Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 16 April 2025

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 9.34 am and returned at 9.35 am.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00149

That the apologies from the Mayor for partial absence and Councillors Gough and Henstock for lateness and Councillor Scandrett for potential early departure be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillors Gough and Keown declared an interest in Item 20 - Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10 am and returned at 10.03 am during the consideration of Item 13.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.13 am and returned at 10.14 am during the consideration of Item 13.

13. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - November and December 2024
	Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Helen Broughton, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Jess Garrett , Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report. Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Chris Turner-Bullock, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00150 Community Board Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - November and December 2024 Report. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council d Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council f Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

There were no public forum presentations.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Community Action on Youth And Drugs (CAYAD) Ōtautahi

Brodie Marra-Stevenson spoke on behalf of Community Action on Youth And Drugs (CAYAD) Ōtautahi regarding Item 20. Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 10 December 2024

Secretarial Note: The meeting block resolved Minute Items 5 – 12 and Public Excluded Minute Items 26 - 28.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00151

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council - Annual Plan meeting held 10 December 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

6. Council Minutes - 4 December 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00152

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 4 December 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

7. Council Minutes - 11 December 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00153

That the Council confirms the Open and Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held 11 December 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

8. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 24 May 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00154

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held 24 May 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

9. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 21 November 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00155

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held 21 November 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

10. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 13 September 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00156

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 13 September 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

11. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00157

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 5 December 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

12. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 17 September 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00158

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 17 September 2024.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

Councillor Gough joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 10.35 am during the consideration of Item 14.

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

14. Marine Parade Street Renewal Project - Hawke Street to Bowhill Road

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00159

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried

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

15. City to Sea East Safety Improvements - Avondale Road Crossing

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00160

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

12. Approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw (2017), that the path on the eastern side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point 142 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres be resolved as a Shared Path in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

13. Approves in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw (2017), that the path on the western side of Avondale Road, commencing at a point 148 metres south of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be resolved as a Shared Path in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004, as detailed in Agenda Attachment A – Avondale Road Flush Pedestrian/Cycle Crossing Plan. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

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

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

Councillor Templeton/Councillor McLellan Carried

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

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

16. Rockinghorse Road ROW Leases Part A request

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00161

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

Secretarial Note: Subsequent to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board meeting, additions to the Community Board recommendations (as underlined below) have been included to outline the terms and conditions of the leases, as referred to in Attachment A of this report.

That the Council:

1. Approve the leasing of redundant ‘red zone’ driveways on the western side of Rocking Horse Road from Godwit Street to Mermaid Place to immediate neighbours, subject to the terms and conditions of the attached report, and as listed below:

a. The term is fixed at 35 years less one day.

b. The rent is peppercorn i.e. one dollar.

c. The lessees will be responsible for all works e.g. fencing, maintenance etc.

d. Rights to this land will not be permitted to be included in any redevelopment or intensification applications or proposals.

e. Only adjoining owners will be permitted a lease for inclusion in their property i.e. non adjoining owners will not be leased land for off street parking.

f. There shall be no right of assignment or subletting other than in conjunction with the sale of the “parent” property.

g. Buildings will not be permitted on the leased property.

Mayor/Councillor Peters Carried

Report from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - 9 December 2024

17. Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00162

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Fields/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - 9 December 2024

18. 3 Bantry Lodge Road, Wainui - Revoke Reserve Status and Sale of Land

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00163

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

2. Note that:

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

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

Schedule

Reserve 4328 comprising 797m² held in certificate of title 1144021

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Note that:

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

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

Councillor Fields/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 12 December 2024
19. Disraeli Reserve Art Features Decommissioning Report
	Council Comment 1. The meeting noted that a letter of thanks would be sent to the artist’s family.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00164 Community Board Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Approve decommissioning of the Disraeli Reserve Art Features. 2. Approve transfer of the Artwork to the artist’s family. Councillor Coker/Councillor Scandrett Carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.53 am and reconvened at 11.17 am.

The Mayor left the meeting at the adjournment and did not return.

Councillor Henstock joined the meeting at 11.17 am.

Deputy Mayor Cotter assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

20. Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00165

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - Update and Next Steps Report and attachments.

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

3. Directs staff to continue work on the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy to enable the Council to consider adopting a final version before the local elections in October 2025.

4. Directs staff to undertake pre-consultation engagement to inform the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillors Henstock, MacDonald and Moore requested that their votes against the resolutions be recorded.

Councillors Gough and Keown having declared an interest in Item 20 sat back from the table and took no part in the discussion or vote.

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 12.02 pm at the consideration of Item 21.

21. Council submission on Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill
	Council Comment 1. The Council approved the updated submission, and Council Officers agreed to include referencing “ratepayers” in paragraph 22 of the submission. 2. Council Officers agreed to consider referencing the environmental impacts on inland port activities in the submission.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00166 That the Council: 1. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (Attachment A as tabled at the meeting and including reference to “ratepayers” in paragraph 22 and Attachment B of this report) to the Environment Committee. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Attachments a Updated attachment A (Draft Submission)

Councillor Scandrett returned to the meeting at 12.14 pm during the consideration of Item 22.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 12.14 pm and returned at 12.16 pm during the consideration of Item 22.

22. Rawhiti WS Rezoning and Pressure Management Trial Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00167

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Rawhiti WS Rezoning and Pressure Management Trial Report.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

23. Regulatory and Compliance Unit Update - July to December 2024

Council Comment

1. Council Officers agreed to provide the following information in the next Regulatory and Compliance Unit Update:

a. A breakdown of noise complaints by location.

b. Further information on the November 2024 food poisoning outbreak investigation (6.3 to 6.6 of the report).

c. In relation to the environmental health complaints summary (6.11 of the report), further information on the trends, how many complaints relate to the same property, and any geospatial data available.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00168

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Regulatory and Compliance Unit Update - July to December 2024.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Templeton Carried

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 12.35 pm during the consideration of Item 24 and did not return.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 12.36 pm during the consideration of Item 24 and did not return.

24. Citizen & Customer Service Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00169

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Citizen & Customer Service Unit Update report.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.42pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00164

That the apology received from Councillor Johanson for lateness be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Deputy Mayor Cotter declared an interest in Item 12 - Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation report.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Housing First Ōtautahi

Nicola Fleming and Jill Hawkey spoke on behalf of Housing First Ōtautahi to outline their work in the city around homelessness and outline the role they play.

Attachments

a Housing First Ōtautahi - Presentation to Council

3.1.2

The Green Lab

Bridget Allen spoke on behalf of the Green Lab regarding how the organisation utilises urban greening for social wellbeing and the mahi it undertakes around Ōtautahi Christchurch.

Attachments

a The Green Lab - Presentation to Council

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 9.59 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1

City Mission Outreach

Joshua Gardiner and Matiu Taitoko spoke on behalf of City Mission Outreach regarding Item 15 – the Community (Social) Housing Update report.

Attachments

a Christchurch City Mission - Presentation to Council

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 6 December 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00165

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 6 December 2024.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 10 February 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00166

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 10 February 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.12 am and returned at 10.17 am during consideration of Item 15.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.18 am and returned at 10.20 am during consideration of Item 15.

15. Community (Social) Housing Update Report

Council Comment

1. Council Officers Bruce Rendall and Lisa Washington, and Cate Kearney from the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust joined the table to present the report.

2. The Council resolved to receive the report, and also requested advice on the ways in which the Council could support the provision of emergency and community housing.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00167

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Community (Social) Housing Update Report Report.

2. Requests advice on the ways in which the Council could support the provision of emergency and community housing.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00168

That pursuant to Standing Order 3.5 (Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders), the following Standing Orders be temporarily suspended to enable a more informal discussion regarding Item 7 Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport.

17.5 members may speak only once.

18.1 general procedure for speaking and moving motions.

18.8 foreshadowed amendments.

18.9 lost amendments.

Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.47am and returned at 10.48am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 11 am and returned at 11.02 am during consideration of Item 7.

The meeting adjourned at 11.11 am and reconvened at 11.42 am during consideration of Item 7.

The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm and reconvened at 12.47 pm during consideration of Item 7. Councillor Harrison-Hunt was not present at this time.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt returned to the meeting at 12.48 pm during consideration of Item 7.

7. Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport
	Council Comment *Secretarial Notes:* 1. The Council resolved to temporarily suspend selected Standing Orders to enable a more informal discussion for this Item (refer to Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders) above. 2. The Council heard oral submissions relating to the draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy (the strategy) at its meeting on 5 March 2025. 3. The Council held a public Information Session on 18 March 2025 to discuss feedback received from Councillors on the strategy. Council Comment 1. Council Officers John Higgins, Mark Stevenson and Jane Cameron joined the table to present the report. 2. Council Officers tabled the following documents: · A revised version of the strategy containing proposed amendments as a result of submissions received and councillor feedback (Minutes Attachment 7A). · A table of proposed Councillor amendments containing Council Officer advice (Minutes Attachment 7B). 3. Updated Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter (the Motion). The updated to the Recommendations were to: · Reference the updated strategy, which would also incorporate any carried amendments made at the meeting. · Delegate authority to the General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory, in consultation with the Mayor and Deputy, to make further changes to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy to reflect the resolutions passed at the meeting *Secretarial Note*: Certain carried amendments may be reworded in accordance with this delegation. 4. Councillors Moved their proposed amendments as contained in Attachment 7B of the Minutes and confirmed their Seconders. Councillors also raised further amendments at the meeting. 5. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the Movers and of Council Officers. 6. The meeting adjourned to allow Council Officers to prepare further advice regarding the proposed amendments. 7. Upon reconvening a final list containing all Councillor proposed amendments was tabled (refer to Minutes Attachment 7C). 8. Council Officers provided advice and revised wording, where applicable, on the proposed amendments. Councillors were provided a further opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the Movers and of Council Officers. 9. The proposed amendments raised at the meeting were Moved and Seconded. During discussions: a. Proposed amendments A8, A18, A19 and A30 and A31 were withdrawn by the Mover and Seconder (where applicable) (refer to Minutes Attachments 7C for the proposed amendment wording). b. Two further amendments, A32 and A33 were Moved and Seconded. 10. The meeting held one debate for all proposed amendments, and the Substantive Motion (Recommendations 1 to 6). 11. The meeting voted on each proposed amendment individually (refer to the individual decisions below). 12. The meeting adjourned and upon reconvening two further Recommendations were added to the Substantive Motion (refer to Resolutions 7 and 8) which noted for: · Staff to formally raise with Environment Canterbury providing improved public transport connections between urban Christchurch and Banks Peninsula communities; and · Staff to consider changes to the Infrastructure Design Standard and Construction Standards Specifications as part of the next review to provide clarification when footpaths are required and to what specifications. 13. The meeting voted on the Substantive Motion, to approve the strategy (incorporating all carried amendments) which was declared carried.
	Original Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the revised version of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy which incorporates the amendments outlined in Attachment A in response to submitter feedback. 4. Delegates authority to staff to make any spelling or grammatical amendments to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy ahead of its publication. 5. Revokes the Council’s Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-42 which will be superseded by Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport 2024-54.
	Updated Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the revised version of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy as tabled at the meeting, and including the following (refer to amendments below): ~~which incorporates the amendments as tabled at the meeting outlined in Attachment A in response to submitter feedback~~ 4. Delegates authority to staff to make any spelling or grammatical amendments to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy ahead of its publication. 5. Delegates authority to the General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory, in consultation with the Mayor and Deputy, to make further changes to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy to reflect the resolutions passed at the meeting. 6. Revokes the Council’s Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-42 which will be superseded by Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport 2024-54. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Council Decision A1. MacDonald - Emissions reduction (pages 9-10) Remove “meeting our 2030 emissions reduction goal – 10 trip scenario” section and diagram on page 10; and the following text on page 9 “For example, one scenario suggests that for every 10 trips, the level of change needed by 2030 could look like this”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00169 Foreshadowed A1. Templeton - Emissions reduction (pages 9-10) Include additional wording and/or diagram changes to enhance clarity of the scenario illustration Councillor Templeton/Councillor Coker Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00170 A2. MacDonald - Transport Strategy Goals (page 12) Include an additional productivity goal to the Strategy. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00171 A3. MacDonald – Well-managed transport assets (page 14) Reinstate reference to 5% annual resurfacing target. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Decision A4. MacDonald – Prioritising urban freight (page 24) Remove the following reference on page 24 to international urban freight trends: “Trends in managing urban freight logistics in more densely developed cities include logistics hubs and low-emission options like e-cargo bikes. Another way urban freight could develop is through emerging non-vehicle technologies. For instance, trials around the world have been undertaken using drones and wheeled robots for urban deliveries. We need to be responsive to this change while ensuring any risks (such as, noise or pedestrian safety) are managed”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00172 A5. MacDonald – Proactive network management (page 24) Remove detail about specific pricing tools and instead include a note that the Council will consult on government pricing levers (when available). Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00173 A6. MacDonald – Electric Vehicle transition (page 25) Include showing the change over time alongside the statistic that says that 9% of privately owned vehicles on our roads are low-emissions. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Decision A7. MacDonald – Public transport (page 26) Remove the following paragraph on page 26 in relation to bus priority measures: “Buses need priority to ensure reliability isn’t compromised by traffic congestion. Our programme includes several components. We’ll have on-road infrastructure (such as dedicated lanes) to prioritise buses in high-congestion areas. There will be signal pre-emption at intersections and enforcement to keep dedicated lanes clear at peak times. Additionally, there will be better real-time information for customers, bus stop enhancements, and infrastructure to improve the experience of bus users who walk or scooter to catch the bus”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00174 A9. MacDonald – Finish what we’ve started in the central city (page 32) Remove the following references from page 32: “Beyond completing transport projects supporting remaining anchor projects, we are planning a review of the remaining central city transport improvement programme to ensure it remains fit-for-purpose. This will ensure it aligns with future rapid transit corridor plans and emerging urban growth patterns within the four avenues. For instance, more intensive residential and mixed-use developments have occurred in the central city and around suburban centres, particularly inner-city suburbs such as St Albans. The Council has recently completed a South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan with the communities, businesses, and education providers co-located in this part of the city (surrounding and to the south and east of One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha). This work identifies potential active travel and amenity improvements that would support intensive urban development, business growth, and liveability in this growing part of the central city”. [paras 5-6] Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Decision A10. MacDonald – Enable liveable and more climate resilient neighbourhoods as we grow (page 33) Remove the following references o page 33 to low-emissions, area-based urban planning examples: “It can also involve directing vehicle flow around areas with high local activity instead of through them and incentivising low-emissions transport. Internationally, these sorts of initiatives are often area-based developments, such as Barcelona’s Super Blocks”. [para 5] “We’re already applying some of these urban design elements to the regeneration of the central city. Creating walkable, climate-friendly neighbourhoods will be an evolving process”. [para 7] Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00175 A11. MacDonald – Kerbside and parking management (page 34) Request that references to parking only refer to public parking, while the Council will be aware of private parking, the Council accepts the concept of private property rights. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00176 A12. MacDonald – Kerbside and parking management (page 35) Remove the following section on page 35 regarding extending the scope of the kerbside: “Kerbside space is prime real estate in higher urban density areas, with increasing demands on its use. Space historically used for parking is being repurposed for other functions, such as parklets for business use, bus lanes, cycle paths, pedestrian walkways, and services like waste management. With increased competition for street space, we plan to develop more coordinated kerbside and parking management approaches to manage demand and maximise the use of our shared street spaces”. [paras 1 and 2] Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00177 A13. MacDonald – Implementation (page 37) Remove the following “on the horizon action” in Goal 4 on page 37: “Investigate the role of transport pricing tools to manage demand”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00178 A14. MacDonald – Implementation (page 37) Remove the following “on the horizon action” in Goal 6 on page 37: “Refresh our central city transport plan to ensure it remains fit-for-purpose”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00179 A15. MacDonald – Implementing funding and investment for implementation (page 38) Include the following sentence on page 38: “The Council will continue to respect private property rights”. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00180 A16. MacDonald – Measuring our progress (page 40) Include the additional measures on page 38: a. Travel times and traffic flow. b. Congestion created by our own designs. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00181 A17. Moore – Safe and connected walking environments (page 27) Include wording to ensure new housing developments are connected to nearby amenities with footpaths. Councillor Moore/Councillor Johanson Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00182 A20. Donovan – Climate resilience and equity Update Goal 2 to read as follows: “Developing a transport system that is both climate-resilient and equitable [ensuring that historically underserved communities receive targeted investment and support.]” Councillor Donovan/Councillor Johanson Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00183 A21. Coker – Goal 4 Ensure essential travel is captured within the strategy goals Update Goal 4 as follows on Page 3 and 12 “Enhancing productivity, economic growth and essential travel through free flowing and efficient movement”. Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00184 A22. Coker – Goal 4 Update the following sentence on Page 3: “and to ensure that the transport network contributes to the liveability and productivity of our city”. Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00185 A23. Coker – Goal 5 Goal 5 page 37 to replace the top paragraph: Under column “continuous improvement, address the quality of road and footpath surfaces, bus and cycle infrastructure, and safety issues. Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00186 A24. Coker – Goal 6 Update Goal 6 on page 37, under column “strategic foundations” so it aligns with change on page 31 – Continuing to prioritise the central city Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00187 A25. Johanson – Engaging with our communities Include the following sentence to page 7: “We will explore opportunities to improve early community engagement on transport works including more than minor repairs and renewals. This will enable us to get residents feedback prior to construction and consider incorporating where feasible improvements to the local environment”. Councillor Johanson/Councillor Moore Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00188 A26. Johanson – Measuring our progress Include the following to page 40: An additional column of targets so that it can monitor progress against its goals and measures. Councillor Johanson/Councillor Moore Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00189 A27. Donovan – Page 27 Include into page 27: recent AP and LTP consultations have shown strong support for investing in cycleways – notably a large number mentioned the east of the city needing more and un-delayed cycle provision. This strategy will focus on prioritising cycleways in underserved areas: Residents have also asked for a greater focus on delivering cycleways in the Eastern suburbs and other areas that lack adequate infrastructure. Councillor Donovan/Councillor Coker Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00190 A28. Templeton – Page 7 Remove the word 'road' from 'road maintenance' on page 7. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00191 A29. Templeton – Page 9 Replace the word 'Enabling' with 'Providing' and add the words 'to enable real transport choice for residents' to the last point on p9, replacing 'to change travel behaviour'. Councillor Templeton/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00192 A32. Donovan – Pages Road Project Include “and ancillary works” to the following sentence – ‘replacing the bridge will improve resilience” to capture all the other important work that will be delivered as part of the Pages Road project Councillor Donovan/Councillor Templeton Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00193 A33. Donovan – Page 13 Include the following to page 13 An Inclusive and Equitable Access goal in transport planning typically means ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, location, income level, or physical ability, has fair and accessible transport options. It focuses on: · Equity in infrastructure investment – making sure that underserved areas, such as lower-income communities or regions with limited transport options, receive appropriate funding and development. · Accessibility for all – ensuring transport systems cater to people with disabilities, older adults, and those who rely on walking, cycling, or public transport. · Affordable and reliable options – providing cost-effective and dependable transport choices so that people who don’t own a car can still move around easily. · Reducing barriers – addressing factors that make transport harder for some groups, such as unsafe walking routes, lack of cycleways, or poor public transport connections. Councillor Donovan/Councillor Coker Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00194 Substantive Motion That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the revised version of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy as tabled at the meeting, and including the following (refer to amendments below): 4. Delegates authority to staff to make any spelling or grammatical amendments to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy ahead of its publication. 5. Delegates authority to the General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory, in consultation with the Mayor and Deputy, to make further changes to the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy to reflect the resolutions passed at the meeting. 6. Revokes the Council’s Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-42 which will be superseded by Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport 2024-54. 7. Note for staff to formally raise with Environment Canterbury providing improved public transport connections between urban Christchurch and Banks Peninsula communities. 8. Note for staff to consider changes to the Infrastructure Design Standard and Construction Standards Specifications as part of the next review to provide clarification when footpaths are required and to what specifications. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillors Gough, Keown and Moore requested that their votes against the Resolutions 3 and 6 be recorded.
	Attachments a Updated Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy for approval b Table of Councillor proposed amendments c Final list of Councillor proposed amendments

Reinstatement of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00195

That the Standing Orders set aside above, be resumed.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

11. Wheelie Bin Latch Trial
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers provided an update to Officer Recommendation 3, to amend the funding source of the wheelie bin latch stock. 2. When put to the vote the updated Officer Recommendations were declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Wheelie Bin Latch Trial Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves the establishment of a wheelie bin latch stock of up to 25,000 units at a cost of $101,250 excluding GST and funded from existing budget CPMS 50264 – Kerbside Service Enhancement. 4. Approves the wheelie bin latch stock being made available to the community through Council offices, libraries, and community hubs on a user pays basis of $4.25 excluding GST per unit.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00196 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Wheelie Bin Latch Trial Report. 2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves the establishment of a wheelie bin latch stock of up to 25,000 units at a cost of $101,250 excluding GST and funded from existing kerbside collection budgets. 4. Approves the wheelie bin latch stock being made available to the community through Council offices, libraries, and community hubs on a user pays basis of $4.25 excluding GST per unit. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

13. Amendments to the Register of Delegations

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00197

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Scandrett Carried

17. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00198

Mayor’s Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Mayor’s Monthly report.

Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.05 pm and reconvened at 2.05 pm.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 2.10 pm and returned at 2.22 pm during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 2.11 pm and returned at 2.12 pm during consideration of Item 12.

12. Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation (discussion on Item)

Council Comment

1. Council Officers John Filsell and Rose Crossland joined the table to present the report.

2. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of Council Officers.

3. Following discussions, the meeting resolved to exclude the public to discuss Public Excluded Attachments B and C of the Agenda (refer to resolution to exclude the public below).

4. Refer to Item 12 below for the decision on this Item.

18. Resolution to Exclude the Public

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00199

That Aneke Goodall, Board Chair, Lyn Umbers, Acting General Manager, and Gemma Barmer, staff member of the Christchurch Foundation, remain after the public have been excluded for Item 12 of the public excluded agenda as they have knowledge that is relevant to that Item and will assist the Council.

AND

That at 2.23 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 245 to 247 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.53 pm.

12. Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation
	Council Comment 1. Earlier in the meeting: a. Council Officers John Filsell and Rose Crossland joined the table to present the report. b. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of Council Officers. c. Following discussions, the meeting resolved to exclude the public to discuss Public Excluded Attachments B and C of the Agenda (refer to resolution to exclude the public above). 2. Upon reconvening in public, Councillor Henstock Moved a Motion, Seconded by Councillor MacDonald, to let the report lie on the table until the scheduled workshop with the Christchurch Foundation had been held. 3. Councillor Coker Moved a Foreshadowed Motion, Seconded by Councillor Templeton, to proceed with an updated version of Option 3 of the report, which was to: a. Make a grant of $82,500 from the Capital Endowment Fund to the Christchurch Foundation, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it engages with the Council to finalise and prepares to implement its new Strategic Plan. b. Provide a conditional grant of up to $440,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund over two years to the Christchurch Foundation, payable instalments over two financial years being as described below, and conditional upon a workshop being held, and the Council approving the Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan: · Tranche 2: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2025, subject to the Council’s approval of a new Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan in May/June 2025. This decision to be made via a Council report. · Tranche 3: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2026, subject to the Council’s approval of the progress in implementing the new Strategic Plan in May/June 2026. This decision to be made via a Council report. 4. When put to the vote, the Motion to let the report lie on the table was declared lost by way of division. 5. When put to the vote, the Foreshadowed Motion for the updated Option 3, was declared carried by way of division.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Makes a grant of $82,500 from the Capital Endowment Fund to the Christchurch Foundation, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it engages with the Council to finalise and prepares to implement its new Strategic Plan. 4. Notes that the Council may be asked to consider up to two further grants from the Capital Endowment Fund, as an extension to this application, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it implements its new Strategic Plan in a manner agreed with the Council. 5. Notes that the publicly excluded Attachments B and C will be reviewed for release when the specific funds and investments contained in the document are no longer under management.
	Council Decision That the Council: 1. Resolves to let the report lie on the table until the upcoming workshop scheduled with the Christchurch Foundation has been held. The division was declared lost* by 6 votes to 10 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Peters *Against:* Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton Councillor Henstock/Councillor MacDonald Lost Deputy Mayor Cotter sat back from the table and took no part in the discussion or voting on this Item.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00201 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Application to the Capital Endowment Fund - The Christchurch Foundation Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Makes a grant of $82,500 from the Capital Endowment Fund to the Christchurch Foundation, to support the operation of the Foundation whilst it engages with the Council to finalise and prepares to implement its new Strategic Plan. 4. Provides a conditional grant of up to $440,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund over two years to the Christchurch Foundation, payable instalments over two financial years being as described in Resolution 4a and 4b, and conditional upon a workshop being held, and the Council approving the Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan: a. Tranche 2: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2025, subject to the Council’s approval of a new Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan in May/June 2025. This decision to be made via a Council report. b. Tranche 3: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2026, subject to the Council’s approval of the progress in implementing the new Strategic Plan in May/June 2026. This decision to be made via a Council report. 5. Notes that the publicly excluded Attachments B and C will be reviewed for release when the specific funds and investments contained in the document are no longer under management. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Councillor Barber, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Peters Councillor Coker/Councillor Templeton Carried Deputy Mayor Cotter sat back from the table and took no part in the discussion or voting on this Item.

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 3.12 pm and returned at 3.17 pm during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 3.12 pm and returned at 3.15 pm during consideration of Item 9.

9. PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use
	Council Comment 1. Council Officer Bruce Rendall joined the table to present the report. 2. Councillor Keown Moved, Seconded by Councillor Barber, option 3 of the Officer Report which was to proceed with the development for temporary use of 129 Gloucester St as temporary car parking spaces only. 3. Councillor McLellan Foreshadowed the Original Officer Recommendations, which was to proceed with the development for temporary use of 129 Gloucester St, as temporary car parking spaces and a public open space. This was later Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 4. During debate, in accordance with Standing Order 17.15 Chairperson’s acceptance of closure motions, the Mayor put a closure motion for the motion to be put to the vote. 5. When put to the vote, option 3 of the Officer Report was declared lost by way of division. 6. When put to the vote, the Officer Recommendations were declared carried by way of division.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Requests that staff proceed with the development for temporary use of approximately 2,081m²in the southeast corner portion of the Performing Arts Precinct (next to the Isaac Theatre Royal) at 129 Gloucester St, with the use providing for both temporary car parking spaces and public open space. 4. Notes the use of existing Long Term Plan funds, within the Performing Arts Precinct Public Realm Budget, being CPMS 59849 (total $1.93million across FY25-27), to carry out the works contained within this recommendation. 5. Delegates authority to the Head of Facilities and Property (who may sub delegate this authority) to do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the content of this report to implement the recommendations above including but not limited to any licence agreements required with external parties.
	Council Decision That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Requests that staff proceed with the development for temporary use of approximately 2,081m²in the southeast corner portion of the Performing Arts Precinct (next to the Isaac Theatre Royal) at 129 Gloucester St, with the use providing for temporary car parking spaces. 4. Notes the use of existing Long Term Plan funds, within the Performing Arts Precinct Public Realm Budget, being CPMS 59849 (total $1.93million across FY25-27), to carry out the works contained within this recommendation. 5. Delegates authority to the Head of Facilities and Property (who may sub delegate this authority) to do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the content of this report to implement the recommendations above including but not limited to any licence agreements required with external parties. The division was declared lost* by 8 votes to 9 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett *Against:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton Councillor Keown/Councillor Barber Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00202 1. Receives the information in the PAP - 129 Gloucester St - Temporary Activation Use Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Requests that staff proceed with the development for temporary use of approximately 2,081m²in the southeast corner portion of the Performing Arts Precinct (next to the Isaac Theatre Royal) at 129 Gloucester St, with the use providing for both temporary car parking spaces and public open space. 4. Notes the use of existing Long Term Plan funds, within the Performing Arts Precinct Public Realm Budget, being CPMS 59849 (total $1.93million across FY25-27), to carry out the works contained within this recommendation. 5. Delegates authority to the Head of Facilities and Property (who may sub delegate this authority) to do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the content of this report to implement the recommendations above including but not limited to any licence agreements required with external parties. The division was declared carried* by 11 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Scandrett Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a PAP 29Gloucester Street - Presentation to Council

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 3.36 pm and did not return.

Councillor Coker left the meeting at 3.44 pm and returned at 3.47 pm during consideration of Item 8.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 3.56 pm and did not return.

8. Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 - Speed Limit Reversals

Council Comment

Secretarial Note: During debate, in accordance with Standing Order 17.15 Chairperson’s acceptance of closure motions, the Mayor put the closure motion for the motion to be put to the vote.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00203

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

Revocations and new speed limits for Specified Roads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Travel Periods

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

The division was declared carried by 7 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters

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

Abstained: Councillor Fields and Councillor Scandrett

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 4.02 pm and did not return.

Councillor Moore left the meeting at 4.06 pm and did not return.

10. Electric Vehicle Policy - Interim Amendment

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00204

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

To:

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

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

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillor Scandrett requested that this vote against the resolutions be recorded.

14. Transport Operations Report (July to December 2024)

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00205

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Transport Operations Report (July to December 2024) Report.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

16. Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban - April to December 2024
	Council Comment 1. The meeting received the report and noted that an Information Session/Workshop will be held on this Item.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00206 Officer Recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Urban Regeneration Biannual Report: Suburban - April to December 2024. Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried
	Attachments a Urban Regeneration Biannual Report - Presentation to Council

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00207

That Karena Finne, Head of Major Events and Loren Aberhart of General Manager Destination & Attraction of ChristchurchNZ , and Chris Simpson, Chief Executive Officer of Major Events Group remain after the public have been excluded for Item 21 of the public excluded agenda as they have knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

AND

That at 4.27 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 245 to 247 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Peters Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.56 pm on Wednesday 26 March 2025.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 2.56 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

Moments Silence and Acknowledgement

The meeting held a moment’s silence to remember Bob Todd who passed away on 23 March 2025. The Mayor’s words are below. Councillor Johanson also spoke to acknowledge Bob Todd.

I want to take a moment to remember Bob Todd, who passed away on 23 March. Bob was a former Chair of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board. He also Chaired the Canterbury Community Trust (which is now the Rata Foundation) and he received the OBE for community service. Bob was always grateful for the opportunities that he’d been given to serve the community and we are grateful for the positive impacts that he has had on our city. Our thoughts are with his family if you’ll join me, please stand for a moments silence.

The meeting acknowledged the earthquake that struck Myanmar last week. The Mayor’s words are below:

I’d like to acknowledge the devastating earthquake that struck Myanmar last week. Having lived through earthquakes ourselves, our thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00170

That the apologies from Councillors Harrison-Hunt and MacDonald for lateness be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Withdrawal of Agenda Item

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8, Item 12 - Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve) was withdrawn from the agenda.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 10.01 am and returned at 10.02 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.05 am and returned at 10.07 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2025
	Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Nigel Harrison, Deputy Chair, 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 Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Bailey Peterson, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00171 Officer Recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2025 Report. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council b Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board d Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council f Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Massey University College of Creative Arts - Toi Rauwhārangi

Dr Dave Carter, Associate Professor and Dr Catherine Hoad, Lecturer of Massey University's School of Music and Creative Media Production, presented (via audio-visual link) the recent research on the economic and wellbeing value of live performance in Aotearoa, and what things are particularly relevant for Christchurch and the Canterbury region.

Attachments

a Massey University College of Creative Arts - Toi Rauwhārangi - Presentation to Council

3.1.2 Ann Farrall

Ann Farrall spoke to the Council regarding Freedom Camping at Broadpark Road.

Attachments

a Ann Farrall - Presentation to Council

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

4.1

Kim Money, Chair of the North Beach Residents’ Association, Trudy Burrows and Jo Zervos (personal capacity) presented a petition (refer to Minutes Attachment 4.1A) regarding a ban on Freedom Camping in the North Beach Foreshore Car Park which contained 866 signatures and reads as follows:

We request that the Christchurch City Council immediately enforce a temporary ban on Freedom campers in the North Beach Foreshore car park while working toward a permanent solution.

Council Comment

1. The meeting requested for staff advice on the issues raised in the petition, including the issues raised in the public forum from Ann Farrall regarding freedom camping at Broadpark Road.

Attachments

a North Beach Car Park Petition - Petition Submission

b North Beach Foreshore Car Park Petition - Presentation to Council

5. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 7 March 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00172

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 7 March 2025.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Moore Carried

6. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 14 March 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00173

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee meeting held 14 March 2025.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Moore Carried

7. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 26 November 2024

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00174

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 26 November 2024.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Moore Carried

8. Council Minutes - 31 January 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00175

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 31 January 2025.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Moore Carried

9. Council Minutes - 5 March 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00176

That the Council confirms the Open and Public Excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held 5 March 2025.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Moore Carried

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.40am during consideration of Item 11.

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

11. Cuthberts Green - Canterbury Softball New Build Application

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00177

Community Board Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approve demolition of the existing building shown in Agenda Attachment B.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Barber Carried

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

12. Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)

Council Comment

1. This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 6.8.

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

13. Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00178

Community Board 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.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor MacDonald joined the meeting at 10.44 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 10.45 am and returned at 10.48 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Donovan returned to the meeting at 10.52 am during consideration of Item 14.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.56 am and returned at 10.59 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 10.58 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 11.01 am and returned at 11.04 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 11.15 am and returned at 11.21 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt joined the meeting in person at 11.21 am during consideration of Item 14.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 11.21 am and returned at 11.22 am during consideration of Item 14.

14. 2024-2025 Residents' Survey Results

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00179

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Attachments

a 2025-25 Residents' Survey Results - Presentation to Council

The meeting adjourned at 11.40 am and reconvened at 11.58 am. Councillor Keown was not present at this time and Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 11.40 am did not return.

Councillor Keown returned to the meeting at 12.00 pm.

15. Request to seek extension to Plan Change 14 gazette notice

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00180

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried

16. Discretionary Response Fund - Project Lyttelton Incorporated, Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Gary Watson, Stephen Wright and Danielle Endacott joined the table to present the report. 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by the Mayor (the Motion). 3. Councillor Harrison-Hunt put forward an amendment to increase the grant to the Ao Tawhiti Unlimited School Board of Trustees from $12,000 to $18,000. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder this was incorporated into the Motion. 4. When put to the vote, the Motion was declared carried.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00181 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 $18,000 from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to the Ao Tawhiti Unlimited School Board of Trustees towards the Ao Tawhiti Community Play Area. Councillor Templeton/Mayor Carried

17. 2025 Christchurch City Council Elections - Order of Candidates' Names on Voting Documents

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00182

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.18 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 16^thDAY OF APRIL

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

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.

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.

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

9. Local Alcohol Policy - Proposed Draft LAP for Consultation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/548066
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tom Lee, Principal Policy Advisor, Strategic Policy and Resilience
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision to approve a draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) for consultation using a Special Consultative Procedure. The proposed draft LAP follows the completion of early public engagement on a range of possible LAP options.

1.2 The report follows Council Resolution CNCL/2025/00165 of 5 February 2025, in which the Council directed staff to continue work on the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy and to undertake engagement to inform the development of a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Alcohol Policy - Proposed Draft LAP for Consultation Report and attachments.

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

3. Approves the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy (Attachment A of this report) for public consultation.

4. Delegates responsibility to the Chief Executive to make minor changes to the draft Local Alcohol Policy to reflect any resolutions passed at the meeting.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Staff have completed the early community engagement on the issues and possible policy options for a draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), following Council’s direction on 5 February 2025 (CNCL/2025/00165).

3.2 This engagement took place between 17 February – 9 March 2025. Staff received 3,478 survey responses during this period and engaged with key stakeholders and community boards.

3.3 Analysis of the results of this engagement, alongside the research and data used to inform the early engagement, have been used to form a draft LAP. Staff have aimed to produce a draft LAP that reasonably reflects community views, the data and research, while providing a balanced and proportionate response to alcohol-related harm in the community.

3.4 The proposed draft LAP consists of three key policies:

3.4.1 Reduce the maximum trading hours for off-licences across the district to 9pm.

3.4.2 Placing a freeze on new off-licences in high deprivation areas (excluding off-licences where the primary purpose of their business is not the sale and supply of alcohol).

3.4.3 Restricting some new licenced premises (bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs) from being located near sensitive sites (addiction/rehabilitation facilities, primary schools and secondary schools).

3.5 Staff seek the Council’s approval to undertake public consultation. Public consultation on the proposed draft LAP will use a Special Consultative Procedure as required by section 79 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act).

3.6 If the Council is satisfied with consulting on the draft LAP (or with minor amendments to the proposed draft LAP), staff will continue work to enable the Council to consider adopting a final LAP this Council term. However, if Council does not want to consult on the proposed draft LAP or if significant changes are requested to the draft LAP, staff will not be able to complete a LAP process this Council term.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Early community engagement

4.1 The Council began work to consider the need for a LAP in mid-2024. Initial work with statutory consultees, engagement with the community and industry, and research work was completed over the second half of the year. This work produced a Research Report and Issues and Options paper which were presented to the Council on 5 February 2025.

4.2 The Issues and Options paper summarised research which found that a range of alcohol-related harm is affecting our communities. For example:

4.2.1 Alcohol was a contributing factor in many incidents attended by the Police. Between 2020-2023, the Police recorded 36,705 incidents in Christchurch where alcohol was identified as a contributing factor.

4.2.2 Many residents had drinking habits that places them or others at risk of harm, and alcohol is affecting people’s health. Christchurch has a significantly higher hospitalisation rate for conditions wholly attributable to alcohol than other major cities.

4.2.3 Drink driving offences have increased over the past four years.

4.2.4 Many residents reported alcohol-related harm or issues in their area. Christchurch survey data indicates that 23% of residents consider alcohol and drug-related issues are ‘a big problem’ in the city and another 48% consider it ‘a bit of a problem’.

4.2.5 Some communities are more affected by alcohol-related harm than others. Those living in communities with higher levels of deprivation are disproportionately affected by alcohol-related harm.

4.3 The research also indicates that many residents want to have more say about licenced premises in their area.

4.4 On 5 February 2025, the Council directed staff to continue work on the development of a draft LAP and to undertake early engagement to inform the development of this draft.

4.5 This engagement took place between 17 February – 9 March 2025. The Let’s talk webpage provided information outlining five possible policy options and relevant documents (such as the Issues and Options paper and Research Report). It also linked to the survey which asked questions about the five possible policy options and asked for feedback on other mechanisms council could consider as well as or instead of a LAP. It also provided an opportunity to share any other general comments.

4.6 During this period, staff also supported five community boards to host workshops where the issues and possible policy options were discussed with those who attended.

4.7 Emails were sent to approximately 2,500 stakeholders, including alcohol licence holders, community groups, statutory consultees, advocacy bodies and other interested parties. Key stakeholders, such as the NZ Police, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, alcohol licencing inspectors, and representatives from the alcohol retail industry, supermarkets, and hospitality sector were offered meetings with staff and were actively engaged with in the process.

4.8 Staff also surveyed on-street, at community events and at locations where response rates were lower than others across the campaign period, including the University of Canterbury Orientation ‘Clubs day’ and ‘Lunch on the Lawn’ events, Children’s Day, Bromley Community Fair, Sunday Riccarton Market, Bus Interchange, Central City, Matatiki Centre, Papanui Library and Te Pou Toetoe Linwood Pool.

Response to the early engagement

4.9 Overall, staff received 3,478 survey responses to the survey, which included responses on behalf of 107 recognised organisations and 154 alcohol licence holders. Staff are satisfied that a good level of responses were received from across all wards of the city and across different age groups. Staff are confident that the response to the early engagement provides a good insight into the range of views in the community, especially when considered alongside the previous Life in Christchurch survey data, and previous stakeholder consultation.

4.10 The following related information session/workshop has taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
08/04/2025	Local Alcohol Policy – Engagement Findings and Draft Policy

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 Option 1: Approve the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation (Special Consultative Procedure).

4.11.2 Option 2: Do not approve the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation and direct staff to continue working on a Local Alcohol Policy.

4.11.3 Option 3: Direct staff to discontinue work on a Local Alcohol Policy.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: Option 1: Approve the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation (Special Consultative Procedure).

Option Description: This option approves the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation. The proposed draft LAP consists of three key policies:

· Policy A – Reduce the maximum trading hours for off-licences across the district to 9pm.

· Policy B – Place a freeze on new off-licences in high deprivation areas (excluding off-licences where the primary purpose of their business is not the sale and supply of alcohol).

· Policy C – Restrict some licenced premises (bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs) from being located near sensitive sites (addiction/rehabilitation facilities, primary schools and secondary schools).

4.13 A copy of the consultation document with the draft LAP is attached.

Policy A – Reduce the maximum trading hours for off-licences across the district to 9pm

Policy description and rationale

4.13.1 Policy A means that all off-licence retailers across the district would only be able to sell alcohol until 9pm at the latest. The current default maximum hours in the Act are 7am-11pm. This policy therefore reduces the possible trading hours in the evening for off-licences by two hours.

4.13.2 This policy aims to reduce alcohol-related harm by restricting the ability to purchase alcohol at night in circumstances where people are more likely to consume it in an unsupervised environment. Research suggests that reducing trading hours can be an effective way of reducing alcohol-related harm. Focussing on the night trading hours of off-licences recognises that most alcohol-related harm occurs at night or in the early hours of the morning. This policy would restrict people’s ability to make late-night decisions to purchase additional alcohol to be consumed in an unsupervised environment when they may have already been drinking. As staff set out in the Issues and Options paper and Research Report (both considered by Council on 5 February; CNCL/2025/00165), the potential for harm is greater when alcohol is purchased to drink in unsupervised places.

4.13.3 This policy would apply to all off-licences, as the effectiveness of this policy relies on restricting the ability for someone to simply buy alcohol at another outlet. It is important that this policy is applied consistently and therefore there are no exemptions.

4.13.4 The results of the recent engagement suggest that this policy option has support (52.6% agreed or strongly agreed with reducing trading hours for off-licences) and the proposed time of 9pm has some community support and is supported by our statutory consultees (NZ Police, Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora, alcohol licensing inspectors).

4.13.5 Legislation (section 90 of the Act) requires that this policy must not come into force until three months after the day the public notice of the LAP is given.

Advantages and disadvantages

Policy A

Advantages

· Possible reduction of alcohol-related harm.

· Addresses concerns that trading hours for off-licence premises are too long.

· The greatest impact is likely to be felt in areas with higher deprivation, which tend to have more off-licence premises with longer trading hours.

· Generally supported by the community, and supported by NZ Police, Te Whatu Ora and licencing inspectors.

· Simple to understand. The rule is clear and implementing it should be straightforward.

Disadvantages

· May drive people to purchase alcohol earlier in the day.

· Some impact on business –

o reduced revenue for off-licence premises who are currently open after 9pm (currently 53 of the city’s 254 off-licences are required to close at 9pm or earlier).

o cost for supermarkets, e.g. to cordon off alcohol for sale after 9pm.

Policy B – Place a freeze on new off-licences in high deprivation areas

Policy description and rationale

4.13.6 Policy B means that a freeze would be placed on granting alcohol licences for new off-licence premises in areas of high deprivation across the district. An exemption to this policy is possible for licence applicants who can show in their application that the primary purpose of their business is not the sale and supply of alcohol. Existing licensed premises could renew their alcohol licence, and a licensed premise could change ownership and continue operating.

4.13.7 Areas of high deprivation are classified as those that are measured at a deprivation level 8-10 using the New Zealand Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. This index uses a scale between 1 (low deprivation) and 10 (high deprivation) and measures deprivation based on census data across eight dimensions: communication, income, employment, qualifications, home ownership, support, living space, and dwelling condition.

4.13.8 The areas of high deprivation in Christchurch that this policy would apply to are shown in the attached document. Applicants would not be granted an off-licence for a new premises in these areas.

4.13.9 This policy aims to address the disproportionate level of alcohol-related harm experienced by higher deprivation communities by preventing the further concentration and proliferation of licensed premises in these areas. The research presented to the Council on 5 February 2025 indicates availability of alcohol in areas of high deprivation is a concern for the communities living there. Residents in more deprived areas are more likely to experience alcohol-related harm. Life in Christchurch survey findings noted that people living in wards with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to experience alcohol-related issues in their area and to have concerns with various aspects of current alcohol licensing rules.

4.13.10 The results of the recent engagement suggest that this policy option has strong support (61% agreed or strongly agreed with a freeze on new licences in high deprivation areas) and the provisions within this policy align with the community views, such as the focus on off-licences.

4.13.11 An exemption is proposed for licence applicants who can show in their application that the primary purpose of their business is not the sale and supply of alcohol. This allows for businesses to continue to enter into and invest in areas of high deprivation who may sell alcohol as a part of their wider business, however selling alcohol is not their primary purpose, for example, a gift shop or supermarket.

4.13.12 In the interests of fairness, it is also important that premises that currently hold licences in areas of high deprivation are able to continue trading, and that if such a premise changed ownership it would not be impacted by this policy.

Advantages and disadvantages

Policy B

Advantages

· Has strong general support in the community.

· Addresses community concerns about the proliferation of off-licence premises in high-deprivation areas.

· Acknowledges community views about on-licences, such as cafés and restaurants.

· Reduces the risk that concentrations of off-licence premises encourage lower prices, and consequently greater alcohol consumption.

· Has the effect of a “sinking lid” – in other words, it may prevent further alcohol-related harm and reduce it over time if off-licence premises close and are not able to be replaced.

Disadvantages

· Restricts the ability for off-licence operators to invest in new business endeavours in these areas, which gives a competitive bias to retailers who are already operating.

· People can still purchase alcohol from on-licence premises, existing off-licence premises, or premises that are granted an exemption.

· As the policy applies only to some areas, it inherently has some complexity to apply it.

Policy C – Restrict new bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs from being located near sensitive sites (addiction/rehabilitation facilities, primary schools and secondary schools).

4.13.13 Policy C would restrict new bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs from being located near addiction treatment / rehabilitation facilities, secondary schools and primary schools (which are deemed ‘sensitive sites’).

4.13.14 This policy option aims to respond to community preferences that some licensed premises are not located close to sites where certain parts of the population may be vulnerable. This policy option was the most supported by the community in the recent engagement (67.6% agreed or strongly agreed with placing restrictions near sensitive sites) and the provisions within this policy align with the community views, specifically the licences and sensitive sites it applies to. It also responds to one of the issues previously identified, which is that the community want more say on alcohol licensing.

4.13.15 This policy applies district-wide but has different settings for the Central City (which is defined in line with the District Plan as being the part of city contained within Bealey, Fitzgerald, Moorhouse, Deans and Harper Avenues) –

· Outside of the Central City, new bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs are not permitted to be located within 200 metres of sensitive sites.

· Within the Central City, new bottle stores, taverns and nightclubs are not permitted to be located within 50 metres of secondary schools and primary schools, and 100 metres of addiction treatment / rehabilitation facilities.

4.13.16 The different settings for the Central City reflect its composition, with many different types of sites within close proximity (compared to the rest of the district) as well as the fact that many of the types of activities that occur within the Central City include places where alcohol is expected to be made available. Some restrictions are proposed, however, to acknowledge that there is still some risk to vulnerable members of the community in this part of the city.

4.13.17 Within the Central City, staff propose an exemption for the City Centre Zone (CCZ), as defined by the District Plan. The CCZ is recognised as the primary destination for activities including dining, night life and entertainment activities. The exemption of this policy for the CCZ recognises the important role that this area plays in the city life and the district economy.

4.13.18 An exemption is also possible for a licence applicant if they can show they have engaged with an affected community and can demonstrate in their application that they can manage the premises in a way that addresses concerns about the potential impacts on the community.

4.13.19 Like the proposed high deprivation policy, premises that currently hold licences within the distance of a sensitive site would be able to continue trading, and if such a premise changed ownership it would not be impacted by this policy.

Advantages and disadvantages

Policy C

Advantages

· Has strong support in the community.

· Potential for reducing harm to vulnerable populations by reducing the establishment of new places to purchase alcohol.

· Reduces the burden on the community to object to licensed premises being located near sensitive sites, effectively shifting the onus to the applicant who would have to demonstrate that harm can be mitigated.

Disadvantages

· Impact on reducing alcohol-related harm is unclear.

· The exemption process could be onerous for applicants or communities if there are frequent exemption requests.

· Possibly restricts the availability of some amenities (bottle stores, taverns and night clubs) in some communities.

· As the policy applies only to some areas, it inherently has some complexity to apply it.

Options engaged on but not progressed

4.13.20 During the recent engagement staff also asked for community views on two other possible policy options – reducing trading hours for on-licences in suburban areas and a one-way door restriction. These two options have been analysed by staff and have not been included as part of the proposed LAP.

Reducing trading hours for on-licences in suburban areas

4.13.21 Staff opted not to proceed with this policy option because this was the least supported of the five options (49.3% agreed or strongly agreed) and because responding to the community’s preferences from the engagement would create complexity.

4.13.22 The early engagement feedback told us the community views different types of on-licences, and their implications for the surrounding community, very differently. This meant community preferences for trading hours for restaurants are different to their preferences for night clubs, and different again for taverns, and so on.

4.13.23 Accordingly, applying this policy to align with community preferences would be complex. Applying a blanket rule, as originally suggested in the engagement, would be too blunt to capture community preferences.

4.13.24 Currently, the District Licencing Committee (DLC) can already apply different times to different licence applications on a case-by-case basis, so, on balance, we consider the status quo remains appropriate.

One-way door restriction

4.13.25 Staff opted not to proceed with this policy option because applying the policy to the community’s preferences could have unintended consequences and would have a negative impact on the city’s hospitality industry and night life.

4.13.26 There was a small majority of support for this policy option (52% agreed or strongly agreed with this option) and among those who supported the policy, the clear preference was a 1am one-way door policy.

4.13.27 However, implementing a one-way door policy at 1am could lead to people leaving supervised venues early and continuing to drink in unsupervised environments, an unintended consequence which is associated with alcohol-related harm. Feedback from stakeholders also suggested that a 1am policy would have a negative impact on the city’s hospitality industry and night life, as many entertainment venues, taverns and night clubs in the Central City rely on revenue at these times and a blanket one-way door policy would impact the city’s vibrancy at night.

4.13.28 Other possible times did not receive strong support, with a range of opinions on whether the impact would be positive or negative. Currently, the DLC can already apply a one-way door policy to venues on a case-by-case basis without a LAP in place, so, on balance, the status quo remains appropriate.

Amending the proposed policy

Minor amendments to the draft LAP

4.13.29 While staff recommend approving the draft LAP as described above, the Council can approve the draft LAP with minor amendments.

4.13.30 Minor amendments include changes within the general scope of the policy being proposed or within the policy options that the community has already been engaged on. Staff have already analysed these policy options and understand stakeholder and community views on them so are likely to be able to provide informed advice on these amendments within the project timetable.

4.13.31 This means that some details within the proposed policy options could be amended prior to consultation. The Council could also choose to include in the draft LAP one of the options that were engaged on but not within the three in the proposed draft LAP.

4.13.32 These types of amendments to the draft LAP could be made and progress on a LAP could continue this Council term as planned.

Significant amendments to the draft LAP

4.13.33 However, more significant changes to the proposed policy could not be done in time within the current timetable. This is because staff would not be able to provide the Council with sufficient advice on the impact or consequences of a more substantial policy change, as this would result in staff needing to undertake further analytical work. This would be to ensure that Council have sufficient information and advice on the proposed policy change.

4.13.34 Changes to the policy that may require further staff analysis would include adding new policy measures or adding policy elements that were not within the scope of the recent engagement. In these cases, staff would re-consult with statutory consultees, key stakeholders or the community more widely. Staff could also be required to undertake further research or analysis on the impacts of a new option.

4.13.35 In these circumstances, this would necessitate a delay to the current project timeframes and the consequence of this would be that a decision on a LAP would need to be deferred until the next Council term. Current timeframes to complete a LAP this Council term are tight and there is limited ability to accommodate delays.

Timeframes

4.13.36 The following timeframes would apply to Option 1:

· April-May: Special Consultative Procedure

· June: Hearings and Deliberation

· Late-July: Council decision whether to adopt a final LAP.

· Late-August: Policies B and C come into force.

· Late October: Policy A comes into force.

4.13.37 Option Advantages

· Approving the proposed draft LAP will keep the LAP process on track for a decision on a final policy this Council term. This would enable the completion of a LAP process during one Council term and enables the same cohort of decision-makers to decide all aspects of a draft LAP.

· The policy reflects community preferences, data and research. The data from the early engagement provides a good insight into the community’s views and is current.

4.13.38 Option Disadvantages

· The Special Consultative Procedure adds another public consultation process for the public to engage with during a busy period of consultation (e.g. LAP early engagement, the delivery model for water services, development contributions, and the Annual Plan).

4.14 Option 2: Do not approve the proposed draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation and direct staff to continue working on a Local Alcohol Policy.

4.14.1 Option Description: This option provides direction for staff to continue working on a LAP but does not approve the current draft LAP for consultation. This option may be chosen if the Council is not satisfied with the proposed draft LAP and wants staff to do further work, such as significantly amend the policy or consider new or different policy options.

4.14.2 This option would mean that a final LAP policy would not be considered this Council term and that staff will not return to this Council for further LAP decisions. Instead, staff would discuss the LAP project with the incoming Council next term.

4.14.3 Option Advantages

· Still allows progress to be made on a LAP if the Council is not satisfied with the proposed draft LAP.

· Provides more time to consider new or different options.

4.14.4 Option Disadvantages

· An incoming Council may not want to pursue the LAP process, which would disappoint some stakeholders and community members, and the work to date could be perceived as wasted cost and effort.

· Extends the LAP process over two cycles of Council.

· Would leave some stakeholders/community dissatisfied with slower progress.

· An incoming Council may decide to recommence parts, or all, of the LAP process already completed - at additional cost and time to the Council.

4.15 Option 3: Direct staff to discontinue work on a Local Alcohol Policy.

4.15.1 Option Description: Staff would stop all further work on a LAP. The Council may choose this option if they are not persuaded that the district needs a LAP at present.

4.15.2 Staff would wrap up the work on a LAP by updating the publicly available information and informing stakeholders of the decision. Staff would not reconsider work on a LAP until the directed to by the Council.

4.15.3 Option Advantages

· If the Council is not persuaded the case has been made for a LAP, this option is a clear signal.

· Staff resources can be directed to other Council projects.

4.15.4 Option Disadvantages

· Does not reflect community preferences. The recent engagement signalled that the community wants some of the possible policy options available under a LAP.

· Some stakeholders and parts of the community would be disappointed and the work to date could be perceived as wasted cost and effort.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.16 Criteria used to assess decision options were:

4.16.1 Reflecting community views on a LAP.

4.16.2 Timeframes for delivering a LAP, including the implications of decision-making being split across two Council terms.

4.16.3 Stakeholder and community perception of the Council’s progress on considering a LAP.

4.17 The key criteria to assess the LAP policy options were:

4.17.1 Meets the objectives of the Act – that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly and that harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

4.17.2 Proportionality – that the policy response is providing a balanced and proportionate response to alcohol-related harm in the community.

4.17.3 Practicality – that the policy options are feasible, not complex, and can be easily understood and implemented.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Accept draft LAP with no changes for SCP	Option 2 – Accept draft LAP with minor changes for SCP	Option 3 – Do not accept draft LAP but continue work
Cost to Implement Excludes: · Staff time costs · Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: To date – Approximately $100,000. Attributed to: research, external consultancy, and engagement activities. Approximate cost for Special Consultative Procedure is $3,000.	As Option 1	As Option 1, except costs for Special Consultative Procedure (approx. $3,000) deferred.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs Excludes: · Staff time costs Potential external legal costs	Opex estimates: Approximately $110,000 once every six years - cost of reviewing LAP estimated as matching cost of developing LAP.	As Option 1.	As Option 1.
Funding Source	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets	Strategic policy, legal and operational budgets
Funding Availability	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets	Covered by existing budgets
Impact on Rates	Neutral, as within existing budgets	Neutral, as within existing budgets	Neutral, as within existing budgets

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 This Council decision will dictate the future process for a LAP. If the Council supports the staff recommendation to approve the proposed draft LAP for consultation, it will keep the LAP process on track for a decision on a final policy this Council term. This would enable the completion of a LAP process during one Council term and enables the same cohort of decision-makers to decide all aspects of a draft LAP. The timeframe for completing development of a LAP this Council term is achievable, but it is tight and there is limited time to accommodate delays. Should any unforeseen delays occur, it could impact the successful completion of a LAP. Staff can inform the Council as soon as possible if there are any issues that may arise.

6.2 If the Council is not satisfied with the proposed draft LAP and would like to consider other policy options that require staff to undertake further analysis or consultation to develop an informed view, this will delay the LAP process. It would mean that a final LAP policy would not be considered this Council term and that staff will not return to this Council for further LAP decisions. Instead, staff will re-confirm the Council’s desire and/or next steps for a LAP during the next Council term. It is possible an incoming Council may not want to pursue a LAP.

6.3 If the Council chooses to discontinue work on a LAP altogether, there will be stakeholders and communities who will be disappointed. It will be important to communicate a clear rationale for this decision publicly.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 Section 75 of the Act provides that territorial authorities may have a policy relating to the sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol within its district which policy may, amongst other things, apply differently to premises for which licences of different kinds are held.

6.4.2 Under section 78 of the Act, a territorial authority that wishes to have a Local Alcohol Policy must produce a draft that has regard to, amongst other things, the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 Section 89 of the Act provides that the setting of maximum trading hours is secondary legislation under section 161A(2) of the Local Government Act 2002; and subpart 2 of Part 5 of the Legislation Act 2019. Subpart 2 of the Part 5 of the Legislation Act 2019 (sections 115 – 120) provides the House of Representatives with the power to disallow, amend or replace secondary legislation.

6.5.2 Any disallowance under the Legislation Act 2019 to the setting of maximum trading hours does not affect the rest of the LAP.

6.5.3 Although the Act is not included in schedule 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 as having a disallowance exemption pursuant to section 115(d) of the Act, legal commentators consider that the combination of sections 162A(2), (3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 2002 deems LAPs to be secondary legislation having a presentation exemption, which means that the LAP, or any amendment to any adopted LAP, are not required to be presented to the House of Representatives.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

6.6.1 Align with Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The following strategic priorities and community outcomes are particularly relevant for this project:

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

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

· Our city is a great place for people, business and investment where we can all grow our potential, where enterprises are innovative and smart, and where together we raise productivity and reduce emissions.

6.6.2 The previous Council decision on 5 February 2025 on the LAP was assessed as high significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy (discussed in the Community Impacts section below). The decisions sought today are no different.

6.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the potential number of residents affected across the district, potential number of businesses affected, current level of community interest and potential impact of the outcome on health, social and economic wellbeing.

6.10 Since the start of this project, staff have engaged with representatives of our statutory consultees and key stakeholder groups, including the NZ Police, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, alcohol licencing inspectors, and representatives from the alcohol retail industry, supermarkets, and the hospitality sector. Staff have also provided Community Boards with briefings (November/December 2024) and workshops on the issues and possible policy options (February/March 2025).

6.11 The ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey, undertaken in August and September 2024, provided community views on the impacts of alcohol-related harm in neighbourhoods. The findings of this survey and report on the initial engagement with stakeholders was provided to the previous Council meeting on 5 February 2025. The research report with the results of the ‘Life in Christchurch’ survey also remains available on the Council website.

6.12 Early community engagement was undertaken recently on a range of possible policy options. From this engagement, staff received 3,478 survey responses, which included 107 submissions on behalf of recognised organisations and 154 alcohol licence holders. More information on the process and response to this engagement is discussed in Section 4 of this report.

6.13 Staff made a concerted effort to seek community views prior to drafting a LAP, so that the proposed draft policy is well-informed by community views.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 The decisions required from this report do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. It is expected that issues and impacts relating to the sale and supply of alcohol in the community is likely to be of interest to some Mana Whenua.

6.15 The Council’s Te Tiriti Partnership team have sought advice from Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga about how they wish to participate in the development of a draft LAP to ensure their views are heard. Arrangements are being made for engagement on issues and possible policy options. The Special Consultative Procedure will also enable Mana Whenua to participate and submit on proposals.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If Council supports the recommendations to commence with public consultation, the following next steps will be taken:

Date (2025)	Activity/event
April-May	· Public consultation on the draft LAP using the Special Consultative Procedure.
June	· Hearings and deliberations.
Late-July	· Council Meeting to decide whether to adopt final LAP. · LAP notification period.
Late-August	· Policies B and C enter into force.
Late-October	· Policy A enters into force.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Local Alcohol Policy Consultation Document	25/711346	103

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Thomas Lee - Principal Policy Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/620418
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Langbein, Finance Business Partner John Filsell, Head of Community Support & Partnerships
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, 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 Council’s direction in response the Canterbury Museum Trust Board’s (the Museum) draft 2025/26 Annual Plan which is requesting a $21.1 million increase in capital grants funding from the Christchurch City Council toward its redevelopment project.

1.2 The report is staff generated following receipt of the Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan (Attachment A and B).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request Report.

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

3. Notes that the Canterbury Museum’s planned operating levy increase of 3.1% is already incorporated in the Christchurch City Council’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

4. Declines to commit to the increased capital levies proposed in the Canterbury Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and formally requests the capital levy remain at current levels.

5. Invites the Canterbury Museum to present their updated funding request in time to inform the Christchurch City Council’s draft 2026/27 Annual Plan.

6. Asks the Chief Executive to write to the Canterbury Museum before the 25 April 2025 deadline to advise them of the Christchurch City Council’s decision regarding the Canterbury Museum’s 2025/26 draft Annual Plan request.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Museum has requested a $21m increase in capital funding from the Council toward its redevelopment project. This is not provided for in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan or the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

3.2 This report recommends that the Museum re-present their updated funding request in time to inform the Christchurch City Council’s draft 2026/27 Annual Plan. This allows the Council to fulfil its obligation to consult with the community prior to making a decision in the context of an annual plan process where all the implications are understood.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Museum levies are allocated between contributing local authorises using the methodology prescribed in the Canterbury Museum Trust Board Act 1993 (the Act). The Museum advises councils of the planned total levy increase in the Museum’s annual plan consultation with contributing councils. Accordingly, each year the Museum presents its draft Annual Plan including an update on the Museum redevelopment project.

4.2 Under s15(3) of the Act the Museum’s formal 6-week annual plan consultation period is mid-March to the end of April. For 2025 this is 14 March to 25 April.

· The Museum briefs each contributing council at the beginning of the formal consultation period.

· Contributing councils make a submission to the Museum’s Draft Annual Plan.

· The Museum Board considers submissions from Councils by mid-May.

4.3 Under s16(1) of the Act the levies proposed in the Museum’s draft annual plan shall be deemed to have been approved by all contributing authorities and binding on them once the Museum’s annual plan is adopted unless either the Christchurch City Council or two or more of the remaining contributing councils give notice in writing objecting to the levies proposed therein during the period referred to in section 15(3) of the Act (above).

· The Council has until the end of the referral period (25 April 2025) to formally object to the proposed increase or else it is deemed to be agreed to.

4.4 Under s16(3) of the Act the Christchurch City Council or not less than three other contributing councils may resolve that the total levy be reduced to an amount being not less than the total levy made in respect of the previous year.

4.5 The Museum’s planned 3.1% increase in the operating levy is consistent with the Council’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and year two of the Council’s 2024/34 Long Term Plan.

4.6 The Museum has recently informed the Council of an estimated $86.6 million funding shortfall for the balance of its redevelopment project. They are requesting an additional $25.0 million from contributing Councils ($21.1 million from Christchurch City Council) with the balance from central government and their own fundraising. This increased funding has not been included in the Council’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan or the 2024/34 Long Term Plan.

4.7 The Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan assumes capital levies are calculated at the increased amounts and summarised in Attachment A as:
“The overall cost of the Museum Project has increased from $205m to $247m. It is proposed that the $86.6m remaining unfunded be allocated Central Government $25m, Local Government $25m and Canterbury Museum $36.6m. We have included the additional Local Government funding over 4 years, from 2025/26, on a 10%,30%,30%,30% basis (being $2,117,372 and $6,352,116 x 3 for Christchurch City Council) ….”

4.8 Timeframe Summary:

· The Council was first informed of the increased redevelopment project shortfall and expected additional contribution at a public excluded briefing from the Museum on 12 November 2024.

· The contract to deliver the Stage 4 base build was let by the Museum on 13 November 2024.

· The Museum issued a media release advising the funding shortfall had risen from $46.6 million to $86.6 million. This appeared in The Press on 15 November 2024 (Attachment C).

· The Museum provided its formal draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and funding request (Attachments A and B) on 13 March 2025 for the statutory 6-week consultation from Friday 14 March to Friday 25 April 2025.

· The Museum will be presenting on this at a Council Information Session/Workshop on Tuesday 15 April 2025. This Information Session/Workshop comes at the request of the Museum and is consistent with previous years.

· Friday 25 April 2025 is the deadline for the Council to make a submission on the Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

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

Date	Subject
	NA

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

Date	Subject
	Refer to paragraph 4.8

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.11 The following reasonably practicable option is considered and is assessed in this report:

4.11.1 Defer consideration of an increased capital levy for the Museum redevelopment to the Council’s 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

4.12 The following option was considered but ruled out:

4.12.1 Provide for capital levy increase in Council’s 2025/26 Plan – This option was ruled out because the Council could not fulfil its requirement to consider community views on accepting a further $21.1 million in capital levy costs. More specifically the timing of the Council’s own Annual Plan deliberations fall after the close of the Museum’s referral period outlined above.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: Defer consideration of an increased capital levy for the Museum redevelopment to the Council’s 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

4.13.1 Option Description:

· The Council confirms that planned operating levy increase of 3.1% is already incorporated in the Council’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan.

· The Council declines to commit to the increased capital levies proposed in the Canterbury Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and formally requests the capital levy remain at current levels until they can be consulted on in the Council’s 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Allows the Council to fulfil its obligation to consult with the community prior to making a decision on an increased capital levy.

· Allows the Council to make a decision on an increased capital levy in the context of an annual plan process where all the implications are understood.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Museum may prefer an earlier decision.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 The primary analysis criteria involves the extent to which the Council can effectively consult with its community to inform any decision on a change to the capital levy in a manner that meets the requirements of statute and best practice. - The preferred option allows the Council to fulfil its obligation to consult with the community prior to making a decision and to make a decision on an increased capital levy in the context of an annual plan process where all the implications are understood.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 There are no additional financial implications to the Council as the Museum’s planned operating levy increase of 3.1% is already incorporated in the Council’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and the preferred option allows the Council the opportunity to ensure any future changes to the capital levy are considered in the context of the 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is potential for a reputational risk to the Council as supporters of the Museum may believe that Council is creating uncertainty by seeking to consider the Museum’s request for an increased capital levy in its 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

6.1.1 This risk can be mitigated by clear communication to the Museum and the community on the rationale behind the Council’s decision.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report rests with the Council.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision as Council are following the provisions of Canterbury Museum Trust Board Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 2002.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Primarily managing ratepayers’ money wisely.

6.4.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the size of the proposed increase in the Museum capital levy and the high visibility of the Museum Redevelopment Project.

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

6.6 Communities & Citizens

6.6.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The preferred option allows for community views to be sought to inform the Council’s decision-making.

6.8 The decision affects the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 This 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.

6.10.1 This is because the decision involves providing a mechanism whereby the Council can consult with the community including mana whenua and take their views into consideration before making a decision on the proposed increase in capital levy’s.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.15.1 This is because the decision relates to a mechanism by which the Council seek the views of the community as opposed to a decision on the capital levy itself.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The Chief Executive would advise the Canterbury Museum of the Council’s decision before the 25 April 2025 deadline.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Canterbury Museum Cover Letter to Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan	25/565582	131
b ⇩	2025-26 Canterbury Museum Draft Annual Plan	25/565587	133
c ⇩	Museum could be paused - The Press 15 November 2024	25/628384	159

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Potential Reduction in Extent of Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/312329
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Glenda Dixon, Senior Policy Planner, City Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 Staff have been requested by the Council to investigate a reduction in the extent of the Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area (RHA), and to report to the Council on this matter ahead of the Plan Change 13 (PC13) hearing.

1.2 This request was in relation to item 7 of the Council meeting agenda of 11 December 2024, “Plan Change 13 – Withdrawal of Some Provisions”.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Potential Reduction in Extent of Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area Report.

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

3. Withdraws from the proposed Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area the following:

a. 72 peripheral properties (as mapped and listed in Attachments B and C of this report), which the Council’s heritage consultant has stated could be excluded from the Residential Heritage Area without having a major impact on the heritage values of the area as a whole.

b. Two additional properties at 41, 41A, 41C, 41D and 35 Voelas Street, owned by Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The extent of the proposed Lyttelton Heritage Area was reviewed on several occasions leading up to the notification of Plan Change 13 in March 2023. A number of properties were excluded from the original draft extent of the heritage area, which was based on the Heritage New Zealand “Lyttelton Township Historic Area”. Historic Areas are identified under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, not the Resource Management Act (RMA), and do not have any rules attached. The commercial and industrial areas of Lyttelton were also excluded.

3.2 This most recent review of the proposed Lyttelton RHA, prompted by the Council’s request in December 2024, has identified six further clusters of houses, making a total of 72 properties that Council’s heritage consultant considers could be excluded from the RHA without having a major impact on the heritage values of the area as a whole.

3.3 These clusters are located at the south-west end of the RHA and in the north/northwest sector (Cressy Terrace, Park Terrace, Bridle Path, Ticehurst Road, and Hawkhurst Road), generally on the periphery of the RHA (see Attachment B). There are two other properties on Voelas Road owned by Ngāti Wheke (the former Lyttelton West School site) which staff consider could also be excluded from the RHA. While individual properties elsewhere could be volunteered for exclusion, the Council’s heritage consultant opposes any “holes” in the RHA, because the heritage area needs to be unified.

3.4 Rather than seeking any further refinement of the Lyttelton RHA beyond what is described above, the Council needs to proceed now to the PC13 hearing (likely to be in June this year), where the overall concept, methodology, extent of the RHAs, planning provisions based on these areas, and submissions on them will be heard and determined.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Plan Change 13, notified in 2023, proposed eleven Residential Heritage Areas, with two of these being withdrawn by the Council on 11 December 2024. Some of the previously notified rules were also withdrawn e.g. specific built form rules within RHAs.

4.2 As a result of the Council request to investigate a reduction in the extent of the Lyttelton RHA at that same meeting, the heritage consultant who has previously identified and assessed all of the 11 proposed Residential Heritage Areas, Dr Ann McEwan, was contracted to:

4.2.1 document the process and methodology used to delineate the current boundary and extent of the Lyttelton RHA, and to categorise properties within it;

4.2.2 identity and evaluate alternative ways of reducing the extent of the RHA which might be viable from a heritage perspective.

4.3 Dr Ann McEwan’s report is appended as Attachment A. Note that there are also several appendices to Attachment A.

4.4 In the notified Lyttelton RHA in PC13 and PC14, there are 793 properties, making it the largest of any of the RHAs proposed. This is because it is a single, unified township with significant heritage value as a historic port town, within a distinctive physical setting that had largely been developed by the early 20^th century. This contrasts with the other RHAs, which are smaller, with more geographically constrained heritage values.

4.5 During the process of developing the notified version of the Lyttelton RHA, the extent of the area was reviewed on several occasions. It was initially proposed that it align with the extent of the Heritage NZ Lyttelton Historic Area. However, as a result of site visits in 2021 and 2022, over 100 properties were excluded from this draft Lyttelton RHA, because they did not contribute sufficiently to the values of the area as a “comprehensive, collective and integrated place”. There were further rounds of review of the extent/ properties excluded leading up to notification, for similar reasons. The commercial and industrial area was also excluded, to be consistent with the other RHAs.

4.6 This most recent review of the proposed Lyttelton RHA, prompted by Council’s request, has identified six further clusters of houses that could be excluded from the RHA without having a major impact on the heritage values of the area as a whole.

4.7 These clusters are located at the south-west end of the RHA and in the north/northwest sector (Cressy Terrace, Park Terrace, Bridle Path, Ticehurst Road, and Hawkhurst Road), generally on the periphery of the RHA. The majority of these houses date to the late 20^th century and early 21^st centuries, with some having been built on previously undeveloped sites. On Ticehurst Road, the four Victorian/Edwardian houses in the cluster have been substantially modified. Attachment B maps the 72 properties identified by Council’s heritage consultant as being able to removed from the RHA, as well as the 2 additional properties that staff recommend be removed. (see 6.12 below) The total number of properties would thereby be reduced to 719. The properties are listed in Attachment C.

4.8 Given the extent and number of reviews that have now been undertaken for the Lyttelton RHA, and the fact that the PC13 hearing is likely to be held in June this year, there is no time to undertake any further reviews of this RHA. It is more important now to proceed to the hearing, where the overall concept, methodology, extent of the RHAs, planning provisions based on these areas, and submissions will be heard, with recommendations made by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP)to the Council. It should be noted that this is a different hearings panel to the panel which heard Plan Change 14.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options were considered by the Council’s heritage consultant and are assessed for this report:

4.9.1 Adopting the full extent of the Heritage NZ historic area, which also encompasses the town centre.

· While this would be a holistic approach, as HNZ themselves state in their registration report, “the more scattered and smaller collection of historic buildings at the outer margin of the township now sit amongst later mixed housing stock”. Also, including the town centre would result in a different type of heritage area than the remainder of those proposed in PC13, which is not necessarily a disadvantage in itself, however would require further work. In any case this option is larger than the extent of the RHA as notified, meaning it is now out of scope.

4.9.2 Retaining the mapped extent of the RHA as it was notified in PC13.

· There is strong heritage evidence for a large, unitary RHA over Lyttelton, and sufficient evidence for scheduling the RHA as it was notified. Dr McEwan would be prepared to support this option at the hearing if required. However there has been a Council request made to investigate reducing the extent of the area.

4.9.3 Revising the RHA with the exclusions shown in Figure 16 of Dr McEwan’s report and in Attachment B.

· The request to look at reducing the extent of the RHA has likely come from a position of concern over consents being required over a large area. On a heritage values basis, however, further “pruning” the RHA by removing 72 (plus 2) properties on the periphery as now suggested, is as far as Dr McEwan would be prepared to go without beginning to threaten the integrity of the RHA. She is of the view that individual central or internal sites cannot be excluded even if they have a neutral or intrusive rating, because the heritage area needs to be unified.

4.10 The following options were considered by Council staff for completeness but ruled out:

4.9.4 Could any substantial parts of the RHA be removed with a heritage rationale for their removal?

· No, because if this were the case such areas would have been identified and excluded on previous revisions.

4.9.5 Could the RHA be broken down into small areas or clusters of streets which are more intact? I.e. with gaps in between these areas?

· No. This is contrary to the evidence, which supports a single RHA that derives its highly significant heritage value from a shared history, common architectural forms and distinctive setting. i.e. it has a unified heritage story, rather than several separate ones. Also Figures 10 and 14 of Dr McEwan’s report, showing ages of houses, indicate that it would be very difficult to define coherent heritage areas with gaps in between.

· Those houses with a lower ranking within the RHA already have fewer planning rules applying to them, e.g. they can be demolished without resource consent, but their replacements do need resource consent, to ensure that they are rebuilt in a way which is generally in keeping with the heritage values of the area.

4.9.6 Is there a smaller boundary for the RHA which could be supported from a heritage perspective, e.g. could the RHA encompass only buildings which date from before 1945?

· This would be very difficult, considering the pattern of ages of houses. In earlier decades, Lyttleton was characterised by a scattered pattern of development. (see photos in Dr McEwan’s report).

4.9.7 Could the RHA have the same extent as the Residential Character Area?

· This is not a viable option, because the two types of areas are delineated on different criteria. Reducing the RHA to this extent would negate the unified heritage story of Lyttelton.

· Character Areas have a focus on coherence of character, the scale and appearance of buildings, patterns of subdivision, open space and streetscape i.e. visual aspects only.

· Residential heritage areas have a focus on the shared history of an area and may be more diverse in character than Character Areas. They consider immediate streetscape but also take a wider contextual perspective, e.g. the Lyttelton RHA considers views to and from the harbour and port. Compared to Character Areas, RHAs have additional heritage values as distinctive and significant residential environments representing important aspects of the city’s history. Heritage also includes less tangible values, including historical, social or cultural values, such as who lived there, the importance of the location relating to a specific event, who designed the buildings, etc.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: 74 additional peripheral properties excluded from the RHA.

4.11.1 Option Advantages

· This tidies up the periphery of the proposed RHA in locations where there are a lot of neutral buildings i.e. those which neither establish, support nor detract from the historic heritage values of the Heritage Area. Some are post-earthquake buildings or have been substantially modified.

· These properties will no longer require resource consents for redevelopment because of the RHA. (although resource consents could be required for other reasons).

4.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· Additional neutral buildings elsewhere could be volunteered to be excluded. However, the nine remaining RHAs do not have “holes” within them, because they each emphasise coherent histories and contextual values. The approach instead is to have fewer RHA rules for neutral buildings, e.g. resource consents are not required to demolish these buildings.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option A - adopting the full extent of the Heritage NZ historic area	Option B – Retaining the notified extent of the RHA	Recommended Option – Option C - removing 74 properties on the periphery
Cost to Implement	Additional cost for additional heritage and planning work	No further cost	Minor additional costs already covered by staff budgets e.g. revised mapping
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Current staff and consultant budget of Planning and Consents unit	Current staff and consultant budget of Planning and Consents unit	Current staff and consultant budget of Planning and Consents unit
Funding Availability	Budget available in 2024/25 year. Additional budget for 25/26 year included in draft Annual Plan.	Budget available in 2024/25 year	Budget available in 2024/25 year
Impact on Rates	No additional impact beyond LTP	No additional impact beyond LTP	No additional impact beyond LTP

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no risks to the Council or mitigations needed as a result of this boundary change to a proposed RHA.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 It is open to the Council to withdraw parts of a plan change at any time before the plan change has been approved by the local authority, or Environment Court hearing commences, subject to public notification of the withdrawal and reasons.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework in working with elected members of Council and residents. Reducing the extent of the Lyttelton RHA as much as can be justified on heritage grounds, will promote efficiency at the PC13 hearing, and removes the need for resource consents for some residents when they wish to alter or develop their properties.

6.4.2 Is assessed as of medium significance based on the number of properties included in the Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area.

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

6.6 Regulatory and Compliance

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.6 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - Providing Council an annual update on progress with plan changes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 There was considerable consultation with residents at the pre-notification stage, including letters sent to all property owners in the Lyttelton RHA. Online information webinars were held following this. There were a number of ways in which landowners could provide feedback on the draft plan change during the consultation period, and a large number of phone and email queries were received from individuals across the City following receipt of pre-notification letters.

6.8 There was some support but also some opposition to the Lyttelton RHA.

6.9 In the event, only three submissions were received on the Lyttelton RHA at the notification stage. At that point, some trimming of peripheral properties had already been undertaken.

6.10 The decision affects the Banks Peninsula Community Board area only.

6.11 The further notification of a small number of duplicate submissions on Plan Change 13 for further submissions, which took place on 29 March 2025, could result in additional parties becoming involved in the hearing process.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 Ngāti Wheke may be in favour of a further reduction of the extent of the Lyttelton RHA, as the RHA provisions introduce further rules about how development should proceed on the former Lyttelton West School site at 35 and 41 Voelas Road which they own, and where they wish to establish papakāinga housing. Te Hapu o Ngāti Wheke made a submission to both PC 13 and 14 , including expressing concern that their development aspirations for papakāinga/kāinga nohoanga could be further constrained by the proposed RHA provisions, and seeking an exemption from all RHA rules. Council staff have discussed the Lyttelton proposal with Ngāti Wheke on several occasions and will continue to engage on the outcomes sought for the site and how that is achieved e.g. a site specific papakāinga zoning and/or a resource consent under the Residential Banks Peninsula zoning.

6.13 This site is not on the periphery of the Lyttelton RHA but close to it. While Dr McEwan considers upper Voelas Road as integral to the heritage values of the area as a whole, and favours keeping the school site within the RHA, the proposed development of the school site for housing could still be compatible with the contextual heritage values of the streetscape, including for example, if the historic scoria stone road boundary wall is retained. While the site is not formally Māori Land under the Te Ture Whenua Act, in the wider sense of “ancestral” land, s6(e) of the RMA is relevant, as the area has been occupied by Māori for many centuries (Ōhinehau), eg it is listed in the District Plan as a site of cultural significance to Māori.

6.14 This is an unusual situation as two matters of national importance under s6 of the RMA, s6(e) and S6(f) both need to be considered. It is the staff’s view that these sites could be removed from the Lyttelton RHA, without leaving a detached portion of the RHA, to remove one of the hurdles facing the proposed papakāinga development.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Amend the Lyttleton RHA maps for PC13 to exclude the properties suggested to be deleted in this report. Proceed with preparing evidence for the PC13 hearing and schedule the hearing.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area - Review of Extent	25/642691	170
b ⇩	Map of Properties which could be deleted from the RHA	25/639485	200
c ⇩	List of Properties which could be deleted from the RHA	25/533930	201

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Glenda Dixon - Senior Policy Planner

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/475540
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lauren Boyce, Transport Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to request Council to approve the installation of parking and stopping restrictions on Gloucester Street, between Colombo Street and Manchester Street, to support the decision by the Council on 2 October 2024 to retain an amended layout.

1.1.1 However, changes in the rules around setting speed limits since October 2024 have made it more onerous for the Council to set the 10km/h limit previously approved.

1.1.2 Therefore, this report recommends letting the speed limit along Gloucester Street revert back to 30km/h, with more advice and options to be provided at a later date.

1.2 The report has been staff generated to support the implementation of parking and stopping changes associated with the layout changes made through the Gloucester Street shared space project.

1.3 The recommended option is to install parking and stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions 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 for the speed limit to be retained at 30km/h, rather than the speed limit change of 10km/h previously approved by the Council, for Gloucester Street (Colombo Street – Manchester Street).

4. In accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, revokes any previous resolutions to the extent they are in conflict with Recommendations 4 – 8 below:

a. on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street, pertaining to parking and /or stopping restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Rule.

b. on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street, pertaining to parking and/or stopping restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Rule.

5. Approves, in accordance with Clause 20 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that Gloucester Street (from Colombo Street to Manchester Street), be declared as a Shared Zone as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

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

a. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

b. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 45 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

c. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 81 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

d. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 122 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

e. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 153 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

f. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 197 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

g. On the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

h. On the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 60 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

i. On the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 109 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

j. On the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 180 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

7. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and with section 12.4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle:

a. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 55 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of seven metres, as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

b. On the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 97 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of seven metres, as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

c. On the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 173 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of seven metres, as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

8. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of ten minutes on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 27 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

b. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 62 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of six metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

c. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 104 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

d. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 174 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

e. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 29 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of six metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

f. The parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 161 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

g. The parking of vehicles be restricted to motorcycles only on the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 105 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at any time.

h. A Cycle Stand be installed on the north side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 143 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

i. A Loading Zone be installed on the south side of Gloucester Street, commencing at a point 44 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A. This Loading Zone is to be restricted to a maximum loading period of five minutes.

9. Approves the placement of street furniture on Gloucester Street between Colombo Street and Manchester Street as detailed on plan TP361101 Issue 1, dated 17/01/2025 and included in this report as Attachment A.

10. Approves that Recommendations 4 –8 above, if approved, take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The parking and stopping changes made to Gloucester Street through the shared space trial project were carried out under temporary traffic management.

3.2 At the Council meeting of 2 October 2024, the Council approved the retention of an amended layout of the Gloucester Street shared space trial, which involved making temporary changes to a section of Gloucester Street, between Colombo Street and Manchester Street. This included a resolution for staff to return to the Council with the Detailed Traffic Resolutions.

3.3 On 28 September 2024, the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 was signed by the Minister. This changed the process by which Road Controlling Authorities can set new speed limits and sets a number of rules that must be met for the Council to be able to set the 10km/h speed limit previously approved.

3.3.1 The staff recommendation is therefore to allow the road to revert back to a 30km/h speed limit.

3.3.2 Staff have commissioned a safety audit to review the layout in line with a 30km/h speed limit, which has not identified any major safety issues.

3.3.3 Further information on the changes in process, implications for the Council, and available options will be made available in a separate report.

3.4 The recommended option is to install parking and stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A, and in line with the previous Council decision, without the reduced speed limit.

3.5 This report is therefore for the Council to approve the Detailed Traffic Resolutions associated with the approved design.

3.5.1 This will ensure the amended layout changes are legally resolved and enforceable.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Trial Period

4.1 The Gloucester Street “Streets for People” trial allowed the Council to test transitional improvements to Gloucester Street, which included changes such as lowering the speed limit, adding street furniture, adding speed reduction measures, new paint marking and other features that would create an environment that is safe and attractive for road users.

4.2 Construction of the trial layout finished in December 2023, which was then followed by a period of monitoring and evaluation to understand the project's impact, along with engagement to gather public feedback and submissions on the project.

4.2.1 The data and feedback obtained during the trial period were gathered and reviewed.

4.2.2 Some minor changes were made during the trial in response to suggestions received, or to address observed issues.

4.3 Following the trial period, an amended layout plan was developed:

4.3.1 This addressed further observed issues and feedback received during the trial period.

4.3.2 It also incorporated adaptations to accommodate the removal of the hoardings on the northern side of Gloucester Street. These were put in place to facilitate the Court Theatre construction and at the time were expected to be removed in December 2024. Noting that, at the time of writing this report, the fences are being pulled back within the Court Theatre site.

Hearings and Decision

4.4 A Hearings Panel was held for the project on 12 August 2024.

4.4.1 Staff presented a report that outlined;

· the data obtained from the monitoring and evaluation,

· the results of the engagement carried out, and

· a staff recommendation to permanently retain the amended layout version of the trial.

4.4.2 The Hearings Panel heard the staff report, along with submissions from the public and key stakeholders, and carried out a site visit to better understand the project.

4.4.3 The Hearings Panel decision was to support the staff recommendation to permanently retain an amended version of the trial layout, and to include some additional changes, which were:

a) Additional paint marking and shared zone signage at entrance ways.

b) P10 parking at all times for five carparks directly outside Court Theatre.

c) Requests staff to investigate the possibility of moving the Wahi Taiao stage to 146 Gloucester Street or another nearby location and replacing it with another piece of street furniture.

d) Requests staff investigate relocating the existing rubbish bin from near 160 Gloucester Street to near 146 Gloucester Street.

e) Swap the planter box adjacent to the 158 Gloucester Street Press Building with the planter box on the Northern side of Gloucester Street to improve visibility for drivers exiting 148 Gloucester Street carpark.

4.5 The Hearings Panel recommendation was presented to the Council for a decision on 2 October 2024. The Council resolved to accept the Hearings Panel recommendation.

1.1.2 CNCL/2024/00150; Point 5:

“Notes that staff will return to the Council with the detailed traffic resolutions required to implement the layout in Attachment C prior to completion of the Court Theatre”

4.6 Following the Council decision, staff updated the amended layout plan to include most of the recommendations from the Hearings Panel and other minor changes to address identified issues.

4.7 Two of the additional changes request by the hearings panel could not be carried out, which were;

c) Requests staff to investigate the possibility of moving the Wahi Taiao stage to 146 Gloucester Street or another nearby location and replacing it with another piece of street furniture, and

d) Requests staff investigate relocating the existing rubbish bin from near 160 Gloucester Street to near 146 Gloucester Street.

4.7.1 These changes were not carried out because the owner of 146 Gloucester Street informed staff they intended to set up a food/beverage outlet on the site. This meant an alternative location needed to be found for the Wahi Taiao. No suitable nearby location was found that could accommodate the Wahi Taiao and its associated seating within the required timeframe, so the Wahi Taiao and seating were gifted to Ao Tawhiti to be used at their Climate Action Campus.

The space on Gloucester Street where the Wahi Taiao and seating is currently located will be filled with planters and seating that are currently on 146 Gloucester Street.

4.7.2 The change in use for 146 Gloucester St means it will no longer be used by the Council for this project, so the landowner has been informed that the collection and removal of rubbish on their site will be their responsibility to manage.

4.8 Other minor changes in the amended layout plan include; relocating the location of the mobility space on the northern side of Gloucester Street, removing a planter box from the centre of the road outside Fable hotel, swapping the location of a planter and parking space at the eastern end of Gloucester Street and changing the “pick up drop off” signs for the bus parking area outside Fable to “P5 Loading Zone” signs.

Speed Limit Changes

4.9 On 28 September 2024, the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 was released. This was 2 working days before the meeting, and after the Hearings Panel had made their recommendation to set the speed limit on Gloucester Street to 10km/h. This came into force on the 30 October 2024.

4.9.1 This rule change was widely publicised as reversing previous speed limit changes, and the majority of staff focus since then has been on understanding the implications of automatic reversals, and how it could affect planned speed limit changes.

4.9.2 However, it also does not allow for speeds that were set under the Setting of Speed Limits 2022 rule, which have not been installed yet, to be implemented.

4.9.3 It also changed the process by which Road Controlling Authorities can set new speed limits and set a number of new requirements that must be met for Council to be able to set the 10km/h speed limit previously approved.

4.9.4 As the rules have never been tested in reality, there is also uncertainty about the Council’s ability to classify specific road types under the rule. This classification directly impacts on the speed limits available to the Council.

4.10 Staff are continuing to work on understanding the implications of this rule change, however, staff recommend removing the 10km/h speed limit and allowing this section of Gloucester Street to revert to the pre-trial speed of 30km/h.

4.10.1 Noting that this change is not in line with the design approved by the Council on 2 October 2024

4.10.2 The additional process to reduce the speed limit to 10km/h will likely be costly and take several months to complete. It requires analysis of the costs and benefits, community input, and a further Council decision.

4.10.3 An independent safety audit has been carried out to assess the layout against a 30km/h speed limit.

4.11 During the Streets for People trial, the average operational speed was found to be between 20-22km/h along Gloucester St. The safety audit has provided some indication of the expected operational speed and whether the proposed layout will operate safely with a 30km/h speed limit.

4.12 A separate memo will be presented to the Council providing further details on the required speed limit change process and providing options for the future. After this, staff would seek guidance about whether to pursue a 10km/h speed limit or retain the 30km/h limit.

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

Date	Subject	Link
February 2022	Briefing
April 2022	Memo
August 2022	Memo
December 2022	Community Board Briefing
February 2023	Briefing
22 August 2023	Briefing to Council
6 September 2023	Council meeting - Decision to proceed with trial	Minutes of Council - Wednesday, 6 September 2023
27 September 2023	Memo
26 October 2023	Community Board Briefing
1 May 2024	Council meeting – Decision to extend trial period	Minutes of Council - Wednesday, 1 May 2024
12 August 2024	Hearings Panel report
2 October 2024	Council meeting – Decision to retain trial layout	Minutes of Council - Wednesday, 2 October 2024

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.14.1 Option 1 (Preferred Option) - Formalise the parking and stopping changes made through the Gloucester Street shared space project with no change to speed limit, in accordance with Attachment A.

4.14.2 Option 2 – Retain the approved layout under Temporary Traffic Management until such time as a 10km/h speed limit can be enforced

4.15 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.15.1 Do nothing - let the temporary traffic management finish and leave Gloucester Street under its existing traffic resolutions. This option would not support the Council decision of 2 October 2024, and would mean parking issues could not be enforced.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Preferred Option: Option 1 – Formalise the parking and stopping changes made through the Gloucester Street shared space project with no change to speed limit, in accordance with Attachment A.

4.16.1 Option Description: This option formalises the previously approved layout changes by updating the traffic resolutions, without the speed limit change previously approved.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· This option will make the changes legally resolved and enforceable.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· This does not align with the approved design by Council. However, it does not preclude Council from pursuing the previously approved lower speed limit at a later date.

4.17 Alternative Option: Option 2 – Retain the approved layout under Temporary Traffic Management until such time as a 10km/h speed limit can be enforced.

4.17.1 Option Description: This option keeps the previously approved layout changes but retains these under Temporary Traffic Management arrangements. Staff will then work through the analysis and public engagement processes required under the rule, before reporting back to the Council to allow the street to be resolved with a 10km/h speed limit.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· This option would allow the Council to quickly meet the approved design and retain it until a permanent solution can be found.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· It is not certain at this time whether there is a definite path to achieving a 10km/h speed limit.

· The process to achieve a 10km/h speed limit under the new rule is not well understood at this time, and there will be a significant resource requirement for the analysis and community engagement. Therefore, the estimates given below have a low level of certainty.

· Reducing the speed limit requires a level of community engagement. This project has already had significant levels of engagement and feedback, so may suffer from consultation fatigue.

· Maintaining Traffic Management can be expensive, and is time-related (ie the longer it takes to get a decision, the higher the cost will be).

· It is likely that the final decision on Traffic Resolutions will fall with a new Council, so there is a risk of inconsistent decision-making.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

	Recommended Option	Option 2
Cost to Implement	$1,303,697 (of which $1,221,707 has already occurred)	$1,492,289 (of which $1,221,707 has already occurred)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No change	No change
Funding Source	Gloucester Street Shared Space Project (71599)	Gloucester Street Shared Space Project (71599)
Funding Availability	$1,493,978	$1,493,978
Impact on Rates	As rated	<0.01%

5.1 For the recommended option, the costs are consistent with the costs reported at the time of approval of the layout.

5.1.1 The report presented to the Council on 2 October 2024 stated the expected cost to implement the amended layout plan was $110k.

5.1.2 At this stage, the project is continuing to track to plan and there is no reason to believe the expected cost to implement the amended layout will exceed the value presented to the Council at that time.

5.2 The costs for the alternative option include allowances for maintaining and inspecting the layout under Traffic Management, Project Management, Engagement and Communications, and specialist Professional Advice.

5.2.1 As the Rule is new, the process is new to the Council. Therefore, there is a low level of confidence in the accuracy of the estimate.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If not approved, there is the risk of potential safety implications through non-compliance with onsite traffic restrictions if they cannot be enforced.

6.2 Attempting the make the street a 10km/h means classifying the street in a particular way. It is unknown if this would be accepted by NZTA. Therefore Option 2 may involve costs without the outcome being possible.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

6.3.3 Changes to Speed Limits must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Central City Parking Policy.

6.5.3 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

6.5.4 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.3.3 Maintain customer satisfaction with the ease of use of Council on-street parking facilities - >=50%

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

· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception (resident satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - >=85% resident satisfaction

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The recommendations contained within this report were developed following a Council decision on 2 October 2024 to approve retention of an amended layout of the Gloucester St shared space scheme.

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

6.9.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.10 The Board has been advised of this request and report, but its location lies outside the Board’s delegated authority area. The Board have been involved throughout the life of this project and this report is consistent with all information presented to the Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will arrange for the final changes and installation of new signs and paint marking, as required.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Gloucester Street Amended Road Layout	25/235848	214

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Lauren Boyce - Project Manager

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

13. Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/510491
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Hugh Wilson, Senior Policy Planner – Transport; Helaina Gregg, Principal Policy Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the draft Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

1.2 The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is calling for public submissions on the Bill. The deadline for lodging submissions is Sunday 27 April 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill 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 lodging the draft submission (Attachment A, Attachment B and Attachment C of this report) on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill to The Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

4. Delegates authority to [insert named Councillors] to approve any further changes to the draft Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill to The Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is inviting submissions on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill (the Bill).

3.2 The Bill proposes to establish a framework to enable time of use charging schemes in Aotearoa New Zealand. It would enable local authorities and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) to identify areas of high congestion and propose indicative schemes for approval by the Minister of Transport.

3.3 A draft Council submission has been prepared for consideration (Attachment A, Attachment B and Attachment C).

3.4 Subject to approval, the draft submission will be lodged to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Summary of proposed changes

4.1 Time of use charging is proposed by the Government as a solution to increasing congestion in cities. The aim of the legislation is to improve traffic flow in order to improve network productivity.

4.2 By charging motorists for using specific parts of the network at certain times, it is intended that the system encourages behaviour changes, such as altering travel times, routes, destinations, or modes of transport – thereby reducing congestion.

4.3 The Bill establishes a framework for implementing time of use charging schemes. Key aspects of the Bill include:

4.3.1 Governance: the Bill proposes the establishment of scheme boards to prepare and operate time of use charging schemes. Scheme boards consist of members from local authorities in the scheme region and NZTA. The proposed composition and voting rights mean that NZTA representatives hold the equal number of votes as all local authorities combined, with the Chair, who must be a representative of the Agency, holding the casting vote.

4.3.2 Minister involvement: the Bill provides the responsible Minister with a range of powers, including the ability to direct local authorities to initiate schemes and terminate schemes as well as being the decision-maker for any scheme proposal.

4.3.3 Process: the Bill also details the process for initiating, developing and implementing a time of use charging scheme. The main elements of any scheme proposal include the desired scheme area, charging methodologies, an investment approach, a public consultation report and a scheme impact assessment.

4.3.4 Costs & revenue: the Bill prioritises cost recovery of establishing a scheme and NZTA operating costs. If after recovering costs to establish and operate the scheme, it requires that the balance of revenue must be invested in the transport system as per the investment agreements reached by the scheme boards.

4.3.5 Exemptions: the exemptions from paying a time of use charge specified in the Bill are for emergency vehicles.

Summary of submission content

4.4 While the submission recognises the intent of the Bill to improve the efficiency and economic productivity of roading networks, it raises reservations around the proposed framework – particularly regarding the proposed governance model and the lack of local leadership and decision-making.

4.5 The following details key points outlined in the Council’s draft submission (Attachment A, Attachment B and Attachment C).

4.5.1 Governance: under the proposed governance arrangements for introducing a time of use charging scheme, local authorities would have limited ability to input and influence schemes that will be implemented in their region. The submission requests a more locally focussed governance model to enable joint decision-making between local authorities and the Crown.

4.5.2 Ministerial involvement: acknowledging that introducing a time-of-use charging scheme is a local matter that benefits from local leadership, the submission requests that the local authority should be the only authority able to initiate a scheme, even after three years.

4.5.3 Investment agreements: to avoid the risk of conflicting priorities, seek that scheme revenue should be invested in projects and services set out in previously agreed and consulted Regional Land Transport Plans (RLTP) and Regional Public Transport Plans (RPTP).

4.5.4 Revenue allocation: agree establishment and operational costs of the scheme should be covered before investing the remaining scheme revenue. However, request that the hierarchy be amended to also include operational costs of local authorities, complimentary measures (for example, increased public transport services) and exemptions.

4.5.5 Exemptions: seek that the scope of exemptions be broadened to include public services operated by the local authority and equity considerations based on existing welfare systems.

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

Date	Subject
3 April 2025	Draft submission circulated to councillors for their feedback

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

Date	Subject
1 April 2025	Information session on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council prepares a submission on the Bill to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

4.9 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

4.10 The Bill proposes a shift in transport legislation, introducing the ability to implement time of use charging schemes. It is therefore important that through a submission, the Council can seek to influence the direction of the Bill and provide suggestive amendments to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose for local authorities and the residents we serve.

4.11 The alternative option would be to not submit on the Bill. This course of action is not recommended in this case as making a submission is a valuable opportunity to influence the thinking of the Bill.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Not to submit on the Bill
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	As above	No cost
Funding Source	Existing operational budgets	No cost
Funding Availability	Available	N/A
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates as met from existing operational budgets	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to lodge a council submission is of low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.2.1 The opportunity to lodge a submission on the Bill is open to any person or organisation.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. The Legal Services team have provided input to and reviewed the submission.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the Bill, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 There is no direct impact on the communities of Christchurch from this legislation.

6.8 Community consultation is being proposed as a significant step in the development of any time of use charging scheme. If a scheme were to be proposed there would be substantial involvement from communities.

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

6.9.1 Similar to the communities of Christchurch, there is no direct impact of this legislation on wards or community boards.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.11 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua, however the decision to submit on the Bill will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decision to lodge a council submission does not have any direct climate change impacts.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Subject to approval, the draft submission (Attachment A, Attachment B and Attachment C) on the Bill will be lodged to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill	25/692185	220
b ⇩	Appendix 1 - draft Council detailed submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill	25/692186	224
c ⇩	Appendix 2 - draft Council detailed submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill	25/692187	228

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Hugh Wilson - Senior Policy Planner - Transport

Helaina Gregg - Principal Advisor Policy

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

14. Council Submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/627973
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Adams, Principal Advisor Strategic Policy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the draft Council submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards (NWEPS).

1.2 Taumata Arowai is calling for public submissions on the proposed standards. The deadline for providing feedback is Thursday 24 April 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Council Submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards 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 lodging the Council submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards (Attachments A and B of this report) to Taumata Arowai.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Taumata Arowai is consulting on the first proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards. These would set nationally consistent expectations for how wastewater discharges are managed across Aotearoa New Zealand. While the consultation relates only to the standards themselves, the way they will be applied is shaped by the Local Government (Water Services) Bill (the Bill), which has already closed for submissions but remains key context for this work.

3.2 Attached is a draft Council submission on the proposed NWEPS for the Council’s approval. The submission supports the overall intent to simplify and align wastewater consenting across the country but raises several concerns regarding gaps and potential implementation risks.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Taumata Arowai, the national water services regulator, is currently consulting on a proposed set of National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards. These would be the first national standards for wastewater discharges and are intended to improve consistency and regulatory certainty across Aotearoa New Zealand.

4.2 The standards are a key component of the wider regulatory framework introduced under the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. While the Bill itself is not part of this consultation (having already closed for public submissions), it is essential context for understanding how the standards will be implemented and enforced.

Legislative Context

4.3 The Bill will:

· Enable Taumata Arowai to issue binding environmental performance standards for wastewater.

· Introduce a 35-year consent duration for discharges that meet those standards.

· Amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) to prevent regional councils from setting more stringent resource consent conditions for discharge of contaminants covered by the national standards (new section 58JA).

· Remove Te Mana o te Wai as a statutory objective for Taumata Arowai.

4.4 While the current consultation is limited to the first phase of standards, these legislative changes define how they will apply in practice.

What the Standards Will Mean for the Council

4.5 The proposed standards will directly influence how the Council manages:

· Wastewater discharge treatment levels.

· Wastewater overflow and bypass events.

· Biosolids reuse.

· Environmental monitoring and public reporting.

4.6 Once in effect, the standards will become the mandatory thresholds for regional councils like Environment Canterbury (Ecan). This means Ecan will no longer be able to impose more or less stringent conditions through resource consent conditions or regional plan rules for matters covered by the national standards.

4.7 It is less clear, however, whether territorial authorities will retain the discretion to voluntarily exceed the standards. For example, by investing in higher treatment performance or responding to local environmental expectations. This is not explicitly addressed in the Bill or discussion document. While the Council’s current practices intend to meet or exceed many of the proposed thresholds, we are seeking clarification on whether the Bill and proposed standards will enable councils to exceed minimums where appropriate.

4.8 The proposed standards will also be indirectly relevant to the Council’s decision-making process under the Local Government Act (LGA) when the Council selects a preferred alternative for how to manage its wastewater disposal. The standards will be relevant to the ease of various consenting options and so will be relevant to community engagement and LGA decisions on preferred options.

How the Standards Were Developed

4.9 The proposed standards were developed through a phased process and draw on:

· A review of existing regional consent conditions.

· Technical input from wastewater sector practitioners and scientists.

· Alignment with existing national direction, including the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

4.10 The standards are intentionally grounded in what is practically achievable for most councils, rather than aspirational. Some parameters, particularly those relating to emerging contaminants (e.g. pharmaceuticals, PFAS, microplastics), have been excluded at this stage due to monitoring and data limitations. Responsibility for these remains with individual consent authorities for now.

4.11 Scientific input has informed the development process, though the underlying evidence base for specific numeric thresholds has not been fully published.

Implementation Timeline and Phasing

4.12 The implementation of the standards will be phased, beginning with this first tranche covering:

· Discharges to water and land.

· Wastewater overflows and bypasses.

· Biosolids reuse (limited scope).

4.13 Although a specific commencement date is not confirmed, the following is known:

· The standards will be given legal effect via regulations under the amended RMA.

· They will only become enforceable after the Local Government (Water Services) Bill is enacted.

· Taumata Arowai intends to release implementation guidance alongside the final standards.

4.14 Future phases will address air discharges (e.g. odour), land use for wastewater treatment plants, energy efficiency, and non-potable reuse. No timeframe has been confirmed for these.

4.15 The consultation material states that the first phase of standards will come into effect in mid to late 2025, depending on the timing of the Bill’s enactment and associated regulatory development. Transitional arrangements have not yet been detailed.

5. Proposed Submission

5.1 The draft submission responds solely to the proposed performance standards outlined in Taumata Arowai’s discussion document. However, where appropriate, it references the Bill to:

· Clarify the legal context in which the standards will apply.

· Highlight implementation risks or tensions created by the broader legislative framework.

Structure of the Submission

5.2 The submission is structured in two parts:

· Policy and Strategic Commentary: This section highlights broader issues including iwi engagement, regulatory discretion, emerging contaminants, and alignment with the Bill’s policy intent. This can be found in Attachment A.

· Technical Commentary: This section addresses practical implications for wastewater treatment, infrastructure planning, consent compliance, and monitoring. This can be found in Attachment B.

Submission Snapshot

5.3 The Council’s draft submission supports the intent of establishing nationally consistent environmental performance standards for wastewater but identifies several areas requiring improvement to ensure the framework is clear, workable, and fit for purpose.

5.4 Key points include:

· Acknowledgement of the value in setting baseline standards to simplify and align consenting nationwide.

· Seeking confirmation that territorial authorities can choose to exceed the minimum standards where local values or environmental objectives warrant it.

· Highlighting the risk that regional land use rules could continue to act as a barrier to nationally permitted discharges, and recommending national direction to address this.

· Recommending a national review process to progressively include contaminants such as PFAS and microplastics rather than leaving this to individual consent authorities.

· Suggesting that odour, as a high-profile community issue, should not be deferred to a future phase.

· Expressing concern about the removal of Te Mana o te Wai and calling for co-design and mātauranga Māori integration in future standards development.

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

Date	Subject
1 April 2025	Draft submission circulated to Councillors for their feedback

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.6 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council prepares a submission on the NWEPS to Taumata Arowai.

5.7 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

5.8 As a major territorial authority responsible for delivering essential water services to over 380,000 residents, we have a direct interest in ensuring the standards support effective, sustainable, and locally responsive water service delivery.

5.9 The alternative option would be to not submit. This course of action is not recommended in this case as making a submission is a valuable opportunity to influence the practicality of the standards.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 - Recommended Option to submit on the NWEPS	Option 2 – Not to submit on the NWEPS
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	As above	No cost
Funding Source	Existing operational budgets	No cost
Funding Availability	Available	N/A
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates as met from existing operational budgets	N/A

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 The decision to lodge a Council submission is of low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.2.1 The opportunity to lodge a submission on the NWEPS is open to any person or organisation.

7.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The required decision:

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

7.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the NWEPS, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

7.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.6 Water services are closely connected to cultural values, environmental stewardship, and the principles of kaitiakitanga. The development and implementation of national wastewater environmental performance standards directly affect how water is managed and protected within mana whenua rohe.

7.7 Kōrero with representatives from mana whenua highlighted several concerns with the proposed standards. These included a perceived lack of meaningful engagement with tangata whenua, insufficient recognition of Māori values and perspectives, rushed development of the standards without adequate consideration for regional and catchment-level differences, inadequate protection of freshwater quality, and limited transparency around the scientific basis for key thresholds.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.8 The decision to lodge a Council submission does not have any direct climate change impacts.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 Subject to approval, the draft submission (Attachment A and B) will be lodged to Taumata Arowai.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Council Submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards (Cover Letter) - DRAFT	25/683195	235
b ⇩	Council Submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards (Technical Feedback) - DRAFT	25/683349	238

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

https://korero.taumataarowai.govt.nz/regulatory/wastewater-standards/

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Adams - Principal Advisor Policy

Veronica Zefferino - Team Leader Quality & Compliance

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Gavin Hutchison - Acting Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

15. Derelict Buildings Issues and Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/449269
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory; Mark Stevenson, 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 provide options on how the Council can respond to derelict buildings across the city.

1.2 The report is in response to the Council resolution (CLP/2024/00116) requesting “staff advice to provide options to expand the Derelicts Building Programme across the City, including New Brighton for a future Annual Plan process”.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Derelict Buildings Issues and Options Report.

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

3. Agrees to maintain the current approach for managing derelict buildings whereby properties are reported or referred to the Council for investigation, following which, where buildings are deemed dangerous, or insanitary under relevant legislation, appropriate action can be taken.

4. Notes no additional resource or budget is required to be allocated in a future Annual Plan process with maintaining the current approach for managing derelict buildings.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council resolution (CLP/2024/00116) requests staff advice to provide options to expand the ‘Derelicts Building Programme’ for a future Annual Plan process.

3.2 The former Barrier Sites Programme was established in 2016 to provide an approach to dealing with sites that were considered blocks to the regeneration of the Central City. This programme was not expanded to suburban centres.

3.3 The current legislative framework restricts how Council can respond to derelict, abandoned or vacant buildings. Unless a building is deemed dangerous, or insanitary under relevant legislation, Council is unable to take action.

3.4 Expanding the former Barrier Sites Programme is not considered to be an effective or efficient approach. It would require significant time, cost and resource to deliver, and given legislative constraints, it would have minimal, if any, influence to direct change. Ultimately, owners of these buildings will make decisions about the future of their buildings based on their own circumstances.

3.5 It is recommended that the status quo is maintained. This relies on properties being reported or referred to the Council for investigation. If buildings are deemed dangerous or insanitary under relevant legislation – action can be encouraged or directed. As part of that process, staff will still be asking about the landowners’ intentions for the site and raising any issues that are arising from the state of the site. In special cases, there is discretion for staff to take more of a case management approach, subject to staff resourcing.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The resolution (CLP/2024/00116) requests staff advice to provide options to expand the ‘Derelicts Building Programme’ for a future Annual Plan process.

4.2 The Council does not have a ‘Derelicts Building Programme’ and so staff have considered the former Barrier Sites Programme in providing this advice. This programme was initiated in 2016 and absorbed into the Case Management Service in 2020.

What was the Barrier Sites Programme?

4.3 The Barrier Sites Programme was established to provide an approach to dealing with sites that were considered barriers to the regeneration of the Central City.

4.4 It was a multi-faceted approach, which primarily relied on soft measures, using a mixture of regular engagement, available grants, development advice and in a few cases, use of limited powers within the legislation that existed at the time.

4.5 While developed through multi-agency collaboration (including Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in the coordination of advice to owners), the majority of time and resourcing was provided from a range of units across Council.

4.6 The programme was supported by a package of interventions led by the Crown for the Central City at that time, including:

· the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP) as a compelling investment guide.

· Crown (and Council) commitments to investment in facilities and streetscapes.

· the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Acts powers (provided to LINZ) to intervene where properties (city wide) were seen as barriers to regeneration.

· the roving CCDU investment advisors who facilitated sale and purchase agreements for owners who were uncertain about their intentions / abilities to reinvest.

4.7 The Barrier Sites Programme was absorbed into the Case Management Service in 2020. The resolution of remaining Barrier Sites is now a business-as-usual activity through which property owners are advised and supported towards positive repair/redevelopment outcomes.

Why was the Barrier Sites Programme focused on the Central City?

4.8 The Barrier Sites Programme was limited to the Central City and was not expanded to other suburban centres across the city. There were several reasons for this focus.

4.9 The Central City, as detailed above, had a raft of interventions being applied at this time which supported the delivery of the Barrier Sites Programme. This framework, which required collaboration with other agencies such as CCDU and LINZ, was driven by the need to regenerate the Central City and support the delivery of the CCRP.

4.10 Whilst suburban centres, including Linwood Village, Lyttleton, Sydenham and New Brighton, were identified as priority regeneration areas, and had all been the subject of Suburban Centre Master Plans that were adopted between 2012 and 2015, there was not the same range of interventions or clear direction to support the Barrier sites programme expanding to these areas.

4.11 This in part was due to the Master Plans relying on a combination of the Council, landowners, business owners and the community each in their own way working towards achieving the community-agreed vision for the centre. As opposed to the Central City, which had a very clear mandate from the Crown, with the investment to support.

What powers are available to the Council to act on derelict buildings?

4.12 Problem buildings can be classified on a spectrum, from dangerous and insanitary, to earth-quake prone, to abandoned, vacant or derelict. The classification of a building, which is defined through legislation, determines how the Council can respond or act.

4.13 Action can only be taken requiring property owners to address problems to buildings where the state or condition of the property discloses an actionable issue under legislation enforced by Council (for example the Building Act 2004, Health Act 1956, Litter Act 1979 and Resource Management Act 1991). This primarily relates to buildings which are deemed to be dangerous and insanitary or earthquake prone.

4.14 There are no formal definitions in relevant legislation, nor any powers in legislation to direct action for derelict, vacant or abandoned properties and the associated issues that cause concern to neighbours / communities. Where the possibility of enforcement is present, the statutory threshold for action is high. This means that the tools available to councils to require owners to repair buildings or clear sites are limited.

4.15 In the absence of a legislative definition of a derelict or abandoned buildings and related enforcement powers for territorial authorities, people’s property rights should not be unreasonably interfered with.

4.16 This legislative context is critical in determining and evaluating the options available to the Council.

Previous information provided to elected members

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

Date	Subject
22 December 2023	Advice to Councillors on dealing with Derelict / Abandoned Properties

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

Date	Subject
14 February 2023	Tools and powers available to tackle dangerous and neglected buildings

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.19.1 Option 1: Status quo.

4.19.2 Option 2: Proactively identify and investigate derelict buildings across the city and take appropriate action. Further work would be required to define the scope of this option and consider the resourcing required.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.20 Preferred Option: Option 1 Status quo.

4.20.1 Option Description: This option maintains the status quo. It seeks no change to the current business as usual approach in respect of Dangerous, Insanitary and Earthquake Prone Buildings (and other nuisances set out in various legislation).

4.20.2 This option relies on properties being reported or referred to the Council for investigation, following which - where buildings are deemed dangerous, insanitary or pose nuisance/impacts under other relevant legislation – action can be encouraged or directed.

4.20.3 As part of that process, staff will still be asking about the landowners’ intentions for the site and raising any issues that are arising from the state of the site. In special cases, staff will still be able to take more of a case management approach subject to resourcing availability.

4.20.4 Option Advantages

· Response is proportionate to our ability to act, considering the current legislative framework. The current legal context means that unless a building is deemed dangerous, insanitary or pose nuisance/impacts under other relevant legislation, the Council is unable to act.

· Cost and resource efficiency - no additional staff resource or budget is required as it is covered through existing business as usual processes.

· Ensures the Council meets its statutory obligations under various legislation.

4.20.5 Option Disadvantages

· Reactive, not proactive meaning that there is less comprehensive awareness and ability to track derelict properties across the city.

· Potential to be seen by communities that the Council is not proactively responding to the issue of derelict properties, creating reputational risk.

· Reliance on reporting may mean that certain issues may go unreported.

4.21 Option 2 - Proactively identify and investigate derelict buildings across the city and take appropriate action.

4.21.1 Option Description: This option seeks to proactively identify and investigate derelict buildings of interest across the city and to take appropriate action. This option would essentially be expanding the former Barrier Sites Programme. However, further work would be required to define the scope of this option and consider the resourcing required.

4.21.2 Option Advantages

· Proactive identification of derelict buildings of interest.

· Potential for proactive identification to encourage development on ‘inactive’ sites.

4.21.3 Option Disadvantages

· Sets an expectation that the Council can, and will, proactively act on derelict buildings of interest. However, there are limited mechanisms under the current legislative framework for councils to act.

· Time and resource intensive to proactively identify derelict buildings of interest. It would require additional staff resource and budget to deliver (scope and resourcing to be determined).

· High likelihood that this option would not reduce the number of derelict buildings in these areas, given the limited powers of the Council to take action or influence change.

· Advocacy has mixed success as market conditions and building owner finances tend to be more of a factor in whether a building is renovated, demolished, or rebuilt.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.22 The preferred option, to maintain the status quo, is recommended.

4.23 This option enables an effective and efficient approach to responding to derelict buildings, which is proportionate to our ability to act under the current legislative framework. It is the most fiscally prudent option, requiring no additional resource or budget to implement.

4.24 Given the limited opportunity for the Council to act on derelict buildings, it is not recommended that additional resource and budget is spent addressing this issue at this time.

4.25 When considering the former Barrier Sites Programme and its applicability to being expanded to suburban centres, context is important. The former programme was derived from the need to support the regeneration of the Central City, which had seen a considerable Crown (and Council) investment. The programme was supported by a raft of interventions, which either do not apply to suburban centres or are no longer applicable.

4.26 Given this, and the significant legal constraints identified above, is not recommended that Council proceed with Option 2.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - Proactively identify and investigate derelict buildings
Cost to Implement	No additional cost	Additional costs anticipated (Further work would be required to estimate the cost)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No additional cost	Additional costs anticipated (Further work would be required to estimate the cost)
Funding Source	Existing budgets in Strategy, Planning and Regulatory Services group	Not budgeted for
Funding Availability	Available for status quo	No funding available
Impact on Rates	Nil	Potential as additional funding would be required

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to maintain status quo, which meets our legal obligations, is low risk.

6.2 While the Council does not have a statutory power to deal with properties that are considered derelict or abandoned, it does have a range of statutory enforcement powers under current legislation to require action from property owners where their property is dangerous, insanitary or earthquake prone.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.3.1 The Council has enforcement powers to address problem properties, under the Building Act 2004 and Health Act 1956.

6.3.2 A summary of these legislative tools is provided in Attachment A.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The ability of the Council to take definitive and effective action on properties is constrained by the legalisation and the enforcement tools available.

6.4.2 The Council can only require property owners to address problems where the state or condition of the property discloses an actionable issue under legislation enforced by Council (including the Building Act 2004 and Health Act 1956).

6.4.3 The legislation does not specifically address derelict or abandoned properties and the associated issues that cause concern to neighbours / communities.

6.4.4 The Legal Services team have provided input to and reviewed this report.

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 by the fact that the decision is to maintain status quo. This decision would result in no change to current processes on how the Council responds to derelict buildings.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.7.1 Activity: City Growth and Property

· Level of Service: 17.0.20.2 Provide regeneration programme report/s to Council, that report on regeneration projects in the Central City and priority Suburban Centres - Annually

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The decision, to maintain the status quo, does not result in any change to the Council’s current process of responding to derelict buildings and as such the views of Community Boards has not been sought.

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.

6.11 The decision does not result in any changes to status quo and maintains the Council’s current process for responding to derelict buildings.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The decision to maintain the status quo for how the Council responds to derelict buildings does not have any direct climate change impacts.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 No additional actions are required.

7.2 Staff will:

· maintain the status quo regarding derelict buildings; and

· continue to manage the remainder of the Barrier Sites as business-as-usual activity through the case management service.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Legislation applicable to abandoned and derelict buildings	25/544919	264

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Helaina Gregg - Principal Advisor Policy

John Meeker - Principal Advisor Urban Regeneration

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Acting Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

16. Old Municipal Chambers - Sublease Approval Process
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/512951
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver-Leasing Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, 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 Council to authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to administer Sub-lease and Sub-lease assignment requests made by the City of Christchurch Trust for the lettable spaces at the Old Municipal Chambers building at 159 Oxford Terrace.

1.2 The report is staff generated to streamline and expedite the leasing approval process, so that such requests can be managed in a timely manner and meet commercial requirements.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Old Municipal Chambers - Sublease Approval Process Report.

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

3. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to give (or decline) consent as landlord to Sublease and Sublease Assignment of leases of the Old Municipal Chambers building at 159 Oxford Terrace to other parties and to sign all required documentation for those sublease requests made by the City of Christchurch Trust, provided the request meets the head lease terms and conditions i.e. the proposed new tenant is respectable, responsible and has the financial resources to meet the tenant’s commitments.

4. Delegates authority to the Manager Property Consultancy in consultation with the Head of Parks to 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 but not limited to approving sublease requests.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In June 2019, the Council resolved to enter into negotiations with Box 112 for a lease agreement concerning the Old Municipal Chambers (OMC) building, including structural strengthening and refurbishment.

3.2 The City of Christchurch Trust was subsequently established by Box 112 to manage the project and enter into an Agreement to Develop and Lease with the Council.

3.3 The Agreement to Lease allows subletting by the Tenant under specific conditions ensuring financial viability and compliance with approved business use as a space for offices, hospitality, education and residential (2^nd floor only).

3.4 One of the other conditions is that Council approval is required for each sublease.

3.5 There is no delegation to staff so obtaining Council approval for each sublease request may not meet commercial requirements, cause delays and administrative inefficiencies.

3.6 This report proposes delegating this responsibility to the Manager Property Consultancy.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 At the Council meeting of 13 June 2019, the Council resolved for staff to enter into negotiations with Box 112 on the terms of a lease of the Old Municipal Chambers as well on the repair and strengthening works Box 112 were to undertake on the Council’s behalf. The resolution was as follows:

Council Resolved CNCL/2019/00106

That the Council:

1. Approve Option 1 – to enter into negotiations to grant a lease, subject to (3) below, to Box 112 Investments Limited (Box 122) of the Old Municipal Chambers incorporating the following terms:

a. Lease Term: 49 years 364 days

b. Rent: peppercorn rental or basic property holding costs

c. Building Services: Box 112 will refurbish the Building services to such standard as reasonably required by the Landlord.

d. Building Maintenance: to be undertaken by Box 112 during the lease duration, subject to an acceptable agreement of rates remission, or a comparable contribution from the Council to offset such costs.

e. Use: in accordance with the ‘Christchurch City Council Old Municipal Chambers Empowering Act 1989’

f. Structural strengthening: That up-to $10 Million of the current LTP budget ($17.28 Million) be made available to Box 112 for structural strengthening works and refurbishment works, subject to the Council negotiating an acceptable agreement. These funds are to be utilised for the purposes of strengthening the building to a minimum of 67% (NBS) and are to be completed to such standard as could reasonably be required by Council, considering the heritage status of the building.

g. Repairs: The weather tightness maintenance repairs to OMC be completed by the Council in collaboration with Box 112 as soon as practicable.

h. That a small historical record summarising the history of the OMC is to be maintained on the site. This should include an information board on the exterior (that is accessible by the public at all times). Along with an arrangement to allow free unencumbered public access to OMC on a minimum of two days per annum.

2. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate the terms of the lease, with final approval to be sought from the Council.

3. On agreement, such as a negotiated funding agreement to facilitate the transfer of a sum of up to $10 Million of the Council’s forecasted capital expenditure in the LTP 2018/2028 to Box 112 for the strengthening and refurbishment works to the OMC.

4. Authorises the General Manager of Citizens and Community to negotiate the funding agreement, final approval to proceed will be requested from the Council. Such agreements may include requirements of payment milestones, together with agreeing acceptable approaches to the strengthening and refurbishment scope, which will ensure the protection, refurbishment and conservation of heritage values and physical features.

5. That the General Manager Citizens and Community be delegated authority to communicate information from the Council decision, including release of a redacted version of the staff report as is appropriate and in accordance with the Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act.

4.2 The Agreement to Develop and Lease was executed between the Council and the City of Christchurch Trust on 28 January 2021.

4.3 The Deed of Lease stipulates that subletting is permitted, provided that proposed subtenants meet financial and operational requirements.

4.4 The Manager Property Consultancy was authorised to negotiate the terms of the lease (resolution clause 2 above) however authorisation to approve any Tenant request for subleasing’s and assignment of those was not included.

4.5 The Council’s approval for sublease requests must be provided in a timely manner to prevent operational delays for the Tenant.

4.6 The proposal is for 7 sub lettable areas likely to be on short term leases and therefore a reasonable turnover is expected.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.7.1 Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to approve subleases.

4.7.2 Maintain Status Quo with sublease requests coming before the Council for resolution.

4.8 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.8.1 Provide automatic approval for all sublease requests without review – this lacks necessary oversight and could result in non-compliant tenancies.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.9 Preferred Option: Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to approve subleases.

4.9.1 Option Description: The Tenant will submit requests for sublease approval by the Manager Property Consultancy.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Reduces administrative workload and approval delays.

· Improves efficiency in leasing processes.

· Ensures continuity and timely occupation of the Old Municipal Chambers.

· Meets commercial and market requirements.

· Is a relatively low-level administrative decision with a clear frame work.

· Requires judgement which is aligned with the technical expertise of the Property Consultancy Team.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reduces direct Council oversight of individual sublease agreements. Having said that this is and administrative matter that would typically not require “governance” oversight and decision making.

4.10 Option Two: Maintain Status Quo.

4.10.1 Option Description: A Council decision report is presented on each occasion a request to approve a subtenant is received from the head Tenant.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Retains direct Council control over sub-tenancy decisions.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Causes administrative delays which do not meet commercial and market requirements

· Increases workload for Council members.

· Maintains poorly aligned functions and decision making.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 The options considered were evaluated based on the following criteria:

· Efficiency – the extent to which each option streamlines the sublease approval process and reduces delays.

· Governance and oversight – the level of control and direct involvement retained by the Council.

· Operational impact – the effect on the leasing process and the ability of tenants to secure subtenants in a timely manner including the staff time and resources required to manage sublease approvals under each option.

· Compliance – the ability of each option to ensure adherence to lease agreements and Council policies.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Approval of Manager Property Consultancy	Option 2 -Status Quo	Option 3 - <enter text>
Cost to Implement	Minimal (staff time for processing approvals)	Medium (staff and elected members time)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Operational Budgets	Operational Budgets
Funding Availability	Nil	Nil
Impact on Rates	Ni	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk: Reduced direct Council oversight of sublease approvals.

6.2 Mitigation: The Manager Property Consultancy will ensure compliance with lease terms.

6.3 There is a risk that if the Council cannot respond in a timely commercial manner that our tenant may not be able to respond to and secure sub leases.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The proposed Council resolution will allow the Manager Property Consultancy to approve sublease requests by the head Tenant.

6.4.2 The delegation must align with the Council’s powers under the Local Government Act 2002 and any relevant Council leasing policies.

6.4.3 The land is held as a park, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board does not have delegated authority to determine the matters in this area situated within the Central City Area; reports on these matters may go through the Waipapa Community Board on a case-by-case basis.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The legal consideration is adhering to the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Lease and Deed of Lease.

6.5.2 This proposed delegation does not override the Council’s broader responsibility and any significant deviations from lease terms would still be escalated to the Council.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

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

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 the number of people affected.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks Heritage Management

· Level of Service: 6.9.1.2 Maintain Parks scheduled heritage buildings - 90% of scheduled maintenance completed according to planned programme - 65% of scheduled heritage buildings that are open or occupied are maintained at condition level 1 or 2.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.9.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.10 Community views were supportive of the restoration and activation of the Old Municipal Chambers at the time of the repair programme.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.13 The Old Municipal Chambers is a heritage building in the city centre and does not involve land or bodies of water of significance to Mana Whenua.

6.14 The decision pertains to administrative leasing matters rather than land use changes or developments that would affect Mana Whenua traditions.

6.15 The lease agreement and subleasing process remain within the framework already agreed upon, with no deviation impacting Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 The decision primarily involves administrative processes related to property management rather than physical infrastructure or operational changes that would impact emissions or climate adaptation efforts.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, the Manager Property Consultancy will process sublease approvals, ensuring timely execution of tenancy agreements.

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

Grant McIver - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Wolfgang Bopp - Director Botanic Gardens & Garden Parks

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

17. Standing Orders Amendment - Notices of Motion
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/614890
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leder Democratic Services Support Jo Daly, Council Governance Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Council to amend the Council’s Standing Orders 22.1 and 19.3 relating to notices of motion and the timeframe required for a notice of motion to be submitted to the Chief Executive.

1.2 The report is staff generated to ensure that the decision-making requirements of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) are met and that there is the opportunity to provide timely information and advice to support good decision making by the Council and committees.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Standing Orders Amendment - Notices of Motion Report.

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

3. Revokes Standing Order 22.1 and 19.3, and replaces it with the following wording, in order to amend the timeframe for a notice of motion to be delivered to the Chief Executive:

a. 22.1 Notice of intended motion to be in writing

Notice of intended motions must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the intended motion be considered, and must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 15 clear working days before such meeting, or at the discretion of the Chief Executive. [Notice of an intended motion can be sent via email and include the scanned electronic signature of the mover.]

Once the motion is received and accepted by the Chief Executive, he or she must give members notice in writing of the intended notice of motion at least 2 clear working days before the date of the meeting at which it will be considered.

b. 19.3 Requirement to give notice

A member must give notice to the Chief Executive at least 15 working days before the meeting, or at the discretion of the Chief Executive, at which it is proposed to consider the motion. The notice is to be signed by not less than one third of the members including vacancies. Notice can be sent via email and include the scanned electronic signatures of members. If the notice of motion is lost, no similar notice of motion which is substantially the same in purpose and effect may be accepted within the next six months.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Under the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) all local authorities are required to adopt a set of Standing Orders (schedule 7, clause 27(1)). The Act sets out in Schedule 6 the requirements for local authority planning, decision-making and accountability.

3.2 A notice of motion is a motion given in writing by a member in advance of a meeting in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders.

3.3 There are two provisions within Standing Orders relating to timeframes that a notice of motion is required to be delivered to the Chief Executive:

3.3.1 Provision 22.1 states that a notice of motion must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least five clear working days before the meeting they are to be considered at.

3.3.2 Provision 19.3, relating to a notice of motion where an elected member wishes to propose a revocation, states that a notice of motion must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least five working days before the meeting it is to be considered at.

3.4 The Chief Executive has identified that more notices of motion are being submitted and anticipates the volume could increase during an already busy period.

3.5 The current timeframe with five days’ notice does not align with the agenda report deadlines and does not usually allow sufficient time for the matter to be reviewed or for council officer advice to be provided to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Act.

3.6 To address this, it is recommended that Standing Orders 22.1 and 19.3 are amended to require that a notice of motion must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 15 working days before the meeting at which it is proposed to be considered.

3.7 The recommended amendment includes that the Chief Executive has discretion to consider and accept notices of motion submitted outside of this timeframe where there is a statutory or legislative timing issue relative to the motion, or the matter can be dealt with sooner if sufficient information is readily available from council officers.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Under the Act all local authorities are required to adopt a set of Standing Orders (schedule 7, clause 27(1)).

4.2 The Act provides that an amendment to the Council’s Standing Orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present at the meeting (schedule 7, clause 27(3)).

4.3 Council officers are reviewing the Council’s current Standing Orders, to consider matters that have been raised and compiled since Standing Orders were last amended, 2025 governance guidance and model Standing Orders provided by Local Government New Zealand and good practice. Information and opportunities for input regarding this will be provided to the Council and Community Boards in coming months.

4.4 The Act also sets out the obligations of local authorities with regard to the making of decisions (schedule 6).

4.5 The timeframe relating to the submission of notices of motion is a matter that has been raised since Standing Orders were last adopted, with regard to the provision of council officer advice and compliance with the decision-making requirements of the Act.

4.6 The current Standing Orders require that a notice of motion must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least five clear working days before such meeting.

4.7 This Council term, the number of notices of motion has increased and those submitted often require detailed and complex information to be compiled at short notice to try to ensure that the decision is compliant with the Act, Council policy and requirements for decision-making.

4.8 It is currently a busy time for the organisation with work programmes and financial commitments set or under consideration and notices of motion can have an impact on these matters. The current five-day timeframe can cause challenges as they require staff to divert resources away from current work, in order to provide advice to ensure that decision-making requirements are met.

4.9 The five day working period for notices of motion to be submitted can impact on the timeframe elected members have to consider the motion, the information and advice received or for the matter and proposed motion to be visible to the public.

4.10 The number of notices of motion that have been submitted have increased this term. In the 2019 – 2022 term, there were a total of 15 notices of motion submitted and accepted. This term there have been 28 notices of motion submitted so far, with four submitted in the first few months of 2025. To note, these numbers do not include notices of motions that have been submitted but declined by the Chief Executive under the provisions allowed for in Standing Orders.

4.11 In comparison, Auckland Council advised they have a timeframe of 5 clear working days, and have received a total of five notices of motions this term. Wellington City Council’s timeframe is not less than four weeks, and they have received two notices of motions this year.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.12.1 Amend Standing Orders, clauses 22.1 and 19.3 as proposed.

4.12.2 Make no changes to Standing Orders.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: Amend Standing Orders, clause 22.1 and 19.3.

4.13.1 Option Description: Amend Standing Orders, section 22.1 and 19.3 so that a notice of motion must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 15 working days before the meeting, or at the discretion of the Chief Executive.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· To ensure that any notice of motion considered by the Council or a committee is received with adequate time to ensure that the requirements for decision-making in the Act are met and that sufficient council officer advice can be provided.

· Manages the impact on existing workloads and work programmes for the organisation.

· Allows for advice to be provided to elected members in a timely manner and if accepted, for the proposed motion to be visible to the public on the Agenda, as opposed to requiring a Supplementary Agenda.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· No disadvantages have been identified. Elected members will still have an opportunity to submit a notice of motion. The Chief Executive, will also have discretion to consider and accept notices of motion submitted outside of the 15 working day timeframe where there is a statutory or legislative timing issue relative to the motion, or the matter can be dealt with sooner if sufficient information is readily available from council officers.

4.14 Make no changes to Standing Orders.

4.14.1 Option Description: Make no changes to Standing Orders.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· There is no change to the current procedure.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Chief Executive may decline a notice of motion where the Council may not meet the decision-making requirements of the Act, due to having insufficient time to receive and consider officer advice regarding the matter.

· Can impact existing workloads and work programmes as staff prepare advice for the notice of motion.

· Can impact the timeframe elected members have to consider the motion, the information and council officer advice received or for the matter and proposed motion to be visible to the public.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.15 To enable elected members to consider a motion it is necessary that they receive sufficient comment, information and advice to ensure that consideration and decision making meet the decision-making requirements of the Act.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 There are no costs associated with the recommended amendment to Standing Orders.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The recommended decision addresses the risk of the Council not complying with the decision-making requirements of the Act. It also reduces the risk that the council officers do not have sufficient time to provide information and advice to enable elected members to consider a matter fully or the public to be aware of the matter and information or advice provided.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council is able to amend Standing Orders, the Act provides that an amendment to the Council’s Standing Orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present at the meeting (schedule 7, clause 27(3)).

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 Standing Orders must meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by nature of the amendment recommended.

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Governance

6.6.1 Activity: Governance and Decision Making

· Level of Service: 4.1.22 Provide services that ensure all Council, and Committee meetings are held with full statutory compliance - 98% compliance

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision affects all Community Board areas.

6.8 Community Boards, through the Community Governance Teams have been advised of the recommended changes to Standing Orders. Council officers will advise the Council of any feedback from Community Boards prior to or at the Council meeting where this report is considered.

6.9 Community Boards have adopted their own Standing Orders, to ensure consistency across Council, it is preferred if Community Board members align their practice with the regard to the 15 day timeframe for submission of Notices of Motion.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 A decision amending the Council’s Standing Orders will take immediate affect for meetings of the Council and committees. It is preferred Community Board members align their practice with the regard to the 15 day timeframe for submission of Notices of Motion.

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

Standing-Orders adopted 6 April 2017.pdf

Local Government Act 2002 No 84 (as at 01 October 2024), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support

Jo Daly - Council Governance Advisor

Approved By

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

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

7. Council Minutes - 2 April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/667464
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support, (Samantha.Kelly@ccc.govt.nz)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

5. Council Minutes - 5 February 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/615968
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

6. Council Minutes - 19 March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/615800
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

8. Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/649882
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mike Thomson, Transport Network Planner, Asset Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	24/1117842	61

18. Community Support and Partnerships Unit Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/167025
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Claire Appleby Phillips – Manager Community Planning and Projects Sara Nourozi- Policy and Projects Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

19. Notice of Motion - Micromobility parking
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/609544
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Harrison-Hunt
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

20. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/588720
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

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