Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 2 April 2025

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Decision

There were no apologies received.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2025/00001

That the minutes of the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held on Thursday, 21 November 2024 be confirmed.

Deputy Mayor/Member Wright Carried

4. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5. Colombo St (between Armagh St and Gloucester St) Traffic Resolutions

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2025/00002

Officer Recommendations accepted without change.

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Colombo St (between Armagh St and Gloucester St) Traffic Resolutions Report.

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

3. Approves that any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and/or stopping restrictions on Colombo Street from its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the recommendations described in 5-12 below be revoked.

4. Approves that the recommendations 5-12 below, if approved as resolutions, take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

No Stopping

5. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A.

6. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 34 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A.

7. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 85 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 23 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A.

Time restricted parking

8. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 16 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at all times.

9. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 55 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at all times.

10. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 67 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at all times.

Small Passenger Service Vehicles Only Parking

11. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 and in accordance with Sections 12.4 (8) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 22 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A is reserved for Small Passenger Service Vehicles only.

12. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 and in accordance with Sections 12.4 (8) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, the eastern side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 49 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres as detailed on the plan in Attachment A. is reserved for Small Passenger Service Vehicles only.

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. 812 Colombo Street - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions for Vehicle Crossing

Committee Resolved CCPRC/2025/00003

Officer Recommendations accepted without change.

Part C

That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee:

1. Receives the information in the 812 Colombo Street - Proposed Changes to Parking Restrictions for Vehicle Crossing Report.

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

3. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the east side of Colombo Street, commencing at a point 25 metres north of its intersection with Kilmore Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 48 metres.

4. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the east side of Colombo Street, commencing at a point 73 metres north of its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 5.5 metres as shown on Attachment A (Plan H05411039, Issue 2, dated 12^th February 2025).

5. Approves pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Colombo Street commencing 78.5 metres north of its intersection with Kilmore Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 9.5 metres as shown on Attachment A (Plan H05411039, Issue 2, dated 12^th February 2025)

6. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the east side of Colombo Street, commencing at a point 88 metres north of its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 5.5 metres as shown on Attachment A (Plan H05411039, Issue 2, dated 12^th February 2025).

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

Member Wright/Deputy Mayor Carried

Meeting concluded: 9.39am

CONFIRMED THIS 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025.

Councillor Jake McLellan

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00012

That the apologies from Rik Tainui and George Howden for absence be accepted.

Gina Waibl/Andrea Davis Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Updates from Banks Peninsula Zone Committee Members

There were no updates from Zone Committee members.

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

Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00013

That the minutes of the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 17 September 2024 be confirmed.

Gina Waibl/Tyrone Fields Carried

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

6. Identification of Urgent Items by Committee Members Te Tautohu i ngā Take Nonoi nā ngā Mema Komiti

There were no urgent items identified by Zone Committee members.

7. Recommendations for allocation of CWMS Action Plan Budget in Banks Peninsula Zone
	Committee Comment · Members held a round table discussion to reach a consensus on the Zone Committee’s recommended funding amounts. Members reviewed each application and its alignment with the funding criteria. · Members took into consideration the staff recommended funding amount, the applications alignment with the funding criteria, previous funding granted to repeat applications and the applications alignment with other funds available from Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and other organisations.
	Officer Recommendations That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Recommendations for allocation of CWMS Action Plan Budget in Banks Peninsula Zone Report. 2. Recommends that Environment Canterbury approves the expenditure for the following projects to the following entities: a. $6,720 to Conservation Volunteers NZ for ‘Whaka-ora Pest Project’ b. $3,500 to Environment Canterbury ‘Banks Peninsula pekapeka (longtail bat) survey project 2024-2025’ c. $12,568 to EOS Ecology for ‘Nature Agents – Ngā kaitaunaki taiao’ d. $4,000 to AGLS Faculty Lincoln University for the PhD Project – ‘The potential to use sediment from Wairewa to establish taonga species on Kaitōrete spit and adjacent lands (PhD Project)’ e. $5,712 to Living Springs for ‘Living Springs Enviro-2025’ f. $10,000 to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust for ‘BPCT Operational Costs’ g. $2,500 to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust for ‘BPCT Farm Biodiversity Programme’
	Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00014 That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Recommendations for allocation of CWMS Action Plan Budget in Banks Peninsula Zone Report. 2. Recommends that Environment Canterbury approves the expenditure for the following projects to the following entities: a. $5,200 to Conservation Volunteers NZ for ‘Whaka-ora Pest Project’ b. $6,500 to Environment Canterbury ‘Banks Peninsula pekapeka (longtail bat) survey project 2024-2025’ c. $5000 to EOS Ecology for ‘Nature Agents – Ngā kaitaunaki taiao’ d. $4,800 to AGLS Faculty Lincoln University for the PhD Project – ‘The potential to use sediment from Wairewa to establish taonga species on Kaitōrete spit and adjacent lands (PhD Project)’ e. $11,000 to Living Springs for ‘Living Springs Enviro-2025’ f. $10,000 to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust for ‘BPCT Operational Costs’ g. $2,500 to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust for ‘BPCT Farm Biodiversity Programme’ Trudi Bishop/Andrea Davis Carried

8. Committee Updates

Committee Resolved BPZC/2024/00015

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Committee Updates Report.

Jaleesa Panirau/Gina Waibl Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 5:04pm .

TO BE CONFIRMED

GINA WAIBL

CHAIRPERSON

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00149

That the apologies from Councillor Gough for lateness and Councillor MacDonald for absence be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor Fields joined the meeting at 9.36 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 9.37 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 10.02 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 10.05 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Templeton returned to the meeting at 10.10 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.20 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 10.22 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.27 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 10.29 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.48 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor McLellan returned to the meeting at 10.57 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 11.09 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 11.10 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 11.23 am during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Fields returned to the meeting at 11.25 am during consideration of Item 3.

3. Volumes of Submissions - Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan

Submitter Name	Submitter Number
Next Generation Conservation (Hannah Drumgoole & Oliver Bradley)	29669
Purau Residents’ Group (Jill Rice)	29765
Port Levy Residents’ Association (Margie Newton)	29933
Governors Bay School (Angie Rayner)	28398
Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board (Asif Hussain)	29527
Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Karl Dean)	29949
Wharf Road Group (Lloyds Scully & John Craw)	29930
Phillip & Jane Helps	29952
Diamond Harbour Community Association (Graeme Fraser)	29621

The meeting adjourned at 11.38am and reconvened at 11.53am, Councillor Gough was not present at this time.

Councillor Gough returned at 12.04 pm during consideration of Item 3.

Lyttelton School (Dinah Wallis)	29622
Teddington Quarry (Barry Blatchford)	29784
Brett King – via audio/visual link	29572
Eric Holmberg	28645
Peter Newton	29933
David Carter	28635

The meeting adjourned 12.37 pm and reconvened 1.31pm, Councillor Moore, Councillor Gough, Councillor McLellan and the Mayor were not present at this time.

Deputy Mayor Cotter took the Chair.

Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 1.33 pm during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 1.33 pm during consideration of Item 3.

The Mayor resumed the Chair at 1.33pm.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 1.34 pm during consideration of Item 3.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 1.37 pm during consideration of Item 3.

Kaihope Farm (Claire & Richard Barnett)	29936
Susan Thorpe	29799
Annabel Barnett	29934
John Craw	29934
Ian Macintosh	30223

Attachments

a Draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan - Staff Presentation - 31 January 2025

b Wharf Road Group - Submission 29930 - Presentation - 31 January 2025

The meeting adjourned at 2.10 pm and reconvened at 2.22 pm.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 2.50 pm during consideration of Item 4 and did not return on this day.

Adjournment of Meeting

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00150

That the Council:
1. Adjourns the meeting until 9.30 am, Tuesday 4 March 2025, Civic Offices.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.03pm on Wednesday, 31 January 2025.

The meeting reconvened at 9.34 am on 4 March 2025. Councillors Johanson, Donovan, Gough, Keown, McLellan and Henstock were not present at this time.

Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 9.35 am.

Councillor Keown joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 9.36 am.

Councillor Henstock joined the meeting at 9.37 am.

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 9.37 am.

4. Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy
	Council Comment 1. The meeting adjourned 31 January 2025 3.03pm to allow time for staff to answer Councillor questions, and to engage further with residents to understand their preferences for the adaptation pathway. 2. The meeting reconvened 4 March 2025 9.34am and staff returned to the table to discuss the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy Memorandum and Updated Plan (Attachment 4A) and answer questions regarding the amended Officer Recommendation 3c. 3. The attached Memorandum includes the questions put forth by Councillors (pg. 3 of attachment) and additional feedback provided by residents (pg. 5 of attachment), which informed the amended Officer Recommendations. 4. The Council agreed to adopt the plan with the amendments laid out in 4a-d.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Recommends the draft Plan be adopted with the following amendments: a. Amend the preferred pathway for the Governor’s Bay to Allandale Foreshore Track to include Protection of the stretch of track between the Governors Bay Jetty and the Council pump station at an additional estimated cost of $3M. b. Retain the preferred pathway for Governors Bay – Teddington Road but add a new alternative option of Road Raising. c. Retain the preferred pathway for Wharf Road but add a new alternative option if Moving the section of Wharf Road located at the head of the harbour inland. d. Minor edits and amendments as set out in Table One in this report.
	Amended Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Recommends the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy be adopted with the following amendments: a. Amend the preferred pathway for the Governor’s Bay to Allandale Foreshore Track to include Protection of the stretch of track between the Governors Bay Jetty and the Council pump station at an additional estimated cost of $3M. b. Retain the preferred pathway for Governors Bay – Teddington Road but add a new alternative option of Road Raising. c. Amend the preferred pathway for Wharf Road to retain the stages of Maintain + Lowered Levels of Service but remove the long-term preference and include three alternative options of Flood Proof & Protect, Closure, and Move the section of Wharf Road located at the head of the harbour inland; and amend the plan to note that an additional $200,000 is allocated to support shorefront protection works that are likely to be necessary ahead of the long-term option. d. Minor edits and amendments as set out in Table One in this report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00151 That the Council: 1. Accepts the written submissions, including any late submissions, received on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy. 2. Receives the information in the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy report. 3. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 4. Adopts the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy with the following amendments: a. Amend the preferred pathway for the Governor’s Bay to Allandale Foreshore Track to include Protection of the stretch of track between the Governors Bay Jetty and the Council pump station at an additional estimated cost of $3M. b. Retain the preferred pathway for Governors Bay – Teddington Road but add a new alternative option of Road Raising. c. Amend the preferred pathway for Wharf Road to retain the stages of Maintain + Lowered Levels of Service but remove the long-term preference and include three alternative options of Flood Proof & Protect, Closure, and Move the section of Wharf Road located at the head of the harbour inland; and amend the plan to note that an additional $200,000 is allocated to support shorefront protection works that are likely to be necessary ahead of the long-term option. d. Minor edits and amendments as set out in Table One in this report. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy Memorandum and Updated Plan

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 9.50 am.

CONFIRMED THIS 2^ND DAY OF APRIL 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Decision

There were no apologies received.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor Coker joined the meeting at 9.34am during consideration of Item 7.1.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 9.32am and returned at 9.35am during consideration of Item 7.1.

Councillor Moore joined the meeting at 9.38am during consideration of Item 7.1.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 9.41am and returned at 9.43am during consideration of Item 7.1.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 9.42am and returned at 9.51am during consideration of Item 7.3.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.01am and returned at 10.06am during consideration of Item 7.4.

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 10.09am and returned at 10.16am during consideration of Item 7.5.

7. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2025
	Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Helen Broughton, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Chris Turner-Bullock, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Keir Leslie, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report. Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Maryanne Lomax, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Simon Britten, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report.
	Community Board Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu a te Poari Hapori That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2025 Report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00159 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2025 Report. 2. Thanks Community Boards, Staff and Volunteers for their work on and contribution to Childrens’ Day 2025. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council c Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council f Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.28am and returned at 10.31am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2

Christchurch Symphony Orchestra

Dr. Graham Sattler and Hannah Wilson spoke on behalf of Christchurch Symphony Orchestra regarding the orientation, activity and (internationally) unique operational model of Christchurch Symphony Orchestra, as well as our focussed contribution to Council’s LTP Strong Communities outcome.

Attachments

a Christchurch Symphony Orchestra - Presentation to Council

3.1.3

Christchurch Community House

Nicola David and Ian Walden spoke on behalf of Christchurch Community House regarding the Christchurch Community House Strategic Plan, future focus, and rebrand.

Attachments

a Christchurch Community House - Presentation to Council

3.1.1

Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) Lyttelton Branch

Garon Horan and Gerard Loader spoke to Council regarding the Port of Lyttelton.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Anne Dingwall

Anne spoke to Council regarding Item 9 – Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8, Item 9 - Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions was withdrawn from the agenda.

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 12 February 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00160

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council - Annual Plan meeting held 12 February 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. Council Minutes - 19 February 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00161

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 19 February 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - 10 February 2025

8. Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00162

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project Report.

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

3. Approves the commencement of the acquisition under the Public Works Act 1981 of 324m² being part Rural Section 1729 and part Lot 19 DP 806 shown as section 1 RPS58320 to formalise the Council’s ownership.

4. Delegates authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to do all thing necessary at his sole discretion to manage and conclude the acquisition of 324m² being part Rural Section 1729 and part Lot 19 DP 806 shown as section 1 RPS58320 including (but not limited to) signing and serving notices under section 23 of the Public Works Act 1981 of the Councils intention to take the land and making application to the Minister of Lands to take the land.

Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

9. Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions

Council Comment

1. Pursuant to Standing Order 6.8 the Chairperson has withdrawn this item from the agenda.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00163

That at 10.52am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 422 to 423 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.48am.

The meeting adjourned at 11.49am and reconvened at 12.54pm. Councillor Gough, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Moore were not present at this time.

Councillors Gough and Moore returned to the meeting at 12.55pm.

Councillors Keown and McLellan returned to the meeting at 1.05pm during consideration of Item 10.

The meeting adjourned at 2.06pm and reconvened at 2.21pm. Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Keown and Councillor MacDonald were not present at this time.

Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Keown and Councillor MacDonald returned to the meetings at 2.22pm during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 3.08pm during consideration of Item 10.

10. Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport - Deputations

Council Comment

1. Council Officer Jane Cameron, Team Leader Transport, joined the table and spoke to the Council regarding the process for the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy, and expected subsequent actions following the 5 March 2025 Deputations. The decision report for the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy will come to a later meeting of the Council, and will be accompanied by a staff memorandum including questions put forth by Councillors and answers provided by staff.

2. Following deputations, Council Officers Jane Cameron, Team Leader Transport, and Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning & Consents, returned to the table to answer questions.

3. Council Officers agreed to include on the front of the document an explanation for the purpose of refreshing a strategy before it has reached expiration.

4. Council Officers agreed to provide advice on controlling potential electric bus fires after consulting with Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ).

	Submission Number	Name	Organisation
10.1	30555	David Hawke and John Bennett	Halswell Residents Association
10.2	30803	M Grace-Stent	Greater Ōtautahi
10.3	30783	David Palmer	-
10.4	30782	Dianne Downward	Concerned Ratepayers Canterbury Region
10.5	30829	George Laxton	-
10.6	30766	Benjamin Love	-
10.7	30704	Richard Peebles	Peebles Group Limited
10.8	30819	Stephen Wood	-
10.9	30733	Jesse Aimer	Christchurch International Airport
10.10	30826	Fox Bennetts	Spokes Canterbury
10.11	30828	Fox Bennetts	-
10.12	30913	Susan Thorpe	-
10.13	31303	Mary O’Connor (via audio/visual)	-
10.14	30687	Christopher Owen	-
10.15	30881	Tom Chatterton (in person) & Sandamali Ambepitiya (via audio/visual)	Property Council NZ
10.16	30810	Sara Gerard	Gerard Environmental Design

Attachments

a 10.4 - Dianne Downward - Presentation to Council

b 10.8 - Stephen Wood - Presentation to Council

c 10.10 - Spokes Canterbury - Presentation to Council

d 10.15 - Sara Gerard - Presentation to Council

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 3.10pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 2^nd DAY OF APRIL 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball New Build Application
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/117882
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katelyn Elley, Parks and Recreation Planner and Kim Swarbrick, Senior Parks and Recreation Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to firstly, seek Community Board approval for Canterbury Softball Association (CSA) to build a new training facility within their lease area at Cuthberts Green, and secondly, for the Community Board to recommend to the Council to approve the demolition of an existing building on Cuthberts Green.

1.2 Under the terms of the lease, lessor approval is required for additions, alterations or any building work. This report recommends approving the proposed building.

1.3 The report is in response to a request from Canterbury Softball Association Inc. received in November 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball New Build Application Report.

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

3. Approves the construction of a new training facility at Cuthberts Green as shown on the plan as shown in Agenda Attachment A subject to:

a. Meeting of all compliance requirements particularly in regard to the Building Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991 and existing easements.

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

4. Recommends that the Council approve demolition of the existing building shown in Agenda Attachment B.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Canterbury Softball Association Incorporated have requested approval to construct a new training facility at Cuthberts Green. This request also seeks a Community Board recommendation to the Council for the demolition of an existing building.

3.2 Staff completed consultation with other park users in early February via a consultation flier outlining the proposal and providing park users the opportunity to provide feedback. The feedback has been considered, and staff are now seeking Community Board approval for the build.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Canterbury Softball Association Incorporated (CSA) currently holds a lease at 220B Pages Road, the home of Softball within the greater Canterbury region. The association was established in 1938 and is an incorporated society with 4,000 members.

4.2 CSA have been left a legacy donation of $500,000 with which they wish to build an indoor training facility that will service softball membership and the community year-round. CSA’s intention is to seek additional funding for the build once Community Board approval is granted. The estimated cost for the build and all equipment is $1.2 million.

4.3 The facility will have artificial turf/carpet and three netted lanes for multi-use capability. The nets are moveable and can be withdrawn to make a full 35 metre by 15 metre floor area. There will be high tech Trakman capability (softball specific training equipment) with computer analysis and bio assessment for High Performance athletes. Each lane will have virtual pitching machine capability. Equally the area can be cleared for additional recreation uses such as dance, futsal, cricket, kapa haka, and others.

4.4 The facility will be available to all sports and community groups and will attract national training squads throughout the year. There will be a fee associated with the use and booking of the facility, with all income going to CSA.

4.5 The facility will be accessible to sports clubs and the community through a computerised booking system. It will be open 7 days a week from 7:00am to 10:00pm and will be limited to 50 people at any one time. A gate system will be installed to allow community use of the facility.

4.6 There is an existing building (garage shed) within the area CSA wish to build the training facility. It is a Council owned building with no remaining value. The current building stores all CSA park maintenance equipment, is in a poor state of repair and does not currently meet the needs of the association, see Attachment C for condition report. CSA request the demolition of this building. CSA will be responsible for the cost of demolition and intend to allocate an area within the new facility for storage of maintenance equipment as well as relocation of irrigation controls and scoreboard power supplies.

4.7 Both the existing building and proposed new building are fully enclosed within CSA’s lease area. The leased area is fenced off from the rest of Cuthberts Green and the subsequent impact (from the proposal) on other park users is minimal.

4.8 The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, operation, maintenance, and any future removal, of the training facility.

4.9 The applicant is also responsible for acquiring all appropriate building / resource consents once they have Community Board approval to build the new training facility.

4.10 The proposal aligns with Sport New Zealand’s Spaces and Places Framework[1] with considerations being given to the key principles including but not limited to meeting an identified need being both inclusive and accessible, connecting communities with consideration of partnership and collaboration.

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

Date	Subject
11/ 02/2025	Cuthberts Green - upcoming stakeholder engagement on Canterbury Softball training facility

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.12.1 Option 1: Approve the construction of the training facility and provide recommendation to the Council for demolition of the existing building.

4.12.2 Option 2: Status Quo.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: Option 1: Approve the construction of the training facility and provide recommendation to the Council for demolition of the existing building.

4.13.1 Option Description: Construction of a 35 metre by 15 metre training facility with batting lanes, auto machine, trackman capabilities, movable nets with turf floor, training video room, garage with storage, see Attachment A for plans.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Provides an all-year-round training facility for Canterbury Softball members with high tech training equipment.

· Potential for national camps and clinics to be held, with an all-weather facility.

· Improved opportunity for regional, national, and international events.

· The facility also has a community focus with the facility being available for community hire. Anecdotal evidence from both the local community and sporting organisations has demonstrated the need for such space.[2]

· Cost saving to the Council if CSA pay to demolish the existing garage shed.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· No disadvantages.

4.14 Option2: Status Quo.

4.14.1 Option Description: Option 2: The new training facility is not constructed.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· No impact on carbon footprint.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· CSA would have to continue to try to find alternative indoor facilities to train.

· The current garage shed is not meeting the needs of the club.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do nothing
Cost to Implement	Funded by the Association	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Funded by the Association	No cost
Funding Source	Legacy Donations and CSA to seek additional funding.	N/A
Funding Availability	CSA intend to apply for funding through Canterbury Softball Charitable Trust, Lotteries Commission, and Rata Foundation.	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that residents and park users will have concerns that the proposed new facility will lead to increased noise and activity. Given the location of the proposed training facility is not near residents and within the current lease boundary, this risk is considered low.

6.2 Given the current use and purpose of the facility, increased use would not be beyond the scale of reasonable use of the site. It is therefore considered low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4 As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register, 9 August 2024, the Community Board has the delegation to;

6.4.1 Approve the location of, and construction of, or alteration or addition to, any structure or area on parks and reserves provided the matter is within the policy and budget set by the Council. (Part D – Sub Part 1 – Community Boards – Pg 96)

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 Clause 15 of the lease to Canterbury Softball Association requires lessor approval for additions, alterations, or any building work. The proposed softball training facility requires landlord consent.

6.5.2 Landlord consent is delegated to Community Boards as set out in the delegations register below.

6.5.3 Local Government Act 2002 - Decision making including consideration of community views.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

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

6.6.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by an assessment of the number of park users affected, the level of impact on those affected, and the cost to the Council.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies: Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002.

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.5 Resident satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the City’s parks and foreshore network - >= 70%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Sports organisations that use Cuthberts Green were contacted for feedback on the proposal in mid-February.

6.10 Consultation fliers were sent to Canterbury Basketball, Badminton Canterbury, Aikido Shinryukan Canterbury, Canterbury Billiards and Snooker Association, Celebration Lions Rugby League Club, and Coastal Spirit Football Club.

6.11 Letters of support have been received from Softball New Zealand and Sport Canterbury.

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

6.12.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood.

Summary Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.13 Submissions were received from Badminton Canterbury, Coastal Spirit Football Club, Canterbury Basketball, and Aikido Shinryukan Canterbury. All organisations were supportive of the proposed training facility. Key reasons for support of the project included the following:

6.13.1 Any improvements that enhance sporting opportunities in the area will contribute positively to the growth of the community.

6.13.2 That the facility will be open to the community to use it when not in use by softball.

6.14 No response was provided by Canterbury Billiards and Snooker Association or Celebration Lions Rugby Club. However, given the distance between the proposed training facility and the Billiards and Snooker facility (100m) and the rugby league fields which are primarily located on the opposite side of the park, the impact is expected to be relatively low.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.16 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.

6.17 40% of the CSA community are Māori and the association has much respect for all their communities. CSA have recently rebranded with the logo motto of ‘Tō tātou iwi, Tō tatou whānau,” “Our People, Our Family”

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.18 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.18.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

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

6.15.1 The proposal provides softball members and the community an opportunity to train locally, whereas they may have driven to another facility previously.

6.15.2 CSA have engaged Mike Greer Commercial to construct the build, who have comprehensive environmental and carbon impact plans. The company demonstrates its commitment to reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 When the approvals process is completed, Canterbury Softball Association will begin their Building and Resource Consent application process and seek additional funding from Grant applications prior to construction on the training facility.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball Association, Training Facility Plans	25/247693
b	Cuthberts Green- Canterbury Softball Association, location of building for demolition	25/247811
c	Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball Association - Garage Shed Condition Report	25/304214

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Katelyn Elley - Parks and Recreation Planner

Kim Swarbrick - Senior Parks & Recreation Planner

Lizzy Johnson - Recreation & Sports Planner

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Al Hardy - Manager Community Parks

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Report from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board – 10 March 2025

12. Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/499535
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mike Thomson, Transport Network Planner, Asset Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

1. The Board took into consideration the deputations made by Lindsay Woodward and Ian Culpan (Item 5 of the Community Board minutes refers).

2. Tyrone Fields moved the original officer’s recommendations with an amendment to recommendation 2, which was seconded by Nigel Harrison:

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

2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to:

a. A term of 10 years less one day.

b. A negotiated licence fee.

c. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m. d. The public’s right of access must not be obstructed, the macrocarpa hedge must be removed, and the retaining wall must be removed and the foreshore returned to its natural form and this must be resolved within six months.

e. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered.

f. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard.

3. The meeting debated the motion and when put to the vote the motion was declared tied. The Chairperson exercised her casting vote against the motion, therefore the motion was lost.

4. The original officer’s recommendations, both Part A and C, were moved by Asif Hussain and seconded by Lyn Leslie and when put to the vote, a division was called, and the motion was declared carried.

2. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council

Officer recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approves the granting of a licence over unformed legal road adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road, Port Levy to legitimise the legacy encroachment of the dwelling (the bach) as shown in Attachment A attached to the meeting agenda report.

2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to:

a. A term of 25 years less one day.

b. A negotiated licence fee.

c. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m.

d. The public’s right of access must not be obstructed, and the macrocarpa hedge must be trimmed to the Council’s satisfaction or removed and the retaining wall must be removed and the foreshore returned to its natural form.

e. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered.

f. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	24/1117842	123

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Location of Bach within Port Levy	25/437216	132
b ⇩	Attachment B - Legal advice on report to a Community Board (Lex26045)(70457448.5)	25/315928	133
c ⇩	Attachment C - 2017 Board outcome letter	25/439712	137
d ⇩	Attachment D - 2018 Board outcome letter	25/439710	140
e ⇩	Attachment E - Photos taken in 2022 Port Levy Batch Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board 10 March 2025	25/286821	142

Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1117842
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Michael Thomson, Transport Network Planner, Asset Planning
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:

1.1.1 provide information to Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board on the status of a bach that is located on the foreshore adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road at the Koukourarata Port Levy settlement area since the 1940s, and

1.1.2 make a recommendation to the Council regarding its future.

1.2 This report is in response to ongoing concerns from neighbouring property owners about the legality of the bach, access to the foreshore and the condition of the building and a request from this Board for a staff update.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Approves the granting of a licence over unformed legal road adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road, Port Levy to legitimise the legacy encroachment of the dwelling (the bach) as shown in Attachment A.

2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to:

a. A term of 25 years less one day.

b. A negotiated licence fee.

c. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m.

e. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered.

f. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard.

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board:

3. Receives the information contained within this report for the Koukourarata /Port Levy Bach, located on the foreshore, adjacent to properties on Puari Road.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A bach has existed on the foreshore of Koukourarata Port Levy within an unformed paper road for the last 80 years. The bach is still owned within the original family. The paper road was vested in the Crown until 1974 when it became vested in the Council.

3.2 The bach has been subject to numerous concerns from neighbouring property owners, particularly around the condition of the bach, public access along the foreshore, rocks being moved on the foreshore, and the possibility of wastewater being discharged into the bay. In May 2017 the Council wrote to the property owners advising that access along the road reserve should be unhindered, and requested the issues discussed below be addressed before the Council would consider discussing occupation of the legal road.

3.3 Council staff have assessed the condition of the bach. Council engineers have determined that the bach at Koukourarata Port Levy does not meet the threshold for dangerous under 121(1)(a)(i) of the Building Act 2004.

3.4 If the Council were to formalise the encroachment of legal road, it needs to consider doing so purely on the basis as the owner of the land. Granting a licence will legitimise this legacy encroachment on to unformed legal road providing certainty for both the property owner and public. Conditions will need to apply to the licence, including reinstating public access along the foreshore that does not affect its natural form. If the conditions are not able to be met, then the owner will need to remove the bach.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 This report relates to a bach adjacent to 23 and 3b Puari Road, Koukourarata Port Levy. The bach is specifically located on “paper road” (unformed but legal road status) between the Puari Road properties and the high tide line. There is no formed road access to the dwelling.

4.2 Historical research undertaken by staff indicates that the bach has been in existence from or prior to the mid-1940’s and is still owned within the original family. The bach owners have advised that the land was a gift from local iwi approximately 80-90 years ago and that they believe the land was Māori Reserve at the time.

4.3 Staff have found no records of any Crown or Council authorisation for the bach on the paper road. A 1921 survey plan (SO 5728) of the area shows a paper road running along the shore of Port Levy where the bach is currently located. Therefore, the land was paper road over 90 years ago, not Māori Reserve. The paper road was vested in the Crown until 1974 when it became vested in the Council (section 316 LGA 1974).

4.4 The relevant town planning statute at the time the bach was built was the Town Planning Act 1926. Section 34(1) of that Act provided local authorities with an interim power during the course of preparing a district scheme to refuse consent or prohibit the erection of a building if satisfied that the building would contravene the draft district scheme, contravene town-planning principles, or interfere with neighbourhood amenities. The Mount Herbert County Council did not propose a district scheme until 1963.

4.5 Further detail on the lawfulness and legality of the bach is attached in the legal advice in Attachment B. The legal advice considers that the bach was lawfully established under the planning laws, however this does not authorise permission to occupy the public place.

4.6 The bach has been subject to numerous concerns from neighbouring property owners. In 2017 the Council wrote to the property owners advising that access along the road reserve should be unhindered (Attachment C), and requested the issues discussed below be addressed before the Council would consider discussing occupation of the legal road. Subsequent to the issue of the 2017 letter, a further letter dated 5 June 2018 (Attachment D) was issued following a staff briefing to the Board in May 2018. Staff have undertaken site visits in 2017, 2022 and February 2025 (photos and aerial location plan in Attachment E).

4.7 The complaints from neighbours mainly relate to the bach’s location, public access, removal/relocation of foreshore rocks, vegetation issues, and wastewater disposal:

· Public access along the foreshore: the bach is located on road reserve. A large macrocarpa hedge has been established between the dwelling and the foreshore, as well as other planting, fences and a gate, which at times has been locked. This gives the owners of the bach exclusive use of the area around the dwelling to the foreshore. At high tide, in particular, there is inadequate access around the bach.

· Condition of the bach: the bach was constructed approximately 80 years ago and has had some alterations done, including the construction of a shed. Neighbours are concerned that the bach has become derelict and the amount of vegetation could present a fire hazard. On 27 February 2025, staff did a site visit to check the condition of the bach. Council engineers have determined that the bach does not meet the threshold for dangerous under 121(1)(a)(i) of the Building Act 2004. In addition to this, the bach was built pre-Building Act legislation. Therefore, it would have no building code standards to achieve, and there is no requirement that a building must maintain building code standards.

· Rocks being moved on the foreshore: rocks have been rearranged on the foreshore to create an informal elevated path in front of where the bach is located. A discrete rock wall that is not consented (or appropriately designed) is likely to result in enhanced erosion of the beach and could accelerate erosion of neighbouring sections of shoreline. Some local residents have commented on the impact the rock wall is having on the beach. This work has not been consented by the Council. Staff are not aware of any consent by Environment Canterbury. The rock wall would need to get resource consent to remain in place.

· Untreated human waste being discharged into the bay: Port Levy is not connected to Council wastewater reticulation. Neighbours have raised concerns about how wastewater is being discharged from the bach and whether it may be contaminating the bay. If it is being discharged into the ocean or requires consenting for a septic tank, Environment Canterbury would need to be engaged for those processes. The owner has indicated that they use chemical toilets at the bach.

4.8 The bach owners would like to retain ownership of the bach as it has meaningful history for their family. The owners dispute some of the complaints raised by others.

4.9 If the Council were to formalise the encroachment of legal road, it needs to consider doing so purely on the basis as the owner of the land, albeit legal road. In doing so, the following should be considered:

4.9.1 Current and future use of the land – the land is currently more or less in its natural state and reasonably isolated from public use. The Port Levy shorefront is expected to experience accelerated coastal erosion as sea levels rise, as discussed in the Climate Change Impacts section of this report. The location, topography, and nature of the land does not lend itself to any other use in the short to medium term. The access issues mainly relate to the hedge and gates blocking access along the foreshore. This will need to be addressed in any licence conditions. See the photos and aerial map in Attachment E.

4.9.2 Status of the land and how it is held - the land is unformed legal road. Owing to the location, nature and topography this is extremely unlikely to ever be formed. Conversion to another status would likely only ever result in the land becoming esplanade reserve. This action is not considered warranted or necessary.

4.9.3 Public rights – access along the foreshore has been raised by neighbouring property owners as being an issue. Any licence would need to address these concerns.

4.9.4 Effects on any utilities or infrastructure – there are no utilities or infrastructure.

4.9.5 Health and safety – Council staff have undertaken a site visit and deemed that the building does not meet the dangerous building criteria of the Building Act. Concerns about the retaining wall and wastewater disposal would need to be addressed in any licence conditions.

4.9.6 Health and safety of the public passing the bach – it is Council staff view based on site visits that the formed rock wall does not offer a suitably safe or convenient access facility to the foreshore.

4.9.7 Community views and preferences -This is set out above in this section and in the Community Views section below.

4.10 The licence terms and conditions - these would be on the Council standard terms and conditions for a private / commercial licence of legal road as developed by the Council’s legal services team. It is proposed that this be a term of 25 years less one day with 5 year rent reviews. Proposed conditions could also include:

a) Appropriate fees to be negotiated.

b) The licence will not be transferable to any other person(s) including other family members.

c) Public access past the bach will be provided to the satisfaction of staff. This includes the removal of that section of the macrocarpa hedge that prevents a suitable walking path.

d) Maintaining any overgrown vegetation that can be a fire hazard, appropriate wastewater management, removal of foreshore rocks /boulders, no dumping of rubbish on the road reserve.

e) The conditions to be completed within a 12-month period and monitored by Councils’ compliance team.

Other examples of baches on Council land in Banks Peninsula

4.11 There are other examples of baches that have been built on Council land in Christchurch district, however each of these has its own circumstances specific to the location, Examples in Banks Peninsula include:

4.11.1 Angel’s Rest at Koukourarata Port Levy - the Angel’s Rest bach was located on unformed road and also traversed private land owned by rūnanga. A request was made by the rūnanga to the Community Board to have the bach removed. A report was considered at the 20 August 2014 Board meeting. The bach was subsequently demolished and removed.

4.11.2 Archdalls Road – in 2021, the Council granted a licence to the owner of a property that partly encroached over unformed legal road in Robinsons Bay. That property had been there since the 1980s with that part of the building in the encroachment on to unformed legal road part of an overall building consent granted by the former Akaroa County Council. The use of the legal road had not been explicitly dealt with or formalised prior to the 2021 Council decision.

Community Views

4.12 This bach has been subject to complaints by neighbouring property owners. The concerns are described in the Background section of this report. Some of the neighbouring properties wrote to the Council in 2017 requesting that the bach be removed.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Grant a licence to occupy legal road, with conditions (staff recommended option)

· Remove the bach

· Do nothing

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Grant a licence to occupy legal road, with conditions

4.14.1 Option Description: granting a licence for the encroachment would legitimise a situation that has existed since the 1940s, thereby providing certainty for all parties. This could be done simply by the Council making a property owner decision, of the legal road, and documented on standard licence terms and conditions as drafted by the Legal Services Unit. The reasons for recommending this option are set out in detail within this report.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Allows the current owners to continue using the bach for a limited period (including having regard to sea-level rise).

· Formalises the legacy use of the road.

· Conditions imposed will mitigate local community concerns.

· Costs associated with complying with licence conditions will be met by the owners.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not meet the needs of the people within the local community, who request the bach be removed.

· Cost implications to Council in developing and enforcing any conditions

4.15 Option 2 - Remove the bach

4.15.1 Option Description: The bach would be removed from the legal road.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Meets the needs of the people within the local community, who request the bach be removed.

· Access along the foreshore would be unhindered

· Costs for this would be expected to be borne by the owner of the structure

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· The current bach owners wish to retain the bach

· While possible, this option is often - and in this instance could be - fraught and difficult to resolve for all parties

· Cost implications to Council in enforcing the removal of the bach

4.16 Option 3 – Do nothing

4.16.1 Option Description: No action is taken by Council.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· Allows retention of the bach by the current owners

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not resolve any Community concerns regarding the bach, the hedge and gates/fences.

· Does not take into account the use of council land for private use.

· The rock wall will cause implications for neighbouring properties as the sea level rises.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.17 The bach has been occupying legal road since the 1940s.

4.18 Concerns about the state of the bach have been assessed against criteria for dangerous buildings under the Building Act. It has been deemed not dangerous under the legislation, therefore, the bach does not meet the threshold for action regarding its condition.

4.19 Public access along the foreshore is hindered when the tide is high. Adding conditions to a licence would address the issues about public access along the foreshore, namely trimming or removing the macrocarpa hedge and not having locked gates.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The bach owners would need to meet the costs for the options discussed in this report. If a licence is granted the conditions will be clear regarding this expectation, for both the requirements for unhindered access along the foreshore and the expectations for ongoing maintenance of the bach.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If the Council was to issue a licence to occupy to the current bach owners, there may be ongoing concerns from the Koukourarata Port Levy community. Licence conditions, as discussed in this report, will help to mitigate the concerns that have been raised.

6.2 There will be very little, if any, legal risk for the Council in approving the deed of licence as that document will clearly set out the rights and responsibilities of each party.

6.3 It is the Council’s standard practice to include a clause in the deed of licence for the licensee to hold $2 million insurance to indemnify the Council. This will be included in the deed of licence for the bach. This type of insurance is also typically covered in a house owner’s standard insurance package.

6.4 The Council will reassess the licence if the structure is reconstructed for any reason, and if the site is affected by sea level rise will not be responsible to retain the legal road from erosion or retain or repair the structure on the legal road.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 If the Community Board agrees to progress with a conditional licence, the decision will need to be referred to that Council as it is not aligned with the scope of the Structures on Roads Policy. Decisions outside of this policy have not been delegated to Community Boards.

6.2.2 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act apply. In addition section 357(1)(a) empowers the granting of a licence.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 Due to the complexity of legal considerations around the history of the bach being constructed on this site, Council staff have sought legal advice, with a summary provided below. This advice is discussed in the background section of this report and in Appendix B.

6.3.2 Any alterations to the foreshore will be subject to consenting by Environment Canterbury.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. In particular the Strategic Priority to actively balance the needs of today’s residents with the needs of future generations.

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the report affecting one bach on legal road. The impacts of the impeded access along the foreshore impacts more widely on the Port Levy community, however the decisions in this report aim to address the access concerns. Climate impacts with sea level rise will be addressed by an appropriate expiry date on any licence that is issued, and the consenting or removal of the rocks on the foreshore in front of the bach.

6.4.3 Are consistent with

(i) Public Places Bylaw 2018 - enables the management of public places in order to balance the various different, and sometimes competing, lawful uses for which public places may be used. It seeks to provide for reasonable controls to protect health and safety, and to protect the public from nuisance. The bylaw requires anyone wanting to create an obstruction in a public place to get permission from the Council, which may be subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Council determines.

(ii) Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018 – Council staff have assessed the bach under this policy and the relevant provisions of the Building Act. This is referred to in in the Background section of this report.

6.4.4 Are not consistent with the

(iii) Structures on Roads Policy 2020 – which enables the Council to control the private use of public roads, including the airspace and subsoil of the roads:

· Protecting the public from nuisance and inconvenience that may arise from permitting structures for residential and commercial activities.

· Minimising the extent and impact of permitted encroachments to limit inconvenience to other road users and/or negative impacts on the streetscape

Habitable structures, boat sheds and other storage structures (other than garages) are excluded from this policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua but will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. Staff contacted Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata Projects Manager to determine if there was any interest or concerns regarding the bach. There was some concern about the wastewater disposal, particularly if it is being discharged into the ocean. Mana whenua have requested to be informed of the outcome from this report.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 Like many parts of the district, the Port Levy shorefront is expected to experience accelerated coastal erosion as sea levels rise, along with more frequent and severe coastal flooding and groundwater impacts. In particular, we understand that as much as 10m of coastal erosion could occur within the next few decades (and as much as 15m within the next 50 years), based on the publicly available 2021 coastal hazard assessment. Erosion of this scale would directly impact the bach.

6.8 The 2021 Coastal Hazard Assessment indicates that the bach is likely to be increasingly impacted by coastal flooding also, either as direct overtopping of the rock wall or as flooding coming from north or south of the site.

6.9 It is difficult to gauge how the bach is currently being accessed. However, if access is from the north, then this access (road) is likely to be at similar, if not greater risk than the bach itself, further compromising the utility of the bach (given there might be no reliable way to access it in the future).

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the staff recommendation in this report is agreed to by the Community Board, the report will be referred to the Council to make a decision.

7.2 If the Council agrees to issue a licence to occupy the legal road, staff will draft a licence agreement with the conditions as discussed in this report and work with the bach owner to ensure compliance.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A - Location of Bach within Port Levy	25/437216
b	Attachment B - Legal advice on report to a Community Board (Lex26045)(70457448.5)	25/315928
c	Attachment C - 2017 Board outcome letter	25/439712
d	Attachment D - 2018 Board outcome letter	25/439710
e	Attachment E - Photos taken in 2022 Port Levy Batch Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board 10 March 2025	25/286821

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Michael Thomson - Transport Network Planner

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Andy Milne - Team Leader Asset Planning

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 13 March 2025

13. Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/527038
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver, Leasing Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

6. That the Council:

a. It agree to depart from the Council’s Lease Policy for the Creation of New Leases and Extension Requests Prior to Expiry-Property (Lease Policy) and, at the Council’s sole discretion, to consider granting a new lease to the current Tenant, Beach Hospitality Limited, on the basis that such a lease agreement will facilitate mutual benefit and is deemed reasonable and warranted to support the Tenant’s proposed investment in the business.

b. It note, in accordance with s80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that:

i. The granting of a further lease of the land and buildings to the current Tenant is inconsistent with the Council’s Lease Policy, in that the extension request is more than 3 years before the lease expiry;

ii. However consistent with the Lease Policy, the Council will, at its sole discretion, consider additional lease terms at the Tenant’s request to facilitate additional investment in a business, so long as there is mutual benefit and it is reasonable and warranted.

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

iv. Public consultation has been carried out with no unresolved objections.

2. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease Report.

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

3. Notes that public consultation in accordance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act, has been conducted, including the advertisement of the proposed improvements and lease extension, and confirms that no unresolved objections were received.

4. Approves on behalf of the Council, as Landlord, the building improvements being:

i. A kitchen expansion and internal reconfiguration by way of a building extension to the eastern frontage of the premises; and

ii. The request to install additional external louvres to the north elevation.

5. Conditional on the Council passing recommendation 6 below:

i. Recommends the Chief Executive exercise her delegation from the Minister of Conservation to give consent to the granting of the lease in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

ii. Approves the granting of a new lease to Beach Hospitality Limited, for a period of eight (8) years commencing on 1 February 2033, for the land and buildings located at 25 Esplanade Sumner more accurately described as part of lot 1 Deposited plan 4703 contained in Title CB 305/66, subject to Tenant completion of the improvements as detailed in Recommendation 5(a).

iii. Requests that the Manager Property Consultancy do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the intent of this report to implement the resolutions above including concluding and administer the terms and conditions of the new lease.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease	24/2258439	150

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Beach Bar Kitchen Sumner - 3D Elevations 12.10.2024	25/62759	161
b ⇩	Beach Bar - Proposed Louvre Artist Impression	25/62823	165
c ⇩	Beach Bar - Lease Overlay Plan Showing Improvements	25/114934	166
d ⇩	Beach Hospitality Limited -Factors to consider when dealing Unilaterally	25/97699	167
e ⇩	Sumner's Beach Bar - Public Engagement-Submission table	25/88771	169

Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2258439
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver-Leasing Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to:

1.1.1 Recommend that Council approve dealing unilaterally with Beach Hospitality Limited to allow the Community Board to grant a new lease for a term of eight (8) years commencing 1 February 2033 to Beach Hospitality Limited upon expiry of the current lease.

1.1.2 Consent to building alterations within the lease area for Beach Hospitality Limited trading as “The Beach”, Sumner.

1.2 The report is staff generated to support the current Tenant's request for Landlord approval of the proposed works and the new lease application, seeking the required delegated approvals needed to affect these.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease 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.

4. Recommends to the Council that:

a. It agrees to depart from the Council’s Lease Policy for the Creation of New Leases and Extension Requests Prior to Expiry-Property (Lease Policy) and, at the Council’s sole discretion, to consider granting a new lease to the current Tenant, Beach Hospitality Limited, on the basis that such a lease agreement will facilitate mutual benefit and is deemed reasonable and warranted to support the Tenant’s proposed investment in the business.

b. It notes, in accordance with s80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that:

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

iv. Public consultation has been carried out with no unresolved objections.

5. That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

a. Approves on behalf of the Council, as Landlord, the building improvements being:

i. A kitchen expansion and internal reconfiguration by way of a building extension to the eastern frontage of the premises; and

ii. The request to install additional external louvres to the north elevation.

b. Conditional on the Council passing recommendation 4 above:

i. Recommends the Chief Executive exercise her delegation from the Minister of Conservation to give consent to the granting of the lease in accordance with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Beach Hospitality Limited (the Tenant) has requested Landlord approval to increase their kitchen footprint by way of a small building extension and internal reconfiguration within the leased area.

3.2 The Tenant has also requested permission to add outdoor louvres and blinds to the northern external balcony, like those already added to the western boundary in 2022.

3.3 Improvement building costs will be covered by the Tenant who will own and maintain them following construction.

3.4 The Tenant has also requested that a new lease be considered to enable this building work refurbishment, to enhance hospitality services to the local community and to recoup the planned investment in the leased commercial premises.

3.5 The current lease expires on the 31 January 2033. The Tenant has requested an additional eight (8) year lease extension.

3.6 The maximum lease term of 33 years, in accordance with the Reserves Act, will be exceeded with the granting of a further lease term, therefore a new lease will be required.

3.7 This request is supported by the Council’s Parks Unit who have contributed to preliminary discussions to ensure compatibility of design and use. The Parks Unit does not have any other medium term alternative service planned for this land, recognizing the current Tenant as the most logical for the property at this time.

3.8 The Council’s Leasing Policy allows the Council to deal unilaterally and consider additional lease terms at the Tenant’s request to facilitate additional investment in a business so long as there is mutual benefit, and it is reasonable and warranted to do so.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The land and buildings are located at 25 Esplanade Sumner being part of Recreation Reserve 3549 contained in Title CB 305/66 held under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 Building History

4.2.1 The tearooms have existed in one form or another on this site for over 100 years.

The original tea rooms pictured circa 1960s.

4.2.2 In 1999 the building was substantially and sympathetically altered by the then Tenant under a land lease with the Council.

Parts of the original pier remains, and these are located outside of the leased area with responsibility to maintain sitting with the Council.

1999 Works included:

· New decks, steps, and balustrade

· New windows and doors to decks

· New office entry and offices

· Relocated Toilets

· Remodelled kitchen and bar

· Exterior refurbishment including Zincalume fascia gutter and brackets and cladding.

4.2.3 The building suffered extensive damage in the 2011 earthquake events and additional repair and a further addition of approximately 22m² was undertaken at that time.

4.2.4 2016 view of the building

4.2.5 The previous lease was a land lease only with the previous Tenant owning the building improvements. The Council accepted the gift of the building in 2017 in exchange for agreeing to a longer lease period at a commercial rental return on the land and buildings.

4.2.6 In 2022, the Community Board gave Landlord Approval for the addition of sun louvres on the western elevation. The Tenant is requesting additional louvres on the northern side of the building.

4.3 Planned Improvements (Refer to Attachments A, B, and C)

4.3.1 A Kitchen expansion and internal reconfiguration by way of a small building extension

A building with a blue roof

Description automatically generated

4.3.2 Additional louvres installed to the north elevation (artists impression)

4.3.3 Lease overlay plan showing finished works

4.4 New Lease terms proposed

· Additional lease term of eight (8) years from 1 February 2033.

· Final expiry of 31 January 2041.

· Rent reviews to market rent every three years.

· Market rental or percentage of gross annual sales as per current lease (whichever is greater).

· New lease terms and commercial conditions updated to reflect any changes to the Council’s commercial leases.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.5.1 Provide Landlord approval to the requested Tenant improvements (Community Board decision). This option involves approving the Tenant’s proposed enhancements to the premises, which include a kitchen extension and external sun louvres on the north deck.

4.5.2 Deal Unilaterally and grant a new lease (Council decision). This option entails entering into a new lease agreement with the Tenant on standard commercial terms to provide the necessary certainty for their planned investment.

4.6 The following options were considered but ruled out:

Improvements Approval:

4.6.1 Decline the Tenant’s request to carry out the building alterations.

This option involves the Community Board refusing the Tenant’s request to make the proposed building alterations. As a result, the Tenant would be unable to proceed with these specific enhancements.

Lease Extension:

4.6.2 Repurpose the leased premises after the current lease expiry for an alternative use.

This option involves allowing the current lease to expire and subsequently seeking alternative uses and/or tenants for the premises through a public Request for Proposal (RFP) or tender process. This would provide an opportunity for other individuals, organisations, or businesses to propose innovative uses for the space, aligning with the Council’s objectives for public assets and community benefit. Proposals could range from alternative commercial ventures to community-oriented uses or public amenities.

4.6.3 Surrender the current lease and grant a new one for 16 years.

This option involves terminating the current lease agreement before its expiration and granting a new 16-year lease to the Tenant, providing long-term security for both parties.

4.6.4 Decline the lease extension, the Tenant may do the work without a further term.

This option involves declining the Tenant’s request for a lease extension, but still allowing the Tenant to carry out the requested improvements (e.g. the kitchen extension and external sun louvres) without committing to a longer-term lease.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.7 Preferred Option (Council Decision): Deal Unilaterally and grant a new lease - Enter into a new lease agreement on standard commercial terms, extending the lease term to ensure the Tenant's ability to capitalize on their investment.

4.7.1 Option Advantages:

· Ensures continuity of community hospitality services beyond 2033.

· Provides the Tenant with certainty to proceed with the planned improvements.

· Supports the long-term viability of the business and its staff.

· Maintains commercial income for the Council through guaranteed rental revenue until 2041.

· Promotes customer service enhancements by fostering Tenant investment.

4.7.2 Option Disadvantages:

· Commits the premises to the current use until 2041, limiting alternative opportunities post-2033.

· The Tenant may delay or decline to proceed with improvements without the extended lease term.

4.8 Preferred Option (Community Board decision): Provide Landlord approval to the requested Tenant improvements Approve the Tenant's request for a kitchen extension and external sun louvres on the north deck.

4.8.1 Option Advantages:

· Facilitates an estimated minimum investment of $145,000 into the building.

· Enables the Tenant to proceed with necessary resource and building consents.

· Enhances the restaurant's customer service and supports its commercial viability.

· Provides improved fixed sun protection for outdoor dining areas.

· Enhances kitchen functionality while maintaining the building's existing aesthetic.

· All improvements remain within the current leased area.

· Potential for increased commercial rent returns due to improved kitchen efficiency and outdoor seating.

4.8.2 Option Disadvantages:

· Minor disruption to restaurant operations during construction.

· Lease provisions require the Council to act reasonably in approving such requests, presenting a risk if not approved.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.9 The options were assessed based on:

· The value of the Tenant's proposed investment in the premises.

· The need for operational certainty to ensure ongoing service delivery.

· The potential for alternative use of the land and buildings.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Provide Landlord Approval to Improvements and Deal Unilaterally to Grant New Lease	Option 2 - Approval to Improvements only
Cost to Implement	Lease preparation and advertising to be recovered from Tenant	Consideration of The request by Council Engagement Advertising- to be recovered from the Tenant
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Tenant responsibility	Tenant Responsibility
Funding Source	Operational Budget	Operational Budget
Funding Availability	Parks Budget	Parks Budget
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that the built works differ from those approved; staff will monitor the works in conjunction with approved building and resource consents that may be required for the project.

6.2 There is a risk that the Tenant will not complete the Improvements. To mitigate this risk, the new lease will not be offered until the completion of the building project.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Waihoro -Spreydon Cashmere -Heathcote Community Board has the delegated authority to grant a new lease on land held as park or reserve; however, as the decision requires the Council’s decision to deal unilaterally with the current Tenant, the Community Board must first obtain approval from the Council to deal unilaterally with the Tenant.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The consideration of Tenant Improvements and the preparation of the new Deed of Lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

6.4.2 Compliance with Section 138 - Local Government Act 2002. The test has been met by the engagement carried out.

6.4.3 Compliance with section 54(1)(d) of the Reserves Act 1977. Allowing of a commercial use on a recreational reserve and the use of the premises as hospitality complies with this section to “obtain the benefit and enjoyment of the reserve”.

6.4.4 The Council’s Leasing Council Property Policy 2015 - “Creation of New Leases and Extension Requests Prior to Expiry” by requesting the Council to approve the new lease term, this policy is complied with as it contemplates Tenant requests to the Council to consider additional lease terms to facilitate additional investment in a business where there is mutual benefit, and it is reasonable and warranted.

6.4.5 Dealing unilaterally - legal consideration is the Local Government Act and the Council’s Leasing Council Property Policy dealing unilaterally with Tenants.

6.4.6 Further considerations on dealing unilaterally are outlined in Attachment D to this report.

6.4.7 It is considered that approving this lease supports effective and efficient use of resources and the prudent management of the Council’s assets.

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.

6.5.2 This report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the level of impact on the existing user groups that currently use the premises and whether this decision can be reversed once made.

6.5.3 The request for Landlord approval to Tenant improvements is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies (Community Board decision).

6.5.4 The request for a new lease is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies (Council decision).

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

6.7 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.7.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.2.3 Parks are managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional, and equitable manner (Asset Performance) - At least 90% of parks and associated public recreational assets are available for safe public use during opening hours

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Consultation started on 1 November 2024 and ran until 3 December 2024.

6.9 An email was sent to 80 key stakeholders, including Sumner Social, a restaurant and bar located directly opposite The Beach bar and restaurant as well as a range of community groups located in Sumner, Moncks Bay, Redcliffs and Clifton.

6.10 The consultation was hosted on Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk which had 668 views throughout the consultation period.

6.11 Marketing tactics used to promote the consultation to the community included a public notice in the Press and Bay Harbour News and physical signs outside the restaurant (one placed on the beach pathway and the other on the roadside).

6.12 Letters were delivered to houses and businesses directly opposite and in sight of The Beach bar and restaurant on Monday 4 November 2024.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.13 Submissions were received from 26 individuals, all of which were made online via the Kōrero mai submission form. All submissions are available in Attachment E.

6.14 Submitters were asked to provide feedback on two aspects of the proposal: the proposed building works and the lease extension.

Proposed building works

6.15 The majority of submitters expressed full support for the proposed building works (23 out of 26, 88%) for the following reasons:

· the establishment is an asset to the community and any building works to improve the restaurant would benefit the community (12)

· the changes will improve the efficiency and functionality of the restaurant space and improve customer and staff experience (6)

6.16 Three submitters did not explicitly state whether they support or don’t support the building works but one commented that the building already takes up significant space on what they believe should be publicly accessible land, not for commercial purposes.

One also questioned the proposal’s compliance with the District Plan and developing in a coastal hazard risk area. The submitter was contacted to confirm that a planning and consents process would be needed pending the Community Board’s decision to ensure that the building works adhere to the District Plan.

Lease extension request

6.17 The majority of submitters expressed full support for the lease extension (23 out of 26, 88%) for the following reasons:

· the restaurant is a valuable asset to the community (6)

· the fairness of the proposal given the investment being made by The Beach for the building works (10)

· comments about good work and responsible stewardship of the space (2).

6.18 Three of those submitters that supported the proposal felt the lease extension should be longer than the proposed eight (8) years.

6.19 Two submissions said they opposed the lease extension, but did not state their reasons.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.22 There is no material change to the lease area or the permitted use of the lease that affects Mana Whenua.

6.23 The intention to grant this lease has been notified to Te Aporei Whakawhanaunga à-Tirihi, Council’s Treaty Relations Team; no concerns have been raised.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.24 The decisions in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions. There is some carbon footprint associated with the new building extension, but the scale is small, and the overall impact is low.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Provide Landlord approval to the Tenant for the requested improvements.

7.2 Arrange new Deed of Lease documentation and the signing and sealing by both parties to that agreement once finalised.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Beach Bar Kitchen Sumner - 3D Elevations 12.10.2024	25/62759
b	Beach Bar - Proposed Louvre Artist Impression	25/62823
c	Beach Bar - Lease Overlay Plan Showing Improvements	25/114934
d	Beach Hospitality Limited -Factors to consider when dealing Unilaterally	25/97699
e	Sumner's Beach Bar - Public Engagement-Submission table	25/88771

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Grant McIver - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

14. 2024-2025 Residents' Survey Results
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/493241
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kath Jamieson, Team Leader Monitoring and Research
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide 2024-2025 Residents’ Survey key results to the Mayor and Councillors.

1.2 Annual Residents Survey reporting.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2024-2025 Residents' Survey Results Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Residents’ Survey programme is a central component of the Council’s service Performance Framework and a core part of the organisation’s drive to be customer / citizen centric. It measures 37 resident perception-based levels of service ‘measures of success’ targets in the Long Term Plan (LTP) across 15 different Activities. It also measures satisfaction with a range of additional services that sit outside of the LTP.

3.2 The Residents’ Survey programme includes two main components:

3.2.1 the General Service Satisfaction Survey which covers satisfaction with services all residents in the city are likely to use (such as water supply, roading and waste management services, etc), this online panel survey has a representative sample of at least 770 residents and is carried out in January each year, and

3.2.2 point of contact surveys which cover services with more targeted customer bases with samples of between 5 to over 3,400 respondents (such as resource consent applicants, library users and event attendees, etc).

3.3 The point of contact component includes a wide range of face to face, online and mail drop surveys at a range of service sites, with surveys carried out throughout the year and with the face-to-face component being conducted over the summer months.

3.4 The 2024-2025 results are now available for reporting.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 Residents’ Survey results, including verbatim comments, will be used to inform Annual Plan decision making.

4.2 The 2024-2025 Residents’ Survey results show extensive improvements compared to last year.

4.3 Overall organisation performance saw a 7% improvement this year to 53% (up from 46% last year). This is the third year of improvement. The top reason for satisfaction was the same as last year: Council is doing a good job. The top reasons for dissatisfaction were also the same as last year: roading and road maintenance; disapproval of Council spending.

4.4 Most (84% [31]) services measured via the Residents’ Survey met their levels of service targets up from 71% (29) last year. Only 6 services did not meet their targets, the lowest number since the earthquake sequence. Key results are summarised below.

4.5 Proportionally more (54% [20]) services improved their satisfaction scores by 1% or more (2023-2024: 51% [21]. Eight services improved their satisfaction ratings by 4% or more this year (12 last year), noting that 4% is a statistically significant movement and outside the margin of error.

4.6 Thirteen services were ranked as higher satisfaction services (scoring 85% or greater) this year (18 last year). These were mainly services where residents have direct contact with Council staff who they see as friendly, approachable and helpful (customer services (walk in and telephone); libraries; key parks (Botanic Gardens, Mona Vale and Hagley Park); regional parks; cemeteries; cemeteries administration; events support; recreation and sport support; recreation and sport facilities; Partnership Approvals Case Management Service; education programmes).

4.7 The best performing services remain the same as last year: kerbside waste management (residual, recycling and organic); parks; libraries.

4.8 Indicating that investments in roading infrastructure are paying off, road condition satisfaction improved by 6% to 33% (27% last year) and footpath condition satisfaction improved by 3% to 39% (36% last year). There were also proportionally fewer comments about roading as a reason for dissatisfaction with Council performance since last year (11% of all comments compared to 17% last year).

4.9 Reputation and trust measures were added to the Residents Survey last year. While results remain a challenge, with an average positive score of 31% across 15 measures (27% in 2024), all measures have seen improvements this year. Leadership of the Mayor and Councillors and openness and transparency have both improved by 8% to 35% and 29% respectively. Council providing value for ratepayers’ money is the lowest ranking reputation and trust measure at 19%. Council making wise spending decisions also ranks at 19%, which is an increase of 5% from 14% last year.

4.10 Overall positive sentiment scoring (a measure of every sentiment score supplied across the Residents Survey programme) sits at 65% (64% last year).

4.11 Ten services saw reductions in their satisfaction ratings of 1% or more, the lowest number in nine years, with five of these reducing by 4% or more. However, all of these services still had satisfaction ratings of 71% or higher (content and delivery of events, marine structure availability, Partnership Approvals Case Management Service, resource consenting process and vehicle and personal security at Council parking buildings).

4.12 Four services were ranked as lower satisfaction services (scoring under 50% satisfaction) this year (5 last year), which was the lowest number in the last four LTP cycles and all saw improvements in satisfaction this year (opportunities to have a say in and understanding of decision making, and road and footpath condition).

4.13 Areas for improvement remain the same as last year: roading (ongoing patch repairs, potholes and uneven surfaces) (at same level as last year); Council decision making and financial management (disapproval of Council spending, not listening to resident priorities or communicating how resident views have informed decisions) (also at same level as last year).

4.14 Survey results will be communicated to relevant Heads of Service (those who have levels of service based on survey results) for reporting purposes. Results will impact March monthly Performance Reports.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	General Service Satisfaction Survey Summary Table (Under Separate Cover)	25/498150
b ⇨	General Service Satisfaction Survey Full Report (Under Separate Cover)	25/498152
c ⇨	Point of Contact Surveys Summary Table (Under Separate Cover)	25/498156
d ⇨	Point of Contact Surveys Summary Report (Under Separate Cover)	25/498158
e ⇨	Residents Survey Overview Summary Report (Under Separate Cover)	25/498159
f ⇨	Residents Survey Overview Reference Report (Under Separate Cover)	25/498161

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Kath Jamieson - Team Leader Monitoring and Research

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

15. Request to seek extension to Plan Change 14 gazette notice
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/476102
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor – Planning, Brent Pizzey, Senior Legal Counsel, Mark Stevenson, Acting Head of Planning and Consents
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council resolution to request the Minister for RMA Reform to extend the final decision date for Plan Change 14 (PC14) to 30 September 2026.

1.2 This report follows analysis of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill 2024, which proposes to introduce the ability for councils to opt out of implementing undecided parts of MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards). The opt out process proposed in the Bill cannot be completed before the expiry of the Minister’s current PC14 deadline of 12 December 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Request to seek extension to Plan Change 14 gazette notice Report.

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

3. Requests the Minister for RMA Reform under s80M(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to amend his direction for completing decisions on the balance of Plan Change 14 to 30 September 2026.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Minister’s current timetabling direction requires Council to notify decisions on the balance of Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) Recommendations on Plan Change 14 (PC14) by 12 December 2025. Government has proposed a Bill to modify the Resource Management Act (RMA) to allow councils to withdraw those undecided parts of Intensification Planning Instruments (as PC14 is), which is anticipated to become law in August 2025. The extension of time is needed to allow the Council the opportunity to consider its options and to meet any evaluative reporting that may be required for applications to withdraw part of undecided parts of PC14.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 On 2 December 2024, Christchurch City Council (Council) made decisions on part of PC14. Those decisions were timed in accordance with the Minister’s direction of 16 September 2024 which directed that the Council must notify decisions on IHP recommendations related to Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by 20 December 2024 and notify decisions on the balance by 12 December 2025.

4.2 The Minister set the current 12 December 2025 requirement in late 2024[3] on the basis that the Government intended to promulgate changes to the RMA to enable Council to ‘opt-out’ of the MDRS, which directs that medium density should be enabled across all urban residential areas. These changes were introduced by government in December 2024 through the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill 2024, to which Council is a submitter.

4.3 Current estimates are that the Environment Select Committee will report back to the House in June this year, with the Bill likely to receive Royal Assent by August. In its current form, the Bill sets several requirements for any Council seeking to opt-out of the MDRS, including:

4.3.1 a 12-month period from Royal Assent before applications can be made;

4.3.2 evaluative requirements for any application; and

4.3.3 the requirement to initiate a Streamlined Planning Process to give effect to the revised 2025 NPS-UD for any opt-out.

4.4 In that context, the current 12 December 2025 deadline to notify a decision on the balance of PC14 is unachievable. An extension is required. The opt out process proposed in the Bill indicates that an extension to 30 September 2026 is required, as detailed below:

Approximate Timing	Decision/Milestone	Involving
August 2025	Royal Assent of Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act	Government
September 2025	Councils review MDRS opt-out criteria and begin any required evaluation work	Council
11 October 2025	Local Government Elections	Territorial Authorities
November 2025	New councils form	Territorial Authorities
December 2025	First Council meetings, potential initial discussion on MDRS opt-out	Council
January 2026	Council complete draft evaluation reporting for MDRS opt-out application	Council
February 2026	Seek Council endorsement of MDRS opt-out application and associated reporting	Council
March 2026	MDRS opt-out application and associated reporting formally submitted to Minister	Government
Before end of Q2	Minister approves MDRS opt-out request	Government
Before end of Q3	Council partially withdraws PC14 in accordance with MDRS opt-out and makes final decision on PC14.	Council

4.5 The Council will not be in a position to evaluate its options until the Bill comes into effect, and once in effect, the process to consider options, meet any evaluative requirements, and seek the approval of the Minister is certain to be beyond the 12 December 2025 deadline.

4.6 In addition, government has yet to release the draft revised NPS-UD. Until we see it, there is uncertainty for any future decision making, including any evaluative requirements under the future Act.

4.7 It is important to remember that the Minister’s deadline for decisions on PC14 is not a due date as such, but rather a date by which decision making must be completed by. There are no legal barriers restricting Council deciding on Plan Change 14 prior to this date.

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

Date	Subject
11 March 2025	Request to extend gazette notice for Plan Change 14

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Seek an extension of time now.

4.9.2 Wait for the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill 2024 (the Bill) to change the RMA before considering options.

4.10 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.10.1 Proceed with decisions on the balance of PC14 prior to the Bill becoming law – this would foreclose any option to withdraw PC14 in-part.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Seek an extension of time now.

4.11.1 Option Description: Write to the Minister for RMA Reform and formally request an extension of time for decision making on PC14 until 30 September 2026.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Affords the Council the opportunity to consider whether it wishes to opt-out of MDRS requirements where yet to be decided.

· It is unknown whether an extension would be granted by the Minister. Therefore, seeking an extension now provides more flexibility to Council should the request be rejected.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Delays the potential introduction of new medium density residential zoned areas beyond those areas already decided (i.e. around commercial centres) and decisions on other related chapters in the Christchurch District Plan. For example, this prolongs the period where new qualifying matters are not decided, and therefore not in effect, such as the vacuum sewer Wastewater Constraint, Tsunami Risk Management Area, and other coastal hazards.

4.12 Wait until the Bill changing the RMA is enacted.

4.12.1 Option Description: Consider all options, including whether to request an extension of time for decision making, only after the changes to the RMA are finalised.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Provides the ability to consider all options with greater certainty.

· As per the preferred option, however, contingent on time being available to respond, decide, or request (as applicable) at short notice.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· There is potential that this severely constrains the ability for the Council to consider options available. There is a high degree of uncertainty over both the forthcoming changes to the RMA and the NPS-UD and any associated evaluative requirements.

· Depending on the final changes to the RMA, the time necessary to meet the evaluative requirements may mean that opting out of the MDRS is not an option available to the Council.

· As per the preferred option.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Wait for the Bill
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	Met from existing operational budgets.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	As above.	As above.
Funding Source	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.
Funding Availability	Available.	Available.
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates as met from existing operational budgets.	No impact on rates as met from existing operational budgets.

5.1 The above does not consider any future evaluative requirements that the changed RMA may require, should the Council seek to request to opt out of the MDRS.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The preferred option, if approved by the Minister, will delay decision making on PC14 and the (likely) introduction of additional medium density residential zoning. This increases the period of uncertainty for developers and the community regarding the plan change. The Council has been proactive in its communication of progress on the plan change and is working to develop additional guidance materials to assist Plan users. The Council remains committed to delivering housing across urban Christchurch and a delay is not considered to have any discernible impact on housing sufficiency.

6.2 Option 2 has greater risks due to the degree of uncertainty about the changes to the RMA and the revised NPS-UD and uncertainty about whether the Minister would grant an extension. There is a risk that waiting for regulatory certainty will compress the timeframe for Council’s decision making on either seeking an extension or the evaluation of opting out of the MDRS and consequently withdrawing PC14 (fully or in-part). This risk is mitigated by seeking an extension now.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 This report has been reviewed by Council’s Legal Services. The legal considerations are described throughout the report.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework in listening to and working with residents and managing ratepayers money wisely. Delaying a decision on PC14 means Council can better consider how it delivers housing that meets our community needs.

6.5.2 Is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. PC14 has been of high interest to the community and carefully considering decisions on this is a priority for Council.

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

6.7 Regulatory and Compliance

6.7.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - In accordance with statutory processes and timeframes.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Community Boards and other affected community organisations have not been consulted on this particular decision, however, PC14 was open to public submissions and received over 900 submissions, including from Community Boards and various community organisations.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 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 Minister provides the extension, staff will report back to the Council when they have assessed the finalised changes to the RMA and to the NPS-UD.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ike Kleynbos - Principal Advisor Planning

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

16. Discretionary Response Fund - Project Lyttelton Incorporated, Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/369502
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Lead
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 two applications for funding from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Project Lyttelton Inc	The Lyttelton Farmers Market	$50,000	$30,000
Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery School Board of Trustees	Ao Tawhiti Community Play Area	$43,020	$12,000

1.2 There is currently a balance of $232,628 remaining in the fund.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund - Project Lyttelton Incorporated, Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery Report.

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

3. Approves a grant of $30,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to Project Lyttelton Inc. towards the Lyttelton Farmers Market.

4. Approves a grant of $12,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to the Ao Tawhiti Unlimited School Board of Trustees towards the Ao Tawhiti Community Play Area.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 The recommendations above are aligned with the Council's Strategic Framework.

3.1.1 Specifically, the strategic priority to Manage ratepayers' money wisely and to Actively balance the needs of today’s residents.

3.2 The project also aligns with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

3.2.1 Specifically, the ‘Place’ Strategic pillar.

3.3 The recommendations are consistent with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.4 Council has the delegated authority to allocate of the Discretionary Response Fund.

3.5 Allocations are to be consistent with any Council-adopted policies, standards or criteria.

3.6 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal challenges or the Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled organisations. or Community Board decisions

· Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.8 The significance level was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

3.9 Due to the assessment of low significance, discussions have been undertaken between assessors and the applicants, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.10 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund is:

Total Budget 2024/25	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$484,802	$252,174	$232,628	$190,628

3.11 $162,630 has been awarded from the 2024/25 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund to 27 organisations under the delegation of the head of Community Support and Partnerships.

3.12 Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications above are eligible for funding.

3.13 The attached Decision Matrices provide detailed information for the applications. This includes organisational details, project details, and financial information. and a staff assessment.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrices	25/369838	185

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

17. 2025 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/461727
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jo Daly, Council Governance Advisor
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 to inform the Council of the three options available for the ordering of candidate names on voting documents and to recommend that the Council resolve that candidate names are shown in random order voting documents for the October 2025 triennial election and any subsequent by-elections.

1.2 The report has been prepared to inform and allow the Council of the opportunity to consider the order of candidate names on voting documents.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2025 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents Report.

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

3. Approves, under regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2011, that the names of candidates at the 2025 triennial elections and any subsequent by-elections be arranged in random order.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Local government elections are conducted under the Local Electoral Act 2001 and Local Electoral Regulations 2001. Regulation 31 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 (the regulations) enables the Council to determine, by resolution, which order candidate names are to be arranged on voting documents.

3.2 The options for order of candidate names, by surname, are alphabetical, random or pseudo-random.

3.3 The recommended option for the order of candidate names on voting documents is random order. Random order is where all candidate surnames are randomly selected by computer so that the order of surnames is different on each voting document.

3.4 Alphabetical order is the default option under the regulations. If the Council does not make a decision, under regulation 31(3) candidate names will be listed in alphabetical order by surname.

3.5 The Council decision on the order of candidate names on voting documents will be in place for the 2025 local elections to be held on 11 October 2025 and any by-elections held during the 2025 to 2028 triennial term.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The regulations allow the Council to decide on whether names are to be arranged on the voting document in random order of surname, alphabetical or pseudo-random order. In the absence of any Council resolution approving another arrangement, the candidates’ names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

4.2 Candidate profile statement booklets are printed in alphabetical order. It is only the order of candidate names on voting documents that the Council can determine.

4.3 Under random order, candidate names will be listed differently on the voting paper than the candidate booklet, where names are listed alphabetically.

4.4 Under pseudo-random order the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly, and all voting documents are in that order.

4.5 The Council decision on the order of candidate names on voting documents will be in place for the 2025 local elections to be held on 11 October 2025 and any by-elections held during the 2025 to 2028 triennial term.

4.6 The Council has used random order for voting documents at all triennial elections since 2004. Voters in Christchurch City Council elections are likely to be familiar with this approach.

4.7 Voting documents for the 2025 will include elections for the regional council. Environment Canterbury will consider this matter and pass its own resolution if random or pseudo-rando order is to be used for these elections. Environment Canterbury has used random order for the last three elections.

4.8 Random order is considered to remove the perception of name order bias, each voter will receive a voting document with candidates in different orders. All candidates will have equal opportunity to be at the top of some voting documents, and the bottom of others.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Random order

4.9.2 Alphabetical order

4.9.3 Psuedo-random order

4.10 These are the only options available to the Council under the Regulations.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Random order

4.11.1 Option Description: Random order is where candidate surnames for each issue are randomly selected by computer so that the order of surnames is different on each voting document.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Random order removes the perception of name order bias. All candidates will have equal opportunity to be at the top of some voting documents and the bottom of others.

· The Council has used random order for voting documents at all triennial elections since 2004. Voters are likely to be family with this approach.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Candidate names will be listed differently on the voting documents than the candidate profile booklet where names are listed alphabetically.

· Some voters may have difficulty finding the candidates they wish to vote for, particularly when many candidates are contesting the same issue.

4.12 Alphabetical order

4.12.1 Option Description: Alphabetical order is where candidate surnames appear alphabetically. This is the default option under the regulations if the Council does not resolve otherwise.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Alphabetical order aligns with the order that candidates are listed in the candidate profile booklets. Voters may be familiar with the names being listed alphabetically from Parliamentary elections.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· The possibility of perceived name bias, that candidates with a surname starting at the ‘A’ end of the alphabet may have an advantage over candidates with a surname starting at the ‘Z’ end of the alphabet as they will be at the top of each voting document.

4.13 Pseudo-random order

4.13.1 Option Description: Pseudo-random order is where candidate surnames are randomly selected and the order selected is the order appearing on all voting documents.

4.13.2 If pseudo-random order is decided, under regulation 31(4) the electoral officer must state by public note the date, time and place in which the order of candidates’ names will be drawn and that any person is entitled to attend while the order of candidates’ names is to determined.

4.13.3 Option Advantages

· Pseudo-random order provides for candidates to have equal opportunity to be at the top, or the bottom, of the voting document.

4.13.4 Option Disadvantages

· The possibility of perceived name bias for candidates who are draw to have a position at the top of the ballot, that they may have an advantage over those further down the list.

· Candidate names will be listed differently on the voting document than the candidate profile booklet where names are listed alphabetically.

· It is administratively more complex, including tight timeframes after the close of nominations. Additional public notice is required.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 Research papers prepared nationally and internationally vary in the analysis and outcomes reached on the impact of candidate name order on the outcome of local government elections. Alphabetical and random orders are used throughout New Zealand.

4.15 Using random order removes any perceived name bias with each voting document being ordered differently.

4.16 The Council, and the regional council, have used random order for the last three elections and there is familiarity with this order.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 There is no difference between the three options in the cost of printing voting documents.

5.2 The printing for voting documents is included in the 2025 elections budget, within the Long Term Plan 2024 to 2034.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If candidate names are randomised there is a perceived risk of confusion as some voters may have difficulty finding the candidates they wish to vote for.

6.2 As random order has been used by this Council for triennial elections and by-elections since 2004, the risk is deemed low.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 enable the Council to determine by resolution the order candidates’ names are to be arranged on voting documents.

6.4 It is not mandatory for the Council to pick an option, if the Council does not make a decision the order of candidate names will automatically revert to alphabetical order.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined considering that this decision has a low level of impact on the community.

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 Governance

6.7.1 Activity: Governance and Decision Making

· Level of Service: 4.1.2.3 Provide a triennial local government election (October 2025).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 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 The Council decision on the order of candidate names on voting documents will be in place for the 2025 local elections to be held on 11 October 2025 and any by-elections held during the 2025 to 2028 triennial term.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Jo Daly - Council Governance Advisor
Approved By	Helen White - General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

[1] Sport New Zealand, Ihi Aotearoa, Spaces and Places Framework, 2024

[3] Letter from Minister Bishop to Mayor Mauger 10 September 2024.

7. Action Update
	Committee Comment 1. Jason Dykes (Digital Change Manager), Sarah Numan (Head of Customer Services and Chair of the Unacceptable Behaviours Working Group), Rupert Bool (Acting Head of Parks) and Roslyn Kerr (Manager Parks Programmes and Partnerships) joined to meeting to speak to specific HSW matters relevant to their business units. 2. The Committee requested that staff provide an example of a HSW incident to the next meeting, in order to show the overall journey of how the event is managed, outcomes and lessons learned. 3. The Committee requested that a Facilities staff member attends a future meeting, to discuss physical risk and security. 4. The Committee discussed the idea of Parks staff developing a one page hand-out of common parks maintenance related FAQ’s for the public and elected members.
	Committee Resolved HSCM/2025/00002 Part C That the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Action Update Report. Ms Sadgrove/Councillor Coker Carried
	Attachments a Unacceptable Behaviours Working Group - Presentation

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/535340
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
19.	Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 7 March 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
20.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 5 March 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

5. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 7 March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/487958
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

6. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 14 March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/555860
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 26 November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/555871
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

8. Council Minutes - 31 January 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/566446
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

9. Council Minutes - 5 March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/556347
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Officer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

11. Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball New Build Application
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/475700
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katelyn Elley, Parks and Recreation Planner and Kim Swarbrick, Senior Parks and Recreation Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community