Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 19 February 2025

5. Local Water Done Well: Service Delivery Models for Consultation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2320587
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Brent Smith, GM Infrastructure; Luke Adams, Principal Advisor Strategic Policy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to support the Council in progressing Christchurch’s compliance with the Local Water Done Well (“LWDW”) framework. Specifically, this report outlines the steps required to determine a proposed delivery model for water services as part of developing and adopting its Water Services Delivery Plan (“WSDP”).

1.2 The report provides:

· A summary of the legislative context, including the requirements of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (“Preliminary Arrangements Act) and the Local Government (Water Services) Bill (“Water Services Bill”).

· An evaluation of three water service delivery models: In-House Delivery, Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO), and Two-Waters WSCCO.

· Recommendations on:

· Adopting a streamlined consultation process under the Preliminary Arrangements Act compared to standard consultation requirements.

· Including three models in the public consultation.

· Selecting the In-House Delivery Model as the Council's preferred option to present as the proposal during consultation.

1.3 This report is structured to summarise key findings and recommendations. The analytical basis for these conclusions is provided in the attached Indicative Business Case, which contains detailed financial modelling, evaluation and methodology. The Indicative Business Case (Attachment A) should be read in conjunction with this report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Water Done Well: Service Delivery Models for Consultation Report.

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

3. Agrees to rely on the alternative consultation procedure provided under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 for its decision-making, including for the purpose of consultation.

4. Agrees to include the following three delivery models in the public consultation process:

a. In-House Delivery Model

b. Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO) Model

c. Two-Waters WSCCO Model

5. Agrees to identify the In-House Delivery Model as its “proposal” for public consultation.

6. Notes that staff will provide a report to Council in June 2025 outlining the outcomes of the consultation process, including analysis of community feedback and final advice on the proposed water services delivery model to be included in the Water Services Delivery Plan.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LWDW reforms require the Council to develop a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP). This must detail the current state of water infrastructure, identify future investment needs, and outline the financial and operational strategies required to comply with current and anticipated regulatory standards set out under the LWDW reforms.

3.2 The WSDP must also include detail on the Council’s proposed or anticipated model for delivering water services. This is a statutory requirement under the Preliminary Arrangements Act, with the Council required to submit its WSDP to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) by September 2025.

Purpose of the Report

3.3 This report seeks the Council’s approval to:

3.3.1 Consult the public on three viable water service delivery models. An In-House Model, a Water Services Council Controlled Organisation (WSCCO), and a Two-Waters WSCCO.

3.3.2 Use an alternative consultation procedure prescribed under the Preliminary Arrangements Act, ensuring a targeted and streamlined process.

3.3.3 Identify the In-House Delivery Model as the Council’s proposal for consultation.

Legislative Context

3.4 Under the Preliminary Arrangements Act, councils are required to assess and consult on at least two water service delivery models, which are: remaining with the existing approach and one of a WSCCO or joint local government arrangement before deciding on its proposed model to include in its WSDP.

3.5 The Water Services Bill also establishes specific criteria and financial oversight mechanisms that delivery models must comply with, including information disclosure and economic regulation under the Commerce Commission and water quality regulation under Taumata Arowai.

3.6 Councils may undertake consultation under either the Local Government Act 2002 process or the alternative consultation procedure set out in the Preliminary Arrangements Act. This report recommends using the alternative consultation procedure, which is tailored specifically for water services decision-making, ensuring a focused and efficient engagement process.

Water Service Delivery Model Options

3.7 Three models have been evaluated in detail:

In-House Delivery Model

3.8 The In-House Model keeps water service governance and management directly with the Council. The Council oversees all aspects of water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services, ensuring alignment and coordinated service delivery with other Council functions like parks, transport, and urban planning.

3.9 Key Characteristics:

· Governance and operational control remain with the Council.

· Funding comes from existing revenue streams, such as water rates and borrowing, with financial ring-fencing for transparency.

· The Council determines how services are charged, with flexibility to use general rates, targeted rates, or volumetric pricing.

· Compliance responsibilities lie entirely with the Council, ensuring accountability under Taumata Arowai and Commerce Commission current and anticipated regulations.

Water Services Council Controlled Organisation Model

3.10 A WSCCO is an independent entity established to govern and manage water services, with the Council retaining ownership of the entity and strategic oversight. This model focuses exclusively on water services and operates under its own governance and financial framework.

3.11 Key Characteristics:

· Independent governance structure, with professional boards managing day-to-day operations. The board cannot contain elected members or Council staff.

· Assets may either remain under Council ownership or transfer to the WSCCO.

· Funding is separated from general Council operations, with borrowing capacity up to 500% of revenue.

· Charges must shift from rates to fixed fees or volumetric pricing within five years.

· Responsibility for complying with current and anticipated regulations under Taumata Arowai and Commerce Commission.

Two-Waters WSCCO Model

3.12 This model transfers water supply and wastewater services to a WSCCO while retaining stormwater management within the Council.

3.13 Key Characteristics:

· Water supply and wastewater managed independently by the WSCCO, while stormwater remains under Council control.

· Assets may either remain under Council ownership or transfer to the WSCCO for water supply and wastewater.

· Separate financial frameworks for WSCCO and stormwater services, with borrowing capacity of up to 500% for WSCCO-managed services.

3.14 Other models, such as a regional water entity and a consumer trust model, were initially considered but were not progressed for detailed assessment due to governance complexities, financial constraints, or misalignment with Christchurch’s specific needs and strategic priorities.

3.15 While a formal joint entity is not being considered, Christchurch and Dunedin City Councils are exploring opportunities for collaboration through new ways of working. This partnership focuses on leveraging expertise, improving efficiencies, and reducing costs to enhance water service delivery for both communities.

3.16 A detailed evaluation of the three assessed models, including financial and strategic analysis, is provided in the Indicative Business Case (Attachment A), which outlines the methodology, key findings, and rationale for the recommended approach.

Evaluation Framework

3.17 The evaluation process comprised two key components:

· Strategic Assessment – Evaluated governance, service delivery efficiency, regulatory compliance, and alignment with community priorities.

· Financial Assessment – Assessed affordability, borrowing capacity, and long-term financial sustainability of each model.

3.18 This dual assessment framework ensured a balanced evaluation, providing a clear comparison of the advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs and benefits of each model.

Evaluation Summary

3.19 Each model has the potential to achieve financial sustainability and regulatory compliance, though they differ in cost implications, governance structures, and service delivery approaches.

3.20 The In-House Delivery Model emerged as the highest-scoring option, reflecting its alignment with Christchurch’s existing priorities and infrastructure. It leverages established systems and governance structures, offering stability, predictability, and low short-term transition costs.

3.21 The WSCCO Model and Two-Waters WSCCO Model demonstrated similar viability, particularly in terms of financial scalability and operational specialisation. However, they involve higher setup costs, increased complexity, and potential risks during the transition. Their viability depends on achieving projected efficiencies and balancing governance and operational trade-offs.

Next Steps (if the recommendations in this report are approved)

· Public consultation (March–April 2025).

· Hearings and deliberations (May 2025).

· Decision on the proposed delivery model for the WSDP (June 2025).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Delivering water services in Christchurch

4.1 Water services delivery involves managing three essential areas: water supply, wastewater, and stormwater. The Council is responsible for planning, funding, building and maintaining the infrastructure and processes that supports providing these services. This includes ensuring they meet community needs, comply with environmental and quality standards, and address challenges such as population growth and climate change.

Water supply

4.2 Council is responsible for ensuring the supply of water is safe to drink. The Council supplies water through approximately 160,000 residential and business connections, through seven urban water supply schemes and six rural water supply schemes. In a typical year, this equates to 50-55 billion litres of water, which is the equivalent of around 22,000 full Olympic size swimming pools.

4.3 Our drinking water infrastructure includes approximately 1,700km each of mains and sub-mains, 108 reservoirs and tanks, 127 pump stations, 172 wells, seven stream intakes and water treatment plants.

Wastewater

4.4 Council collects wastewater from approximately 170,000 customers in Christchurch, Lyttelton, Diamond Harbour, Governors Bay, Akaroa, Duvauchelle, Tikao Bay and Wainui.

4.5 This is achieved through approximately 945km of laterals, nearly 2,000km of wastewater mains, 150 pump stations, 84 lift stations, and 34 odour control sites. We provide treatment at eight wastewater treatment plants and disposal through one outfall pump station, six ocean/harbour outfalls, and two land integration schemes. 98% of wastewater generated within Christchurch is serviced by the Christchurch wastewater network for treatment at the Christchurch wastewater treatment plant.

Stormwater

4.6 The stormwater network collects, conveys, attenuates, and treats the stormwater during wet weather and is designed to work with secondary flow paths, such as roads. This activity is intrinsically linked to and interdependent with the land drainage, Flood Protection and Control Works activity undertaken by Council.

4.7 Key physical assets include underground conveyance networks (approximately 915km of pipes, manholes, sumps, inlets and outlets), open channels and overland flow path (natural waterways such as rivers, streams, creeks, constructed drainage channels, in-channel structures, lining and retaining walls), 45 pump stations and water flow control devices and structures such as valve stations, 12km of stop banks, tide gates and basins, water quality treatment devices such as basins (710), wetlands, tree pits, raingardens, filtration devices, and hydrometric monitoring devices, measuring rainfall long with surface water, sea and groundwater levels.

Overview of the Local Water Done Well Reform

4.8 New Zealand's water services have been the focus of significant reform since the Government's Three Waters Review in 2017, which was prompted by the 2016 Havelock North contamination incident. This review highlighted critical issues in water safety, management, and infrastructure. Initially addressed through the previous Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme, the approach was revised in 2023 with the introduction of the Local Water Done Well (LWDW) framework.

4.9 LWDW replaces the Three Waters Reform Programme and aims to ensure safe, reliable, and financially sustainable water services nationwide, while retaining local asset ownership and decision-making.

4.10 LWDW responds to several systemic issues identified in water service delivery across the country, including aging infrastructure, underinvestment, inconsistent service levels, and gaps in regulatory oversight. The framework establishes a pathway for councils to assess and adopt delivery models that meet stricter quality, financial, and environmental standards.

Key Objectives of LWDW

Fit-for-Purpose Service Delivery Models

4.11 Councils are required to select delivery models that ensure sustainable and efficient management of water services.

4.12 These models must be tailored to meet the specific needs of local communities, considering factors such as population growth, environmental challenges, and existing infrastructure conditions.

Financial Sustainability

4.13 LWDW prioritises the financial sustainability and economic viability of water services, requiring councils to ringfence water finances and implement robust revenue, investment, and cost-recovery mechanisms.

4.14 Clear financial management standards are mandated to ensure long-term infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.

Enhanced Oversight and Regulation

4.15 The framework strengthens the role of central regulators, including Taumata Arowai (water quality) and brings in the Commerce Commission (responsible for the new economic regulation).

4.16 Councils must comply with stringent water quality, environmental, and pricing standards to protect public health and environmental integrity.

4.17 The framework also includes financial ringfencing, ensuring water service funds are transparently managed and not used for other council activities.

Why LWDW is Being Implemented

4.18 LWDW is designed to address regional inconsistencies in water service quality and systemic weaknesses across New Zealand, including:

· Aging Infrastructure: Decades of underinvestment have left many councils with deteriorating water assets in need of urgent upgrades.

· Health Risks: Events like the Havelock North water contamination highlighted the risks posed by poorly managed drinking water systems.

· Environmental Concerns: Inadequate wastewater and stormwater management have led to significant environmental degradation, including polluted waterways and ecosystems.

· Inconsistent Service Levels: Smaller councils often lack the resources to deliver safe and reliable water services, leading to inequities across regions.

4.19 LWDW aims to ensure that water services are sustainable, equitable, and aligned with modern regulatory and environmental expectations, while maintaining councils’ ability to make decisions tailored to their local communities.

5. Legislative Framework

5.1 The Government is implementing the LWDW framework in three legislative stages, each outlining specific requirements and providing councils with the tools to transition to the new water services environment.

Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024

5.2 Enacted in February 2024, this Act repealed previous water services legislation, including the Water Services Entities Act 2022. It restored council ownership and responsibility for water services delivery, allowing councils to continue managing water services locally.

Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (“Preliminary Arrangements Act”)

5.3 Enacted in September 2024, this Act provides the establishment framework for LWDW. It requires councils to develop and submit a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) by September 2025 (unless an exemption is granted). The WSDP must set out the Council’s proposed service delivery model, and include baseline infrastructure and financial data, and strategies for meeting financial, operational, and regulatory obligations.

Local Government (Water Services) Bill (“Water Services Bill”)

5.4 Introduced in December 2024, this Bill sets enduring legislative framework for water services delivery. It sets out the options available for service delivery models, establishes a new economic regulation and consumer protection regime regulated by the Commerce Commission, and implements changes to water quality regulations, including enhanced standards for wastewater and stormwater.

Water Services Delivery Plan

5.5 The WSDP is a core requirement of the LWDW reforms. Mandated under the Preliminary Arrangements Act, the WSDP ensures that water service providers can meet enhanced regulatory standards while demonstrating financial sustainability in the delivery of water services.

5.6 The Council is actively developing its WSDP. This plan will detail the current state of Christchurch’s water infrastructure, identify future investment needs, and outline the financial and operational strategies required to comply with current and anticipated regulatory standards set out under the LWDW reforms. The WSDP must be finalised and submitted to the DIA by September 2025.

5.7 Central to the WSDP is the selection of the anticipated or proposed service delivery model for water services. This model will shape how the Council meets its obligations under the LWDW framework, ensuring water services are efficient, financially sustainable and meets regulatory requirements.

Selection of a Water Services Delivery Model

5.8 The Water Services Bill establishes a framework requiring councils to select a compliant delivery model to ensure water services are provided effectively, sustainably, and complies with legislative requirements. While the Bill offers flexibility in choosing the most appropriate model, councils are limited to selecting from a defined set of delivery options outlined in the Bill.

5.9 Councils must choose one of the below models:

· Deliver services directly.

· Transfer responsibility to a water organisation (Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation) through a transfer agreement.

· Contract with third parties for service delivery on behalf of the Council (the Council retaining governance and pricing control).

· Enter into joint arrangements with other councils.

· Become shareholders in water organisations established by other councils.

· Explore other compliant arrangements.

5.10 If a water organisation is used, it must (or subject to certain exemptions):

· Be a company under the Companies Act 1993.

· Be owned by councils, consumer trusts, or a combination of both.

· Operate exclusively in water services or related activities.

· Have independent, competency-based boards, excluding elected members or council employees.

Evaluation Requirements for Selecting a Service Delivery Model

5.11 In determining which of these models to adopt, the Council must comply with the requirements of the Preliminary Arrangements Act. This includes undertaking a comparative assessment of the proposed delivery model alongside any alternative options to be included in the consultation process.

5.12 The assessment must include:

· A clear explanation and reasoning for selecting the proposed model as its proposal and presenting alternative options.

· An evaluation of the advantages, disadvantages, and trade-offs associated with each model identified.

· A detailed assessment of how proceeding with each model would likely affect key factors, including:

· rates;

· Council debt;

· service levels; and

· any charges for water services.

· For any proposal involving the transfer of control of strategic assets, a description of the mechanisms that will ensure effective monitoring or accountability to assess performance regarding the asset.

Consultation Requirements

5.13 The Council is required to undertake a consultation process as part of making a decision on the anticipated or proposed model or arrangement for delivering water services that will be included in its WSDP. This process ensures that the community has an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed model and any alternative options under consideration.

5.14 The Council can choose to follow the standard consultation principles and requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Alternatively, the Preliminary Arrangements Act provides a tailored consultation process, designed to streamline procedural requirements and focus consultation on the statutory requirements of the Act.

5.15 If the consultation process follows the requirements of the Preliminary Arrangements Act, the Council:

· Must Evaluate at Least Two Models: As required by the Preliminary Arrangements Act, the Council must assess and present a minimum of two delivery models for consultation. These must include:

· The current approach to delivering water services (In-House Model), and

· Either a Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO) Model or a joint local government arrangement.

· Can Consider Additional Models: The Council may include other delivery models in the consultation if these align with the options outlined in the Water Services Bill and support Christchurch’s unique priorities or conditions.

· Must Identify a Proposal: The Council must clearly specify its preferred water services delivery model as the "proposal" for consultation.

6. Water Service Delivery Model Options

6.1 Three water service delivery models have been evaluated in detail to assess their alignment with Christchurch’s priorities and compliance with the requirements of the LWDW framework.

6.2 The three models assessed are:

· In-House Delivery Model: Retains direct Council control over water services.

· WSCCO Model: Involves creating and transferring governance and operations to an independent legal entity solely focused on water services, with the Council as its shareholder.

· Two-Waters WSCCO Model: A hybrid model where water supply and wastewater services are transferred to a WSCCO, while stormwater remains under Council management.

6.3 Other models, such as a regional water entity and a consumer trust model, were initially considered but were not progressed for detailed assessment due to governance complexities, financial constraints, or misalignment with Christchurch’s specific needs and strategic priorities.

6.4 While a formal joint entity is not being considered, Christchurch and Dunedin City Councils are exploring opportunities for collaboration through new ways of working. This partnership focuses on leveraging expertise, improving efficiencies, and reducing costs to enhance water service delivery for both communities.

6.5 The three models evaluated in detail represent realistic and practical pathways to achieving compliance with government reforms while meeting Christchurch’s long-term water service delivery goals. The in-house Model also offers a solid base line for comparison, representing the current approach and allowing the community to assess the value of retaining direct Council control and the WSCCO models provides a contrasting option that would enable more independent governance and operational focus for water services transferred. Further details on the evaluation process are provided in the attached Indicative Business Case.

In-House Delivery Model

6.6 The In-House Model keeps water service governance and management directly with the Council. The Council oversees all aspects of water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services, ensuring alignment and coordinated service delivery with other Council functions like parks, transport, and urban planning.

6.7 Key Characteristics:

· Governance and operational control remain with the Council.

· Funding comes from existing revenue streams, such as water rates and borrowing, with financial ring-fencing for transparency.

· Council determines how services are charged, with flexibility to use general rates, targeted rates, or volumetric pricing.

· Compliance responsibilities lie entirely with the Council, ensuring accountability under Taumata Arowai and Commerce Commission current and anticipated regulations.

WSCCO Model

6.8 A WSCCO is an independent entity established to govern and manage water services, with the Council retaining ownership of the entity and strategic oversight. This model focuses exclusively on water services and operates under its own governance and financial framework.

6.9 Key Characteristics:

· Independent governance structure, with professional boards managing day-to-day operations. The board cannot contain elected members or Council staff.

· Assets may either remain under Council ownership or transfer to the WSCCO.

· Funding is separated from general Council operations, with borrowing capacity up to 500% of revenue.

· Charges must shift from rates to fixed fees or volumetric pricing within five years.

· Responsibility for complying with current and anticipated regulations under Taumata Arowai and Commerce Commission.

Two-Waters WSCCO Model

6.10 This model transfers water supply and wastewater services to a WSCCO while retaining stormwater management within the Council.

6.11 Key Characteristics:

· Water supply and wastewater managed independently by the WSCCO, while stormwater remains under Council control.

· Assets may either remain under Council ownership or transfer to the WSCCO for water supply and wastewater.

· Separate financial frameworks for WSCCO and stormwater services, with borrowing capacity of up to 500% for WSCCO-managed services.

· Compliance with current and future regulatory responsibilities split between the WSCCO and the Council.

Other Models Considered But Not Recommended For Further Assessment

Regional Water Entity

6.12 A shared regional entity managing water services across councils was considered but deemed unsuitable for Christchurch due to complexities in aligning priorities across diverse councils, the risk of losing local control, and the Council’s strong financial position deeming it unnecessary.

Shared Services Model

6.13 Collaborative arrangements with neighbouring councils are an ongoing consideration. Christchurch and Dunedin City Councils are exploring opportunities for collaboration through new ways off working. This partnership focuses on leveraging expertise, improving efficiencies, and reducing costs to enhance water service delivery for both communities.

Consumer Trust Model

6.14 This approach, emphasising community governance through a trust, was excluded due to governance complexity, limited financial capacity, and misalignment with Christchurch’s needs.

7. Water Service Delivery Model Options Analysis

7.1 An evaluation of the three delivery models is comprehensively detailed in the attached Indicative Business Case. This document outlines the methodology, criteria, and analysis used to assess how each model aligns with Christchurch’s strategic priorities, regulatory requirements, and financial sustainability. It also includes comprehensive financial modelling to forecast the financial implications of each model, including impact on rates, borrowing, affordability and levels of service.

7.2 The following section provides an overview of the assessment framework and key findings. It outlines the associated advantages, disadvantages, and trade-offs, offering a concise reference to support decision-making.

Assessment Framework

7.3 The evaluation process comprised two key components:

· Strategic Assessment: This analysis focused on the broader alignment of each model with Christchurch’s long-term objectives and community needs.

· Financial Assessment: The financial analysis assessed the affordability and long-term sustainability of each model.

7.4 This dual assessment framework ensured a balanced evaluation of each model, providing a clear basis for comparing their suitability for Christchurch’s water service delivery needs.

Strategic Assessment Criteria

· Value to Ratepayers: The ability to balance affordability, service quality, and long-term infrastructure investment while delivering value for money.

· Regulatory Compliance: The capacity to meet current and future water quality, environmental, and economic regulations.

· Financial Agility: The flexibility to manage funding, borrowing, and unforeseen financial pressures sustainably.

· Service Delivery and Operations: The effectiveness and efficiency of day-to-day operations, including resource allocation and infrastructure management.

· Governance and Control: The degree of Council oversight and the ability to maintain accountability, transparency, and alignment with strategic goals.

· Community Expectations: The ability to meet public expectations for engagement, transparency, and local accountability.

· Implementation Feasibility: The practicality, cost, and risk of transitioning to the model, ensuring minimal disruption to services.

Financial Assessment Considerations

· Rates and Water Services Charges Impact: Analysing the implications of each model on short-term and long-term rates and charges, including cumulative rate increases and the transition to volumetric charging under WSCCO models.

· Revenue Sufficiency: Ensuring each model generates sufficient revenue to cover operational costs and to fund necessary infrastructure investments.

· Investment Sufficiency: Reviewing capital expenditure versus depreciation to confirm the long-term viability of infrastructure investments.

· Borrowing and Debt Management: Validating that each model’s debt levels remain within prudent limits and borrowing capacity supports future needs.

· Operational and Transition Costs: Analysing the financial implications of establishing and maintaining new governance or operational structures.

Summary of the Assessment

7.5 The In-House Delivery Model emerged as the highest-scoring option, reflecting its alignment with Christchurch’s existing priorities and infrastructure. It leverages established systems and governance structures, offering stability, predictability, and low short-term transition costs.

7.6 The WSCCO Model and Two-Waters WSCCO Model demonstrated similar viability, particularly in terms of financial scalability and operational specialisation. However, they involve higher setup costs, increased complexity, and potential risks during the transition. Their viability depends on achieving projected efficiencies and balancing governance and operational trade-offs.

Strategic Assessment Summary

Value to Ratepayers

7.7 The In-House Delivery Model provides immediate value by leveraging existing Council systems, avoiding the high transition costs associated with the WSCCO models. It ensures stable service delivery at a lower cost to ratepayers in the short term, particularly given Christchurch’s current financial health.

7.8 By contrast, while the WSCCO Model offers the potential for long-term cost efficiencies through specialisation, its high setup costs dilute its short-term value. The Two-Waters WSCCO sits in between, offering some efficiencies but offset by the administrative and governance complexities that reduce its overall cost-effectiveness.

Regulatory Compliance

7.9 All three models are capable of meeting current and future regulatory standards. The In-House Model benefits from established Council processes that provide clear pathways for adapting to future regulatory changes. The WSCCO Model and Two-Waters WSCCO can also achieve compliance but would require new systems and processes, increasing the complexity of regulatory oversight, particularly during the transition phase.

Financial Agility

7.10 The WSCCO Model stands out in terms of borrowing capacity, with its ability to leverage up to 500% of revenue for infrastructure investment. This makes it well-suited for large-scale, long-term projects. However, the accompanying debt-servicing obligations and reliance on achieving operational efficiencies pose significant risks.

7.11 The In-House Model, while constrained by the Council’s debt-to-revenue cap of 280%, has sufficient financial headroom to meet Christchurch’s anticipated investment needs without incurring additional financial risk. The Two-Waters WSCCO offers a hybrid approach, but the divided financial frameworks may create inefficiencies.

Service Delivery and Operations

7.12 The In-House Model supports operational synergies by integrating water services with other Council functions, such as flood management, land drainage, parks and urban planning. This integration ensures streamlined service delivery and coordinated decision-making.

7.13 The WSCCO Model and Two-Waters WSCCO introduce governance separation, which could enhance service focus but risks fragmented operations, particularly in managing interdependencies between water services and other Council activities.

Governance and Control

7.14 The In-House Model provides the highest degree of transparency and accountability, with direct Council oversight ensuring decisions consider community priorities. The WSCCO Model, while allowing for specialised governance, risks perceived detachment from the Council and the community, potentially eroding trust although the Bill provides the Council as shareholder with the ability to influence the operations of the WSCCO through governance arrangements and strategy documents. The Two-Waters WSCCO retains more direct community input by keeping stormwater under Council oversight, but the divided governance structure could complicate decision-making and accountability.

7.15 Council will also retain full control over how it charges under an In-House Model, whereas a WSCCO will be required to shift to more targeted water charges.

Community Expectations and Engagement

7.16 Community trust and engagement are strongest under the In-House Model, as it maintains input through LGA democratic decision-making processes and leverages established Council engagement mechanisms.

7.17 The WSCCO Model risks public concern over reduced transparency and accountability, particularly if decision-making feels distanced from community input. The Two-Waters WSCCO partially addresses these concerns by keeping stormwater within the Council’s control, but the hybrid structure may still complicate effective engagement.

Implementation Feasibility

7.18 The In-House Model is the least disruptive and most straightforward to implement, as it is unlikely to require major structural changes. By contrast, the WSCCO Model and Two-Waters WSCCO involve significant establishment costs, transition risks, and operational restructuring, increasing short-term disruption and complexity.

Financial Assessment Summary

7.19 The In-House Delivery Model offers the most predictable and stable financial approach. It avoids the high setup and transition costs associated with the WSCCO models, resulting in the lowest short-term impact on rates. Its borrowing capacity, capped at 280% of revenue, is sufficient for Christchurch’s anticipated investment needs.

7.20 The WSCCO provides significant borrowing capacity, up to 500% of revenue, theoretically allowing for debt-funded infrastructure investment beyond the In-House Model’s scope. However, this comes with substantial setup and transition costs, creating a high short-term rate impact. The financial sustainability of the WSCCO Model depends on achieving projected operational efficiencies, which introduces uncertainty and potential risks to ratepayers.

7.21 The Two-Waters WSCCO strikes a balance, offering enhanced borrowing capacity for water supply and wastewater while keeping stormwater under the Council’s financial framework. This marginally reduces transition costs compared to a full Three Waters WSCCO, however may introduce governance and financial inefficiencies. These complexities could lead to higher operational costs over time, limiting the model’s financial effectiveness.

7.22 Refer to the Indicative Business Case for detailed financial modelling for each service delivery model.

8. Decisions Required

8.1 Three decisions are before the Council to progress Christchurch’s water service delivery planning under the LWDW framework:

8.1.1 Approval of Consultation Procedure: Council must decide whether to adopt the tailored consultation procedure provided under the Preliminary Arrangements Act, or undertake consultation as required under the LGA.

8.1.2 Approval of Options for Consultation: Council must determine which delivery models will be included in the public consultation process.

8.1.3 Approval of a Delivery Model as the Proposal: Council is required to identify a preferred delivery model to be presented as the proposal during consultation.

Approval of Consultation Procedure

Decision Required

8.2 Council must decide whether to adopt the alternative consultation procedure provided under the Preliminary Arrangements Act.

Implications of the Decision

8.3 Adopting the streamlined procedure would focus public consultation on the key statutory elements, meeting legislative requirements efficiently while maintaining robust community engagement.

8.4 Options:

· Adopt the Alternative Consultation Procedure (recommended)

· Retain the Standard LGA Consultation Process

Recommended Option: Use the alternative consultation procedure under the Preliminary Arrangements Act.

8.5 This tailored approach streamlines the consultation process by focusing on the specific statutory requirements outlined in the Preliminary Arrangements Act.

8.6 Under section 64(1)-(4), prescribed information requirements are set out for the purpose of consultation, and there is no requirement (as under the Local Government Act 2002) to identify and assess all reasonably practicable options. It strikes a balance between efficiency and meaningful community engagement.

8.7 Option Benefits:

· Ensures consultation is targeted to the unique requirements of water service delivery, making the process more focused and effective.

· Complies with the Preliminary Arrangements Act

· Reduces the administrative and procedural requirements of standard LGA consultation processes, saving time and resources while maintaining transparency. This supports Council’s ability to meet the September 2025 WSDP submission deadline.

8.8 Option Disadvantages:

· The narrower focus of the alternative consultation procedure may not capture broader community perspectives or concerns beyond the statutory requirements.

· Some stakeholders may perceive the streamlined approach as less comprehensive than the broader LGA process, potentially leading to concerns about transparency or exclusion.

Alternative Option: Proceed with the full consultation process under the LGA.

8.9 This option involves undertaking a more comprehensive consultation process in line with the requirements of the LGA, encompassing broader procedural obligations and community engagement principles.

8.10 Option Benefits:

· Allows for more expansive public input, capturing diverse community views beyond the statutory elements of the Preliminary Arrangements Act.

· Utilises an established process familiar to both the Council and the public.

8.11 Option Disadvantages:

· Requires additional time, resources, and procedural steps compared to the alternative consultation procedure. This would likely lead to missing the WSDP September 2025 deadline.

· Broader scope may dilute focus on key statutory requirements, potentially complicating decision-making.

Rationale for Recommendation

8.12 The alternative consultation procedure under the Preliminary Arrangements Act is recommended as it offers a focused, streamlined approach tailored to the statutory requirements of water service delivery planning. This process ensures the consultation is specifically aligned with the requirements of the WSDP, targeting the key areas that need community input while maintaining compliance with legislative obligations.

8.13 LGA consultation process mandates broader engagement responsibilities, it introduces additional complexity, time, and resource demands that are not warranted for this targeted consultation.

Approval of Options for Consultation

Decision Required

8.14 The Council must determine which water service delivery models are included in the public consultation process.

Implications of the Decision

8.15 Presenting a range of options supports a robust consultation process, allowing the community to provide feedback on all viable delivery models. This decision also demonstrates the Council's commitment to exploring and comparing reasonably practicable alternatives before deciding on its proposed model.

Options

· Include All Three Models (recommended).

· Consult on the In-House Model; and, either the WSCCO or the Two Waters WSCCO.

Recommended Option: Include all three delivery models in public consultation.

8.16 This ensures a transparent and comprehensive consultation process, providing the public with an opportunity to review and comment on all viable water service delivery options.

8.17 Option Benefits:

· Demonstrates a commitment to transparency and inclusiveness by presenting multiple viable alternatives.

· Enables the public to compare the advantages, disadvantages, and trade-offs of each model, supporting robust community input.

· Satisfies the Preliminary Arrangements Act requirement to consult on a WSCCO model or a joint local government arrangement, in addition to the Council’s existing approach (In-House Delivery Model).

8.18 Option Disadvantages:

· Managing a consultation process for three models may require more resources and coordination compared to a narrower scope.

· Including three options might spread community feedback thinly across the models, making it harder to discern strong preferences or consensus.

Alternative Option: Consult on the In-House Model; and, either the WSCCO or the Two Waters WSCCO.

8.19 This approach could streamline the consultation process by presenting fewer options while still meeting the Preliminary Arrangement Act’s requirements.

8.20 Option Benefits:

· Reduces the complexity of consultation by focusing on fewer alternatives.

· Meets the minimum statutory requirement to consult on a WSCCO model or a joint local government arrangement, in addition to the Council’s existing approach (In-House Delivery Model).

8.21 Option Disadvantages:

· Restricts the ability of the public to provide input on the full range of viable options.

· Could be viewed as less inclusive by not presenting all viable models for consideration.

Rationale for Recommendation

8.22 While limiting consultation to the In-House Model and one WSCCO model might simplify the process, it risks narrowing the scope of community input and could compromise the inclusiveness of feedback. Presenting all three models ensures a comprehensive consultation process that provides the public with a clear understanding of all viable options.

8.23 All three models scored well in the business case evaluation, demonstrating their viability and capacity to deliver sustainable water services. While the In-House Model scored the highest, both the WSCCO and Two-Waters WSCCO models also showed strong potential. This balanced performance underscores the importance of consulting on all three options.

8.24 Additionally, including all three models in the consultation ensures the Council has the flexibility to select any of the options following community feedback without requiring further consultation.

Approval of a Delivery Model as the Proposal

Decision Required

8.25 The Council must select a delivery model to present as its proposal during the public consultation process.

Implications of the Decision

8.26 Identifying a delivery model as its proposal for consultation is a requirement of Preliminary Arrangements Act. It also provides clarity to the community on the Council’s preferred position.

Options

· The In-House Delivery Model as the proposal (recommended)

· The WSCCO Model as the proposal

· The Two-Waters CCO Model as the proposal

Recommended Option: In-House Delivery Model

8.27 Under this model, the Council retains full governance and operational responsibility for water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services.

8.28 Option Benefits:

· Decisions remain directly with elected representatives, ensuring consideration of community expectations and local priorities.

· Builds on existing systems and processes, avoiding disruptions associated with transitioning to a new governance structure.

· Avoids the significant setup and transition costs associated with creating new governance and operational structures under CCO models.

· Retains Council authority over funding mechanisms, such as general rates, targeted rates, or volumetric pricing.

8.29 Option Disadvantages:

· The Council is limited to borrowing up to 280% of revenue under the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) cap. While sufficient for current and planned investment needs, it may restrict flexibility for large-scale or unforeseen infrastructure investments in the future.

· Efficiency improvements may take longer to implement compared to models with a dedicated operational focus.

Alternative Option One: WSCCO

8.30 The WSCCO model involves establishing an independent legal entity to manage water services, with the Christchurch City Council as its shareholder, with the Council having strategic oversight. The CCO operates autonomously, focusing exclusively on water service delivery.

8.31 Option Benefits:

· The CCO can borrow up to 500% of revenue, significantly increasing the potential capacity to fund large-scale infrastructure investments.

· Independent governance allows for focused attention on water service delivery, potentially improving efficiency.

· Well-suited to scale and accommodating future growth.

8.32 Option Disadvantages:

· Establishing a new governance structure and transitioning operations to the CCO involves substantial costs, including IT, legal, administrative, and staffing expenses.

· Transferring operational control to an independent entity reduces the Council’s direct oversight of water services, potentially reducing consideration of local priorities and community expectations.

· Strategic decisions made by the CCO may not fully reflect Christchurch’s broader priorities.

Alternative Option Two: Two-Waters WSCCO

8.33 This hybrid model establishes a WSCCO to manage water supply and wastewater services while stormwater services remain under the Council’s control.

8.34 Option Benefits:

· Retaining stormwater within the Council ensures alignment with other critical functions, such as flood management, land drainage, parks, and urban planning.

· The WSCCO’s increased borrowing flexibility applies to water supply and wastewater, enabling significant investments in these areas.

8.35 Option Disadvantages:

· Divided responsibilities between the Council and the WSCCO could introduce administrative and operational challenges, requiring robust coordination mechanisms.

· Although less costly than a full WSCCO, establishing a partial WSCCO still incurs significant setup and transition expenses.

· Separate governance structures for water supply, wastewater, and stormwater may create silos, complicating efforts to address integrated service challenges.

Rationale for Recommendation

8.36 The In-House Model aligns closely with Christchurch’s priorities, financial sustainability, and regulatory requirements. It scored the highest in the business case evaluation and, while all three models are viable and deliverable, the In-House Model offers lower risks and greater continuity. By building on existing systems and processes, it minimises disruption while providing a clear pathway to meet future water service delivery needs.

8.37 Additionally, the In-House Model is recommended as the baseline proposal as it provides a familiar and practical foundation for public feedback. This allows the community to evaluate alternative options against a stable and well-understood framework, ensuring clarity in the consultation process.

9. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

9.1 The decisions outlined in this report do not have additional capital expenditure or operational expenditure implications beyond the cost of facilitating the consultation process. Financial considerations that relate to Council’s decision regarding the delivery model to be included in the WSDP will be addressed following consultation, when final advice is provided, based on financial modelling and analysis of the options presented.

9.2 The cost of facilitating the consultation is estimated at approximately $20,000. This cost is primarily for consultation marketing and collateral and is consistent across all scenarios, regardless of the decisions made at this stage.

10. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

10.1 Risks and mitigations that relate to the recommendations in this report:

Risk	Description	Mitigation Measures
Community Engagement and Feedback	The consultation process may not effectively engage all stakeholders, leading to incomplete or unbalanced feedback.	Ensure the consultation process is inclusive, widely publicised, and provides accessible materials that explain the proposal, options, analysis and implications clearly.
Clarity of Consultation Materials	Consultation materials may not adequately convey the differences, benefits, and trade-offs of the proposed models.	Develop clear, concise, and balanced materials that highlight key details of all options, including the proposed model.
Legal or Procedural Non-Compliance	Failure to follow the statutory consultation requirements under the Preliminary Arrangements Act could undermine the process.	Adhere strictly to statutory consultation requirements, including evaluation of at least, the legally required models, and identification of its proposal.
Stakeholder Mistrust	Perceived bias toward the proposal could erode public trust in the consultation process.	Present the advantages and disadvantages of all three models, noting that at the time of consulting, a proposal needs to be identified, emphasising that no final decision has been made and community feedback is critical.
Consultation Timeline Pressures	Tight timeframes for consultation could limit the depth or reach of engagement efforts.	Ensure robust planning and resource allocation to meet consultation deadlines without compromising quality or reach.

10.2 Future risks to consider and plan for:

Risk	Description	Planning Considerations
Policy and Plan Alignment	The selected delivery model included as the proposed approach in its WSDP post-consultation alongside anticipated legislative requirements will require updates to plans such as the LTP, Infrastructure Strategy, and Activity Plans.	Incorporate a policy and plan review process into the WSDP implementation plan to ensure alignment and compliance.
Governance and Operational Transition	If a non-In-House model is selected as the model included as the proposed approach in its WSDP, establishing and transitioning operational control to a new governance structure could create operational disruptions.	Develop a transition plan outlining timelines, transfer arrangements, governance changes, and resource needs to minimise disruption.
Financial Sustainability	The selected delivery model included as the proposed approach in its WSDP could have long-term financial implications, particularly around rates, debt, and borrowing capacity.	Include detailed financial modelling as a key component of the WSDP implementation plan to ensure financial impacts are understood, and risks are mitigated through proactive planning and scenario analysis.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

10.3.1 The Council has the authority to make the decisions in the report.

10.4 Other Legal Implications:

10.4.1 Making use of the “alternative requirements” in the Preliminary Arrangements Act:

· For the Council’s options analysis when deciding service the delivery model in the WSDP, using section 61(2)(a)-(c) displaces section 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act. Benefit of the Preliminary Arrangements Act is that only two options need to be identified and analysed.

· Council’s consultation before deciding service delivery model in the WSDP, if required, using section 62(1),(2) and (3) displaces section 56(1) of the Local Government Act. Benefit of the Preliminary Arrangements Act is that the Council only need to consult once, there is no requirement to use the special consultative procedure when establishing a WSCCO.

· For consultation on amendment to the LTP (proposal), if required, to give effect to the service delivery model in the WSDP, using section 63(1) and (2) displaces sections 93(5) and 97(2)(b) of the Local Government Act. Benefit of the Preliminary Arrangements Act is that there is no requirement to consult on LTP amendment if it has already been consulted via WSDP and other requirements regarding community views are met.

· For the information requirements for consultation on the service delivery model in the WSDP, using section 64(1)-(4) displaces section 82A(2) of the Local Government Act. Benefit of the Preliminary Arrangements Act are simplified information requirements with the consultation document assessing all reasonably practicable options is not required.

10.4.2 Timing of the Water Services Bill (Select Committee stage, submissions due 23 February)

10.4.3 Two of the proposed options for consultation is a WSCCO. The Bill’s governance and accountability requirements relating to a WSCCO, may still change.

10.4.4 The Bill includes provisions relating to change proposals (cl 25-30) which may require further decision-making in relation to WSCCO delivery model. Clarity is needed through the Bill’s submission process regarding the scope of its application.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

10.5 The required decisions:

10.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. In particular, the following Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes are relevant:

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

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

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

· Actively balance the needs of today's residents with the needs of future generations, with the aim of leaving no one behind.

10.5.2 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.

10.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The decisions outlined in this report do not directly impact existing plans and policies. However, the eventual inclusion of the Council’s proposed delivery model in the WSDP – following public consultation – will necessitate a comprehensive review and update of relevant Council plans, policies and strategies.

10.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

10.6.1 Strategic Planning and Policy.

· 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

10.7 The future of how Christchurch’s water services are delivered are of high interest to the people of Christchurch. It is likely that there will be strong views on the delivery models, which will be received and considered through the consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

10.8 The decisions in this report involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. Water services are closely tied to cultural values, environmental stewardship and the principles of kaitiakitanga. The service delivery model will not, however, impact on levels of service. Prioritising the health and wellbeing of water will remain central to our decision-making processes.

10.9 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has advised staff to engage with Te Kura Taka Pini. Staff will engage with both Te Kura Taka Pini and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga prior to Council making its decision on its proposed service delivery model in June. Mana whenua feedback will be incorporated in the decision report. When the Council decision is made, there will be ongoing opportunities for mana whenua to be further involved.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

10.10 The decisions in this report do not have any climate change implications. Climate change considerations that relate to Council’s decision regarding the delivery model to be included in the WSDP will be addressed following consultation, when final advice is provided.

11. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

11.1 If Council supports the officer recommendations, the following next steps will be taken.

Date (all 2025)	Activity/event
Mid-March Mid-April	· Public consultation on its proposal and the two other Water Services Delivery Models, using the alternative consultation mechanism within the Preliminary Arrangements Act.
May	· Hearings and deliberations
June	· Staff advice to Council, including consideration of submissions and hearings feedback. · Council Meeting to decide Water Services Delivery Model to include in the WSDP

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Water service delivery models: Indicative business case (Under Separate Cover)	24/2029041
b ⇨	Water service delivery models: Appendix to the Indicative Business Case: model financial statements (Under Separate Cover)	25/164068
c	Local Water Done Well - Draft Consultation Document (Additional Documents - Circulated Separately)

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Adams - Principal Advisor Policy

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Mitchell Shaw - Reporting Accountant

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

6. Draft Development Contributions Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/229100
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: This report was initially tabled at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting of 18 December 2024. At that time, the Committee resolved to defer the report to hold a further Workshop. This report is now being re-tabled for consideration after the Workshop of 4 February 2025, noting that the draft Development Contributions Policy has also had a minor update to correct a drafting omission.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report for the Council to resolve to consult on the draft Development Contributions Policy.

1.2 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions and to review it every three years. As the Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is due for review this year.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Draft Development Contributions Policy Report.

2. Approves the draft Development Contributions Policy (Attachment A) for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Agrees that prior to consultation commencing staff may make changes to the draft Development Contributions Policy to correct minor drafting errors.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions. The Development Contributions Policy (policy) must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. This includes the policy being reviewed at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to section 82 of the LGA.

3.2 The Council’s policy was last reviewed in 2021 and is now due for review.

3.3 The draft policy contains an updated schedule of capital projects (Schedule of Assets) and schedule of charges alongside a number of proposed changes to the policy detail. These policy changes are outlined in Attachment B to this report. The new development contributions charges are outlined in Attachment C.

3.4 Subject to the Council’s approval, consultation on the draft policy will run through March 2025 with hearings to follow.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Development contributions enable the Council to recover a fair share of the cost of providing infrastructure to service growth development from those who benefit from the provision of that investment. The Council has had a development contributions policy since 2004 with this being the tenth review of the policy over that time.

4.2 The policy details the methodology used to establish development contribution charges per household unit equivalent (HUE), the resulting cost of those charges, the methodology used to assess a development for the level of development contributions required and various process requirements associated with operating a fair and consistent development contributions process.

4.3 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. The revenue is used to pay down debt taken out to initially fund the investment in growth infrastructure.

4.4 Development contribution charges are calculated per HUE on a per project basis, by dividing cost to deliver the growth component of an asset by the number of new or additional households. Overall, development contribution charges have increased for most parts of the city compared to the 2021 policy. This has been caused by an increase in the cost to deliver infrastructure to service growth and revised growth projections that indicate a slower rate of growth compared to 2021.

4.5 The charges by activity and catchment are outlined in Attachment C. This attachment also provides an overview of how development contribution charges have changed between the 2016, 2021 and 2024 (draft) policy.

4.6 The policy has many discrete inputs, all of which must be reviewed as part of any policy review process. These include residential growth model, business growth model, transport growth model, capital expenditure programmes related to growth, interest and inflation rate forecasts and reviews of the numerous methodologies used as the basis for the calculation and assessment of development contributions.

4.7 In addition, this review process has included reviewing the use of catchments to calculate and assess development contributions.

4.8 This review has also been an opportunity to review the content and structure of the policy to improve clarity and legibility. The specific policy changes are outlined in section 5 of this report.

4.9 The review has been overseen by a Steering Group and undertaken by a Working Group comprised of relevant staff from across the Council.

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

Date	Subject
18 July 2023	Development Contributions Policy Review
28 November 2023	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
30 April 2024	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
13 August 2024	Council's Growth Model: Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme, Parks Network Planning, and Development Contributions
29 October 2024	Development Contributions Policy
26 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy – Draft Charges
4 February 2025	Draft Development Contributions - Catchments

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.11 Legislation requires the policy to be reviewed every three years. On this basis, the following reasonably practicable options were considered:

4.11.1 update the policy and undertake consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA

4.11.2 only update the Schedule of Assets and development contributions charges and undertake consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA

4.12 The preferred option is to update and improve the policy. Staff consider that a full review to update the policy and undertake consultation more closely complies with our legislative requirement and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflects current capital costs. Updating only the schedule of assets would be a missed opportunity to update the policy detail.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: update the policy and undertake consultation

4.13.1 Option Description: This option involves an update to the schedule of capital projects and charges as well as changes to the policy framework. These changes are outlined in section 5 of this report.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflects current capital costs required to service growth development. It also provides an opportunity to make updates to the policy provisions.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

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

4.14 Retain the policy with no changes to policy framework, but update schedule of assets and development contributions charges and consult.

4.14.1 Option Description: This option would involve only updating the schedules of development contribution charges and capital programme information (Schedule of Assets).

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Fulfils minimum requirement that the policy be reviewed every three years.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Legislation requires a review, and updates are required to the policy. Not proposing any changes to the policy would be a missed opportunity to make improvements to the policy.

5. Policy Detail

5.1 The key proposed changes have been arrived at following assessment of options on each issue. Attachment B provides an analysis of options considered and reasons why those being proposed are the preferred options.

Life of existing use credits

5.2 Issue: The Council position has been to limit the life of existing use credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired in the last three years on buildings and sites of former buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in the Christchurch CBD where over 1000 buildings were demolished or too damaged to use. This issue was considered as part of the 2021 policy review and staff have reconsidered as part of this review.

5.3 Recommendation: Retain the current policy setting, where existing demand credits expire after 10 years. This strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely, being fair to ratepayers in that a liability to provide infrastructure to service these lots is not in place forever and being fair to developer in recognising that development has occurred on a site previously.

5.4 There is also significant financial impact to the Council if this policy were to change. The value of expired credits in the central city, based on new household unit equivalent (HUE) charges is around $24 million (GST exclusive).

Small residential unit adjustment

5.5 Issue: The Council currently reduces development contributions charges for residential development for dwellings with a gross floor area (GFA) less than 100m² including garaging and potentially habitable accessory buildings. The reduction is in line with the floor area, for example a unit with 80m² gross floor area is assessed at 0.8 HUE or 80% of the full development contributions charge

5.6 In the last 10 years houses have got significantly smaller. In 2023, 45% of building consents in Christchurch were for homes less than 100m², 24% were for less than 80m²and 6% were for less than 60m².This means the Council is providing a discount for close to half of all new homes. However, the policy is based on assumptions and averages and the Council is only looking to adjust for situations that are significantly different to assumed demand. Using GFA is no longer an accurate reflection of the demand a residential unit places on Council infrastructure.

5.7 Recommendation: Staff recommend moving to a residential unit adjustment based on bedrooms and keeping a small unit adjustment for one-bedroom homes. This will ensure that the Council is only making adjustments for developments that fall outside the assumptions built into the policy.

5.8 Data from Statistics New Zealand confirms that 66% of one-bedroom residential units have one person living in them and 87% of have two or fewer. The average household is 2.6 people, so it is reasonable to assume these homes have half the assumed demand of what is built into the policy.

Large residential unit adjustment

5.9 Issue: The policy does not currently have a provision relating to large residential units. Many councils’ policies have a large residential unit adjustment on the basis that the greater the number of bedrooms in a residential unit the more usual residents it likely has.

5.10 The Council is noticing an increasing number of multiple tenancy housing developments with lock-up rooms with an ensuite and shared kitchen lounge. Under current policy provisions, there are currently assessed as a single household unit.

5.11 Recommendation: Staff recommend providing a large residential unit adjustment. Developments with seven or more bedrooms assessed at 1.4 HUE. This means the development contribution charge better reflects the usually higher demand on infrastructure from larger homes.

5.12 While many councils that have large residential unit adjustments start their adjustment at a lower threshold, the Council recognises that the way bedrooms are defined could potentially include rooms that are not intended to be used as bedrooms but could be. Therefore, a buffer has been built into the policy to ensure the adjustment is appropriately targeted.

Remission provision

5.13 Issue: The policy currently includes a clause that provides for the Council to remit some or all development contribution charges for a development in “unique and compelling circumstance”. The original intent of this clause was to allow for the Council to address a matter directly associated with the development contributions charge. The clause is being used more widely with developers appealing to the Council to remit development contributions charges for a range of reasons including that the organisation applying provides services to the community.

5.14 Recommendation: The remission provision has been removed from the policy and replaced with a statement that the policy does not provide for remissions. The Council could still opt to make decisions in certain circumstances that are inconsistent with the Council’s policy, under section 80 of the LGA. Staff propose to include a specific question on this in the consultation.

5.15 An alternative remission provision has also been drafted and is included in Attachment B. The alternative clause clarifies that it is the development itself (not the developer or future occupier of the site) that must be unique and that the development must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement does not create a new precedent. Staff will include this as part of community consultation.

Catchments for road network and neighbourhood parks activities

5.16 Issue: The concentric approach the Council currently takes for neighbourhood parks and road network has resulted in a greenfield catchment primarily spanning the outer (south, south-west and north-west) suburbs of the district. These catchments were first developed when the Council had a lot of greenfield land but as Christchurch reverts to pre-earthquake patterns, development is increasingly occurring in infill areas there is less rationale for a greenfield catchment.

5.17 Concentric catchments means that it is possible developments are currently contributing to the provision of parks and roads that are not necessarily local to the neighbourhood where the development is occurring. The catchments could be better configured to ensure a development contributions for neighbourhood parks and roads are paid for by developments that most often use and benefit from them.

5.18 Recommendation: Staff propose to move to more localised catchments for neighbourhood parks and road network. This will better reflect who benefits from the provision of these assets.

5.19 With respect to neighbourhood parks, these are primarily used by local residents. This is also reflected in several levels of services within the Council’s (Long Term Plan) LTP, where the provision of neighbourhood parks is based on a property’s proximity to a park.

5.20 The Council proposes to use localised catchments for road network based on data which shows that residents travel predominantly within their local neighbourhoods or otherwise to large employment areas like the central city, rather than across town. By focusing on these catchment areas, urban planning and transport strategies can be tailored to align more effectively with actual travel behaviours. This ensures the Council continues to address local needs efficiently and support sustainable, community-focused development.

Catchments for three waters activities

5.21 Issue: Proposed Plan Change 14 and National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) will enable growth to occur virtually anywhere in the district and makes it difficult for the Council to plan the provision of growth infrastructure. The Council requires a flexible whole of city response to three waters infrastructure requirements to service growth which the current catchments do not support. The number of catchments that we currently have is also administratively complex.

5.22 Recommendation: Staff propose return to larger, fewer catchments for water wastewater and stormwater, which will also better reflect the integrated nature of the Council’s approach to the delivery of these assets. This is administratively simpler and reflects the Council’s integrated delivery of three waters services. Furthermore, because infrastructure plans are not fully aligned with the LTP funding period, there may be misalignment between LTP provision and the development triggering the required upgrades. This approach will allow the Council to be more flexible in responding to growth – particularly where there is uncertainty with where that growth with occur.

Stormwater reductions for developer provided infrastructure

5.23 Issue: The Council’s policy provides for discounts for development contributions in situations where the demand on Council infrastructure is significantly less for a particular development than for the average development. The Christchurch District Plan requires most developments to include on-site stormwater management capacity as a condition of resource consent.

5.24 The Council’s approach since around 2006 has been to discount development contributions for stormwater where a development provides mitigation that reduces demand on Council’s stormwater network. However, this is inconsistent with the rest of the policy, which is to only provide adjustments when actual demand is double or half of assumed demand.

5.25 Recommendation: Stormwater discounts for on-site mitigation are only provided when the demand on Council infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy. This would see relatively minor adjustments (such as for the installation of a rainwater tank) cease.

Multi-unit stormwater adjustments

5.26 Issue: The current policy provides discounts in instances where two or more residential units are attached to each other. Stormwater demand is determined by impervious surface area and there is no rationale to provide a discount just because two units are attached.

5.27 The average impervious surfaced area has been amended in this policy following the completion of a new survey of impervious surface area per parcel across Christchurch. The new averaging takes into account changes to residential development types, including the trend of smaller residential units and development increasingly occurring in infill areas.

5.28 Recommendation: Stormwater discount for developments with attached multi-units will cease on this basis that the averages built into the policy already take into account smaller residential units and because impervious surface area determines demand for stormwater activity,

Fee for development contributions assessments

5.29 Issue: Ratepayers current fund the development contribution assessment function via the general rate.

5.30 Recommendation: Provision for the Council to charge fee for development contributions assessment. It is fair that the cost of preparing a development contributions assessment is funded by the developer because they both benefit from the assessment of their development and cause the assessment to be required through submitting their development for consent. The exact charge will be consulted on separately.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 Cost to Implement – The cost of preparing the draft policy and community engagement is funded through existing operational budgets. This work has been undertaken over more than one year and is funded as a general cost of business rather than a discrete cost attributed to the project.

6.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Annual policy and administration costs vary depending on the policy work required and the level of development needing to be assessed.

6.3 Funding Source – The cost of preparing and administering the policy comes from the general rate. The draft policy proposes to charge an administration fee at invoicing stage to cover some of the costs associated with administering this policy.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaar

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 Development contributions can be a litigious area of local government activity often with significant financial implications for developers and councils. Because of this there is a significant body of case law regarding what can and cannot be done under the provisions of a development contributions policy.

7.2 As with any decision made by the Council, there is a risk of judicial review. The Development Contributions Policy (or parts of it) could be quashed by the High Court if the policy is challenged and the Court finds the decisions made relating to the policy are unlawful or procedurally unfair. This is a risk of any decision made by Council, but one that can be minimised as much as possible by ensuring that the policy has been through a stringent review process and that the Council adheres to an appropriate and fair consultation process.

7.3 The Council’s legal services team has provided advice throughout the policy development process including full review of the proposed policy to ensure the review and draft policy reflects legislative requirements.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.4.1 Development contributions policies are governed by section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA.

7.4.2 Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Council to review its development contributions policy at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of s82 of the LGA. The review of the development contributions policy has been undertaken within the three-year review cycle.

7.4.3 In addition, the Council is under an obligation, when making a decision, to give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter pursuant to s78 of the LGA.

7.5 Other Legal Implications:

7.5.1 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions.

7.5.2 The policy must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. The implications of these provisions on the policy detail have been set out where relevant in Section 5 above.

7.5.3 This report and the draft Development Contributions Policy have been reviewed and approved by the Council’s Legal Services Team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.6 The required decisions:

7.6.1 Do with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. <enter text>.

7.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the requirement to pay development contributions.

7.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular it supports the Council’s approach to funding the provision of infrastructure to service growth development outlined in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

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

7.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.9 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas. Staff provided a briefing at a Combined Community Board meeting in March 2024.

7.10 The Council has had a development contributions policy in place since 2004 with this being the tenth review of the policy over that time. Each review has included a comprehensive community engagement process which have generated interest from the development community in particular. Staff have accumulated knowledge of issues raised by the development community over the years and have worked positively with them to ensure we have a fair, equitable and transparent policy.

7.11 The LGA requires that consultation on a development contributions policy is undertaken in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the Act, which means a special consultative procedure is not required. However, the Council must make available the proposal and the reasons for it, an analysis of the reasonably practicable options including the proposal, assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, and a draft of any proposed policy.

7.12 Consultation will be targeted to the development community including consultants active in servicing the development community. The wider community will be engaged with through the Have Your Say website. Some pre-engagement has already commenced with some stakeholder membership organisations.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

7.15 This is a funding policy. The Council had a development contributions rebate scheme for Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga developments, but the rebate scheme sits outside the scope of this policy.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7.17 The policy details how the Council will fund infrastructure to service growth development. Climate change considerations are dealt with outside the scope of this policy

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 If the Council agrees staff will commence consultation on the draft policy.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy (Under Separate Cover)	24/2186073
b ⇩	Policy Issues and Options	24/2152664	36
c ⇩	Development contributions charges by activity and catchment	24/1939207	43

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

7. Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2158930
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider options and agree on a preferred partnership structure with mana whenua for the governance of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC).

1.2 In 2022 the Council set up the Establishment Committee as an interim co-governance entity to evaluate options for the governance of the OARC. This report proposes the Establishment Committee’s preferred option.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model Report.

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

3. Adopts the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Assessment Framework (Attachment A to this report) as the guiding principles for decision making in relation to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

4. Agrees to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Establishment Committee’s proposed option to establish a partnership structure for the governance of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor in the form of:

a. Phase 1: an interim Committee of Council, consisting of up to three representatives appointed by Ngāi Tūāhuriri, representing the rūnanga and the Ihutai MR900 Trust and up to three Council representatives, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and one of the councillors who represents the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor local communities, noting that the number of appointees from Council and Ngāi Tūāhuriri will be equal in number.

b. Phase 2: a charitable trust for the longer-term governance, if the Council resolves to do so after appropriate steps have been taken, including formal public consultation proposing to establish a new Council-controlled organisation in the form of a charitable trust.

5. Notes that staff will bring a report to the Council in early-2025 to adopt the Terms of Reference for the interim Committee.

6. Formally thanks the Co-Chairs Dr Te Maire Tau and Lianne Dalziel and all members of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Establishment Committee for their work and agrees to disestablish the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Establishment Committee.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes severely affected the Ōtākaro Avon River and surrounding area, with the Government classifying the 602 hectares as a residential red zone. A Regeneration Plan was developed following extensive community and stakeholder engagement. The Green Spine will follow the Ōtākaro Avon River and feature swathes of restored native habitat, trails, paths, footbridges, community spaces and local information about the area, and flood protection. The Council intends to deliver the Regeneration Plan in partnership with Ngāi Tūāhuriri as mana whenua.

3.2 The Global Settlement Agreement, signed by the Crown and the Council in 2019, outlined a process of transition planning for governance arrangements. The Agreement noted that the Council could establish a permanent community co-governance entity for the OARC should it choose to do so.

3.3 The Council set up an Establishment Committee in 2022 to:

3.3.1 provide strategic direction, leadership and decision-making to ensure the OARC and the Ōtākaro Avon River are developed, managed and maintained to provide the optimal ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits;

3.3.2 provide advice on the development of the enduring co-governance entity/framework for the OARC.

3.4 The Establishment Committee endorsed an Assessment Framework (Attachment A) for all projects and proposals to be evaluated against. The Assessment Framework aligns with the principles and objectives of the Regeneration Plan. This report proposes that the Council formally adopts the Framework.

3.5 After consideration of many options, the Establishment Committee proposes that a suitable arrangement to support a partnership approach to governance of the OARC is via a charitable trust. This would require a two-stage approach:

· Phase 1: establishment of a Committee of Council as an interim decision-making body, followed by

· Phase 2: establishment of a charitable trust

3.6 The Council must undertake formal consultation to establish a charitable trust (as a Council-controlled organisation), which may be undertaken as part of a long-term plan. Council staff recommend this occurs as part of a future Long-Term Plan or Annual Plan process. As this process will need to align with the Council’s formal planning cycles, the Establishment Committee propose that Phase 1 is an interim Committee to govern the OARC.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Ōtākaro Avon River and surrounding area have a long and vibrant cultural history. Ngāi Tahu – and Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha before them – had permanent and temporary kainga and pa in the greater Christchurch area.

4.2 The current area of the OARC once constituted a small area of an extensive braid-delta system, made up of interconnected networks of forest groves, abundant wetlands, rivers and streams, spring-fed coastal lagoons and estuaries, that stretched from Kaiapoi in the north to Taumutu in the south. The Ōtākaro Avon River and Ihutai/Avon Heathcote Estuary are of vital importance to mana whenua, who prized the abundant food and natural resources that could be harvested from the area. Dotted throughout the delta and OARC were nohoanga, or temporary settlements, which provided seasonal bases for foraging, fishing and hunting.

4.3 The braid-delta system, including the OARC, was almost entirely drained and modified for farming and urban development, resulting in the significant loss of mahinga kai. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Ōtākaro Avon River was often used for recreation and boating, with trout fishing being a popular past-time until fish numbers dwindled due to a decline in their food source and water quality from stormwater and wastewater entering the catchment.

4.4 The September 2020 and February 2011 earthquakes severely affected the area, with the Government classifying the 602 hectares as ‘residential red zone’. The land in the OARC subsided, significantly increasing flood risk. Regenerating the OARC and restoring the delta is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a legacy that benefits present and future generations.

Global Settlement Agreement

4.5 The Global Settlement Agreement, signed by the Crown and the Council on 23 September 2019, outlined a process of transition planning for governance arrangements for the former residential red zone, including what is now referred to as the OARC. The Global Settlement Agreement reflects the emphasis on community participation in governance:

The parties agree that a phased approach will be taken to increasing community involvement in land use governance that reflects the current and proposed future residential red zone land ownership as follows:

i. Phase 1: The Council and LINZ will establish a consultative group comprising stakeholders and community representatives to advise the Council and LINZ on transitional land use while land ownership remains with the Crown…^{^[1]}

ii. Phase 2: A community governance group/entity, with delegated decision-making powers, could be established once the Council owns all or a sufficiently substantive amount of residential red zone land.^{^[2]}

In Phase 2, the Council will assume decision-making powers in stages, as parcels of land are transferred from LINZ, The Council proposes establishing a community co- governance entity with the appropriate decision-making power to make decisions on the Council's behalf.

The Council will be responsible for all costs associated with the establishment and operation of the community governance entity (Phase 2).

4.6 In determining governance principles and processes, the Council agreed to take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including the principles of partnership, rangatiratanga, active participation in decision-making, and active protection.

Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan

4.7 Between 2017 and 2019, Regenerate Christchurch, the Crown-and-Council-funded planning organisation, commissioned a significant number of reports and assessments and undertook extensive community and stakeholder engagement to develop a Regeneration Plan. This plan was approved by the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration in late-2019. Continuing to work closely with the community is a high priority for the development of the OARC to create a legacy asset for both the city and New Zealand.

4.8 The Regeneration Plan acknowledged Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust collectively represent mana whenua and have property rights and interests that are established by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. The Council is working on the delivery of the Regeneration Plan in partnership with Ngāi Tūāhuriri as mana whenua, through Whitiora Centre Limited.

4.9 Given the scale of the regeneration area, this is an inter-generational commitment. At 11km long, the Green Spine will follow the Ōtākaro Avon River and feature swathes of restored native habitat, trails, paths, footbridges, community spaces and local information about the area, and flood protection. Delivery of the vision and objectives of the Regeneration Plan is underway. Examples include:

Regenerating Nature

· Installation of approximately 200,000 eco-sourced native plants, in collaboration with the community, increasing by about 50,000 each year.

· Naturalisation of approximately 50 hectares of wetland areas, particularly within the Waikakariki sector.

· Construction underway to remove the Hockey Lane culvert at Porritt Park, a major choke point on the river.

Connecting and Involving Communities

· Worked with major community leaseholders to support and expand the Climate Action Campus on the old Avonside Girls’ High School site, as well as the Richmond Community Garden near Avebury House.

· Processed dozens of more minor community leases, currently with around 30 active leases in the OARC.

· Actively run approximately 50 community activity days each year, across planting, maintenance, trapping and citizen science aspects, adding to those run by the major leaseholders above and other community groups.

A Destination for All

· Completion of three walking and cycling bridges, at Medway Street, Snell Place and Avondale Road.

· Completion of the first riverside landing, at Dallington Loop.

· Construction underway on the City to Sea Pathway.

Living with Water

· Construction underway on a wetland restoration of Avon Park, along improved recreational assets and the long-term stopbanks in that area.

· Construction of long-term stopbank completed, between Waitaki Street and SH74, with consent received for the first of the tidal ‘back wetlands’ in this area.

Living Laboratory

· Worked with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, local universities and other partners to explore innovative ways to reduce costs, cut emissions and sequester carbon in ways that could scale to other parts of the Council’s work programme.

Collaborative governance entity

4.10 In 2019 a symposium was held which looked at governance models for community assets and/or natural resources. Successful models shared similar characteristics, including a clear vision, co-governance with mana whenua, members with a diverse range of skills and experience, a balance between broader environmental and social goals, and innovative funding approaches.

4.11 On 12 November 2020 the Council agreed that a process would commence to implement the decision taken under the Global Settlement Agreement to establish a permanent community co-governance entity for the OARC. It also agreed that Ngāi Tūāhuriri would be invited to partner with the Council to investigate and develop options for the co-governance entity.

4.12 On 21 March 2021 Dr Te Maire Tau provided a memo to then-Mayor Lianne Dalziel on Moving forward on the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor: Principles for progress (Attachment B). This memo proposed principles for governance and ownership: community benefit; clear and enduring objectives, priorities and principles; genuine integration between the land and the river; meaningful co-governance with mana whenua; accountability; and self-funding.

4.13 On 22 June 2021 Christopher Finlayson KC provided advice on potential co-governance options (Attachment C). These options are further discussed below in the Options section of this report and Attachment D and form the basis of the decisions in this report.

4.14 On 9 December 2021, the Council reconfirmed its intent to establish a co-governance entity to govern the OARC. At that meeting, the Council was provided with advice on co-governance arrangements involving local iwi and hapū in the administration of significant natural resources in conjunction with local government and other community groups, including the memo in Attachment B. It was suggested that an entity be established for up to two years, while the legal co-governance arrangements are formed. The establishment entity would be responsible for advising on the longer-term structure, roles and relationship as well as providing day-to-day governance of the OARC.

4.15 On 7 April 2022 the Council resolved to appoint the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Co-governance Establishment Committee (the Establishment Committee) as a Committee of Council and adopted the Committee’s Terms of Reference. The purpose of the Establishment Committee is to:

4.15.1 provide strategic direction, leadership and decision-making to ensure the OARC and the Ōtākaro Avon River are developed, managed and maintained to provide the optimal ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits

4.15.2 provide advice on the development of the enduring co-governance entity/framework for the OARC.

4.16 On 12 December 2022 the Establishment Committee received a report explaining the way in which delegations and sub-delegations apply and operate in relation to the OARC, subject to the Council's Delegations Policy.

4.17 On 21 August 2023 the Establishment Committee endorsed an Assessment Framework (Attachment A) for all projects and proposals to be evaluated against. The Assessment Framework aligns with the principles and objectives of the Regeneration Plan. It sets expectations for all projects in the OARC to protect lives and property, while facilitating restoration of the river delta. This report proposes that the Council formally adopts the Framework.

4.18 On 12 February 2024, at a workshop, the Establishment Committee again considered options for the governance of the OARC. Another workshop was held on 25 March 2024 to discuss the options in depth, with a specific focus on a Charitable Trust.

Co-design and development partnership

4.19 A co-design partnership for the development of the OARC is key to ensuring the rūnanga has the ability to exercise their rangatiratanga. The agreed outcome is for appropriate restoration of the wetlands and delta environment.

4.20 This co-design partnership will be facilitated through two channels: the first is our existing working relationship with Whitiora Centre Limited; and the second is to work with the University of Canterbury Ngāi Tahu Research Centre. This will enable a cultural and science-based approach for the restoration of the wetlands and delta. Having the technical expertise of the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre will support the Council and Ngāi Tūāhuriri (through Whitiora Centre Limited) to co-design projects to achieve the best outcomes for the regeneration of the OARC. The interim Committee can consider ways to formalise this approach.

Establishment Committee’s proposal for the OARC governance entity

4.21 The Establishment Committee’s key objective for the OARC is for it to have an appropriate collaborative governance structure to make decisions relating to the OARC on behalf of the Council and community. It proposes that the purpose of such a governance entity would be to undertake actions and initiatives to protect and secure the environmental integrity, mahinga kai and awa of the OARC within the scope of the functions that the Council decides to transfer to it.

4.22 The Establishment Committee proposes that the most suitable arrangement to enable co-design and a partnership approach to governance of the OARC is to implement a two-phased approach:

· Phase 1: an interim Committee of Council

· Phase 2: establish a charitable trust^{^[3]}.

4.23 The membership for the interim Committee is proposed to comprise of up to six members:

· up to three rūnanga representatives, including one representative of the Ihutai MR900 Trust;

· up to three Council elected members, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and a councillor representing the local communities.

4.24 The mechanism for setting up a charitable trust will be to form a Council-controlled organisation (CCO). Under section 56 of the LGA, the Council must undertake consultation, which may be undertaken as part of another proposal or long-term plan. Council staff recommend this occurs as part of a future Long-Term Plan or Annual Plan process. As this process will take some time, the Establishment Committee propose that Phase 1 is an interim Committee to govern the OARC.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.25 The Establishment Committee workshopped potential options for the enduring collaborative governing entity on 21 August 2023, 20 November 2023 and 12 February 2024 and received further clarification and advice on the options at a workshop on 25 March 2024. These options are summarised in Attachment D, and included:

· a memorandum of understanding

· a Committee of Council

· a new governance entity such as a trust

· company or partnership

· a Local Act of Parliament, and

· creating a legal personality for the OARC.

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

4.26.1 Establish a Charitable Trust, with an interim Committee of Council to govern the OARC (two-phase process)

4.26.2 Committee of Council to govern the OARC (do not implement Phase 2 of Option 1):

4.27 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.27.1 Retain the Establishment Committee – the Establishment Committee was only intended as an interim committee. Its role includes considering and making recommendations on an enduring collaborative governance entity for the OARC.

4.27.2 Alternative structures of a co-governance entity – the Establishment has workshopped a number of options for the structure of a co-governance entity - see Attachment D for a summary. All of the options on the spectrum bring different advantages and disadvantages in the context of the OARC. Unlike some of the alternative options, a charitable trust structure is expressly for purposes that are exclusively or principally charitable in nature.

4.27.3 Do not have a specific governing body for the OARC – All decisions about the OARC would be made by the Council. This option is not preferred by the Establishment Committee as regenerating the OARC and restoring the delta is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a legacy for future generations. A partnership governance arrangement and, in particular a standalone entity, would have more autonomy over the decisions and to be able to undertake activities such as fundraising to benefit the regeneration of the OARC.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.28 Preferred Option: Establish a Charitable Trust, with an interim Committee of Council to govern the OARC (two-phase process)

4.28.1 Option Description: Under this option the governance structure for the OARC would be required to be implemented in as a two-phase process:

· Phase 1: an interim Committee of Council

· Phase 2: establish a Charitable Trust for the longer-term governance of the OARC.

4.28.2 Option Advantages

· Phase 1 will have all the advantages of Option 2 below.

· Phase 2 will establish an entity that is able to fundraise independently of Council, potentially opening up a wider range of funding sources.

· Phase 2 also has procedural and legal advantages, as covered in Attachment D, including a trust deed which can be reasonably flexible.

4.28.3 Option Disadvantages

· Ratepayers will need to fund the additional costs to set up and resource the proposed charitable trust for it to operate independently.

4.29 Option 2 - Committee of Council to govern the OARC (do not implement Phase 2 of Option 1)

4.29.1 Option Description: Under this option, a Committee of Council would be established to govern the OARC.

4.29.2 Option Advantages

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tūāhuriri, the Council and the community will have appropriate representation on the Committee.

· Focused on its role to govern the OARC, and small membership - providing ease of decision-making.

· Can have delegation from the Council to make specified decisions on behalf of the Council.

· Serviced and supported by Council staff in usual way, using existing resources.

4.29.3 Option Disadvantages

· May not be perceived as a true collaborative entity.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.30 In June 2021 the Establishment Committee received advice from Christopher Finlayson KC on potential co-governance options (Attachment C). He proposed that an option that sits in the middle of the spectrum of co-governance agreements would be most appropriate for an urban waterway such as the OARC. The form of which could be established as an independent entity. The interconnections between the river, the land and the estuary make the OARC unique. In the future, the Council could consider the co-governance entity governing the wider area including Te Ihutai together with the OARC.

4.31 For all options, some decision-making will need to be retained by the Council regardless of a separate entity, e.g. RMA powers and three waters and transport infrastructure. The land will remain owned by the Council.

4.32 Working closely with the University of Canterbury Ngāi Tahu Research Centre at a project level will ensure that there is a sound basis of science backed evidence that will support the governing body to make decisions.

4.33 An incorporated charitable trust would have more independence and autonomy than a Council committee. Unlike a Council committee, a charitable trust is not a subordinate decision-making body. Its officers and trustees are under a duty to pursue the charitable objects and otherwise act in good faith and for a proper purpose. This contrasts with the position for Council committees set out in clause 30(3) of Schedule 7 of the LGA which provides that:

A committee or other subordinate decision-making body is subject in all things to the control of the local authority and must carry out all general and special directions of the local authority given in relation to the committee or other body or the affairs of the committee or other body.

4.34 The Council would need to consider the timing for consultation that must be undertaken to establish a CCO. Staff recommend that this follows a LTP or Annual Process to avoid additional costs to consult separately.

4.35 The government has set a new policy framework for three waters, ‘Local Water Done Water’. The Council has yet to decide and consult on its preferred delivery option and any implications that may have on decision-making for the OARC. This will need to be considered in the OARC context at an appropriate time.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1	Option 2
Cost to Implement	Funded by existing budgets	Funded by existing budgets
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$200,000 per annum OPEX (*amount does not include any remuneration for trustees, which would be an additional cost)	Funded by existing budgets
Funding Source	Approved rates-funding grant	Rates-funded
Funding Availability	Requires consultation	Funded by existing budgets
Impact on Rates	0.025%	Nil

5.1 There are costs in setting up a charitable trust. The setup costs would need to be funded by the Council. However, funding the activity of the trust would require community consultation and changes to the Council’s Long-Term Plan. The LGA requires trusts to provide three years of financial forecasts in the Statement of Intent and performance reporting at half year and full year (and for Q1 and Q3 if the Council requests it).

5.2 The relevant costs for annual administration of a trust were averaged from two trusts and ranged from $180,000 and $220,000 per annum. These comparable charitable trusts are the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust and Riccarton Bush Trust. Both these trusts, however, receive additional funding for capital expenditure from the Council. It is not, however, intended that the OARC governance entity will own any assets.

5.3 Establishing a trust will incur legal costs to draft a Trust Deed. There will also be auditing and accounting costs, as well as Charities Office administration requirements. The Council does the accounting for the Riccarton Bush Trust, but Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust has elected to go private.

5.4 The Establishment Committee has indicated that the members of the proposed charitable trust should be remunerated. The interim Committee could look at whether trustees are remunerated and make a recommendation to the Council.

5.5 In similar circumstances expenses are not renumerated however expenses reimbursed. Relevant examples include members of the Riccarton Bush Trust and Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

5.6 The trust will need to employ somebody to undertake secretariat duties. The Council will resource the secretariat duties through the governance teams for the interim Committee. It would not be appropriate for the Council to undertake this role for a trust.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that if only a Committee of Council is established to govern the OARC that it may be perceived as not a true collaborative governance arrangement. This is mitigated by the equal membership of mana whenua representation on both the proposed committee and a charitable trust structure should this ensue.

6.2 The proposal to establish a charitable trust as Phase 2 adds additional costs to the city’s ratepayers. There is a risk that the public may not support the preferred option in this report due to a perception of unnecessary and avoidable costs associated to the proposed trust. The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal and any associated costs

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Council determines its committee structure and can establish committees with appropriate Terms of Reference as it deems necessary.

6.3.2 The Council has the power to transfer Council functions to a charitable trust. This is provided by powers of general competence in section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 for the purposes of performing its role. The role of the Council includes giving effect to the purpose of local government stated in section 10.

6.3.3 Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 also provides that

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

…

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

…”.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 There are legal considerations that will need to be assessed by the Council if a decision is made to establish a charitable trust, including ensuring it will meet all the legal requirements to enable registration as a registered charitable entity, and whether it will be a council organisation (CO) or a council-controlled organisation (CCO^{^[4]} ). Staff will include this information in a report to Council following the required public consultation process.

6.4.2 The Local Government Act 2002 extended the accountability regime for council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to include non-profit entities such as charitable trusts and incorporated societies associated with local authorities. If the Council holds 50% of the voting rights, this will require the proposed trust to be established as a CCO.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions:

6.5.1 align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The Strategic Framework acknowledges Ngāi Tahu rangatiratanga over its takiwā and emphasises that our work with Ngāi Tahu is intended to bring about meaningful outcomes benefitting the whole community.

6.5.2 are assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. There is a high level of interest in the future of the former residential red zone. A permanent collaborative governance entity for the OARC would help to ensure that decisions regarding the land’s future are made in line with community and iwi aspirations and priorities, and also build upon the foundation established by Te Tira Kāhikuhiku.

6.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular the:

· Regeneration Plan and Global Settlement Agreement

· District Plan - The amendments to the Christchurch District Plan introduced through the Regeneration Plan require ‘recognition of the Ōtākaro/Avon River as a taonga and a cultural landscape for which Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri exercise kaitiakitanga to ensure values of cultural importance are managed, enhanced and/or protected’; and ‘the restoration of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor for mahinga kai and the improvement of water quality’ (Policy 13.14.2.1.7).

· The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013 is recognised under the Resource Management Act 1990. The section on Ihutai includes the catchments of the Ōtākaro/Avon River and Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River and is an essential resource when making decisions on the ŌARC.

· Agile policy for the Ōtākaro Avon Corridor and balance of the residential red zone land use decision making - This policy outlines how the Council will deal with proposals from third parties to occupy (including licences and access agreements) and or lease the former RRZ land. It provides for a collaborative model, which involves the community and mana whenua at key points in the decision-making process and encourages regeneration in line with community aspiration and priority.

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

6.7 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.7.1 Activity: Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC)

· Level of Service: 6.8.12.2 Effective permanent Co-Governance entity for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor - Permanent Co- Governance entity options assessment completed

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The OARC is of high interest to the people of Christchurch. If the Council agrees to implement Phase 2, views will be sought through the legislatively required public consultation process for the establishment of a Council-controlled organisation.

6.9 Projects to implement the Regeneration Plan will continue to go through usual consultation processes.

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

6.10.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

6.10.2 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.12 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. The establishment of a collaborative governance entity and a partnership with Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Council, provides for and enables the exercise of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga by mana whenua, and provides for the relationship of mana whenua and their cultures and traditions with their ancestral lands, mahinga kai, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga.

6.13 The mana whenua representatives, including the Co-Chair, of the Establishment Committee have advised Council staff that there is support for the continuation of a partnership approach to governance for the regeneration of the OARC, and to formalise the relationship with the University of Canterbury Ngāi Tahu Research Centre.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decision to establish an enduring collaborative governance entity itself does not have any climate change implications. The decisions undertaken by that entity will relate to projects that will contribute positively to the impacts of climate change through the regeneration of the OARC as a lasting legacy.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, the Establishment Committee will be disestablished and replaced by a Committee of Council. The Council will need to determine the Terms of Reference for this Committee. Staff will bring a separate report to the Council for agreement of the Terms of Reference.

7.2 If the Council agrees to the two-phased approach, staff will provide further advice to the new Committee around the timing of consultation required to establish a CCO for the charitable trust, at a future date, before a decision is made by the Council.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	OARC Assessment Framework	24/143284	65
b ⇩	Dr Te Maire Tau memo - OARC principles for progress	24/462191	67
c ⇩	Christopher Finlayson KC memo - OARC Co-governance options 21 June 2021	24/462193	70
d ⇩	Collaborative Governance Options table	24/461314	75

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

8. Hearings Panels - Review of Process
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/42238
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Megan Pearce, Manager Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with advice on options regarding the treatment of hearings panel recommendations by the decision-maker, and the composition of hearings panel membership.

1.2 The report is staff generated to address issues raised by the Council concerning the matters listed above.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Hearings Panels - Review of Process 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 hearings panels’ recommendations being dealt with the same as recommendations referred to the Council for decision (Part A’s) from committees of Council and Community Boards.

4. Approves the decision-maker having the ability to make material changes to hearing panel recommendations, subject to receiving officer advice confirming that the proposed changes are within scope of the matter and comply with decision-making requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.

5. Increases the minimum number of hearings panel members from three to five.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report outlines issues identified in current hearings panel (“panel”) processes and proposes options to enhance efficiency, decision-making integrity, and representation.

3.2 The two primary areas considered are:

3.2.1 The treatment of panel recommendations by the decision maker, and

3.2.2 The composition of panel membership.

3.3 The report identifies inconsistent approaches to decision making and aims to streamline these processes.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 When making a decision, the Council must consider the provisions of sections 76-81 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the views and preferences of the people likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the decision.

4.2 When considering how to comply with the provisions of decision-making as set out in the LGA, the Council must have regard to the principles set out in section 14. These include that the Council should conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner; and the Council should give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner.

4.3 The legislation is generally silent on what form compliance with the LGA provisions should take, but at times the Council opts to consult and use panels to gather community views.

4.4 Panels deliberate on submissions received and make recommendations to the final decision-maker, often the Council or delegated Community Board. For simplicity, the “Council” will be used in this report to refer to the final decision-maker.

4.5 Once submissions are received, panels undertake the following process:

4.5.1 Receive the staff report summarising submissions, containing staff advice and any recommended changes.

4.5.2 Hear oral submissions.

4.5.3 Consider all submissions and associated staff advice.

4.5.4 Conduct any relevant site visits.

4.5.5 Raise questions and receive staff responses.

4.5.6 Deliberate and make a recommendation to the Council.

4.6 The panel’s report to the Council summarises the consultation background, panel process, submissions and findings, and includes a recommendation for the final decision.

4.7 The panel’s report also advises the Council to:

4.7.1 Fully consider the material and information received by the panel.

4.7.2 Receive all information, including submitters’ views with an open mind and give due consideration to them.

4.8 Historically, staff advice has been that the Council cannot make material changes to the panel’s recommendations without undermining the consultation process. Instead, the Council’s options have been:

4.8.1 Accept the recommendations.

4.8.2 Reject some or all recommendations and return them to the panel.

4.8.3 Reject the recommendations entirely and restart the process.

4.9 This practice is inconsistent to how Part A (recommendations) from Community Boards or other Council committees are treated. The original source of this practice (accept/reject/send back) is unknown but doesn’t seem to have a current legislative background.

4.10 Concerns raised by elected members regarding the current practice include:

4.10.1 The advice that material changes cannot be made and what constitutes a “material change”?

4.10.2 Composition of panels not being representative of the Council, heightening concerns about recommendations and that no material changes can be made. This issue will be addressed in more detail later in this report.

4.11 The possible advantages and disadvantages of the Council making material changes to a panel’s recommendations are set out below.

Possible advantages	Possible disadvantages
Upholds the position of the Council as the final decision-maker.	Undermines the consultation process as non-hearing panel members may not have fully engaged with submissions.
Allows all members of the Council to have a meaningful input into decisions.	Devalues the knowledge the hearings panel gains and brings to the decision-making process.
Supports democratic representation as different Councillors represent different communities and perspectives.	Risks decisions being based on irrelevant considerations.
Permits the Council to respond to new information or changed circumstances.	The item may need to be adjourned to gather additional staff advice if the amendments deviate too far from the panel’s recommendations.
Removes the question of what amounts to a material change.	May result in additional information sessions so the Council can engage with the topic.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.12.1 Treat recommendations from panels in the same manner as Part A’s (from Community Boards or Committees).

4.12.2 Make no change to the current practice.

4.13 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.13.1 Delegate decision making power to the hearings panel – the Council is unable to delegate its decision-making authority in some circumstances. For example, the Council cannot delegate the power to set a rate, purchase/dispose of property or make a bylaw. Therefore, this option would not be possible in some cases.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Amend the decision-making practice to allow amendments.

4.14.1 Option Description: Panels use the same Part A recommendation process as, for example, Community Boards reporting to the Council. When considering its decision, the Council should give significant weight to the panel’s recommendations.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· This process reflects the Council’s role as the final decision maker.

· The ability for the Council to make changes rather than returning the matter to the panel is in line with the requirement for effective and efficient processes.

· Is consistent with Part A recommendations from committees and Community Boards.

· There is no legislative basis for limiting the Council’s decision-making powers through a hearings panel process.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· The matter may be relitigated at the Council table.

· The Council may wish to consider issues outside the scope of the matter before them. Prior to any amendments being resolved, advice would be required to ensure that decisions comply with the LGA. This may lead to delays and/or deferrals in order that the advice is obtained.

· The final decision could be quite different from a panel’s recommendations. In the event an amendment is put forward that significantly deviates from the panel’s recommendations, it would be recommended that the matter be deferred, if required, to seek staff advice.

4.15 No change to the current practice.

4.15.1 Option Description: The Council continues the practice of refraining from making material changes to the panel’s recommendations.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Reflects the knowledge the panel gains and brings to the decision-making process.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· Undermines the position of the Council as final decision-maker.

· Effectively excludes non-panel members from meaningfully engaging in the decision-making process.

· Doesn’t resolve the issue of what is “material” or not.

5. Composition of Hearings Panels

5.1 Panels are comprised of a subset of the Council Hearings Panel Committee which includes all (54) Elected Members. Panels are a committee of Council and require at least three members, one of whom must be a member of the Local Authority (Schedule 7, s31 LGA).

5.2 The Manager Democratic Services has the delegated authority to approve the composition of panels (except those under the RMA).

5.3 Factors that are taken into account in the composition of a hearings panel include (in no order of priority):

5.3.1 Expressions of interest.

5.3.2 Specialist knowledge and experience of the Elected Member.

5.3.3 Ability to represent a relevant ward/community board area/political view.

5.3.4 Willingness (or not) of Elected Members to be on any given panel.

5.3.5 Availability.

5.3.6 Any other relevant considerations such as conflicts of interest (actual or perceived).

5.4 Elected members have raised concerns about the composition of hearings panels being unbalanced which may increase the likelihood that the Council could be less inclined to accept a panel’s recommendation.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

5.5.1 The minimum hearing panel size increase to five members and the delegation to appoint membership remains with the Manager Democratic Services.

5.5.2 The panel membership is filled on the “taxi rank” model, subject to conflicts of interest and availability.

5.5.3 The Council removes the delegation to appoint members from the Manager Democratic Services and an appointments panel be stood up (for example the Mayor and Deputy Mayor as members).

5.6 An option ruled as not being practical would be for all of Council to sit on all panels. This would result in scheduling issues and/or delays.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.7 Preferred Option: The minimum hearing panel size increase to five members and the delegation to appoint membership remains with the Manager Democratic Services.

5.7.1 Option advantages

· An increase in panel membership should provide views that are overall more closely aligned with the Council as a whole.

· This option is still able to consider members’ areas of interest and experience.

· Can ensure representation for affected ward/community board area/political view.

5.7.2 Option disadvantages

· Scheduling will be more challenging with larger membership. However, panels of five or more are currently already used for contentious or high-profile issues.

· Increase to Elected Member workload, particularly when many consultations are scheduled.

5.8 Taxi Rank: Panel membership is drawn via a next in line basis.

5.8.1 Option description: Membership for panels would be on a next up basis, and only for reasons of unavailability or conflict would a chosen member be excused from a panel.

5.8.2 Option advantages

· This would result in a fair allocation of workload amongst Elected Members.

· Removes the perception that panels are “stacked” to produce a particular result.

5.8.3 Option disadvantages

· Doesn’t consider members’ areas of interest or make use of their particular experience or expertise.

· Could still result in a “biased” panel if the next in line have a similar opinion/political view.

5.9 Appointment Panel: Panel membership is determined at a governance level.

5.9.1 Option description: A panel (for example the Mayor and Deputy Mayor), appoint panel members.

5.9.2 Option advantages

· Removes any perceived staff bias towards members.

5.9.3 Option disadvantages

· The appointment panel is still susceptible to allegations of bias and panel stacking.

· Creates an additional layer of bureaucracy with associated workload.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – no change
Cost to Implement	Nil	Nil
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
Funding Source
Funding Availability
Impact on Rates

6.1 There are no additional costs associated with increasing panel membership or amending the final decision-making process.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 There is a risk that, should no changes be made to the treatment of panel recommendations, or composition of a panel, the same concerns raised by elected members remain.

7.2 Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.3.1 The Council has the authority to determine the treatment of panel recommendations and composition of panel membership.

7.4 Other Legal Implications:

7.4.1 The legal consideration is to ensure that the final decision by the Council is based on relevant matters put before them and that should the Council wish to deviate from the panel’s recommendations, it has the basis upon which to do so.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.5 The required decisions:

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

7.5.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined because the decisions in this report relate to the processes associated with hearings panels and membership and will have little impact on overall decision making.

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

7.7 Governance

7.7.1 Activity: Governance and Decision Making

· Level of Service: 4.1.18 Resident satisfaction with participation in and contribution to Council decision-making (understanding decision making) - At least 32%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.8 Panel representation for local issues is considered when compiling membership.

7.9 Panels with larger membership for metro issues would provide a more representative view.

7.10 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.11 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 doesn’t specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

7.12 The decisions do not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

7.13 Where matters of significance to Mana Whenua have been identified and are being considered the Manager of Democratic Services, upon instruction from the Mayor, has the ability to appoint external members with appropriate skills/representation to hearings panels.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7.16 The report considers the decision-making process and is not topic specific.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 Once the Council determines the process for panel recommendations and decision making; and the process for panel membership, the process can be put into place immediately.

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

Megan Pearce - Manager Democratic Services

Cathy Harlow - Democratic Services Advisor

Approved By

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

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

[1] The Council and LINZ established a consultative group, Te Tira Kāhikuhiku, comprising 13 representatives and independent members, comprising elected representatives from Community Boards, representatives from Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāti Wheke, and five community members.

[2] The last transfer of OARC land occurred in June 2023.

[3] A trust has a maximum life of 125 years - Section 16 of the Trustees Act 2019

[4] A CO is an entity in which a local authority has any control with one or more votes or right to appoint members. A CCO is a company (section 6(1)(a) of the LGA) or entity (section6(1)(b) of the LGA) in which one or more local authorities control 50% or more of the voting rights or appoint 50% or more of the members of the governing entity.

Metric	Q2 2023/2024	Q2 2024/2025	Change (%)
Number of meetings held	150	109	🔻 -32%
% of eligible meetings were live streamed	New Metric	98%	N/A
Meetings compliant with legislation and process standards	96%	98%	🔼 +2%
% of overall reports in Public Excluded (PX)	6.1%	5.1%	🔻-1%
% of 2022 – 2025 PX Reports reviewed for release	New Metric	77%	N/A
New meeting actions generated from meetings	395	447	🔼 +12%
Meeting actions closed	346	444	🔼 +25%
% Ombudsman requests compliant	100%	100%	No change
% LGOIMA requests compliant	99.4%	99.7%	🔼 +0.3%

10. Three Waters Activities Report - October, November and December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2160928
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Acting Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

12. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/192445
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

9. Quarterly Governance Report - Q2 2024/2025 (October - December 2024)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2208361
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sean Rainey – Manager Official Information Matt Boult – Team Leader Governance Process
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Notice of Motion - Fly Tipping Volunteer Removal Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/207897
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Keown
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive