Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 19 March 2025

7. Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/65832
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to assist Council:

· to consider amendments to the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy to address issues raised in submissions.

· to adopt the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy, with the amendments agreed to as a result of submissions.

1.2 The report was prepared in response to Council’s resolution on 6 November 2024 to undertake consultation on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy (CNCL/2024/00180).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Report.

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

3. Adopts the revised version of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy which incorporates the amendments outlined in Attachment A in response to submitter feedback.

4. Delegates authority to staff to make any spelling or grammatical amendments to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy ahead of its publication.

5. Revokes the Council’s Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-42 which will be superseded by Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport 2024-54.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Council approved the release of the draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy for public consultation on 6 November 2024.

3.2 Consultation on the strategy occurred through a variety of channels. There were 10, 421 views of the Council’s strategy consultation webpage.

3.3 Submissions were received from 22 recognised organisations and businesses and 72 individuals. Those submitters who wished to present deputations were invited to do so at the Council meeting on 5 March.

3.4 49% of submitters were supportive of the strategy, 39% were somewhat supportive and 12% were not supportive.

Staff have recommended that some amendments are made to the strategy to address issues raised in submissions (see Attachment A).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy (the strategy) is the Council’s 30-year strategic direction for land transport. It is a non-statutory strategy which frames and guides the Council’s transport investment, planning and policy programmes.

4.2 The draft strategy has not been updated since 2012. A work programme to refresh the strategy commenced in 2019-20.

4.3 The updated strategy identifies the big challenges and opportunities for transport over the next 30-years and proposed a series of goals to address them. This includes: planning for growth, reducing transport emissions, managing risks of natural hazards, improving safety and health outcomes, and managing ongoing costs pressures.

4.4 It has been positioned as a higher-level strategy to be followed by the development of a detailed implementation plan that will be refreshed over the life of the strategy. It will primarily be delivered through the Council’s Annual and Long-Term Plans.

4.5 The framework and approach proposed in the updated strategy was discussed with Councillors at an information session on 27 August 2024[1] and a draft for public consultation was subsequently approved by Council on 6 November 2024 (CNCL/2024/00180).

4.6 Councillors resolved at the 6 November Council meeting to hear oral submissions on the strategy by deputation (as oppposed to convening a Hearings Panel).

Consultation process

4.7 Consultation on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy (the strategy) ran from 8 November to 8 December 2024.

4.8 An email was sent to 356 stakeholders, including residents and business associations, emergency services, other transport-based organisations, and residents who requested to be notified about projects like this.

4.9 Staff met with the Christchurch Youth Council and the internal Accessibility Advisory Group specifically to discuss the proposal and opportunities to provide feedback.

4.10 Consultation details including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s talk webpage were advertised via:

4.10.1 A Newsline story (1,973 views) which was also shared to the Council Facebook page (reaching 12,260 accounts).

4.10.2 The draft document was available in all libraries and service centres.

4.10.3 Paid online and newspaper advertising targeting a city-and-Banks Peninsula-wide audience (800k online impressions, newspaper circulation of 80,000).

4.11 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 10, 421 views throughout the consultation period. The summary video had 556 views.

4.12 Council invited submitters who wished to present deputations on their submission to attend the Council meeting on 5 March to present their views.

Summary of submissions

4.13 Submissions were made by 22 recognised organisations and businesses and 72 individuals. All submissions are available on the Kōrero mai page.

4.14 Overall, 46 submitters (49%) were supportive of the strategy, 36 (39%) were somewhat supportive, and 11 (12%) were not supportive.

4.15 74 submitters provided feedback on their level of support of the vision statement. Here, 42 were supportive, 24 were somewhat supportive, and eight were not supportive.

4.16 77 submitters provided feedback on their level of support of the identified strategic challenges. Here, 44 were supportive, 23 were somewhat supportive, and 10 were not supportive.

4.17 65 submitters provided feedback on their level of support for the goals. Here, 34 were supportive, 23 were somewhat supportive, and eight were not supportive.

4.18 The common themes within the written feedback often related to support for certain aspects of the draft document. Critiques and suggestions were often more unique in nature and because of this, it’s recommended that submissions are read in their entirety.

4.19 An analysis of submissions is available in Attachment B.

Detailed thematic assessment and proposed amendments

4.20 A detailed assessment of submissions was also undertaken to draw out substantive feedback themes, gaps; and points of detail requiring amendment. Attachment C provides a full summary of the proposed amendments. Examples of areas where more substantive amendments to the strategy are proposed include:

· Amendments to the Vision Statement: proposed amendments to the strategy’s vision statement include changing the reference to enabling everyone to move around ‘easily’ to move around ‘reliably and efficiently’.

· More clearly highlighting equitable and inclusive access as a priority: A number of submissions raised the need to more explicitly recognise the transport experiences of disabled people, older adults and young people and the need to more explicitly reflect transport equity issues. To strengthen and consolidate the reference to equitable and inclusive access within the strategy, a proposed overarching Inclusive and Equitable access goal has been included.

· Strengthening reference to growth challenges and opportunities: a group of submitters sought clearer reference to growth challenges (such as, sub-regional growth impacts on the network or the benefits of intensification). The Planning for Growth section in the strategy has been amended to reflect this.

· More explicitly connecting safety, health and wellbeing actions across strategy goals: A number of submitters requested that the scope of the safety section include a focus on health and wellbeing beyond road safety, such as, references to the health burden from reduced air quality or health gains from active transport. More explicit cross-referencing has been included to connect-up the different aspects of the strategy that address these concerns.

· Expanding the scope of network resilience: Some submitters sought recognition that a resilient transport network is about more than just natural hazards and that the intersection between transport, energy and land-use integration could also be recognised. The Strategic Challenges and Opportunities section has been updated to reflect this.

4.21 A number of smaller, more detailed amendments or corrections are also proposed in response to submitter feedback. For example, some submitters reflected on the need for more explicit consideration of the role of private vehicles on the network. In response staff propose adding a measure for the reliability of general traffic travel time to the performance framework to allow for all aspects of network performance to be monitored and reported on.

4.22 See Attachment A for the marked-up version of the proposed amendments to the draft strategy.

4.23 As noted above, many of the comments received in submissions were more directly related to strategy implementation issues (such as, types of interventions supported or views on the pace of implementation). These will be factored into subsequent implementation planning considerations.

Life in Christchurch Survey results

4.24 Council staff also reviewed the Life in Christchurch 2024 Neighbourhoods survey results in relation to transport. The survey heard from over 4,500 Christchurch residents.

4.25 Residents believe that safety is the most important neighbourhood attribute when considering where to live. A quiet neighbourhood was the second most important attribute, followed by neighbourhood character, public transport access, and street trees and gardens.

4.26 Proximity to areas that residents appreciate was reported as their favourite overall feature of their neighbourhood.

4.27 Residents said if there was anything they would change, it would be improving traffic, roading or driving concerns or safety from crime.

4.28 Traffic and roading concerns mentioned including speeding (for or against speed restrictions), road layout, traffic, parking, roadworks, noise and boy racing. Specific roads or areas were often mentioned. Footpaths and cycleways (both for and against) were also mentioned.

4.29 Dangerous driving, theft and burglary and traffic congestion are the top three challenges neighbourhoods feel they are facing.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.30.1 Council adopts the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy.

4.30.2 Council does not adopt the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.31 Preferred Option: Council adopts the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy.

4.31.1 Option Description: Council adopts the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy to guide future transport decisions.

4.31.2 Option Advantages

· The strategy has been written by Council staff with input over the life of its development from stakeholders, partner agencies, submitters and a Council working group. It has been drafted to align and integrate wider Council strategies and priorities for transport and create a single source of information to guide the Council’s future strategic direction for transport.

4.31.3 Option Disadvantages

· No disadvantages have been identified.

4.32 Council does not adopt the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy.

4.32.1 Option Description: Council does not adopt the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy.

4.32.2 Option Advantages

· No advantages have been identified.

4.32.3 Option Disadvantages

· If Council doesn’t adopt the revised strategy, the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042 would remain in place. The 2012 strategic plan focused heavily on earthquake recovery and regeneration, and some of its content is now out of date and therefore less useful to guide transport priorities and decisions.

· Submitters have taken the time to submit their views on the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy. Should the Council not adopt a revised strategy and not consider their views, there may be some loss of confidence in Council by submitters.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The cost of publishing a final version of the strategy is covered within existing budgets.

5.2 Neither of the options being considered incurs direct capital costs to the Council.

5.3 After the strategy is finalised, staff will work on developing an implementation plan for the strategy. Council will have the opportunity to consider funding allocation and prioritise future transport projects through the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan process.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that should the Council not adopt the draft Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy, there may be a loss of confidence in Council by some submitters who consider their views have been ignored. This option also creates a minor risk to Council of negative media coverage, and reputational harm.

6.2 Should Council adopt the strategy, including changes as a result of submissions, these risks are reduced. However there still remains a risk that some submitters are unhappy with the final strategy.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy is a non-statutory document.

6.3.2 The Council has the ability to adopt the plan under the Local Government Act 2002.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 Under section 82 (e) of the Local Government Act 2002, where the Council is undertaking consultation, views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given due consideration by the local authority in making a decision.

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, particularly the strategic priorities:

· Be an inclusive and equitable city which puts people at the centre

· Reduce emissions and invest in adaptation and resilience

· Manage ratepayer’s money wisely.

6.5.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The significance level has been determined based on the strategy having a moderate impact on residents, and attracting a moderate level of public interest. The assessment also considered that transport is a substantial area of expenditure, and the strategy has the ability to help support shifts to more sustainable transport options which would help improve the future wellbeing of the District.

6.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, particularly the 2024-34 Infrastructure Strategy and the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy.

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

6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.7.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

6.8 Regulatory and Compliance

6.8.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 17.0.11.1 Planning & investment supports the long-term transport and climate change targets - Implementation of Ōtautahi Christchurch Transport Plan (ŌCTP) based on current funds

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 This strategy is a city-level strategy and therefore has implications for all wards/Community Boards.

6.10 All Community Boards submitted on the draft strategy.

6.11 A summary of submitter views and themes is included in Section 4 of this report, with more detailed analysis included in Attachments B and C.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.17 The draft strategy outlines the Council’s approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from transport and planning for transport network resilience and adaptation.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Council staff will write to thank submitters for their submission and advise them of the amendments to the strategy agreed to by Council.

7.2 Council staff will work on developing an approach to implementing the strategy and will update Council on the recommended approach.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Ōtautahi-Christchurch Future Transport strategy - proposed changes from written submission feedback - 19 March Council report	25/311044	22
b ⇩	Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport submission analysis	24/2301330	64
c ⇩	ŌCFT - written submission thematic analysis and proposed amendments - 19 March Council report attachment	25/311342	68

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport | Kōrero mai | Let’s talk

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Allanah Jarman - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

8. Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 - Speed Limit Reversals
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/36572
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David McCormick, Senior Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve speed limit changes on Specified Roads as required by the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (Rule).

1.2 The report has been written in response to the new rule, which has changed the way speed limits are set. To meet the requirements set out under Section 11 - Transitional provisions of the new Rule, the Council is required to reverse speed limits on Specified Roads.

1.3 Due to the prescriptive nature of the Rule, there is no requirement for consultation on the reversals.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 - Speed Limit Reversals Report.

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

3. Approves submission of Attachment A of this report – Specified Roads spreadsheet to the Director of Land Transport as required by Setting of Speed limit Rule 2024 – Specified Roads.

Revocations and new speed limits for Specified Roads

4. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Western Valley Road, commencing at its intersection with Christchurch Akaroa Road and extending in a northern (direction) to 72 Western Valley Road be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

5. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Gloucester Street, commencing at its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a northeastern (direction) to its intersection with Woodham Road be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

6. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 40 km /h, on Ruru Road, commencing at its intersection with Hay Street and extending in an easterly (direction) to its intersection with Maces Road be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

7. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Claremont Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Paparoa Street and extending in a northerly (direction) to its intersection with Tomes Road be revoked, and a speed limit of 40km/h be approved.

8. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Rose Street, commencing at its intersection with Hoon Hay Road and extending in an easterly (direction) to its intersection with Barrington Street be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

9. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Lyttelton Street, commencing at its intersection with Rose Street and extending in a northerly (direction) to its intersection with Sparks Road be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

10. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that the speed limit of 30 km /h, on Colombo Street, commencing at its intersection with Hunter Terrace and extending in a northerly (direction) for a distance of 340 metres on Colombo Street be revoked, and a speed limit of 50km/h be approved.

New school Variable Speed Limits for Specified Roads which include a school

11. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that a variable speed limit of 30 km/h, be installed on Western Valley Road, commencing at a point 320 metres north easterly (direction) of its intersection with Christchurch Akaroa Road extending in a north easterly (direction) for a distance of 300 metres.

12. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, Section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that a variable speed limit of 30 km/h, be installed on Rose Street, commencing at a point 102 metres south westerly (direction) of its intersection with Beechworth Avenue extending in a north easterly (direction) to its intersection with Barrington Street.

13. Approves that in accordance with Schedule 2, section 11 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2024, that a variable speed limit of 30 km/h, be installed on Lyttelton Street, commencing at the intersection of Sparks Road and extending in a southerly (direction) for a distance of 360 metres.

School Travel Periods

14. Delegates to the Head of Transport the authority to approve the School Travel Periods for Little River School, Cashmere High School (Te iringa o Kahukura) and Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Whanau Tahi.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (Rule) has changed the way speed limits are set.

3.2 The Rule, which came into force in October 2024, revokes the 2022 Rule and introduces several new requirements which includes:

· Reversal of recent permanent speed limit reductions on Specified Roads, which must be completed by 1 July 2025 to meet the requirements set out under Schedule 2, Section 11 - Transitional provisions of the new Rule.

· Variable speed limits of 30 km/h to be implemented during School Travel Periods be set outside all schools, which must be completed by 1 July 2026.

3.3 This report focuses on the Transitional provisions. Council staff have identified seven Specified Roads requiring permanent speed limit reversals and determined that five schools will be affected by these reversals, with three of them requiring the installation of variable speed limits.

3.4 The Specified Roads list must be submitted to the Director of Land Transport by 1 May 2025, and the affected residents and schools will be informed prior to any changes.

3.5 There is no requirement to consult on the reversal of speed limits due to the prescriptive nature of the Rule. There is no opportunity for residents to meaningfully influence the formal decision. However, staff will inform affected residents and schools prior to the implementation of any change in speed.

3.6 Each of the three schools requiring variable speed limits will be engaged with to determine the applicable School Travel Period. While there is no requirement under the Transitional provisions to specify the School Travel Period, it is recommended that a consistent approach to Section 5 of the Rule is applied. As the School Travel Periods can vary across schools, it is recommended that these are confirmed before 1 May 2025 and delegation to approve the School Travel Periods is provided to the Head of Transport to ensure these are submitted alongside the new speed limits as required by the and Land Transport (Register of Land Transport Records— Speed Limits) Regulations 2022. The alternative is that separate reports will need to be provided to Council for approval of School Travel Period times which could result in missing the deadline as prescribed by the Rule.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Christchurch City Council previously set speed limits using the Interim Speed Management Plan, which was developed in line with clause 12.10 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limit 2022 (the 2022 Rule). The Interim Speed Management Plan was approved by Council in July 2023 (Agenda, Item 17).

4.2 Under the 2022 Rule clause 3.6(1), the Council was required to prepare a full Speed Management Plan. The Council was working towards these timeframes and completed engagement with the community on the Draft Safer Speed Plan in late 2023. The Council resolved in April 2024 to pause the Hearings Panel process as part of the decision making on adopting the Safer Speed Plan, until further guidance on any new Land Transport Rule relating to setting of speed limits was received following the change in Government.

4.3 A notice of the draft Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the draft Rule) was published and circulated to Road Controlling Authorities (RCA’s) by the Ministry of Transport Te Manatū Waka on the 13^th June 2024. Public consultation was completed on the draft Rule, and the Council made a submission on the draft Rule in July 2024. The Rule was published on 28 September 2024 and became operational on 29 October 2024, revoking the 2022 Rule.

4.4 The Council were provided initial information regarding the new Rule during an Information Session/Workshop on 29 October 2024.

4.5 The Rule does not allow for any speed limits to be set from an Interim Speed Management Plan. NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi guidance states that speed limit changes in speed management plans (like our Interim Speed Management Plan) which were approved and uploaded to the register, but not in force as of 30 October 2024, can no longer be implemented. To be ‘in force’ the speed limits must be ‘live’ with road signs and traffic control devices in place. Where this is not the case, a new speed management plan or alternative method proposal must be prepared to meet the requirements of the new Rule. The Draft Safer Speed Plan can no longer proceed, and the new approach for the Council to set speed limits will be developed in due course.

4.6 The Rule sets out provisions, methods and requirements to be followed by Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) when reviewing and setting speed limits for roads. The Rule requires:

· RCAs to reverse some recent permanent amended speed limit reductions on Specified Roads. Under the Transitional provisions of the Rule, the new speed limits are to be set by 1 May 2025 and in force no later than 1 July 2025. In most cases, RCAs must reverse recent permanent amended speed limit reductions on Specified Roads by setting the same permanent speed limits as the ones previously in force on 31 December 2019. Schools that are affected by the Specified Road reversals will have a variable speed limit provided, and the speed limit must come into force no later than the reversal date (1 July 2025). Staff have assessed the Specified Roads within our network, and these are discussed further in the options section.

· RCAs to use reasonable efforts to meet deadlines for setting speed limits around schools. Requirements for speed limits around schools have been changed in the new Rule. Variable speed limits of 30 km/h will need to be applied to all other roads outside a school gate during school pick up and drop off times. The Rule requires RCAs to use reasonable efforts to implement all other school speed limits by 1 July 2026.

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

Date	Subject
February 2025	Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 - Speed Limit Reversals Memo

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.8.1 Specified Road reversals - Reversing speed limits in accordance with the Transitional provisions in the Rule.

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

4.9.1 Do nothing. Non-compliance of the Rule by the Council creates a risk that the New Zealand Transport Agency can issue a direction for the Council to comply (Section 9.1(4 and 5)). Should the Council as an RCA not comply with directions provided by the Agency, then under Section 9.1(6) of the Rule, the Agency may exercise the power of the road controlling authority to do so.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Specified Road reversals

4.10.1 Option Description: Schedule 2, section 11.2 of The Rule requires RCAs to reverse recent permanent speed limit reductions on Specified Roads by setting the same permanent speed limits as the ones previously in force on 31 December 2019. The new speed limits must be set by 1 May 2025 and in force no later than 1 July 2025.

4.10.2 An exception to this (Schedule 2, section 11.3), is where the Specified Road includes a road that is outside a school where a variable speed limit of 30km/h must be in force during the School Travel Periods. The reversals on Specified Roads impact speed limits outside five schools. Works are proposed to be undertaken concurrently at three schools so that there are 30km/h variable speed limits outside these schools when the speed limits are returned. The remaining two schools are covered by an existing permanent 30km/h speed limit outside the school gates which aren’t required to be changed under the Rule.

Specified Roads

4.11 The Rule requires RCAs to reverse some recent permanent speed limit reductions on Specified Roads. The new speed limits are required to be submitted to NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi by 1 May 2025 and in force no later than 1 July 2025.

4.12 The Rule defines these Specified Roads, those which are applicable to the Council, as:

· A local street, and for which the territorial authority set a permanent speed limit of 30 km/h on or after 1 January 2020; and the reason or one of reasons for setting that speed limit was because there is a school in the area.

· An urban connector, for which the territorial authority set a permanent speed limit on or after 1 January 2020 and the previous speed limit was higher than the amended speed limit.

4.13 Staff have assessed all local streets that have had permanent 30km/h speed limits implemented since 1 January 2020, against the Rule. These include areas such as:

· Slow Speed Neighbourhoods, a long-term plan project to lower speed limits in neighbourhoods to safe and appropriate speeds (including Opawa and Papanui). Regarding Opawa, following a review of the submissions, and a change to the way speed limits were set through the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2022, it was proposed to introduce permanent 30 km/h streets rather than the original 40km/h.

· Speed limit changes to neighbourhoods identified through engagement with the Community Boards to be funded through the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF), including Somerfield, Spreydon, Beckenham, and Waltham.

· Speed limit changes to neighbourhoods that were to be funded through the Climate Emission Reduction Fund (CERF) programme including Linwood, Woolston, Bromley and Philipstown.

· Neighbourhood greenways on Major Cycleways.

4.14 There is no requirement to review neighbourhood streets with a posted permanent speed limit of 40km/h that were changed since 1 January 2020. Therefore, areas such as Shirley, Scarborough, Wigram and Lyttelton, have not been re-assessed.

4.15 There are two streets in the local street category where a speed limit change is required.

4.16 Staff have assessed all urban connectors that have had permanent speed limits implemented since 1 January 2020, against the Rule. There are five streets in this category where a speed limit change was applied.

4.17 Staff have identified seven streets in total, which meet the criteria of a Specified Road, where the current speed limits need to be reversed to the previous speed limit.

4.18 The tables below provide a breakdown by Community Board of Specified Roads. There are no Specified Roads in the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood and Waipuna Halswell-Hornby Riccarton Community Board areas.

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula

Road	Start point	End Point	Current speed limit	Previous speed being implemented	Reason for reversal
WESTERN VALLEY ROAD	CHRISTCHURCH AKAROA ROAD	72 WESTERN VALLEY ROAD	30	50*	Local street changed due to presence of a school.

*30km/h variable limit to be installed

Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

Road	Start point	End Point	Current speed limit	Previous speed being implemented	Reason for reversal
GLOUCESTER ST	LINWOOD AVENUE	WOODHAM ROAD	30	50	Urban connector with permanent speed limit applied.
RURU RD	HAY STREET	MACES ROAD	30	50	Urban connector with permanent speed limit applied.

Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community

Road	Start point	End Point	Current speed limit	Previous speed being implemented	Reason for reversal
CLAREMONT AVENUE	PAPAROA STREET	TOMES ROAD	30	40	Local street changed due to presence of a school.

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Specified Road type	Road	Start point	End Point	Current speed limit	Previous speed being implemented
ROSE ST	HOON HAY ROAD	BARRINGTON STREET	30	50*	Urban connector with permanent speed limit applied.
LYTTELTON ST	LYTTELTON STREET	SPARKS ROAD	30	50*	Urban connector with permanent speed limit applied.
COLOMBO STREET	HUNTER TERRACE	129 COLOMBO STREET	30	50	Urban connector with permanent speed limit applied.

*30km/h variable limit to be installed for a section of the street

School speed limits for Specified Roads

4.19 As part of the reversal of speed limits on Specified Roads five schools are impacted by the changes and are listed in the table below. Three of the five schools will receive 30 km/h variable speed limits outside of their school gates for 150 metres in either direction as per the Rule. The remaining two schools, Paparoa Street School and St Peter’s School, are covered by existing permanent 30km/h speed limits outside the school gate. These permanent 30km/h limits can remain. However, the Specified Roads being reversed are outside the 300 metres distance that is permitted under the Rule.

4.20 The Rule allows for 30 km/h variable speed limits to be set for the duration of a School Travel Period. School travel periods must comply with the following requirements (Clause 5.3(2)):

· There must be a school travel period for the start of the school day and another school travel period for the end of the school day.

· School travel periods must occur only on days on which the school is open for instruction.

· School travel periods for the start of the school day:

· Must not begin any earlier than 45 minutes before the start of the school day; and

· Must end no later than 45 minutes after the start of the school day.

· School travel periods for the end of the school day:

· Must not begin any earlier than 45 minutes before the end of the school day; and

· Must end no later than 45 minutes after the end of the school day.

4.21 School travel periods may also include one or more periods throughout the day (Clause 5.3(3)) if the following requirements are met:

· On a day which the school is open for instruction; and

· Each of those other periods lasts no longer than 10 minutes; and

· During each of those other periods, significant numbers of children cross the road or enter or leave vehicles at the side of the road (for example, when arriving at or leaving a school sports event or other excursion); and

· An electronic variable speed limit sign is in operation during each of those other periods.

4.22 Each impacted school will be engaged with to determine the applicable School Travel Period. While there is no requirement under the Transitional provisions to specify the School Travel Period, it is recommended that a consistent approach to Section 5 of the Rule is applied. As the School Travel Periods can vary across schools, it is recommended that these are confirmed and approved by the Head of Transport. The alternative is that separate reports will need to be provided to Council for approval of School Travel Period times, and subsequent changes to those times.

4.23 The table below includes the schools affected by the reversals on Specified Roads, and the proposal for each school.

Table 1: Impacted Schools

School	Road/Street	Impact/Proposal
Paparoa Street School	Claremont Avenue	Return Claremont Avenue to 40 km/h. This would be a reduction of the school speed area, no further change proposed.
St Peter's School (Beckenham)	Colombo Street	Return Colombo Street to 50 km/h. This would be a reduction of the school speed area, no further change proposed.
Little River School	Western Valley Road	Return Western Valley Road to 50 km/h and install a 30 km/h variable speed limit for the distance specified within the Rule.
Cashmere High School (Te iringa o Kahukura)	Rose Street	Return Rose Street to 50 km/h and install 30 km/h variable speed limit for the distance specified within the Rule.
Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Whanau Tahi	Lyttleton Street	Return Lyttelton Street to 50 km/h and install 30 km/h variable speed limit for the distance specified within the Rule.

Other school speed limits

4.24 The Rule requires RCAs to use reasonable efforts to implement other school speed limits by 1 July 2026 (this includes setting the required speed limits, identifying roads outside school gates and setting school travel periods). The Rule sets speed limit requirements for roads ‘outside the school gate’, which it defines as the section of the road immediately adjacent to a gate or other access used by students to enter or leave the school, usually measuring (with any reasonably practicable modifications) 300 metres total road length for a Category 1 school. All schools in Christchurch are deemed to be Category 1 schools.

4.25 Schools may have many different gates or access points. Staff will work with schools to identify these locations. The 300 metres is the total road length, so if a school gate is in the middle, it would cover 150 metres either side of the school gate. There are 145 schools in Christchurch, a small number will be covered by existing speed limits that are not required to be changed; however, a large portion still require the 30km/h variable speed limit to be installed at each of these gate and access points. This will affect a large number of streets, so from a cost perspective staff will look to utilise both electronic variable signs on our busier roads, and static variable (not electronic) signage on more local streets.

4.26 It is proposed to engage with all remaining schools and their communities around the variable speed limits, school travel periods, and school gates. When confirmed, a separate report will be presented to the Council for approval of the school variable speed limits, including the applicable streets.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.27 Staff have assessed all local streets that have had permanent 30km/h speed limits implemented since 1 January 2020, and urban connectors against the requirements in the Rule.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do Nothing
Cost to Implement	$95,000	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.	N/A
Funding Source	#80776 Speed Limit Changes FY25	N/A
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above budget.	N/A
Impact on Rates	None.	N/A

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

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Section 9 of the Rule provides the New Zealand Transport Agency with the power to monitor and direct an RCA and to set, change or modify a speed limit. In Section 9.1(2), the Rule states that:

The Agency must notify a road controlling authority in writing if it has reason to believe that the road controlling authority might not have complied with this Rule and give the road controlling authority a reasonable opportunity to respond to the notification.

6.2 Section 9.1(3) states that:

If the Agency is not satisfied by a road controlling authority’s response to the notice under subclause (2), the Agency may issue directions to the road controlling authority regarding matters to be addressed.

6.3 Therefore, non-compliance of the Rule by the Council, creates a risk that the New Zealand Transport Agency can issue a direction for the Council to comply Section 9.1(4 and 5). Should the Council as an RCA not comply with directions provided by the Agency, then under Section 9.1(6) of the Rule, the Agency may exercise the power of the road controlling authority to:

(a) set the speed limit under this Rule:

(b) remove a temporary speed limit (and remove the accompanying signs and equipment):

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 requires road controlling authorities (such as the Council) to set speed limits for roads under their control and sets out requirements that must be complied with when setting speed limits.

6.5 The Rule requires road controlling authorities to execute the Transitional provisions (Schedule 2, Section 11) of the Rule which relate to amended speed limits for Specified Roads. This requires RCAs to submit their speed limit reversals lists to New Zealand Transport Agency by 1 May 2025.

6.6 Where a speed limit is a variable speed limit, an RCA is required to submit all conditions that will apply. Given the time constraints to submit the speed limit reversals, it is recommended that that Council delegate to the Head of Transport the authority to approve the School Travel Periods for each of the three schools to ensure the Registrar is notified within the required timeframe.

6.7 The Rule also requires completion of speed limit changes outside schools not covered by the Transitional provisions for Specified Roads to be completed by 1 July 2026.

6.8 The decision-making authority for speed limit changes sits with the Council.

6.9 The Rule requires speed limits to be set by creating land transport records and entering those records into the National Speed Limit Register. Once the speed limit is migrated into the Register, the land transport record will become the legal instrument for the speed limits.

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.11 The required decisions:

6.11.1 Partially aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. By providing safer speeds at school times, for tamariki and rangatahi, who walk, and cycle will contribute to a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected.

6.11.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council's Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the localised area of changes but the high community interest.

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

6.13 Transport

6.13.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network (DIA 1) - 4 less than previous FY

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.14 Due to the prescriptive nature of the Rule there is no opportunity for residents to meaningfully influence the decision. There is no legal requirement to consult on the reversal of speed limits nor do staff advise further consultation.

6.15 The speed limits proposed through the Safe Speed Neighbourhood programme, the Council’s Interim Speed Management Plan, generally aligned with the safe and appropriate speed limit set within the Rule and supporting guide. During consultation, three zones were extended, and five zones had their proposed speeds lowered further (from 40km/h to 30km/h) where there was considerable feedback to support this. The community through this process had a chance to provide written and oral submissions prior to a decision being made by the Council.

6.16 Staff will inform affected residents and schools prior to the implementation of any change in speed.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, the next steps are as follows:

7.1.1 Submit the table of Specified Roads to NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.

7.1.2 Undertake speed limit reversals on Specified Roads and concurrently implement school variable speed limits at the three sites.

7.1.3 Seek approval for School Travel Periods from the Head of Transport.

7.2 We will engage with all remaining schools around the variable speed limits and travel periods. When confirmed, a separate report will be presented to the Council for approval of the school variable speed limits, including the applicable streets.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Specified Roads for Reversal	25/453601	84

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

David McCormick - Senior Traffic Engineer

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

9. PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/266265
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities and Property
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide options which enable a decision on a medium-term solution (anticipated 5 years plus) for the vacant development site at 129 Gloucester St, located within the Performing Arts Precinct.

1.2 The report is required as result of previous Council decisions, which considered proposals on the future use of this land, principally for the provision of a parking building. Those proposals did not proceed, and a decision is now required to enable appropriate activation in the short to medium term, until such time as the market regains confidence to develop a long-term development solution for the site.

1.3 Staff have included three options for consideration, with the costs and benefits of each option being detailed within this report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use 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. Requests that staff proceed with the development for temporary use of approximately 2,081m²in the southeast corner portion of the Performing Arts Precinct (next to the Isaac Theatre Royal) at 129 Gloucester St, with the use providing for both temporary car parking spaces and public open space.

4. Notes the use of existing Long Term Plan funds, within the Performing Arts Precinct Public Realm Budget, being CPMS 59849 (total $1.93million across FY25-27), to carry out the works contained within this recommendation.

5. Delegates authority to the Head of Facilities and Property (who may sub delegate this authority) to do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the content of this report to implement the recommendations above including but not limited to any licence agreements required with external parties.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The land title addressed as 129 Gloucester St totals an area of 8,410m2. This title includes all Council owned land within the Performing Arts Precinct (PAP)and was transferred from the Crown in 2019. The site is designated for Performing Arts purposes under the District Plan, which allows a wide variety of uses.

3.2 A portion of the PAP provides the new Court Theatre development, public realm linkages and open space. Staff are currently working with the Christchurch School of Music on another section facing Armagh St.

3.3 The area of 2,081m²section in the southeastern corner, which is the subject of this report, was originally resolved by the Council for a car parking building, to be developed by a third party. Following a period of public consultation in 2021, the Council resolved to not proceed with an agreement for this development. This decision was made partly in consideration of car parking needs being met by proposed private developments on nearby land.

3.4 Subsequently staff coordinated a public Request for Proposals process, seeking responses from external parties who were able to develop the vacant site with performing arts uses in mind. A preferred respondent was appointed. However, an agreement was not achieved primarily due to economic challenges and construction budget inflation.

3.5 Now, with the new Court Theatre facility due to open in 2025 a future use decision is required. Several permanent options have been recently explored and exhausted. There have been no changes in the market or locality to provide any evidence that those options and outcomes would have changed. Staff are therefore proposing a medium-term use for the vacant development site and hereby present three options for elected members to consider.

3.6 The staff recommendation is to develop a hybrid-use on the site. This includes a small number of car parks, which is intended to service Performing Arts Precinct stakeholders, notably staff and mobility impaired patrons. The balance of the site would be levelled and developed as public open space, creating amenity to complement the soon to be completed Court Theatre and surrounding area. It is also envisaged the open area could be utilised for public events.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Performing Arts Precinct covers a block of central city land bordered by Armagh St, Colombo St, Gloucester St, and New Regent St. The land was transferred to the Council in 2019 from the Crown as a component of the Global Settlement Agreement. A District Plan designation was placed over the land and the Crown registered an encumbrance on the land title which prohibits the Council selling the land for any use other than performing arts related purposes. The Crowne Plaza Hotel located in the north-west corner of the site, and The Piano, on the north-east of the site and Issac Theatre Royal on the southeast side, all sit on privately owned land.

4.2 The Council is currently constructing the new Court Theatre facility on the Colombo St / Gloucester St corner and an agreement is being negotiated with the Christchurch School of Music for a new building facing the Armagh St edge. The central core of the site is allocated for public realm space, leaving a 2,081m2 development site adjacent to the Isaac Theatre Royal.

4.3 The original Precinct blueprint plan indicated the inclusion of a public parking facility on this development lot location. However, on 15 March 2022, after considering a staff report (primarily focused on the results of a public consultation process) Councillors resolved not to sell the land for the purpose of developing a public parking facility (CNCL/2022/00011). The resolution specifically noting “that the land is no longer required for the provision of a carpark building.”

4.4 In 2023, the Council approached the general market and requested proposals from entities who could develop the land with an appropriate performing arts facility. This process yielded a preferred respondent, which was ratified by the elected Council. However, as part of the company’s due diligence period, it became clear that the original vision was not viable under the current economic climate.

4.5 Presently, this development site is being used as a partial laydown construction area by the contractor of the Court Theatre project. A section to the east of the site is also occupied by the Isaac Theatre Royal for staff and guest car parking on an informal and unregulated basis. No rental is being achieved from either of the occupations. Therefore, a future use decision is required, whether temporary/transitional or permanent.

4.6 The long-term planning vision for the site remains a permanent facility development. The typology and use of such would need to be re-tested with the open market in future years and following reassessment of the area parking provisions, particularly once potential private developments in the locality are consolidated. Currently there is no appetite, budget or need for the Council itself to develop a further facility on the PAP. To enable substantial development of the site, a sub-division will be required to enable sale or a long-term lease.

4.7 The nature of the land provides a high-risk development factor, as the ground material is almost certainly contaminated due to prior building demolitions. This assumption is in accordance with geotechnical testing completed as part of the Court Theatre development, located 50m to the west. The costs involved to remediate the land are expected to be significant and will be a consideration for any party who puts forward a future proposal to develop the site with a substantial structure.

4.8 From the time of the Council’s decision to not proceed with the car parking building, public parking in the immediate area has been limited to:

4.8.1 On street Council parking, and

4.8.2 Privately owned temporary at-grade parking sites, including:

· 772 and 776 Colombo St, 107 Armagh and 214 Oxford Terrace, with consent for 188 parks through to March 2029.

· 148 Gloucester St, with new consent in process, seeking 82 parks.

· 125-147 Armagh and 287-293 Manchester, with consent for 92 parks through to March 2028.

4.9 Throughout the course of the Council’s land ownership, there has been regular messaging from adjacent stakeholders in the Performing Arts Precinct regarding the importance of parking within the vicinity. It is known that the Court Theatre, The Piano and Isaac Theatre Royal are especially concerned about parking for their staff and patrons with mobility impairments. With the Court Theatre due to open in May 2025, these concerns will continue until a planning decision is made on the adjacent development site.

4.10 Through previous engagement as part of the Performing Arts Precinct, desire from members of the public was identified for performance related activities within the precinct. These could be open space events, such as the busker’s festival, pop-up outdoor movie theatre, markets, plays, dance competitions, or low impact recreation activities. Any adverse noise effects on the adjacent precinct operators, from these uses, are yet to be projected.

4.11 Having considered these factors, staff recommends that the Council approves the development of the site for a temporary use. Given the needs expressed by stakeholders, as well as public feedback, staff further recommends that the temporary use provide for both car parking, particularly for patrons of the PAP venues with mobility impairments, and use as a flexible public open space that can provide daytime activation and complement the adjacent facilities.

4.12 The Council report of 8 April 2021 (CNCL/2021/54), which considered the need for a parking facility on the Performing Arts Precinct, concluded that existing and future planned facilities both within and close by the PAP (Te Pae, Tūranga, Court Theatre, Isaac Theatre Royal and Town Hall), could support the development of a public parking building. This assessment has not changed and the options to supply approximately some parking spaces on the undeveloped 129 Gloucester St site are consistent with meeting a proportion of those estimated public parking needs in the nearby area. Further, based on analyses completed at the time for a larger capacity parking building on the site, would indicate that the provision of these spaces is unlikely to have a material impact on existing traffic levels of service for the local roading network.

4.13 Accessible parking and additional bike and scooter racks in the precinct, supported by good after-hours lighting, offer a variety of choice options for accessing the precinct during the day and night. The design of the carpark would need to meet the Council’s surface car parking policy which includes 2m landscape width along street edges, stormwater management and a landscape plan with trees and shrubs to improve the pleasantness of walking past carparking.

4.14 Permanent landscaping has been constructed adjacent to the Court Theatre and, with changes to the Piano Piazza, will provide a pedestrian link between temporary carparking on Armagh Street and the Court Theatre, as well as a more direct path from the Cathedral Square to the Piano. The hybrid model supports a “desire line” pedestrian connection between the Piano Piazza to the Isaac Theatre Royal and Press Lane.

4.15 The recommended option includes car parking spaces. These spaces would replace the current informal occupation on the land by the Isaac Theatre Royal. Staff would look to recoup some of the cost of the construction of the temporary works through licences agreements for use of the car parks. These agreements are expected to be drafted on commercial terms. The car parking under this option is not proposed to meet all public parking requirements for the adjacent facilities.

4.16 Any option selected by the Council which includes car parking will be subject to resource consent being granted (and the duration of this consent). The selected option will also require further detailed design, refinement of actual development costs and tendering of the works package.

4.17 The potential revenue which would be derived from the options which include parking spaces, would depend on the operational format. Staff are working on a detailed assessment of the potential revenue and will have these results available at the Council meeting.

4.18 There is budget available within the current Long-Term Plan to carry out any of the presented options. The existing funds are allocated for the PAP Public Realm works, within CPMS 59849 and holds a present balance of $1.93 million. These funds are spread across financial years 25-27 and, depending on which report option is preferred by Councillors, a bring-forward of funds may be required to enable the works package.

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

Date	Subject
30 June 2023	Memorandum - Elected Members – 129 Gloucester St update

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

Date	Subject
17 December 2024	Council – Information Session – Performing Arts Precinct – 129 Gloucester St
15 November 2023	Council – 129 Gloucester St RFP – Results and Preferred Respondent
10 March 2022	Council – Performing Arts Precinct – Car Park – Public Consultation
8 April 2021	Council – Performing Arts Precinct - Off Street Parking

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.21.1 Option 1 – Hybrid model, utilising a portion of the site for temporary car parking and the balance for public open space.

4.21.2 Option 2 – Utilise the entire site as public open public space.

4.21.3 Option 3 – Utilise the entire site for temporary public car parking.

4.22 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.22.1 Do nothing, retain the site in its current state – The land is presently in an uneven and untidy format with informal occupation present. To benefit the adjacent PAP operators and public, the site needs to be upgraded in one form or another.

4.22.2 Reapproach the market seeking a developer – The results from the immediately prior RFP process indicated that the market is not currently able to satisfy the level of development required by the Council. This option should be reconsidered in future years.

4.22.3 List the property for general sale – The land sits within an area designated for the Performing Arts Precinct. The Council needs to retain the site or only transfer the land for a purpose that enables a related activity.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.23 Preferred Option: Hybrid model.

4.23.1 Option Description: Clear and level the site, with part being used for carparking (~50 carparks) and part for public open space. The estimated cost of this option is in the range of $500,000 to $620,000 depending on final design. With any option, staff will look to get the best value for money reflecting the transient use, regulatory requirements, compliance with the Council’s expectations regarding temporary use, and future commercial consideration.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· Seeks to strike a balance with the public’s ability to access the site and core parking concerns from the adjacent PAP operators.

· Enables public events to be held on the site, which would bring life and vitality to the area during the daytime and outside of the adjacent facilities showtime hours.

· Car parks would be licenced deriving an ongoing income for Council which recoups some of the upfront spend.

· The parking spaces are unlikely to compete with any other public parking options in the area – and are likely to benefit patrons with mobility impairments especially.

· Bicycle parking stands could be installed to support active transport to the area.

· Creates amenity value commensurate with the soon to be completed Court Theatre and surrounding area.

· Provides for a transitional use until a decision can be made on the future use of the site.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· Slightly less visual coherency of open space surfacing than a fully open space.

· The development spend will take time to recoup or may not be recouped in its entirety.

· The site will require an annual maintenance budget, e.g. grass mowing, rubbish and graffiti removal.

· Is not designed as a long-term solution and future development options may require a rethink of how the land is used.

4.24 Option 2 – Full open space.

4.24.1 Option Description: Clear and level the entire site with a grassed finish, along with the installation of Council furniture/seating. The estimated cost of this option is in the range of $300,000 to $350,000 depending on final design.

4.24.2 Option Advantages

· Would allow access for the public and the ability to hold events on the space.

· Provides a direct pedestrian line from Press Lane through to the Piano Piazza.

· Would provide a visually coherent open space right up to the Isaac western wall.

· Is the least expensive option to develop.

4.24.3 Option Disadvantages

· Would not address public car parking concerns from the adjacent PAP operators and some members of the public.

· Would not provide any continued income to the Council or return on funds spent.

· Is a large space to activate and may feel barren outside of events.

· Is not required for events given the other spaces available in the City.

· Could compete with Cathedral Square as an events space.

4.25 Option 3 – Full car parking space

· Option Description: Clear and level the entire site for car parking only, providing approx. 80 public car parks. The estimated cost of this option is in the range of $725,000 to $775,000 depending on final design.

4.25.2 Option Advantages

· Of the three options, provides the most positive response to the expressed parking concerns from the adjacent PAP operators and assist visitors to New Regent Street and Tūranga library.

· Could generate income for the Council.

4.25.3 Option Disadvantages

· Is the most expensive and is the least visually appealing option.

· Does not provide a balanced public amenity outcome.

· Is not responsive to the public consultation feedback from 2021, where most submitters did not support substantial car parking on the PAP.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.26 The Council needs to decide on the future of this site to provide certainty for the PAP stakeholders and public.

4.27 The site is currently underutilised and in an untidy state whilst portions are being used for the Court Theatre development and informal ITR parking. With the Court Theatre due to open in May 2025, a decision must be made now to allow time for a solution to be carried out within a reasonable time after that opening.

4.28 The Court Theatre, Isaac Theatre Royal and The Piano have previously registered the need for some parking in the area. Specific mobility parking needs are associated with the PAP venues and the nearby Tūranga and Te Pae, which would be partially met by two of the options.

4.29 The prior public consultation completed in 2021 noted a strong desire from the public to access the site for performing arts uses and a complete parking solution was supported at that time.

4.30 Development of the site, via any of the options, will assist the opening of the Court Theatre and wider PAP in general.

4.31 The options proposed are presented to meet identified medium term needs. However, it remains the case that the long-term view for the site should be revisited in approximately 3 - 5 years. An assessment at this point, would allow time for the market to be re-approached regarding and substantial performing arts related developments, in consideration of the original PAP vision.

4.32 Staff have considered the aspects of the three included options and recommend the Hybrid model (Option 1), due to this option’s outcomes being a clear compromise for the community.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 – Hybrid Model (Recommended)	Option 2 – All Grassed	Option 3 – All Parking
Cost to Implement	$500,000 to $620,000	$300,000 to $350,000	$725,000 to $775,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be confirmed	To be confirmed	To be confirmed
Funding Source	CPMS 59849 – PAP Public Realm ($1.93million total FY25-27)	CPMS 59849 – PAP Public Realm ($1.93million total FY25-27)	CPMS 59849 – PAP Public Realm ($1.93million total FY25-27)
Funding Availability	Immediate	Immediate	Immediate
Impact on Rates	Nil as this budget has already been factored in the LTP	Nil as this budget has already been factored in the LTP	Nil as this budget has already been factored in the LTP

5.1 The financial impact of the selected decision should be weighed in relation to existing Council pressures, noting the recommended option seeks to provide a balance of public amenity along with a commercial use that generates some cash returns.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a medium-level risk that the cost to carry out any of the development options exceeds initial expectations. This is due to existing soil contamination or unforeseen circumstances.

6.2 There is a low-level risk that the developed events space fails to gather public momentum and is underutilised. However, if that eventuates, then the lower cost, interim nature of the solution is not a significant encumbrance to alternative uses being developed.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Council is required to decide on which development option is to proceed, including how the budgeted funds are spent.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 If the Council elects to carry out either the Hybrid model or Option 3 (full parking), the legal implication is that licence agreements will be required. These agreements would be on the Council’s standard form; however, the details are yet to be fully considered.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

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

6.6 This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The community are affected in a limited capacity, in their ability to utilise a civic asset designated for performing arts purposes. Previously the community was consulted on the proposal for development of a public parking building in this location. The feedback in that instance resulted in the submitting members of the public overwhelmingly preferring an alternative use to that proposed. In this instance, because the land is not being sold or leased, no public consultation is required under the Local Government Act.

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

6.9 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.11 As part of the original concept to develop the car parking building on the PAP, Mana Whenua provided feedback which enabled the proposed building design to maintain views of Mount Grey from the upper floors of Tūranga. None of the presented options in this report would impact this view line, as no building is being proposed.

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

6.13 The decision at hand, has no bearing on the Council’s relationship with Mana Whenua as the land is not a site of significance, nor would the land be used in a manner which affects environmental or resource concerns.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 None of the options contained in this report are likely to significantly affect climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should the Council elect to proceed with the recommendation, Option 1, then staff will proceed to initiate a detailed scope and costing exercise for the project. The works package is expected to be carried out in the calendar year 2025 (i.e. FY 26).

7.2 The Court Theatre, Isaac Theatre Royal and The Piano will be approached to confirm their interest in licensing the available parking spaces at negotiated rates.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Tim Cheesebrough - Senior Transport Planner

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

10. Electric Vehicle Policy - Interim Amendment
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/83230
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jane Cameron, Team Leader, Strategic Transport Nigel Cox, Head of Recreation, Sport & Events
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure developments and related work programmes underway across the Council. This includes:

· A scheduled review of the 2016 EV and Car Share Policies.

· A procurement process underway to install EV charging infrastructure at some Council Recreation, Sport and Events (RSE) facilities.

· A related process to develop a new digital advertising policy.

1.2 The report was prepared following discussions across a number of units, and proposes a two stage policy review to improve the alignment of the policy with related work programmes.

1.3 Ahead of the full review of the Council’s Electric Vehicle Policy, an interim amendment is proposed to allow the Council to receive income from EV chargers located on Council land. This will enable a range of commercial models to be considered in the RSE procurement process, and result in cost savings for the Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Electric Vehicle Policy - Interim Amendment report.

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

3. Approves the proposed interim amendment to update clause 5.3 of the Council’s Electric Vehicle Policy from:

5.3 In order to encourage the uptake of electric infrastructure, council will not seek a percentage of any revenues gained from fees collected by the licensee for the recharging of electric vehicles.

To:

5.3 The agreement between Council and the electric vehicle charging provider may also include a financial return to Council to recognise the value of public space being used.

4. Notes that a full review of the Council’s Electric Vehicle Policy will be completed alongside the related development of a digital advertising policy that is at a scoping stage.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Policy (the policy) was adopted in 2016 and it outlines the Council’s approach to the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure on Council land. The Council’s EV policy is up for review as part of the Council’s standard policy review cycle.

3.2 The EV charging landscape has changed significantly since the adoption of the current policy. This includes a significant shift in the scale of EV charging infrastructure available and the range of commercial models being utilised.

3.3 Preparatory work for this review has identified some limitations with the current policy (specifically, clause 5.3 which does not allow the Council to receive a share of revenue from EV chargers) that is resulting in significant costs to the RSE unit in particular.

3.4 RSE currently offer free EV charging at some facilities at a cost to the Council. They are seeking to progress a Request for Proposal (RFP) to enable an EV charging provider to install new chargers and replace existing chargers at facilities and operate these at their own expense. The Request would also seek a return for the use of Council land.

3.5 Legal advice recommended that the Council amend the existing policy to enable the Council to receive revenue from the use of Council land for EV charging. A minor amendment to the current policy is therefore proposed to enable this to occur.

3.6 A full policy review of the EV Policy is also planned. The timing of this review will align with a separate work programme to develop a policy on digital advertising on Council land, as some EV charging providers receive their main source of income from digital advertising.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Previous and current trends in Electric Vehicle and charging use

4.1 The Council’s existing EV and Car Share Policies were approved in 2016. In the nine years since their approval, the environment relating to EVs, and associated charging infrastructure has changed considerably.

4.2 In 2016, there were only 50 public EV chargers available in New Zealand. Today, there are more than 1,500 public chargers, and over 64,000 battery electric vehicles (BEVs). There are currently around 6,700 BEVs in Christchurch, and 137 public EV charging points.

Current Council policies

4.3 The Council’s EV and Car Share Policies are scheduled for review. The existing EV Policy was developed in 2016 in an environment where EV uptake was very low. It was designed to encourage EV uptake and enable the installation of EV chargers on Council land.

4.4 It does not allow for the Council to receive a share of revenue from income received for using EV chargers located on Council land.

4.5 The Council’s Car Share Policy was also adopted in 2016. This policy will be reviewed alongside the EV Policy, as existing car share providers use electric vehicles. This report focuses on the EV Policy, as the Car Share Policy does not generate issues that need to be addressed at this stage.

Demand for EV charging at Council facilities and proposed policy amendment

4.6 EV chargers have been installed on thirteen Council managed sites. These include sport and recreation facilities, a library, the Botanic Gardens, a car park building and five road reserve locations.

4.7 At most of these sites, the chargers are owned by an EV charging provider. A licence to occupy agreement is in place, with no revenue returned to the Council. However, at Council Sport and Recreation facilities the Council owns the chargers.

4.8 RSE staff have identified that due to the rapid technological changes occurring in EV charging, an external provider is better placed to own and operate EV charging infrastructure than the Council.

4.9 EV charging at RSE facilities is currently free. However, this incurs significant costs to the Council which are not currently recovered. This includes developing car park spaces, installing chargers, electricity and maintenance costs.

4.10 Growing EV usage means that there are customer expectations that EV charging will be available at Council RSE facilities. The Council is also required to provide for EV charging at some new facilities as a resource consent condition.

4.11 To cater to this demand, RSE wish to progress an RFP to invite an EV charging provider to install and operate around 10 new EV chargers at several additional facilities and replace existing chargers.

4.12 The shift to having EV charging provided by an external provider would result in cost savings to the Council in both installing and operating EV charging.

4.13 RSE currently incur both installation and operating costs for EV charging stations. While these can vary depending on the number of charging points, site location, charger type and capacity, factors such as electricity costs are expected to continue to rise in the future.

4.14 Council staff are recommending that Clause 5.3 of the Council’s EV policy be amended to state that Council may receive income for the use of Council land for EV charging as part of a wider agreement on the use of an EV charging site.

4.15 The policy amendment allows RSE to proceed with an RFP process and consider applications from a range of EV charging providers, and commercial models.

4.16 Without this change, RSE could still proceed with the RFP, but the Council would not be able to receive income for the use of charging sites. This situation could not be revised until license to occupy agreements are next renegotiated. The term of these agreements is usually several years.

EV charging commercial models

4.17 The Government’s target to enable the installation of 10,000 EV chargers nationally by 2030 is expected to result in the number of EV chargers increasing in the future.

4.18 Previously, some electricity retailers sought to encourage EV ownership by providing free charging. However, with significant growth in EV ownership, this model is becoming less common. Most EV charging providers charge users based on electricity use.

4.19 Some providers offer a limited free charging allowance. Some providers receive revenue from digital advertising connected to EV charging. After the allowance is used, charging costs are based on electricity usage.

4.20 The Council’s provision of unlimited free charging at RSE facilities is now an uncommon model. It may result in chargers being used by people who are not facility users – particularly at locations close to shops and attractions.

4.21 Council staff are separately working to develop a new policy on digital advertising on the road reserve. This would also apply to any digital advertising connected to EV charging in these locations.

EV Policy review

4.22 The full review of the EV Policy is planned to start in 2025 and align with the development of the proposed Council digital advertising policy, so that the issues raised through this new policy can be considered in the EV Policy review.

4.23 In addition to issues relating to digital advertising, there are a number of other issues that need to be considered as part of the EV Policy review. These include:

4.23.1 Should the Council retain a separate EV Policy or incorporate controls into other Council policies.

4.23.2 Enabling equitable EV charging provision across the district.

4.23.3 Avoiding EV chargers being placed in locations where they generate adverse effects.

4.23.4 Considerations around fees and charges for the use of Council land, and application processing.

4.23.5 Providing clarity to EV charging providers on what is permitted.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.24.1 The Council amends the existing EV Policy as proposed in Attachment A.

4.24.2 The Council does not amend the existing EV Policy.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.25 Preferred Option: Option 1 - Amend the existing EV Policy as proposed in Attachment A.

4.25.1 Option Description: This option would amend the current policy to clearly allow for the Council to receive revenue for the use of Council land when EV charging providers operate charging facilities on Council land.

4.25.2 Option Advantages

· Ratepayers receive a return from the use of Council land for EV charging.

· It supports the Council to shift to a model of operation at Sport and Recreation facilities where an EV charging provider owns and operates the chargers and the Council receives revenue from the use of the site.

4.25.3 Option Disadvantages

· EV charging providers would be required to pay for the use of Council land.

4.26 Option 2 – The Council does not amend the existing EV Policy.

4.26.1 Option Description: Under this option the Council would not amend the existing EV Policy to allow for Council to receive revenue from EV charging providers for the use of Council land.

4.26.2 Option Advantages

· This would benefit EV charging providers who could use Council land without contributing a fee for this.

4.26.3 Option Disadvantages

· Ratepayers would not receive a return from the use of Council land for EV charging.

· The Council would not have the opportunity to receive income from the installation or replacement of EV chargers at Sport and Recreation facilities for several years (when licence to occupy agreements are next renewed).

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option 1 (Amend policy)	Option 2 (Do not amend policy)
Cost to Implement	No cost	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost	No cost
Funding Source	N/A	N/A
Funding Availability	N/A	N/A
Impact on Rates	Provides additional income from the use of EV charging sites when licence to occupy agreements are signed/ renewed. Income would vary by site.	No additional income would be received from use of EV charging sites when licence to occupy agreements are signed/ renewed.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The policy amendment is relatively minor, and no significant risks have been identified.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Council has the power under the Local Government Act 2002 to amend the policy.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 Staff sought legal advice on whether the existing EV Policy should be amended if the Council wishes to receive income from EV chargers on Council land through a rental/ lease or fee. Legal advice recommended that the existing policy be amended to remove potentially conflicting clauses and more clearly enable the Council to do this.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

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

6.4.2 Support the Council’s strategic priorities relating to reducing emissions and managing ratepayer’s money wisely. They also support the community outcome ‘green and liveable’ which has a goal to reduce emissions.

6.4.3 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined based on the decisions having a low impact on a small group – EV charging providers.

6.4.4 Are consistent with the Council’s Revenue and Finance Policy, and the Draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy 2024–54 Strategy.

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements
- Advice to Council on high priority policy and strategic issues that affect the city
- Bylaws and regulatory policies meet emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements (17.0.19.4)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Existing EV charging providers operating in Christchurch have been advised of the proposed policy change and asked whether they wish to provide any feedback for Council to consider.

6.8 No feedback from these EV charging providers has been received.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.11 No specific impacts on Mana Whenua have been identified from implementing the proposed recommendations.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The proposals in this report are likely to:

6.12.1 Contribute either neutrally or positively to emissions reductions. The proposed policy amendment itself is unlikely to have a significant impact on emissions.

6.12.2 However, the change would support RSE facilities to shift to a new model of EV charging provision where the number of chargers will approximately double, and an independent charging provider operates services. This may result in shifts in charging use.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council approves the amendment to the policy, Council staff will progress an RFP to install additional EV chargers which would include licence to occupy agreements (based on market values), and replace existing chargers at Council Sport, Recreation and Event facilities.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Electric Vehicle Policy - Proposed Interim Amendment	25/380607	102

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Allanah Jarman - Senior Policy Analyst

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Wheelie Bin Latch Trial
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/279297
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dr Alec McNeil, Manager Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations in response to the Wheelie Bin Latch Trial and to share the related information created by the Ōpawaho Heathcote River Network.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Wheelie Bin Latch Trial Report.

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

3. Approves the establishment of a wheelie bin latch stock of up to 25,000 units at a cost of $101,250 excluding GST and funded from existing budget CPMS 50264 – Kerbside Service Enhancement.

4. Approves the wheelie bin latch stock being made available to the community through Council offices, libraries, and community hubs on a user pays basis of $4.25 excluding GST per unit.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board felt that a large amount of rubbish and recycling is blown from wheelie bins into local waterways during strong winds, and that bin latches (like those used by the Selwyn District Council) would be appropriate to mitigate this issue.

3.2 A trial was subsequently conducted by the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network (OHRN) to assess the effectiveness of the bin latches at reducing litter. Refer to Attachment A.

3.3 The OHRN would like to see the wheelie bin latches issued across the whole kerbside collection network which is not supported for the reasons outlined in this report.

3.4 An alternative approach is recommended where a limited stock of up to 25,000 wheelie bin latches would be made available to the community on a user pays basis.

3.5 Bulk purchasing of the latches on behalf of the community lowers the unit price from $13 to $4.05 excluding GST.

3.6 Funding for the establishment of a stock of latches can be drawn from an existing budget - CPMS 50265 Kerbside Service Enhancement.

3.7 The latches and any relevant supporting information would be made available at Council public facilities including libraries, community hubs and offices.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The OHRN sought funding and approval from the Council to conduct a trial of wheelie bin latch use to reduce litter entering waterways.

4.2 This Wheelie Bin latch trial was made possible through the support of the Council’s Community Waterways Partnership (CWP) as it addressed the issue of litter in waterways, which was an area of focus for the partnership at that time. OHRN applied to a contestable fund provided by the CWP to support community efforts in improving and protecting our urban waterways. The CWP agreed to fund this project and sourced funding through Council’s ‘Open Drains (incl waterways) Reactive Works’ budget, for this ‘Waterways Contamination Prevention Device’. This fund addresses existing/potential issues with waterways and drains to improve the Council’s six values and water quality. On the premise that a bin latch device may improve containment of materials in wheelie bins and minimise any release into waterways, funding for a trial was approved by the Council’s Three Waters Team, as the budget holder.

4.3 The trial was conducted in 2024. Three trial areas were established within the catchment, including Cashmere, Mt Pleasant and Riverside Terraces. 703 households took part on a voluntary basis and were each issued with two latches for their red and yellow bins- refer to Attachment A for information on the latches. A pre-trial period of monitoring of the bins took place and the trial then was conducted from February 2024 until 1 November 2024. A follow-up feedback survey was conducted at the end of the trial period and a report prepared for the CWP and the Council (refer to Attachment A).

4.4 The report provided by OHRN summarises the trial’s findings. Most respondents found it very easy to install the latches and viewed them as effective overall. Of the 63 participants whose bins overturned, 83% reported that the latches successfully kept rubbish contained. Despite limited high-wind events during the trial, most participants supported latch availability, citing benefits in reducing litter. To note, there were limitations and assumptions made in this trial, such as:

· Sample size: the small participant group (198 households, 63 with overturned bins) limits broader applicability.

· Opt-in design: volunteers with pre-existing interest may have introduced bias.

· Weather conditions: fewer than average high-wind events during testing period.

· Empirical Data: The trial relied on participant feedback rather than measurable litter reduction data.

· Generalisation: results may not represent areas with different wind or litter conditions.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The following reasonably practicable options were considered in relation to the supply of wheelie bin latches and are assessed in this report:

4.5.1 The Preferred option: Partial supply of wheelie bin latches on a user pays basis.

4.5.2 Option 2 No supply – leaves the community with a higher cost option should they wish to purchase a wheelie bin latch (staff do not recommend this option for the reasons described below).

4.5.3 Option 3 Further advice on full supply (staff do not recommend this option for the reasons described below).

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.6 Preferred Option: Partial supply.

4.6.1 Option Description: Council purchase a stock of up to 25,000 units and makes them available to the community on a user pays basis. The stock will be delivered via the internal distribution team to public facing Council facilities including libraries, community hubs and offices.

4.6.2 Option Advantages

· Unit price of latch is reduced through a bulk purchase.

· Costs are recovered through a user pays charge.

· The individual can determine whether the bin latch is appropriate for their circumstance/setting.

· Avoiding universal latch distribution across the kerbside network reduces initial and future funding requirements.

4.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· Some community members may feel that the universal distribution of the latches is a better option than individual choice.

4.7 Option 2: No supply (staff do not recommend this option for the reasons described below).

4.7.1 Option Description: Council would retain the status quo where bin latches are purchased by individuals direct from the manufacturer at a unit cost of $13 excluding GST per unit.

4.7.2 Option Advantages

· No impact on rates.

· No Council distribution and stock control system required.

4.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· The unit price paid by individuals who want a bin latch will remain at $13.

· There may be a perception that the wheelie bin latch trial findings have not been considered.

4.8 Option 3: Further information on full supply (staff do not recommend this option for the reasons described below).

4.8.1 Option Description: Staff to provide further information on Council purchasing a bin latch for all recycling and refuse wheelie bins in service.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· The unit price of latch is reduced through a bulk purchase.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· An initial supply cost in the region of $1.2 million excluding GST would be required based on up to 345,000 bins in service at a unit price of $3.50.

· A replacement budget would need to be maintained, for example, based on 10% replacement each year.

· Operational issues related to the use of the latches could be encountered, for example, part full bins not opening.

· The individual can no longer determine whether the bin latch is appropriate for their circumstance/setting.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.9 To provide some context, the following table summarises the wheelie bins in service across the kerbside collection area during 2024.

	Rubbish	Recycle	Organic
Jan-24	167,562	169,061	160,577
Feb-24	168,986	170,483	161,893
Mar-24	169,266	170,659	162,207
Apr-24	169,489	170,939	162,374
May-24	169,812	171,234	162,685
Jun-24	170,178	171,588	163,143
Jul-24	170,534	171,842	163,357
Aug-24	170,825	172,119	164,044
Sep-24	171,071	174,572	164,296
Oct-24	171,250	172,481	164,182
Nov-24	171,664	172,903	164,525
Dec-24	171,780	173,022	164,633

4.10 The requirement for a bin latch is not universal across the kerbside collection area. It may be the case that if the latches were issued to everyone this could introduce some operational challenges, for example, latches used on a part full bin may prevent the lid opening during the emptying cycle or take longer to empty.

4.11 Information on bin latches is already provided to the community My bins : Christchurch City Council. The latches are available direct from the supplier on a user pay basis. Supplying and maintaining latches for every rubbish and recycling wheelie bin as part of the kerbside collection service, would incur significant cost albeit the unit price of the latches would be reduced dependent on the volume purchased.

4.12 An alternate supply model could be offered by carrying a stock and supporting information that is held by the Council distribution team. Latches could then be distributed to public access points, for example, Council offices, libraries, and community hubs. The user pay principle would still apply but the unit cost per latch would be reduced. Any replacement latches would also be provided on a user pay basis.

4.13 The OHRN report contains a pricing table for the latches which has been updated with the manufacturer as follows.

Units	Unit price
500	$ 6.50
1000	$ 6.00
2000	$ 5.75
5000	$ 5.05
10,000	$ 4.50
25,000	$ 4.05
50,000	$ 3.75
100,000	$ 3.50

4.14 These prices exclude GST and freight. An order of 25,000 units could be transported via one pallet load.

4.15 From an accounting perspective any stock of bin latches could be managed using similar processes associated with the allocation of inner-city rubbish and recycling bags.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Partial Supply	No Supply	Full Supply – indicative costs
Cost to Implement	$101,250	Nil	$1,200,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$0	Nil	$139,725 (34,500 x $4.05)
Funding Source	CPMS 50264 – Kerbside Service Enhancement	N/A	Increasing the existing targeted rate
Funding Availability	On plan for FY26	N/A	New budget
Impact on Rates	Nil - included in 2024/34 LTP	N/A	0.03% increase

5.1 The initial stock of 25,000 units could be purchased for $101,250 excluding GST direct from the manufacturer. This stock purchase could be funded from CPMS 50264 – Kerbside Service Enhancement.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Operational challenges associated with using the bin latch on a part full bin – this can be mitigated by making the latch and supporting information available on a user pays basis.

6.2 Management of stock – this can be mitigated by using a stock control process system similar to the inner-city recycling and refuse bag setup.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 Council has the statutory authority to undertake the proposals in this report as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.4.2 This report has not been reviewed by Legal Services.

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.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

6.7.1 Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

· Level of Service: 8.0.1 Recyclable materials collected by Council services and received for processing at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) - 70kg (+40%/-10%) recyclable materials / person / year

· Level of Service: 8.0.2 Kerbside wheelie bins emptied by Council services - At least 99.5% collection achieved when items correctly presented for collection

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The Community’s views have not been considered on this matter, as the decision relates to an operational aspect of the kerbside collection service.

6.9 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.

6.10 The Community Boards have not been approached to provide a view in this instance.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.13 Mana Whenua have an interest in protecting the environment from litter.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 If the Council was to purchase a stock of wheelie bin latches this would have no significant impact on Council’s climate change objectives.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Confirm whether the Council wishes to purchase a stock of bin latches and at what level.

7.2 If required, establish the stock and distribution system.

7.3 If required, provide the relevant information on latch availability, cost, installation and use.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Wheelie Bin Latches Trial, Community Waterways Partnership, 18 Nov 2024	24/2192676	112

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Alec McNeil - Manager Resource Recovery

Georgina St John-Ives - Community Waterways Advisor

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

12. Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/375940
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rose Crossland, Community Development Advisor Gary Watson, Manager Community Partnerships
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 an application of $550,000 to its Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) from The Christchurch Foundation (Foundation) payable over three financial years, 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27.

1.2 The report originates from the Council’s direction in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan process for staff to work with the Foundation on its long-term future and report back to the Council in 2025. It is also as a result of an application to the CEF from the Foundation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation 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. Makes a grant of $82,500 from the Capital Endowment Fund to the Christchurch Foundation, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it engages with the Council to finalise and prepares to implement its new Strategic Plan.

4. Notes that the Council may be asked to consider up to two further grants from the Capital Endowment Fund, as an extension to this application, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it implements its new Strategic Plan in a manner agreed with the Council.

5. Notes that the publicly excluded Attachments B and C will be reviewed for release when the specific funds and investments contained in the document are no longer under management.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 During the 2024/34 Long Term Plan process, the Council directed staff to work with the Foundation on its long-term future and report back to Council in 2025.

3.2 The Foundation has been in a period of fundamental change over the last year and is close to finalising a new strategic and operational direction that it believes will achieve long-term success in attracting philanthropic support for various strategically significant areas in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Councillor oversight and financial support is considered essential to ensure success.

3.3 This report provides a range of options that invite Councillors to consider the degree of oversight and support, if any, for the continued operation of the Foundation and under what conditions.

3.4 The preferred option;

· Provides limited short-term financial support to keep the Foundation operational whilst it engages with Councillors and seeks the Council’s support for its new Strategic Plan and its implementation,

· Contemplates future financial support for the implementation of the Strategic Plan conditional on targets agreed with the Council being achieved to the Council’s satisfaction; and

· Notes that the forum for any longer-term Council financial support for the Foundation is the 2028/28 long Term Plan.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Community Foundations are independent, not-for-profit organisations governed by local boards. They focus on their place, their people and local needs to build long-term funding streams, growing and investing donations they receive to ensure local generosity goes to causes where it has the greatest impact.

4.2 There are 18 community foundations located in most regions across New Zealand. Examples include Wellington’s Nikau Foundation, the first community foundation (1991), which has distributed $50 million over the past 5 years. The Auckland Foundation has distributed $15,750,000 to communities (2024: $1,165,232).

4.3 Unlike most other community foundations in New Zealand, the Christchurch Foundation was set up in 2017 by the Council, in part to coordinate philanthropic activities related to the 2011 earthquake. Its initial task was to facilitate funds from TSB, Spark, and Southbase Construction to support the Tūranga build. From there its key focus was in generating revenue to support the city. It was agreed that the Mayor of Christchurch was to be a representative on the Board, and that it would be run by a Chief Executive with a number of supporting roles.

4.4 The Council invested approximately $3 million over 8 years to establish and operate the Foundation with the expectation it would work towards financial independence. Community foundations start to become sustainable when they have approximately $30 million under management, dependent on market conditions. This requires a key focus of growing endowment capital, the management of which helps cover operational costs.

4.5 There are a variety of factors that have contributed to the Foundation’s current financial situation. Annual operational costs were high compared with other comparable community foundations. Rather than focus only on building endowment funds, a variety of activities were undertaken that generated a lower income.

4.6 Smaller sized funds were established and limited fees-for-service were taken. A decision was also made not to take any fees to facilitate the distribution of funds from the mosque shootings. Taking a fee would have generated a significant amount of revenue to help cover some operational costs. The Foundation is still facilitating the Our People, Our City Education Fund.

4.7 Other activities that generated limited revenue was the Better City Business Programme where membership fees went towards operational costs, selling gin where the income to expenditure ratio was low and a youth philanthropy programme where income derived from the fundraising activities of the members went to other charities.

4.8 The appointment of a new Chair and a subsequent examination of the Foundation’s finances resulted in the appointment of new Trustees and a new General Manager with considerable experience in philanthropy. It also prompted a fundamental review of the organisation – reflecting on its past, right-sizing its operations, resetting its business model and having a particular emphasis on the previously under-developed endowment aspect of the Foundation’s model. The Foundation’s Draft Strategic plan 2025-2027 which outlines its proposed key actions and what is achievable over the next two years is attached to this report as Attachment A.

4.9 Changes include but are not limited to:

4.9.1 Strategic

· Recruited a new Board with solid experience in building endowment capital and strong networks into the community. This aims to provide confidence to external stakeholders and potential donors that the new direction will result in successful outcomes for the Foundation and the donor.

· Change of focus on fundraising strategies - Increased focus on the previously underdeveloped endowment aspect of the Foundation’s model, setting up new funds, bequests and looking at the potential to transfer other Trusts into the Foundation. Tax benefits through corporate giving will be promoted.

4.9.2 Operational

· Recruited new staff – Now 1.3 FTE (previously 3.5 FTE) including an experienced interim General Manager. The job title changed from Chief Executive with lower remuneration. Part time financial support, fundraising and communications support staff are in place. Staff work remotely which helps lower operational costs.

· Re-engaged with key stakeholders and developing new relationships – this aims to provide confidence in the new direction of the Foundation and the people involved. Experienced staff steward existing relationships and develop new ones; they also implement new systems and processes.

· Made cost saving efficiencies in salaries, travel, reduced costs in provision of financial services, have pro bono legal services and received discount rates for its recent website refresh.

· A summarised Progress Report of the changes the Foundation have made to date and will make in the near future is attached to this report as publicly excluded Attachment B and the Foundation’s FY2024 Performance Report is publicly excluded Attachment C.

4.10 The Foundation believes it is essential to develop a strong relationship with Councillors and, to progress this goal, made a presentation to the Council in the 2024/34 LTP on 12 May 2024. The Council directed that staff work with the Foundation on its long-term future and report back in 2025.

4.11 In order to implement the Council’s direction, it is proposed that a Council workshop is scheduled for 1 April 2025 where the Foundation can discuss its future plans and how a strong relationship at governance level can be developed. More specifically:

· The Foundation will seek feedback from Councillors on its revised Draft Strategic Plan and how it proposes to implement the Plan through the achievement of defined milestones.

· Councillor feedback will be incorporated in the finalised Strategic and Implementation Plans. These will be presented to the Council in May 2025. It is intended that the Foundation’s performance against these plans will inform the Council’s consideration of any future Council funding.

4.12 The Foundation’s proposed operational budget is $300,000p/a, approximately half of its previous budget. Its sources of funding include fees for managing invested funds, fees for service of pass-through funds, Better City Business membership fees and donations. A copy of the Foundation’s budget is attached to this report as Attachment D.

4.13 As the Foundation’s income will not cover its operational costs for the next three years, the Foundation is seeking the Council’s financial support while it works to build its own funds, through this application to the CEF.

· The Foundation applied for $110,000 in 2024/25, $220,000 in 2025/26 and 2026/27.

· Whilst the Foundation is confident it will be in a far more sustainable financial position by 2027, it is unlikely it will be fully sustainable. If this is the case, the Foundation will ask the Council to consider any further support as part of the 2027/37 Long Term Plan.

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

Date	Subject
12 May 2024	LTP – Submission by the Foundation

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.15 Preferred Option: Provide a grant of up to $82,500. Noting that the Council may be asked to consider up to two further grants from the Capital Endowment Fund, as an extension to this application, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it implements its new Strategic Plan in a manner agreed with the Council.

4.15.1 Option Description: The Council provide a grant of $82,500 to support the core operation of the Foundation to 30 June 2025 whilst it finalises and works on implementation of its new Strategic Plan. The Council’s consideration of further financial support, if any, would be undertaken through a continuation of the current application process in May/June 2025 following a Council workshop with the Foundation scheduled for 1 April 2025.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Secures the Foundation in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula until at least 30 June 2025.

· Allows the Foundation time and resources to engage with the Council and finalise its Strategic Plan.

· Provides Councillors strategic and operational oversight prior to any further grant funding being contemplated.

· Contemplates the opportunity but does not set any firm expectation on Council funding going forward.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not provide the level of certainty asked for by the Foundation to finalise and implement its new Strategic Plan, and to maintain momentum particularly to attract and retain donors, staff and volunteer Board Members.

· Will require a number of separate funding processes, administratively less efficient and potentially disjointed.

· Will be more difficult for staff to provide the Council robust advice on the likely future commitments to the CEF. Also, the eligibility of using the CEF for future grants to the Foundation.

4.16 Option Two: Decline the application.

4.16.1 Option Description: Decline the application and ask staff to work with the Foundation to manage the effects of this decision.

· This may include directing staff to explore alternatives to a community foundation.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· Clarity. Sends a clear signal to the Foundation and the wider philanthropic community on the Council’s view on the role and function of a community foundation.

· Potentially opens the door to alternatives.

· Allows the CEF to be invested in other Council priorities.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Whilst the Foundation can function into the next financial year, this will be at a reduced level and will not be able to deliver change and grow new funds.

· If the Foundation cannot continue Christchurch and Banks Peninsula will be one of the only regions in New Zealand without a community foundation.

· The wind-down of the Foundation would result in the loss of the trustees and staff, who are experienced in working in community foundations and wealth creation and with strong links into the community.

· The Foundation holds a number of general and named endowment funds including the Our People, Our City Education Fund. Discussion would need to be held as to where these funds go and who will manage them. As Council was the settlor of the Foundation a reasonable assumption could be that the Council becomes the 'residual trustee' and picks up these responsibilities, which are likely to be material.

· Benefits to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula from the current momentum of the Foundation would be delayed or lost.

· There is a potential longer-term financial disadvantage to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula of not having an independent, not-for-profit foundation through which revenue generated from corporate partnerships and emergency funding can be directed.

4.17 Option Three: Provide a conditional grant of up to $522,500 over three years.

4.17.1 Option Description: Provide a conditional grant of up to $522,500 over three years payable in instalments over three financial years, namely:

· Tranche 1: $82,500 - payable February 2025, to support the core operation of the Foundation to 30 June 2025, whilst it finalises, and plans the implementation of, its new Strategic Plan.

· Tranche 2: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2025, subject to the Council’s approval of a new Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan in May/June 2025.

This decision to be made via a Council report.

· Tranche 3: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2026, subject to the Council’s approval of the progress in implementing the new Strategic Plan in May/June 2026.

This decision to be made via a Council report.

4.17.2 This option broadly matches the Foundation’s application except that it provides for $82,500 in 2024/25 as opposed to the $110,000. $82,500 is considered sufficient to support the Foundation for the remaining 4.5 months of the current financial year and to minimise the financial support drawn down prior to the Council supporting the new Strategic Plan.

4.17.3 Option Advantages

· Secures the immediate future of a community foundation in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

· Provides Councillors a multi-year strategic and operational oversight prior to grant funding being drawn down.

· Allows the Foundation time and resources to engage the Council, finalise and implement its Strategic Plan and deliver to its potential.

· Allows the Foundation to generate funds that can be distributed to the community.

· Allows the access to funds not potentially available to the Council.

· In time it will relieve some of the pressure on Council funding given the increasingly high demand.

· Provides an opportunity to generate funds through corporate partnerships primarily providing tax rebate benefits and a trustworthy, independent base for holding funds and directing them to strategically identified community-centric areas.

· Spreads grant funding over three financial years allowing the Council the opportunity to support other priorities at no additional cost to rates.

4.17.4 Option Disadvantages

· Requires the Council to make an ongoing financial commitment to the Foundation.

· Requires the Council to make an initial commitment of $82,500, albeit conditional, without clear Strategic and Implementation Plans agreed up front.

· Requires a total of up to $520,500 that could have potentially better use elsewhere.

· The Council may be subject to reputational damage given the belief that the previous iteration of the Foundation did not deliver on its potential.

4.18 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.18.1 A larger one-off grant in early 2025 – as the Foundation has not completed and agreed its new Strategic Plan with the Council, there is limited opportunity for Councillor oversight, which is considered a condition precedent to further Council financial support.

4.18.2 A larger one-off grant when the Foundation has agreed its new Strategic Plan with the Council (May June 2025) – this option does not provide for the immediate financial support required by the Foundation, nor does it allow effective oversight by the Council on the implementation of its Strategic Plan, which is considered a condition precedent to further Council financial support.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.19 The degree to which the Council wants or needs a Foundation operating for the benefit of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. – Ultimately this is a decision for the Council. Given the degree of support by the Council to date and the direction by the Council in May 2024 for staff to work with the Foundation and report back, it is considered appropriate that the Council be provided with options.

4.20 The operational costs of running a community foundation vs. the potential funding that can be distributed. - Over time the ‘business model’ of income vs expenditure tracks towards financial sustainability as returns from endowment funds increase. Income exceeds operational costs and the proceeds are distributed.

4.21 The degree to which the Foundation understands the need for, and is committed to, change - The Foundation enters 2025 after a year of expenditure reductions, reviewed strategic initiatives and a strong focus on relationship building. Staff believe it is progressing to becoming a ‘second-generation organisation’, having undertaken a full refresh of board and management and embraced a leaner operational model that prioritises efficiency and transparency.

4.22 The level of further Council support sufficient to support meaningful change – Options provided in this report allow the Council to review its level of support at intervals over the forthcoming 20 months based on actual progress and the achievement of pre-agreed targets. Staff believe this provides the Council with sufficient flexibility.

4.23 The appropriate degree of Councillor oversight - Given the previous history of the Council’s funding to the Foundation, it is considered appropriate that Councillor oversight is applied at yearly intervals, particularly over the development and implementation on a new Strategic Plan. Having an elected member on the Foundation Board gives governance and strategic oversight on an ongoing basis. It is also considered appropriate that ongoing Councillor oversight covers the potential drawdown of any further Council funding.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - Decline	Option 3 – Conditional grant up to $522,500
Cost to Implement	Grant $82,500.	None	$82,500 this financial year plus up to $220,000 set aside per annum, in FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27. Total commitment of $522,500 over three years
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Potential for two future grants in FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 of up to $220,000 each.	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	CEF	N/A	CEF
Funding Availability	Immediate	N/A	Immediate
Impact on Rates	None	N/A	None

5.1 After accounting for all commitments to the CEF, the current balance available for allocation in 2024/25 is $1,620,248. If the recommendations of this report are accepted the remaining available balance for this financial year will be $1,537,748.

5.2 Anticipated applications to the CEF include:

· St Albans Cricket Club. $70,000 – initial discussions underway.

5.3 The Foundation currently manages approximately $2,500,000 in endowment capital. Its target is being determined at the moment. It will be determined based on feedback from Councillors, key stakeholders and supporters, and examining the current economic environment and what is realistically achievable based on capacity - people and financial. Targets will be based on generating both major gifts and smaller gifts, enabling a wide sector of the community to contribute.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that despite the Council’s contribution, the Foundation do not raise the funds to become financially sustainable. This could ultimately result in the wind-up of the organisation.

6.1.1 This risk is mitigated by the proposed condition of any Grant that the Foundation presents a progress update to the satisfaction of the Council, prior to any drawdown. The Council will take the Foundations financial sustainability into consideration when considering the approval of any grant application and/or drawdown.

6.2 There is a risk of reputational damage to the Council as some elements of the community may not support further funding of the Foundation and/or see the Council’s CEF better spent elsewhere.

6.2.1 This risk can be partially mitigated by announcing the Council’s decision in the context of the enduring community benefits to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula and the economic and reputational benefits to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 The authority to make decisions relating to the allocation of the CEF sits with the Council.

6.4 There are no other legal implications other than noting that the Council’s Legal Services Team review the form and function of all funding agreements and formal documentation.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Strategic Priorities – Champion Ōtautahi and Manage Ratepayers Money Wisely. Community Outcomes – Cultural Powerhouse and Thriving & Prosperous.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the fact that the CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under both the community and economic focus of the CEF and has a strategic alignment. Also, any long-term decisions around the Council financially supporting the Foundation will be made in the 2027/27 process.

6.5.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically, the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy, and the strategic pillar of Preparedness Te Mahi, particularly working with communities to prepare for and respond to emergencies and increase climate resilience and adaptation action. This includes the ability for the community to donate funds to the Foundation’s Green Philanthropy Fund. An Emergency Support Fund can also be set up so the wider community can donate funds in case of a natural disaster.

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

6.7 Communities & Citizens

6.7.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under both the community and economic focus of the CEF and has a strategic alignment. Any long-term decisions around the Council financially supporting the Foundation will be made in the 2027/27 process.

6.9 The decision affects Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

6.10 This application was discussed with stakeholders including the Foundation and the Council’s Community Development, Finance and Funding teams. There is support for the development and implementation of a new Strategic Plan provided this has considerable Council oversight, primarily due to the enduring community and economic benefit to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula from a properly functioning community foundation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.13 The decision the Council is being asked to make involves the allocation of the CEF by way of an eligible application that aligns with the Council’s strategic priorities, particularly:

· Te Haumoko; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy – Pillar 1 Tangata People: Actively contribute to supporting strong and resilient Māoritanga within mana whenua and tangata whenua communities; fostering and maintaining relationships with Māori providers and networks across the rohe.

· Foundation staff will work with Council staff in the Treaty Relationships team, mana whenua and the wider Māori community to discuss how funding can be designed to be easily accessible and relevant.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

· Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The Foundation has a Green Philanthropy Fund that has supported the Tūī Corridor project (24,000 native trees planted) and the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (raise funds to purchase a significant block of land -Te Ahu Pātiki - on Banks Peninsula). It is currently working with Terra Nova Foundation to develop a programme for local businesses to help teach them how to be more sustainable.

· Contribute positively to emissions reductions. The Foundation is committed to growing the Green Philanthropy Fund and working with key stakeholders to influence change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should the Council support the preferred option it is proposed that a Council workshop is scheduled for 1 April 2025 (to be confirmed in March 2025) to workshop the new draft Strategic Plan and the implementation of the Plan going forward.

7.2 The Council can expect to be asked to consider a grant from the CEF of up to $220,000 in May/June 2025 via a decision-making report. The Council’s consideration of this would be conditional on the Council’s satisfaction with the finalised new Strategic Plan and its proposed implementation over the 2025/26 financial year.

7.3 The Council can expect to be asked to consider a grant from the CEF of up to $220,000 in May/June 2026 via a decision-making report. The Council’s consideration of this would be conditional on the Council’s satisfaction the actual implementation of the Plan over the 2025/26 financial year, and the proposed implementation over 2026/27.

7.4 Any consideration of ongoing financial support for the Foundation will be undertaken through the 2027/37 Long Term Plan process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	The Christchurch Foundation DRAFT Strategic PLan 2025-27	25/178085	168
b	The Christchurch Foundation Progress Report February 2025 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/396387
c	The Christchurch Foundation - Annual Report 2024 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/448775
d ⇩	The Christchurch Foundation Budget	25/178087	170

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Rose Crossland - Community Development Advisor

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

13. Amendments to the Register of Delegations
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/287371
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Maryem Al Samer, Legal Counsel
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 for some amendments to delegation from the Council to staff and from Council to Community Boards and Committees.

1.2 The report has been written because only the Council can resolve to provide for these delegations.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Amendments to the Register of Delegations Report.

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

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

a. Delegates the responsibilities, duties and powers in relation to the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 to the persons as set out in Attachment A of this report; and

b. Amends the wording in Part D, Sub-Part 1 of the Delegations Register as set out in Attachment B of this report.

4. Makes the following amendments to the Central City Parking Restrictions Terms of Reference as set out in Attachment C of this report:

a. Delegates the responsibilities, duties and powers provided by section 331 of the Local Government Act 1974 to the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee; and

b. Delegates the responsibilities, duties and powers provided by section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 to the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee.

5. Notes that these delegations above take effect on the date of this resolution, and the Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Part A of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is then able to sub-delegate those responsibilities, duties and functions to staff as she sees fit. These sub-delegations are set out in Part C of the Delegations Register.

3.2 Part B of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations in respect of the Resource Management Act 1991 as well as other matters where the Council delegates directly to staff and other persons because, for the most part, the law does not allow for sub-delegations of these matters.

3.3 Part D of the Delegations Register contains the delegations from the Council to community boards, committees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

3.4 The proposed additional delegations are sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Council processes.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024

4.1 The Fast-track Approval Act 2024 was introduced to Parliament under urgency in March 2023 as part of the Coalition Government's plan for its first 100 days in office. The Act was aimed at establishing a permanent fast track regime that would be easier and quicker to gain approvals for development and infrastructure projects that would deliver regional and national benefits.

4.2 It provides a system that would combine applications otherwise required under different legislation including the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and several other acts (including the Crown Mineral Act, Conservations Act, and fisheries Act). Under the RMA, it enables an alternative pathway for resource consents, notice of requirement and certificates of compliance. The Act came into force on 23 December 2024.

4.3 In line with the principle of delegating decision-making to the lowest competent level, staff recommend that the powers in the Act be delegated to the General Managers and officers in the Resource Consent team as set out in Attachment A to ensure the efficient and effective management of Council resources and management. There is otherwise no delegation for decisions by staff and the Council would need to make decisions at each stage in the process. This would cause unnecessary delays and likely mean that the Council cannot provide the required input in the timeframe provided by the Act.

Central City Parking Restrictions Committee

4.4 The Council has delegated to Community Boards its powers under section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 to construct, remove or alter grass plots or flower beds or trees on roads, however, the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Central Community Board does not have delegated authority to determine this matter as the area is situated within the Central City Area marked on Plan A (Attachment C) so a decision on any matter within this area must be made by the Council.

4.5 The Council has delegated to the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee its powers as provided by the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 to prohibit or restrict the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any road. These delegations include changes to on-street parking in certain circumstances, but do not provide for situations in which, for example, a temporary planter is proposed to be located within a parking space.

4.6 Under the current framework, and after engaging with the Community Board and adjacent landowners/businesses, staff initiating small scale streetscape improvements are required to bring a decision report to the Council. This is because the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Central Community Board does not have authority to approve alternative uses of car parking spaces within the Plan A area. In other parts of the city, this type of decision would be made by a community board. A recent example of a project is the Enliven Places Programme streetscape improvements at the corner of Cashel Street and Clarkson Avenue (CNCL/2024/000134).

4.7 Staff have recommended that the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee’s Terms of Reference is updated to provide the Committee with authority to approve these matters where the project is of low cost. This ensures that larger scale, potentially higher risk projects will continue to be considered by the full Council. Amending the delegations register in this way will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council by not having low value items on the agenda.

Part D – Sub-part 1 – Community Boards

4.8 Staff have recommended that the wording in Part D – Sub- Part 1 be amended so that the decision-making process is appropriate to the subject. As an example, under the current wording, the Council would be required to hear any objections regarding the installation of bus shelters within the Plan A area. This is because the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Central Community Board does not have the delegation to determine matters within Plan A. By amending the wording in the register, the process can be altered so that the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Central Community Board can hear the matter then send a Part A report to the Council for it to determine.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The other alternative option that was considered, but not selected as the preferred option, is not making any changes to the delegations. This is not a reasonably practicable option. This would not promote efficiency and effectiveness in the Council’s decision-making.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Cost to Implement – The Changes to the Delegations will be entered in the Delegations Register by the Legal and Democratic Services.

5.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no outgoing costs from making these changes to delegations. There also anticipated savings in staff time in having delegations sit at the appropriate level in the organisation.

5.3 Funding Source – Staff time in implementing the changes to the Delegations Register is met out of the Legal and Democratic Services’ budget.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Central City area (Plan A) is of metropolitan interest and given the high level of scrutiny on decisions relating to car parking can often be contentious. The Central City Parking Restrictions Committee may still elect to refer a decision to the Council if it considers that broader political considerations would be beneficial.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

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

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

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

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

(g) [Repealed]

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

6.3 The proposed changes to the delegation also do not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002.

6.3.1 This report has been written by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

6.6 Governance

6.6.1 Activity: Governance and Decision Making

· Level of Service: 4.1.28.3 Governance processes are maintained and published on the Website that ensure statutory compliance - 100%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Staff have confirmed that the usual Council community engagement process will continue to be undertaken for any proposed changes to a street environment.

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

6.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.9 The usual process of obtaining the Community Board’s will still take place.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.10 The decision is not 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Legal Services will update the Register of Delegations.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Delegations Register - Part B - Sub Part 1 - Legislative Delegations	25/426062	176
b ⇩	Delegations Register - Part D, Sub-Part 1	25/425934	177
c ⇩	Central City Parking Restrictions Terms of Reference and Plan A Map	25/426125	178

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel
Approved By	Helen White - General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

16. Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban - April to December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2039446
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Janine Sowerby, Senior Planner, Urban Regeneration
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of recent progress implementing suburban regeneration projects. Past reports have focussed on the urban regeneration work programme as prioritised by the Urban Regeneration Heat Map (2020). However, this report addresses current, regeneration-focused projects in the suburban locations prioritised by the Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme (ŌCPP), adopted by the Council on 6 November 2024. It does not presently extend to programmed future local area planning work (e.g. Riccarton, Hornby).

1.2 The current Urban Regeneration-related Level of Service 17.0.20.2 in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP) requires annual reporting in respect to regeneration projects in the priority suburban centres and in the Central City. The Council has also separately requested six monthly reporting in respect to suburban and Central City regeneration. The urban regeneration six monthly reports now comprise the:

1.2.1 Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban, which will in future cover the 12-month period from 1 January to 31 December and be presented in March; and

1.2.2 Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Central City, which will in future cover the 12-month period from 1 July to 30 June and be presented in September.

1.3 This first Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban will transition from the previous Suburban Regeneration Biannual Report (which covered October 2023 – March 2024), by covering the 9-month period from 1 April to 31 December 2024. Other interim updates will be provided via the Planning and Consents Unit biannual report in May 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban - April to December 2024.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Attachment A provides details and images of multiple urban regeneration projects across the suburban area of the city. This attachment:

3.1.1 Is structured to focus principally on the suburban development and regeneration areas prioritised by the ŌCPP (i.e. New Brighton, Linwood, Linwood Village, Lyttelton, Sydenham, Bishopdale).

3.1.2 Focuses on projects, within both priority and other locations, which saw activity during the reporting period. Suburban centre master plan locations which have no capital funding in the current LTP are included only where there has been other activity/progress occurring.

3.1.3 Summarises information from across the Council and other organisations, including ChristchurchNZ (CNZ) and the Council’s city-making partners.

3.2 Highlights are:

3.2.1 Eastern Christchurch Regeneration Area

· New Brighton:

o Following the confirmation of funding for the Brighton Mall upgrade in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, staff completed site investigations, progressed scheme design work and got furniture design work underway.

o Life in Vacant Spaces was appointed to manage the proposed New Brighton Village Green.

o Place Partnership Fund support was provided to support art initiatives.

· Linwood: A full Council Information Session/Workshop on a Linwood Regeneration Support project is planned for 11 March 2025. This project aims to improve and champion the neighbourhood as a desirable location for existing and future residents.

· Linwood Village:

o The Council completed the streetscape upgrade, creating a safer and more welcoming environment for both pedestrians and road users.

o Through the Enliven Places Programme, the Council also delivered light-touch, temporary improvements over four vacant sites on the NW corner of the Stanmore Road/Worcester Street intersection, enabling community use of the space until development of it occurs.

3.2.2 Other ŌCPP priority locations

· Lyttelton:

o The Council completed a significant upgrade to the Lyttelton Recreation Grounds and began construction of the new change pavilion and sports court, anticipated to be mainly complete for the start of the inter rugby and football season in May 2025.

o Improvements supporting access and safety were made at Collett’s Corner, via the Enliven Places Programme.

· Sydenham: CNZ made significant progress negotiating terms with a preferred developer for the final stage of the Milton Street mixed use project, Sydenham Yard.

· Bishopdale: Reports of graffiti dropped dramatically since Bishopdale Beautification Projects completed the interior repaint/mural in Bishopdale Mall’s public toilets, supported by Shape Your Place Toolkit funding.

3.2.3 Other key suburban regeneration work

· Main Road: The Council completed some minor safety enhancements to the Coastal Pathway through Redcliffs Village.

· Ferry Road: Two transport projects were progressed by the Council that will result in safety and amenity upgrades along this corridor.

· Selwyn Street shops: The Council progressed safety enhancements to a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of these shops.

· Sumner village centre:

o A highly anticipated new skate park and adjoining village green was delivered as a joint Council/community project.

o The Sumner Community Surfboard Library received Place Partnership Fund support to build the library.

· Diamond Harbour: The Council worked towards delivery of a play space renewal on Stoddart Point Reserve, in combination with that for Kirk Park.

· Little River: The Little River Wairewa Community Trust completed extensive community consultation towards an intended update of the community-led plan Little River, Big Ideas, which will add a section relating to Birdlings Flat and identify new Council/community partnership projects.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The biannual Planning and Consents Unit Update report to the Council in May and November will provide:

4.1.1 Any significant updates on the above regeneration localities; and

4.1.2 Updates on other urban regeneration projects outside of the scope of this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Council Urban Regeneration Biannual Report - Suburban - April to December 2024 19 March 2025 - Attachment A	25/390447	226

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Janine Sowerby - Senior Planner
Approved By	Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

7. Consideration of the Council's Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
	Committee Comment 1. The Committee noted that they must advise Council that in their opinion an appropriate process has been followed in the preparation of the information that provides the basis for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Audit and Risk Management Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Consideration of the Council's Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 Report. 2. Notes that it has reviewed the general checklists and sign-offs by management, including Significant Forecasting Assumptions, in respect of the information that provides the basis for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 3. Advises the Council that in the Committee’s opinion, an appropriate process has been followed in the preparation of the information that provides the basis for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 4. Notes that the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 will be released when it is published in the Council Agenda for its meeting commencing 12 February 2025.
	Committee Resolved ARCM/2025/00003 Part C That the Audit and Risk Management Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Consideration of the Council's Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 Report. 2. Notes that it has reviewed the general checklists and sign-offs by management, including Significant Forecasting Assumptions, in respect of the information that provides the basis for the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26. 3. Notes that the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 will be released when it is published in the Council Agenda for its meeting commencing 12 February 2025. Mr Robertson/Mr Wilkes Carried

17. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/177703
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
12.	Application to the Capital Endowment Fund
	Attachment b - The Christchurch Foundation Progress Report February 2025	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	This report details a number of funds and investments under management. The commercial sensivity outweighs public interest.	28 February 2030 When the specific funds and investments contained in the document are no longer under management.
	Attachment c - The Christchurch Foundation - Annual Report 2024	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	This report details a number of funds and investments under management. The commercial sensivity outweighs public interest.	28 February 2030 When the specific funds and investments contained in the document are no longer under management.
19.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 6 December 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
20.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 10 February 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
21.	Mega Event Bid Opportunity	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The commercial advantage of keeping decision making in the publicly excluded agenda during a competitive bidding process for an event outweighs the public interest consideration.	7 March 2030 When the outcome of the funding and any bidding process is known.
22.	Chief Executive Performance Agreement	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The development and confirmation of a performance agreement is an employment matter. While public interest in the performance of a Chief Executive may be high, it doesn't outweigh the employment relationship between the Council and its employee.	29 August 2025 Once the final Performance Agreement has been approved between the Council and Chief Executive.

5. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 6 December 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/272634
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

6. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 10 February 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/272718
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

14. Transport Operations Report (July to December 2024)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/426199
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport and Waste Management
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

15. Community (Social) Housing Update Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/262221
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lisa Washington, Community Housing Liaison Lead
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer