/2024/00176).

4.1.3 Staff, having carried out extensive research and undertaken initial engagement with stakeholders, are now reporting back on issues and options (Attachment A).

4.2 Research

4.2.1 The Local Alcohol Policy Research Report (Attachment B) sets out the findings of research undertaken to inform development of any draft LAP, including analysis of statistics provided by the Police, Medical Officer of Health, and Alcohol Licensing Inspectors, as required under section 78 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

4.2.2 Additional research undertaken included:

· Analysis of the results of the ‘Life in Christchurch’ community survey carried out in August and September last year (which included questions on the impacts of alcohol-related harm in local neighbourhoods).

· A review of other councils’ LAPs.

· A review of literature on economic considerations.

4.2.3 There is limited research into the effectiveness of LAP provisions and the research that exists tends to show mixed results.

4.3 Stakeholder engagement

4.3.1 The 2023 Supreme Court decision on Auckland’s (then-Provisional) LAP, referred to the role of community preferences in the development of LAPs, stating that policies implemented by LAPs ‘…can be based on, or at least influenced by, community preference [and]… To that extent…such decisions do not have to be evidence-based’ [Source: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2023/2023-NZSC-45.pdf]

4.3.2 To gather initial views and request information relating to a potential LAP for Christchurch, staff held meetings with representatives of the New Zealand Police, Health New Zealand, the Council’s Alcohol Licensing Team, the District Licensing Committee, Hospitality New Zealand, Liquorland, Super Liquor Holdings, Foodstuffs, Woolworths, Clubs New Zealand, and the Christchurch Working Men’s Clubs.

4.3.3 Staff also presented at information sessions of all six Community Boards.

4.4 Council Information Sessions

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

Date	Subject
28/01/2025	Local Alcohol Policy Issues and Options
05/11/2024	Local Alcohol Policy Update on Progress

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The following reasonably practicable options, concerning the timeline for completion of a LAP (as distinct from possible policy options), were considered and are assessed in this report:

· Timeline Option 1: Continue work on a LAP, with the process complete before the local elections in October this year.

· Timeline Option 2: Engage with the community on issues and options then pause further work on a LAP for the remainder of the current Council term.

· Timeline Option 3: Pause work on a LAP, without engaging the community on issues and options, for the remainder of the current Council term.

4.6 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Timeline Option 4: Splitting decision-making on a draft LAP across more than one Council term.

· Timeline Option 5: Progress directly to producing a draft LAP, omitting pre-consultation engagement on issues and possible policy options.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.7 Preferred Option: Timeline Option 1: Continue work on a LAP, with the process complete before the local elections in October this year.

4.7.1 Option Description:

(a) The current Council:

(i) Engages with the community on issues and options.

(ii) Approves any draft LAP (for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure).

(iii) Consults on a draft LAP using the Special Consultative Procedure.

(iv) Before the local elections in October this year, decides whether to adopt the final version of a LAP (date of adoption is not necessarily the implementation date).

4.7.2 Option Advantages

· Delivers in a timely way on work mandated by the current Council. This option provides for the Council that commissioned this work to oversee its completion.

· Enables completion of a LAP process during one Council term. This option would enable the same cohort of decision-makers to decide all aspects of a draft LAP (provided the LAP process is completed before the local elections in October).

· Continues momentum at the current pace of delivery. A significant amount of work has been undertaken at pace in support of this work, and this timeline option would enable (and require) this pace of work to continue.

4.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· Limited time to accommodate unforeseen delays and still complete the process in this Council term. The timeframe also does not provide an opportunity for staff to return to Council on the findings of the engagement before presenting a draft LAP to the Council to adopt for consultation. It will be difficult to accommodate any substantial amendments the Council may wish to make to the draft LAP before undertaking the Special Consultative Procedure. It may also make it difficult for Community Boards to organise the collection of feedback from their communities during the early engagement phase, although there will be other ways in which people can participate throughout the process.

· The Special Consultative Procedure required for a draft LAP would take place in addition to public consultation and community participation in hearings on several other significant matters to be considered by the Council before the end of the current local electoral term - the delivery model for water services, the Annual Plan, and bylaw reviews. Scheduling into this timeframe the Special Consultative Procedure required for a draft LAP would add to the onus on communities and other stakeholders and may impact their ability and willingness to participate.

· The Special Consultative Procedure and hearings and deliberations on a draft LAP, which would be held in addition to consultation, hearings and deliberations on the other significant matters listed above, would take place towards the final months of this local electoral term, which is anticipated to be a busy period for Councillors.

4.8 Timeline Option 2: Engage with the community on issues and options then pause further work on a LAP for the remainder of the current Council term.

4.8.1 Option Description:

(a) The current Council:

(i) Engages with the community on issues and options.

(ii) Pauses work on a LAP once community engagement on issues and options has been completed and the findings analysed.

(b) All subsequent decisions concerning a LAP, including whether to approve a draft LAP for consultation, would be for the incoming Council to make in the next local electoral term.

(c) To inform its decision-making, the incoming Council would receive the findings of the proposed community engagement on issues and options (and other relevant materials).

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· Enables an incoming Council to have continuity of decision-making on a draft LAP while also allowing LAP-related work to continue this term up to (but not including) production of a draft LAP, enabling staff to continue to make progress during this council term on the work to-date.

· Enables the incoming Council to be briefed not only on issues and options but also on the community’s views on the possible policy options identified, before producing a draft LAP for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure.

· Enables engagement to be undertaken at a time most suitable because the process would not be subject to the time constraints required to complete all stages of LAP development before the local elections in October this year.

· Reduces the number of significant decisions on which the Council consults with its community during an already-busy period of consultations (e.g. delivery model for water services, annual plan, bylaw reviews), and reduces the onus on the current Council to complete what is anticipated to be a demanding hearing and deliberation process towards the end of the current term.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· An incoming Council may not wish to pursue the LAP process, which would disappoint some stakeholders and parts of the community, and the work to date could be perceived as wasted cost and effort, although information and insights gathered through this project could be used to develop alternative responses to the alcohol-related harm in the district.

· Extends the LAP process over two cycles of Council.

· Would leave some stakeholders/community dissatisfied with slower progress and lower prioritisation by the Council.

· An incoming Council may decide to recommence parts, or all, of the LAP process already completed - at additional cost and time to Council.

4.9 Timeline Option 3: Pause work on a LAP, without engaging the community on issues and options, for the remainder of the current Council term.

4.9.1 Option Description:

(a) The current Council pauses all further work on a LAP.

(b) All subsequent decisions concerning a LAP, including whether to engage the community on issues and options, would be for the incoming Council to make in the next term.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

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

· Reduces the onus on the current Council to complete what is anticipated to be a demanding hearing and deliberation process towards the end of the current term.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Not engaging on issues and options during the current Council term would mean either engaging on issues and options early in the new term (which would add time to the overall process) or producing a draft LAP without having first tested possible policy options with the community (which is not recommended).

· Extends the LAP process over two cycles of Council.

· Would leave some stakeholders/community dissatisfied with slower progress and lower prioritisation by the Council.

· An incoming Council may decide to recommence parts, or all, the LAP process already completed - at additional cost and time to Council.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.10 The criteria used to assess the above timeline options (as distinct from possible policy options considered in Attachment A) were:

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

4.10.2 Implications of decision-making on a draft LAP being split across two Council terms.

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The financial considerations have been updated from the update report considered by the Council on 20 November 2024.

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option: Option 1 – Pre election completion	Option 2 – Engage on issues and options, then pause	Option 3 – Pause and defer engagement on issues and options
Cost to Implement Excludes: · Staff time costs · Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: Approximately $130,000, including an estimated $29,000 for phase 2 engagement and estimated costs of $20,000 for the Special Consultative Procedure. The remainder is attributed to research and external consultancy.	As Option 1	As Option 1
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs Excludes: · Staff time costs · Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: Approximately $130,000 once every six years - cost of reviewing LAP estimated as matching cost of developing LAP	As Option 1	As Option 1
Funding Source	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets
Funding Availability	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets
Impact on Rates	Neutral, as within existing budgets	Neutral, as within existing budgets	Neutral, as within existing budgets

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Deciding the timeframe now is important to enable the organisation to allocate resources required and undertake the subsequent stages of the LAP process. If the Council wishes to be able to adopt a LAP before the end of this term, the timing of these next steps will be critical.

6.2 All three options considered above avoid split decision-making on any draft LAP across two electoral cycles.

6.3 Delaying a decision on timeframe puts at risk our ability to complete work on a LAP this current term.

6.4 The timetable for completing development of a LAP this local electoral term is achievable but has a limited ability to accommodate any unforeseen delays or other work programmes impacting on the Council’s time. If there are delays, the timings of Council decisions may need to be reconsidered and, potentially, decisions relating to a draft LAP would need to be carried over into the next Council term.

6.5 The Council will have another opportunity to decide whether to continue or pause the LAP process when it is asked to consider a draft LAP for consultation (although, as stated, the Council may pause or discontinue development of a LAP at any time before it is adopted).

6.6 The options to pause development of a LAP before or after undertaking any pre-consultation engagement risk disappointing some stakeholders/parts of community. It also risks splitting knowledge/experience of LAPs between two terms of elected members (who may not all have the same level of knowledge of the issues and options in making decisions).

6.7 All three options for a timeline for continued development of a LAP provide for the Council to meet the legislative requirements (in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012) concerning the production of a LAP, including the requirement to consult on a draft LAP using the Special Consultative Procedure.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.8.1 Section 75 of the Act provides that territorial authorities may have a policy relating to the sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol within its district which policy may, amongst other things, apply differently to premises for which licences of different kinds are held.

6.8.2 Under section 78 of the Act, a territorial authority that wishes to have a local alcohol policy must produce a draft that has regard to, amongst other things, the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

6.8.3 While the Act allows for a local alcohol policy to apply differently to on and off-licences any decision to do so at this time would likely be subject to challenge on the basis there is insufficient information available to conclude that the nature and severity of alcohol-related problems relates to only one kind of licence. Without that supporting information there could be a perception of pre-determination of the issue(s).

6.9 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.10 The required decisions:

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

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

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

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

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

6.10.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.12 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.12.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.13 The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the potential number of residents affected across the district, potential number of businesses affected, current level of community interest and potential impact of the outcome on health, social and economic wellbeing.

6.14 The Council on 5 June 2024 resolved to ensure ‘stakeholders will be included in the development before notifying and consulting on any draft local alcohol policy’. Accordingly, staff undertook early engagement with representatives of key stakeholder groups and Community Boards throughout November and December 2024, as the first of three proposed phases of engagement on the LAP (the second phase is the proposed early engagement on issues and options and the third is the Statutory Consultation Procedure).

6.15 Attachment C is a report on initial engagement activities undertaken and stakeholder views received. In addition (as previously briefed to Council at its meeting on 20 November 2024), a ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey was undertaken between August and September 2024 to obtain community views on the impacts of alcohol-related harm in neighbourhoods. The findings of the ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey are reported on in Attachment B (Research Report).

6.16 While not legally required, the recommendation in this report, to engage with the community on issues and options, would support delivery of the Resolution of 5 June 2024 to include stakeholders in the development of any draft LAP.

6.17 The activities to be undertaken in the next phase of early engagement will enable the Council to seek views from stakeholders and the community on the issues identified and to share their views on the possible policy options.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.19 The Council’s Te Tiriti Partnership team have sought advice from Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga about how they wish to participate in the development of a draft LAP to ensure their views are heard. Arrangements are being made for engagement on issues and possible policy options. The Statutory Consultation Procedure will also enable Mana Whenua to participate and submit on proposals.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If Council supports the officer recommendations, the following next steps will be taken:

Date (all 2025)	Activity/event
Mid-February to early March	· Early engagement with stakeholders and community on issues and possible policy options, using the Issues and Options Report (Attachment A) as the basis of engagement. · Feedback from early engagement analysed and considered in the production of a draft LAP.
Mid-April	· Council adopts a draft LAP for consultation.
Mid-April to mid-May	· Public consultation on draft LAP using Special Consultative Procedure.
Early- to mid-June	· Hearings and deliberations.
Late July	· Council Meeting to decide whether to adopt final LAP. · LAP notification period.
Late August	· LAP enters into force.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	LAP Issues and Options paper	25/173871	358
b ⇨	LAP Research Report January 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	25/173877
c ⇩	LAP Phase 1 engagement report 2024-11-28	25/173883	378

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Philip Henderson - Senior Policy Analyst

Thomas Lee - Principal Policy Advisor

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

21. Council submission on Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2327858
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning and Consents Helaina Gregg, Principal Advisor Policy Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the draft Council submission on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (the Bill), which was introduced on 9 December 2024 and referred to the Environment Committee for its consideration following its first reading on 17 December 2024.

1.2 The Environment Committee is calling for public submissions on the Bill. The deadline for lodging submissions is Monday 10 February 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (Attachment A and Attachment B of this report) to the Environment Committee.

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. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Environment Committee is inviting submissions on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (the Bill).

3.2 The Bill proposes targeted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA). The intent of the proposed changes is to enable renewable energy and infrastructure delivery, unlock housing development capacity, and support growth in the primary sector.

3.3 A draft Council submission has been prepared for consideration (Attachment A and Attachment B).

3.4 Subject to approval, the draft submission will be lodged to the Environment Committee.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Summary of proposed changes

4.1 The Government has announced that it intends to progress reforms to the resource management system in three phases. This bill is part of the second phase of reform and progresses specific changes to the RMA that are a priority for the Government. The Government intends to propose more comprehensive reform of the RMA to Parliament in due course.

4.2 The changes proposed by the Bill are in five broad categories:

4.2.1 Infrastructure and energy: amends the RMA to specify default maximum time frames for consent processing and establish default consent durations for renewable energy and infrastructure consents to improve process and outcome certainty for system users.

4.2.2 Housing growth: introduces measures to increase flexibility to deliver housing growth whilst introducing new powers to the Minister for the Environment to ensure compliance with national direction.

4.2.3 Farming and the primary sector: introduces changes aiming to increase investment certainty and support growth in farming and the primary sector.

4.2.4 Natural hazards and emergencies: introduces measures to enhance decision-making and efficiency in managing natural hazards and responding to emergencies.

4.2.5 System improvements: amends the RMA to enhance compliance and enforcement, reduce regulatory uncertainty, address system gaps, and clarify policy intent to support a well-functioning resource management system.

Summary of submission content

4.3 The submission acknowledges the intent of the proposed changes and commends the Government’s efforts to make targeted changes ahead of wider reforms to the resource management system.

4.4 Notwithstanding this, the submission raises reservations around certain changes and makes recommendations to ensure the proposed changes are fit-for-purpose and can be delivered effectively by councils.

4.5 The following details key points outlined in the Council’s draft submission (Attachment A and Attachment B).

Housing Growth

4.5.1 Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS): support the introduction of provisions that enable MDRS optionality and welcome the greater flexibility provided in delivering housing growth. MDRS optionality is a pragmatic amendment that will provide the option for Tier-1 councils to plan for and facilitate growth in a manner that best suits the needs of their cities and residents.

4.5.2 Streamline Planning Process (SPP): in principle support the proposed SPP but seek specific amendments to ensure it is fit-for-purpose.

4.5.3 Heritage: in principle support enabling the Council to seek to use the SPP for listing and delisting heritage buildings and structures.

Infrastructure and energy

4.5.4 Support amendments to increase the lapse period for designations and removing the requirement for designating authorities to consider alternatives where they are the sole land holder if there are not significant adverse effects. These are pragmatic changes that will result in efficiencies and more certainty for infrastructure providers.

Natural hazards and emergencies

4.5.5 Agree with the proposed amendments to enhance decision-making and efficiency in managing natural hazards and responding to emergencies but requested specific changes to strengthen proposed provisions.

System Improvements

4.5.6 Compliance and Enforcement: strongly support the targeted amendments to compliance and enforcement provisions provided for in the Bill.

4.5.7 Consenting: largely support the proposed amendments to consenting provisions, with specific changes requested regarding the proposed hearing provisions.

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

Date	Subject
14 January 2025	Draft submission circulated to councillors for their feedback

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

Date	Subject
28 January 2025	Information session on the draft Council submission on Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council prepares a submission on the Bill to the Environment Committee.

4.9 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

4.10 The Bill proposes a shift in environmental legislation, introducing targeted changes to the resource management system. It is therefore important that through a submission, the Council can seek to influence the direction of the Bill and provide suggestive amendments to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose for local authorities and the residents we serve.

4.11 The alternative option would be to not submit on the Bill. This course of action is not recommended in this case as making a submission is a valuable opportunity to influence the thinking of the Bill.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 - Recommended Option to submit on the Bill	Option 2 – Not to submit on the Bill
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	As above	No cost
Funding Source	Existing operational budgets	No cost
Funding Availability	Available	N/A
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates as met from existing operational budgets	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to lodge a council submission is of low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.2.1 The opportunity to lodge a submission on the Bill is open to any person or organisation.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.4 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. The Legal Services team have provided input to and reviewed the submission.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the Bill, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.7.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 The decision to lodge a council submission on the Bill 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.

6.9 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua, however the decision to submit on the Bill will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 The decision to lodge a council submission does not have any direct climate change impacts.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Subject to approval, the draft submission (Attachment A and Attachment B) on the Bill will be lodged to the Environment Committee.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft CCC submission on Resource Management Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill	25/165233	390
b ⇩	Draft Appendix 1 - CCC detailed submission on Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill	25/165237	394

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Helaina Gregg - Principal Advisor Policy

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

22. Rawhiti WS Rezoning and Pressure Management Trial Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1752003
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Michele McDonald, Team Leader Asset Planning - Water and Wastewater
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 address item 10.3.5 from the Council meeting held on 27 March 2014, which resolved that staff should report on the findings of the Rawhiti trial, as well as the costs and benefits of a full-scale rollout across the city, including the cost implications for private property owners.

1.2 The delay in delivering this report is due to the extended time involved in implementing the trial, completing critical pipe renewals and gathering performance data over a prolonged period.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Rawhiti WS Rezoning and Pressure Management Trial Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Water supply rezoning and pressure management are central components of the Te Wai Ora o Tāne Integrated Water Strategy.

3.2 The WS Rawhiti Rezoning project (CPMS 18639) was initiated in August 2014, beginning with the planning and design to establish a defined zone and enabling pump stations to deliver water at lower pressure. The design was developed to ensure that all modifications could be reversed if needed. Remote pressure loggers were installed to gather data to calibrate the hydraulic water network model so that key network upgrades could be designed, and to support the transition of the trial operations.

3.3 The Rawhiti water supply zone was established in December 2014 with additional funding secured in 2016 to carry out necessary network upgrades.

3.4 Once the critical water mains were upgraded, fire flow tests were conducted to confirm fire sprinkler compliance risks.

3.5 In April 2017 a targeted engagement campaign was launched and involved communication with key sector stakeholders, web site updates, engagement with the community board, customer impact assessments and surveys, as well as instructions to building owners of affected fire sprinkler systems in collaboration with their fire sprinkler companies.

3.6 The lowering of water supply pressure in the Rawhiti water supply zone was carried out in stages.

· Stage 1 began in October 2018 when the water supply pressure was reduced from 720 kPa to 650 kPa.

· Stage 2 was delayed until April 2019 to provide property owners with additional time to complete required fire compliance work and resulted in lowering the pressure to 600 kPa.

· Stage 3, which sought a reduction to 500 kPa, was completed in August 2019, but had to be reversed after fire flow testing identified fire sprinkler non-compliance at this level.

· After allowing ample time for building owners to work with their fire sprinkler companies on solutions, it became clear that reaching the target pressure of 450 kPa would require significant changes to an additional 5 fire sprinkler systems with limited benefit. At this point, it was decided to maintain the water supply pressure settings introduced pursuant to Stage 3.

3.7 The Rawhiti pressure management trial was successfully completed in 2020, establishing the Rawhiti water supply zone as a permanent, self-sufficient zone that is operated at an average water supply pressure of 550 kPa.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Results of the Rawhiti pressure management trial

4.1 The Rawhiti pressure management trial spanned over five years due to the complexities associated with rezoning and pressure management, including:

4.1.1 Around 2,500 meters of water supply mains needed to be upgraded before pressure management could be implemented.

4.1.2 Many submains servicing individual properties had insufficient capacity, requiring upgrades to prevent service level issues. Critical upgrades were addressed as part of the water supply rezoning project, but additional work was completed as part of the submain renewal program over time (not included in cost summary).

4.1.3 A mini pressure management trial was conducted to address concerns about potential negative impacts on residential customers. Post-trial consultation revealed that only 15% of customers reported noticing a change, with one valid complaint arising from a blocked water meter. No complaints were received during the implementation of the wider pressure management trial.

4.1.4 Council performed fire flow tests to identify fire sprinkler system compliance. These tests could however not be carried out until the completion of water main upgrades.

4.1.5 The fire sprinkler communication and engagement campaign had to be extended well into the implementation phase due to incomplete data initially provided by fire sprinkler companies.

4.1.6 The trial's implementation was delayed to give property owners time to address fire sprinkler compliance issues, based on guidance from their fire sprinkler companies and information provided by the Council. Modifications were required to 5 of the 23 (22%) fire sprinkler systems, including adjustments to fire booster pumps, building fire rating, fire sprinkler system hydraulic components, and structure changes to facilitate decommissioning.

4.1.7 Achieving operational readiness took longer than anticipated and included the creation of a water supply zone operations manual, installation of additional pressure transmitters, and further adjustments to control systems.

4.1.8 The trial required the installation of manual pressure-reducing valves at pump stations, which necessitated numerous on-site adjustments at each implementation stage. These valves were later upgraded to resolve operational issues encountered during the trial.

4.2 The cost of implementing the Rawhiti pressure management trial exceeded the original design estimate amounting to $1.8 million. Additional budget was allocated to deploy a smart water network for improved systems management and monitoring.

	Description	Rounded Cost (excl GST)
1	Rawhiti rezoning trial implementation	$600,000
2	Targeted water main renewals	$2,500,000
3	Reactive submain renewals	$250,000
	*Sub-Total: Rawhiti pressure management trial*	*$3,350,000*
4	Smart water network implementation	$2,100,000
	TOTAL	$5,450,000

4.3 The Rawhiti pressure management trial has successfully met its strategic objectives, as detailed below:

4.3.1 Enhance response and recovery during emergencies through smaller management zones: The new Rawhiti water supply zone is smaller and self-sustaining, incorporating resilience measures such as bulk water monitoring stations connected to the Central water supply zone, which allows for controlled emergency water transfers whilst providing additional operations data.

4.3.2 Better system management and monitoring capabilities: District metered zones were established as part of the smart water network implementation, enhancing water demand management by providing a daily water balance.

4.3.3 Prolonged asset life and improved protection for vulnerable infrastructure: The reduction in water supply pressure has significantly reduced pressure transients, thereby contributing to an extended asset life. Remote pressure transient monitors were installed throughout the zone to effectively monitor and manage pressure fluctuations. To eliminate pressure transients created by pressure reducing valves, pump stations are being upgraded to variable speed drives and pressure reducing valves opened or bypassed.

4.3.4 Increased efficiency by maintaining optimal supply pressure, reducing bursts: There is inadequate data records to illustrate the reduction in pipe bursts in Rawhiti due to pressure management. It is however well-established that lowering water pressure reduces the risk of pipe bursts. As part of the Rawhiti smart water network roll-out, active leakage control contributed to an increase in the number of leaks repaired during the trial period.

4.3.5 Minimized leakage and more effective demand management: Water loss calculations for the thirteen test zones within the Rawhiti water supply are shown in Figure 1 below. Due to the rotational nature of minimum night flow monitoring, a direct comparison between water loss calculations and pressure management activities is not possible. Following pressure management, minimum night flow testing for all water loss test zones was completed by FY23. The data from FY23 shows a positive impact on the total volume of water losses after pressure management, despite an increase in the infrastructure leakage index, underscoring the ongoing need for active leakage control and network maintenance.

A graph showing water losses

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Annual water loss and infrastructure leakage index for Rawhiti water loss zones

4.3.6 Improved overall energy efficiency: Since pressure reducing valves were implemented to decrease the water supply pressure, the impact of pressure management on energy consumption was minimal. This is further evidenced by the fact that the volume of water supplied has not significantly decreased as a result of pressure management.

Fire sprinkler systems

4.4 As confirmed by the Water Supply and Wastewater Bylaw 2022 (Clause 10), the building owner is responsible for ensuring the continued compliance of their fire sprinkler system at their own cost, even if Council has made changes to the water supply pressure.

4.5 In December 2012, fire service stakeholders were informed of Council’s intention to implement pressure management across the city. Fire sprinkler inspection companies were tasked with recommending designs that would align with the targeted source pressure, rather than the fire flow test pressure. The Council’s website provides an interactive map showing the target source pressures.

4.6 The highest cost incurred by a building owner to modify their fire sprinkler system was $30,000. Two of the affected fire sprinkler systems serve Council buildings. The fire services company for the New Brighton Library confirmed that adequate measures were in place to change the building’s fire hazard rating. For the Pages Road Depot, the recommendation was to decommission the fire sprinkler system which required changes to the building, at a cost of $155,000. The alternative to upgrade the Carters Road water main would have been more costly.

4.7 It is estimated that the city-wide roll out of pressure management will impact about 200 or 40% of the 515 fire sprinkler systems identified in 2021. It is not possible to inform the costs of modifications that would be required, as each system would have to be individually assessed to determine the feasible modifications to allow continued compliance at a lower water supply pressure.

City-wide roll out

4.8 The 2014 Christchurch Water Supply Rezoning design estimated savings of up to $800k per annum, broken down into energy efficiency (20% saving or $480k), burst rate reduction (20% reduction or $140k), and leakage reduction (20% reduction or $180k). The implementation cost, including critical pipe upgrades, was estimated at $24 million. Given that the implementation cost for Rawhiti exceeded its design estimate, a city-wide roll-out could potentially reach up to $50 million.

4.9 The recommendation to rezone the city’s water supply network based on the 2014 Water Supply Rezoning Blueprint (Figure 2) was reaffirmed by the 2022 Christchurch Water Supply Rezoning Optimisation study. The study found that life-cycle costs were similar between the status quo and rezoning but emphasized that the key benefits of rezoning would come from enhanced water management and improved disaster recovery response.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 3 – 2014 Rezoning Blueprint

4.10 While the long-term benefits of pressure management in terms of cost, efficiency, and sustainability are well-established in the water industry, these benefits could not be quantified for the Rawhiti pressure management trial.

4.11 The many learnings from the Rawhiti pressure management trial helped to shape the funding allocated to the WS City Water Supply Rezoning and Demand Management programme in the current Long-Term Plan (LTP). A budget of $7 million is allocated in recognition of the complexity and extended timeframe involved in rezoning and pressure management. It is proposed that the progress of rezoning be reviewed in the next LTP cycle.

4.12 Going forward, it is proposed that rezoning be separated from pressure management for the following reasons:

4.12.1 It is not feasible to implement pressure management in water supply zones that are directly supported by elevated storage reservoirs. The cost to implement the duplicate infrastructure required to achieve pressure management are expected to outweigh the benefits.

4.12.2 Extended and dedicated communication and engagement will be needed to coordinate the continued fire compliance of approximately 200 fire sprinkler systems that would be impacted by city-wide pressure management. From experience gained in the Rawhiti pressure management trial, source pressure targets will need to be set based on individual fire sprinkler assessments as directed by building owners and supported by fire flow tests. Contrary to previous belief, it may not be feasible for all fire sprinkler systems to be modified to accommodate a lower source pressure.

4.13 Planning is currently underway to direct the zoning of the future Woolston and Ilam water supply zones. Whilst options for pressure management will be explored for the Woolston-Rocky water supply zone, pressure management is not being targeted for the Ilam WSZ, as the zone is already operating at its target water supply pressure.

4.14 Although the Council has instructed fire sprinkler companies to design systems based on targeted source pressures, there is a concern that high flow demands could impact future pressure management efforts. To address this, a planning project has been initiated to foster closer collaboration with fire sprinkler companies, including the sharing fire sprinkler design data. Projects are also underway to calibrate and upgrade the water network hydraulic model to better inform rezoning and pressure management designs.

4.15 It is acknowledged that the full realization of certain rezoning benefits, such as improved systems management and monitoring, will be achieved alongside the implementation of the smart water network. At a minimum, this will require the addition of bulk water monitoring stations, supported by smart customer water meters.

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

Michele McDonald - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Gavin Hutchison - Acting Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

23. Regulatory and Compliance Unit Update - July to December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1546070
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tracey Weston, Head of Regulatory and Compliance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Regulatory Compliance Unit activities during the period July to December 2024.

1.2 As the first update, the report covers various activities of the Regulatory Compliance Unit, including Alcohol Licensing, Compliance and Investigations, Food Safety and Environmental Health, Land Information Memorandums, and Property file services.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Regulatory and Compliance Unit Update - July to December 2024.

3. Complaints Received for Unit

3.1 Across all the Unit’s compliance activities the trend of complaints received for the Units have had a slight increase overall compared to the same period for the previous year.

4. Compliance and Investigations

Complaint Summary

4.1 For the reporting period 1 July – 31 December 2024, 792 complaints were received across the variety of legislative matters that the team administers on behalf of Council. A breakdown of these complaint types is provided below. Of the 30 dangerous building complaints received, four were classified dangerous as per Section 121 of the Building Act 2004.

Freedom Camping

4.2 The Freedom Camping proactive patrols began on 26 October 2024 (Labour Weekend) for Marine Parade, New Brighton. This was expanded to the larger Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula areas from 1 December 2024.

4.3 This year we had a change of contractor conducting the monitoring and enforcement of Freedom Camping across the City and the Banks Peninsula area.

4.4 The contractor conducts morning and evening patrols 7 days a week (including public holidays) in the Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula areas. The evening patrols have an education focus, providing advice to campers on the Bylaw and Act requirements and the morning patrols are more aligned to enforcement action when necessary.

4.5 The proactive monitoring arrangement remains in effect until 30 April 2025, at which time the Councils team will continue with our standard practice of responding to complaints when they are received.

Displaced Person Complaints

4.6 Complaints have been received relating to issues with homeless or displaced persons in the New Brighton area, which are unrelated to freedom camping, involving drinking, drug use and littering. These complaints have been referred to various support agencies including the City Mission for further investigation.

Signage Campaign

4.7 Two signage compliance campaigns are scheduled annually. The first campaign occurred 9 September 2024 where 62 non-compliant signs were identified and removal achieved. The second campaign is scheduled for March 2025.

Prosecutions and Enforcement

4.8 The total number of infringements issued for this period have declined compared to the same period for the previous years. This is due to an observed increase in voluntary compliance relating specifically to Freedom Camping as a result of the evening education patrols that are occurring in and around the prohibited areas. In 2023 there was also a significant investigation conducted resulting in 18 infringements issued for noncompliance, which is illustrated by the increase in RMA infringements issued for that comparison period.

4.9 There is currently one prosecution relating to building work that was completed without a resource or building consent.

5. Alcohol Licensing

Snapshot of current Alcohol licenced activities across Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula

5.1 There are currently 1144 Licensed premises in Christchurch, including On, Off and Club Licenses.

5.2 998 New and Renewal Duty manager applications have been accepted.

5.3 There are currently 120 licensed premises that are classified as either high or very high risk. Each of those premises are visited annually. Of those 120 premises, 102 have been inspected, with 18 remaining. The team have achieved 85% of our target YTD and are on track to meet our 100% target. [1]

5.4 The graph below demonstrates the volume of applications (1960) received for processing and approval during the reporting period.

Hearings

5.5 There have been 16 Licensing Committee Hearings during this reporting period. All alcohol licences were granted with conditions imposed or undertaking agreed to by the applicants. The majority of public objections relate to bottle stores in high deprivation areas and selling cheap single can of high alcohol beer, hours of operation, signage and advertising.

Special Event Monitoring

5.6 Special event monitoring is held during the summer of 2024/2025. Two licensing Inspectors attend these events ensuring that no alcohol harm related matters arise. Special event monitoring include:

· University tea party and orientation events

· Addington race day

· Riccarton cup week

· A & P Show

· South Island Wine and Food Festival, Hagley Park

· Fisher + support Acts, Hagley Park

· Electric Ave Music Festival, Hagley Park.

5.7 All alcohol licensing inspectors are rostered to work one Saturday afternoon/evening a month to monitor licensed premises including:

· Bars

· Night Clubs

· Adult Entertainment Venues

· Restaurants

· Clubs

· Sports Club

Tri-agencies

5.8 There is a legislative requirement for Tri Agencies (Police, Community Health and CCC Alcohol Licensing Team) to meet and work closely together reviewing all alcohol licence applications and assess complaints when they arise. Within the Tri Agency meetings, other agencies are often represented such as Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), Immigration New Zealand and Internal Affairs.

6. Food Safety

Food Verifications

6.1 Food Verifications conducted have increased 27% compared to the same period for the previous year.

Food Safety Applications

6.2 There has been an 8% increase of new food registrations received.

Noticeable Events

6.3 In November 2024, an outbreak of food poisoning affected over 100 students at the University of Canterbury Hall of residents in Ilam, Christchurch. Council Food Safety Officers responded swiftly and worked alongside our partner agencies MPI and Public Health to identify the source of the outbreak and the likely pathogen.

6.4 While the case is ongoing, Council food verifiers took the precautionary step of inspecting early, all eight of the 11 operational food sites owned and operated by the same company, conducting a comprehensive assessment of all their food safety practices.

6.5 In December 2024, Council signed a service agreement with Food & Health Standards to carry out food verification inspections on our behalf, providing us with a back-up solution to continue to ensure high standards of food safety at times when temporary changes to staffing levels might normally disrupt this crucial service.

6.6 In 2024, a new process was implemented to identify and conduct a follow up visit to any food business that had failed to renew their food registration. To date this has resulted in staff completing an additional 43 required visits to ensure operators remain in line with their legal obligations.

Prosecution and Enforcement

6.7 Two infringements have been issued for trading without a registration.

6.8 Five Direction Notices requiring urgent action and/or temporarily prohibiting the sale of food were issued, with no further action required as a result of non-compliance.

Specialist Advice – Consenting

6.9 The team provide specialist input for resource and building consent applications when necessary. The demand for this advice is variable and correlates with incoming resource and building consent applications. We monitor and confirm compliance with public health related resource consent conditions.

6.10 Waste permits relate to disposing of soil at Burwood landfill.

Environmental Health Complaint Summary

6.11 The top ten types of complaints received for Environmental Health related nuisances is provided below. However, this does not reflect the full range of complaints received by the team. Other miscellaneous complaints not reported relate to the lesser volume complaints such as - hazardous substance (7) and contaminated site enquiries (2). There were a total of 17 complaints recorded in this category.

Noise Complaint Summary

Noticeable Events

6.12 On 30 September 2024, Council engaged a new Contractor to respond to afterhours noise complaints, resulting to date in a significant improvement to noise response times.

Prosecution and Enforcement

6.13 Excessive Noise Directions - 513 Noise directions were served via Council Contractor and Council staff combined.

6.14 Noise Equipment Seizures - 40 Noise equipment seizures, predominantly stereos.

6.15 Cleansing Order - 1 Cleansing Order was issued requiring remedial action for asbestos soil contamination.

6.16 Insanitary Building Notice - 1 Insanitary Building notice was issued due to extreme hoarding.

7. Animal Management

Complaint volume summary by complaint type

7.1 For the reporting period 1 July to 31 December 2024, there were 299 priority one complaints, and 3,433 priority 2 complaints received. The graph below demonstrates how many complaints were received and attended to within 15 minutes.

7.2 Priority classifications are broken down to the following categories:

· Priority One
Dog attacks on people and animals and wandering stock. Found dogs are also prioritised, however are not a KPI measure associated with public safety.

· Priority Two
Barking dogs, dog fouling, dog rushing on own property, dog welfare, lost dog, unregistered dog and wandering dog.

Dangerous and Menacing Dog classification

7.3 There were 17 Dogs classified as Menacing by Deed pursuant to Section 33a of the Dog Control Act 1996 and six dogs were classified Dangerous pursuant to Section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Seasonal Compliance Activities

7.4 During the summer period regular patrols of the beach prohibited areas has occurred. To date there has been 47 complaints received with the majority being related to dogs on New Brighton and Sumner beaches.

Campaigns – DogSmart and Dog Safe

7.5 As part of our education focus towards compliance, the team conduct both DogSmart and Dog Safe education programmes to Schools and for workplace employee training. Twenty education talks were carried out during this reporting period.

Shelter Services

7.6 From 1 July – 31 December 2024 the following activities were conducted associated with Shelter services.

· Found dogs - 1014 dogs were found and 636 were returned to their owner.

· Impounded Dogs - 378 dogs were impounded, and 277 dogs were returned to their owner.

· Rehomed Dogs - 61 dogs were successfully rehomed.

· Euthanised - 20 dogs were unable to be rehomed and were euthanised.

Prosecutions and Enforcement

7.7 There are currently two animal attack cases that are pending prosecution.

7.8 Warning notices and infringements are issued to dog owners’ who are found to be in breach of the following:

· Failure to keep their dog(s) under effective control,

· Where dog(s) are in breach of Dog Control Bylaw as per section 20(5) of the Dog Control Act 1996

· Exercising their dog(s) in a prohibited area.

· Failure to have their dog on a leash in public place designated as a leashed area.

· Dog fouling in a public place, land or premises and failing to immediately remove and dispose.

Consultations

7.9 The Dog Control Bylaw review is underway with hearings intended to take place in March 2025.

7.10 1,449 submissions were received with 159 to be heard. In summary the submissions relate to questions associated with new leashing requirements on paths and formed tracks as well as some submitters supporting the proposed changes.

8. LIM Document and Property Information

Summary of observations and comparison re: Property market activity

8.1 Over the last six months we have seen a continued increase of LIM’s requests compared to the previous year. This appears due to a stronger property market with property prices becoming slightly more affordable and changes to interest rates.

8.2 We normally see a decrease during winter months which we believe is due to colder weather, and less house sales, however, this did not occur this year.

8.3 There was a slight decrease during the month of December, which is typical and was expected due to the festive season.

8.4 LIM numbers are already at pre-Christmas levels with 55 to 60 applications being received each day for the first two weeks of January. In previous years, this has not happened until end of January/beginning of February.

LIM Requests by Month Residential and Commercial

Residential Property File Requests

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Andrea McMurray - Personal Assistant

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 brought in a new risk based free regime that is applied when new applications for alcohol licences are received. Based on criteria within the fee regulations a fee category is determined and various weightings applied to calculate application fees for the premises ranging from very low to very high. Council must monitor all premises that have a rating result of high/very high.

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 10 December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2313090
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

6. Council Minutes - 4 December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2225845
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

7. Council Minutes - 11 December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2274747
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Megan Pearce, Manager Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

8. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 24 May 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2156230
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

9. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 21 November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/131962
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

10. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 13 September 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2235588
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Framework
	Committee Comment 1. Staff presented the report and facilitated discussion with members on the framework.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Framework Report. 2. Provides the below feedback on the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Framework: · [insert text here]
	Committee Resolved HSCM/2024/00008 Part C That the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Framework Report. 2. Provides the below feedback on the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Framework: - Tie in a focus on critical risk. - Understanding of the hierarchy and where the Committee fits at a governance level. - That key HSW areas of focus within the organisation are identified. - That staff investigate and report back to the Committee on the feasibility of mobile devices for staff for the purposes of health and safety. Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Peters Carried

11. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/131997
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

12. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 17 September 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2159487
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Head of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Supporting Groups to Realise their Fundraising Potential
	Committee Comment · The Committee understands there is a barrier for groups to attend this workshop due to it being a paid service with a required set fee. Members want to keep this barrier as small as possible by having a low set fee for attendance. · The Committee wishes for their funding to go towards groups that are in keeping with the Zone Committee philosophy, and operate in alignment with the objectives of the Zone Committee’s Action Plan.
	Officer Recommendations That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Supporting Groups to Realise their Fundraising Potential Report. 2. Recommends to Environment Canterbury to use $5000 of the Zone Committee Action Plan Budget towards evenly co-funding the total cost of the Workshop Series 3. Agrees to a set fee amount of $50 incl. GST for all attendees.
	Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00014 That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Supporting Groups to Realise their Fundraising Potential Report. 2. Recommends to Environment Canterbury to use $5000 of the Zone Committee Action Plan Budget towards evenly co-funding the total cost of the Workshop Series 3. Agrees to a set fee amount of $50 incl. GST for all attendees. 4. Resolved that attendees/organisations must be aligned with the objectives of the Banks Peninsula Zone Committee’s Action Plan. Andrea Davis/Elisa Knight Carried
	Attachments a Supporting Groups to Realise their own Funding Potential - 17 September 2024

8. Facilitator Updates
	Committee Comment · The Facilitator tabled a draft Letter of Recommendations relating to the Stormwater Management Plan for Banks Peninsula, which was informed by the Committee’s suggestions during the 10 September 2024 online Committee Workshop. · The Committee accepted this draft as a true copy of their suggestions.
	Officer Recommendations That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Facilitator Updates Report. 2. Confirms the Committee will continue to use its 2021-2024 Canterbury Water Management Strategy Action Plan, until such time when the requirements for a 2024-2027 Canterbury Water Management Strategy Action Plan are clarified.
	Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00015 That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Facilitator Updates Report. 2. Confirms the Committee will continue to use its 2021-2024 Canterbury Water Management Strategy Action Plan, until such time when the requirements for a 2024-2027 Canterbury Water Management Strategy Action Plan are clarified. 3. Agrees to send Paul Dickson a Letter of Recommendations relating to the Stormwater Management Plan for Banks Peninsula. Rik Tainui/Gina Waibl Carried
	Attachments a Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Letter of Recommendations relating to the Stormwater Management Plan for Banks Peninsula

13. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - November and December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2033977
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

15. City to Sea East Safety Improvements - Avondale Road Crossing
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/122749
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dave Little, Manager Residential Red Zone Sam Morris, Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

16. Rockinghorse Road ROW Leases Part A request
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2246950
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dave Little, Manager Residential Red Zone
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Rockinghorse Road ROW Leases Part A request
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2112792
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dave Little, Residential Red Zone Manager Will Wijnveld, Senior Legal Counsel– Commercial and Property
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

17. Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2294329
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, General Manager Corporate Services

18. 3 Bantry Lodge Road, Wainui - Revoke Reserve Status and Sale of Land
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2294379
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Colin Windleborn, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, General Manager Corporate Services

19. Disraeli Reserve Art Features Decommissioning Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/117757
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Maria Adamski, Senior Parks Asset Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

24. Citizen & Customer Service Unit Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1441388
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sarah Numan, Head of Citizen & Customer Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
26.	Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
27.	Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 13 September 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
28.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 11 December 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.