Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 7 May 2025

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00022

That the apologies for partial absence from the Mayor and Councillors Barber, MacDonald Henstock and Scandrett be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Hearing of verbal submissions - Thursday 3 April 2025

The Council heard verbal submissions on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and the Draft Development Contributions Policy Review 2025.

Councillor Moore was not present when the hearing started.

The Mayor and Councillor MacDonald left the hearing at 10.03 am and rejoined at 11.30 am

The Deputy Mayor chaired the hearing from 10.03 am until 11.06 am

Councillor Barber left the hearing at 10.17 am and rejoined at 10.19 am

Councillor Gough left the hearing at 10.37 am and rejoined at 10.42 am

Councillor Moore joined the hearing at 10.38 am

Councillor Donovan left the hearing at 10.44 am and rejoined at 10.47 am

Councillor Templeton left the hearing at 10.53 am and rejoined at 10.57 am

The hearing adjourned at 11.06 am and reconvened at 11.30 am with the Mayor in the Chair.
Councillors Coker, Gough, Henstock, Keown and McClellan were not present when the hearing reconvened.

Councillor Keown rejoined the hearing at 11.30 am

Councillor Gough rejoined the hearing at 11.31 am

Councillor Coker rejoined the hearing at 11.33 am

Councillor McLellan rejoined the hearing at 11.34 am

Councillor Barber left the hearing at 11.38 am

Councillor Fields left the hearing at 11.41 am and rejoined at 11.51 am

Councillor Moore left the hearing at 11.40 am and rejoined at 11.44 am

Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the hearing at 12.00 pm

Councillor Scandrett left the hearing at 12.08 pm and rejoined at 12.18 pm

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the hearing at 12.29 pm and rejoined at 12.32 pm

Councillor Gough left the hearing at 12.50 pm

The hearing adjourned at 12.56 and reconvened at 2.02 pm.
Councillors Gough, Henstock and Scandrett were not present when the hearing reconvened
Councillor Scandrett rejoined the hearing at 2.10 pm
Councillor Henstock rejoined the hearing at 2.35 pm
Councillor MacDonald left the hearing at 2.47 pm and rejoined at 2.54 pm
Deputy Mayor Cotter left the hearing at 2.50 pm and rejoined at 2.54 pm
Councillor McLellan left the hearing at 3.05 pm and rejoined at 3.10 pm
Councillor Coker left the hearing at 3.26 pm

The hearing adjourned at 3.11 pm and reconvened at 3.42 pm
Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor Keown were not present when the hearing reconvened
Deputy Mayor Cotter rejoined the meeting at 3.45 pm
Councillor Keown rejoined the hearing at 3.48 pm
Councillor Templeton left the hearing at 4.06 pm

The hearing adjourned at 4.27 pm and reconvened on Tuesday, 8 April 2025

3.1 Draft Annual Plan 2025/26

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 on 3 April 2025.

Keir Leslie (Deputy Chairperson) for Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board (Submission number 895).

Marie Pollisco (Chairperson) and Helen Broughton (Deputy Chairperson) for Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (submission number 662).

Paul McMahon (Chairperson) and Jackie Simons (Deputy Chairperson) for Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood-Community Board (submission number 437).

Emma Norrish (Chairperson) and Simon Britten (Deputy Chairperson) for Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (submission number 689).

Jason Middlemiss (Chairperson) and Nicola McCormick (Submissions Committee Chairperson) for Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board (submission number 713).

Lyn Leslie (Chairperson) for Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board (submission number 717).

Kathleen Crisley by audiovisual link (submission number 665).

John Batchelor (submission number 442).

Bryan Gerrard (submission number 364).

Jacqueline Simons (submission number 372).

Anthony Field (submission number 404).

Antony Gough (submission number 549).

Elisha Blogg (Director) and Paul Lonsdale (Chairperson) for Life in Vacant Spaces (submission number 387).

Murray James (Chairperson) for We Are Richmond - Richmond Residents and Business Association (submission number 842).

Iona Thompson-Wild, Hannah and Bronte (Members) for Next Generation Conversation (submission number 627).

Darel Hall (General Manager) for Cholmondeley Children's Centre (submission number 710).

David Lawry (submission number 734).

Brad Cohen (General Director) for NZ Opera (submission number 812).

Christopher Kissling (submission number 435).

Marie Haley (Chairperson) by audiovisual link for Akaroa Civic Trust (submission number 788).

Anthony Wright (Tumuaki | Director), Tom Thomson (Acting Chair) and Andrea Webley (Fundraising & Development Manager) for Canterbury Museum Trust Board (submission number 497).

Paula Jameson (President) for Summit Road Society (submission number 747).

Mark Gerrard (Chairperson) for Historic Places Canterbury (submission number 814).

Luc MacKay (UCSA President) by audiovisual link for University of Canterbury Students’ Association & University of Canterbury (submission number 831).

Asif Hussain (submission number 806).

Asif Hussain for Banks Peninsula Volunteer Fire Brigade (submission number 903).

James Ensor and Eden Husband for Naval Point Boat Safety (submission number 1025).

Chris Carrow (Treasurer) for Christchurch Circus Trust (submission number 859).

Anne Scott (Submission Coordinator) for Spokes Canterbury (submission number 879).

Bill Cowen (Community Projects Manager) and Martin Field Dodgson (Chief Executive Officer Mainland Football) for Cashmere Technical Football Club (submission number 881).

Evelyn Slape by audio visual link (submission number 770).

Attachments

a Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board presentation

b Life in Vacant Spaces presentation

c David Lawry presentation

d Christopher Kissling presentation

e Canterbury Museum Trust Board presentation

f Naval Point Boat Safety presentation

g Naval Point Boat Safety supporting documents

h Spokes Canterbury presentation

i Cashmere Technical Football Club supporting documents

3.2 Draft Development Policy Contributions Policy Review 2025

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Development Policy review on 3 April 2025.

Russell Benge for KB Contracting & Quarries Ltd (submission number 24).

Andrew Evans for A E Architects (submission number 16).

The hearing adjourned at 4.27pm and reconvened at 3.32pm on Tuesday, 8 April in Council Chambers.

4 Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00023

That the apologies for partial absence from Councillors Field, Gough, Henstock, MacDonald and Peters be accepted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

5 Declarations of interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
	There were no declarations of interest recorded.

6 Hearing of verbal submissions - Tuesday 8 April 2025

The Council heard verbal submissions on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and Local Water Done Well.

Councillor Barber left the hearing at 4.31 pm and rejoined at 4.33 pm
Councillor Scandrett left the hearing at 4.35 pm and rejoined at 4.41 pm
Councillor Peters left the hearing at 4.50 pm
Councillor MacDonald left the hearing at 4.53 pm
Councillor Gough left the hearing at 4.54 pm
Councillor Henstock left the hearing at 454 pm and rejoined at 5.14 pm
Councillors Barber, Donovan and Harrison-Hunt left the hearing at 5.10 pm and returned at 5.15 pm

The hearing adjourned at 5.48 pm and reconvened at 6.50 pm
Councillors Gough, Henstock, MacDonald and Peters were not present when the hearing reconvened
Councillor Templeton left the hearing at 7.27 pm and rejoined at 7.28 pm.

The hearing adjourned at 7.56 pm and reconvened on Friday 11 April 2025

6.1 Draft Annual Plan 2025/26

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 on Tuesday 8 April 2025.

David Trent (submission number 501).

Selena Coombe and Anita Spencer for Styx Living Laboratory Trust (submission number 661).

Keith Harris (submission number 688).

Keith Harris for Akaroa District Promotions (submission number 668).

Kari Hunter (submission number 890).

Simon Collin (submission number 822).

Wendy Everingham for Lyttelton Energy Transition Society (submission number 728).

Mark Craddock (submission number 802).

Malcolm Long, Quentin McDonald, Finn Jackson for Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network (submission number 773).

James Ridpath for Youth Alive Trust (submission number 804).

Vicky Chia (Chairperson), Whatauriki, Ashwini Raazesh, Bethany Gibson, Thomas Richards and Lucas Roper for Christchurch Youth Council (submission number 815).

Karl Dean, Lionel Hume, Pam Richardson via audiovisual link for North Canterbury Federated Farmers of New Zealand (submission number 790).

Pam Richardson by audiovisual link (submission number 808).

Harry Stronach for Akaroa and Bays Emergency Response Team (submission number 845).

Harry Stronach for Akaroa Residents & Ratepayers Association (submission number 787).

Penny Carnaby (submission number 801).

David Hawke and John Bennett for Halswell Residents Association (submission number 736).

Marie Gray for Towards Pest Free Waitaha (submission number 779).

Marie Gray (submission number 865).

George Laxton (submission number 875).

Colleen Philip, Sara Gerard and David Guthrey for Sustainable Ōtautahi Christchurch (submission number 897).

David Close for Christchurch East Labour Electorate Committee (submission number 893).

Flore Mas and Pam Richardson by audiovisual link (submission number 743).

Attachments

a David Trent supporting documentation

b Styx Living Laboratory Trust presentation

c Akaroa District Promotions presentation

d Akaroa District Promotions supporting documentation

e Lyttelton Energy Transition Society presentation

f Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network presentation

g Youth Alive Trust presentation

h Akaroa and the Bays Emergency Response supporting documentation

i Flore Mas presentation

6.2 Local Water Done Well

The following submitter spoke to the Council about Local Water Done Well on Tuesday 8 April 2025.

Tim Lindley.

Attachments

a Tim Lindley presentation

The hearing adjourned at 7.56 pm and reconvened at 10.30 am on Friday, 11 April in Council Chambers.

7 Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00024

That the apology for partial absence from Councillor Harrison-Hunt be accepted.

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

8 Declarations of interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
	There were no declarations of interest.

9 Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and Draft Development Contributions Policy Review - Hearing of verbal submissions

The Council heard verbal submissions on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and the Draft Development Policy Review 2025.

Councillors Fields, Harrison-Hunt and Johanson were not present when the hearing reconvened. Councillor Gough rejoined by audiovisual link.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt rejoined the hearing at 10.39 am
Councillor Johanson rejoined the hearing via audiovisual link at 10.40 am
Councillor Fields rejoined the hearing at 10.41 am
Councillor McLellan left the hearing at 10.47 am and rejoined at 10.49 am
Councillor Keown left the hearing at 10.47 am and rejointed at 10.48 am
Councillor Barber left the hearing at 10.58 am and rejoined at 11.03 am
Councillor Henstock left the hearing at 10.59 am and rejoined at 11.00 am
Councillor MacDonald left the hearing at 11.37 am and rejoined at 11.45 am

The hearing adjourned at 11.45 am and reconvened at 12.07 pm
Councillor Harrison-Hunt was not present when the hearing reconvened
Councillor Barber rejoined the hearing at 12.08 pm
Councillor Donovan rejoined the hearing at 12.10 pm
Councillor Keown rejoined the hearing at 12.18 pm
Councillor Peters rejoined the hearing at 12.34 pm
Councillor MacDonald left the hearing at 12.23 pm and rejoined at 1.09 pm
Councillor McLellan left the hearing at 12.26 pm and rejoined at 12.29 pm
Councillor McLellan left the hearing at 12.44 pm
Deputy Mayor Cotter rejoined the hearing at 12.50 pm

The hearing adjourned at 1.26 pm and reconvened at 2.38 pm
Councillors Johanson and McLellan were not present when the hearing reconvened.
Councillor Johanson rejoined the hearing via audiovisual link at 2.46 pm
Councillor Donovan left the hearing at 2.52 pm and rejoined at 2.54 pm
Councillor McLellan rejoined the hearing at 2.58 pm
Councillor Henstock left the hearing at 2.57 pm and rejoined at 3.01 pm
Councillor Barber left the hearing at 3.09 pm and rejoined at 3.12 pm
Councillor Fields left the hearing at 3.17 pm and rejoined at 3.24 pm
Councillor Barber left the hearing at 3.37 pm and rejoined at 3.38 pm
Councillor McLellan left the hearing at 3.59 pm and rejoined at 4.00 pm
Councillor McDonald left the hearing at 4.06 pm

The hearing adjourned at 4.09 pm and reconvened on Saturday, 12 April 2025

9.1 Draft Annual Plan 2025/26

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 on Friday 11 April 2025.

John Thacker (submission number 1007).

Tim McGoldrick (Community Representative) for The Revitalisation of the Children's Playground at Elmwood Park (submission number 861).

Suky Thompson for Friends of Banks Peninsula (submission number 781).

Jan Cook (submission number 809).

Joanna Gould (submission number 872).

Mary O’Connor (submission number 891).

Colin Meurk for Creative Transitions and Sustainable Futures (submission number 882).

Fiona Bennetts (submission number 851).

Dianne Downward for Concerned Ratepayers Canterbury Region (submission number 783).

Dianne Downward (submission number 795).

Viane Makalio, Alana Batcheler, and Selau Ifopo for SPACPAC Canterbury (submission number 884).

Leeann Watson and Tait Dench for Business Canterbury (submission number 827).

Tom Chatterton and Antony Gough (in person) and Sandamali Ambepitiya by audiovisual link for Property Council New Zealand (submission number 785).

Kate Christie (Principal), Anya Cumming and Thomas Schumacher for Harewood School (submission number 834).

Peter Rough and Dominique Leeming for Lyttelton Historical Museum (submission number 837).

Councillor Joe Davies for Environment Canterbury (submission number 777).

Amanda Jenkins and Anna Canton for Te Puna Matarau | Canterbury Screen Industry Association (submission number 818).

Simone Pearson, Pat Brooker and Alicia and August Scroggins (submission number 1039).

Attachments

a Friends of Banks Peninsula presentation

b Joanna Gould presentation

c Mary O'Connor presentation

d Creative Transitions to Sustainable Futures presentation

e Concerned Ratepayers Canterbury Region presentation

f SPACPAC presentation

g Lyttelton Historical Museum presentation

h Te Puna matarau | Canterbury Screen Association presentation

9.2 Draft Development Contributions Policy Review 2025

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Development Contributions Policy Review 2025 on Friday 11 April 2025.

Richard Peebles for Peebles Group Ltd (submission number 14).

Sophie Burt and Mike Blackburn for Urban Development Institute of New Zealand (Submission number 26).

Lucy de Latour (Solicitor) for Cambridge 137 Limited (submission number 32).

Richard Stephenson via audiovisual link for Bupa Care Services Ltd (submission number 28).

Nicki Carter for Carter Group Ltd (submission number 33).

Tom Chatterton and Antony Gough (in person) and Sandamali Ambepitiya via audio visual link for Property Council New Zealand (submission number 41).

David Palmer (submission number 38).

Rebecca Wolt by audiovisual link for P D Sloan (submission number 34).

Cody Cooper by audiovisual link for Greater Ōtautahi (submission number 37).

Terry Foote, James Kearns and Bishop Michael Gielen for Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Christchurch (submission number 31).

Attachments

a Roman Catholic Bishop Christchurch Diocese presentation

The hearing adjourned at 4.09 pm and reconvened at 10.01 am on Saturday, 12 April 2025 in Council Chambers.

10 Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
	The Mayor noted that Councillors Johanson and McLellan had submitted apologies for lateness and Councillor Coker had submitted an apology for partial absence.

11 Declarations of interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
	There were no declarations of interest.

12 Hearing of verbal submissions

The Council heard verbal submissions on the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.

Councillor Fields rejoined the hearing at 10.08 am
Councillors Barber and Harrison-Hunt left the hearing at 10.43 and rejoined at 10.45 am
Deputy Mayor Cotter left the hearing at 10.48 am and rejoined at 10.53 am
Councillor Scandrett left the hearing at 11.21 am and rejoined at 11.24 am
Councillor Harrison-Hunt left the hearing at 11.22 am and rejoined at 11.24 am

The hearing adjourned at 11.36 am and reconvened at 12.34 pm
Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillors Coker, Donovan, Fields, Harrison-Hunt, Johanson and McLellan were not present when the hearing reconvened
Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillors Coker and Johanson rejoined the hearing at 12.35 pm
Councillor Harrison-Hunt rejoined the hearing at 12.36 pm
Councillor Donovan rejoined the hearing at 12.37 pm
Councillors Fields and McLellan rejoined the hearing at 12.39 pm
Councillor Coker left the hearing at 1.17 pm
Councillor Barber left the hearing at 1.43 pm and rejoined at 1.45 pm
Councillor Keown left the hearing at 1.55 pm

12.1 Draft Annual Plan 2025/26

The following submitters spoke to the Council about the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 on Saturday 12 April 2025.

Shreejana Chhetri & Emily Verhoeven for the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust (submission number 407).

Brett Marshall for the Air Force Museum (submission number 87).

Marjorie Manthei for the Victoria Neighbourhood Association (submission number 344).

Marjorie Manthei (submission number 345).

Marjorie Manthei for Shala Hall (submission number 223).

Dominic McKeown (submission number 698).

Andrea Davis for the Sumner Community Residents Association (submission number 465).

Aaron Ghattas (submission number 600).

Annabel Turley for the Christchurch Central Business Association (submission number 816).

Simon Shelton for the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust (submission number 885).

Dr David Miller for Pest Free Banks Peninsula (submission number 915).

Michael Sweeney (submission number 458).

Cody Cooper (submission number 858).

Harrison McEvoy for Greater Ōtautahi (submission number 1026).

Harrison McEvoy (submission number 843).

Erin Andrew (submission number 295).

Philippa Drayton (submission number 766).

Dr Margaret Noble, Ian France, Stephen Hardman for The Ferrymead Trust (submission number 762).

Peter Tuffley for Beckenham Neighbourhood Association Incorporated (submission number 894).

Peter Tuffley (submission number 896).

Marie Byrne (submission number 744).

Attachments

a Victoria Neighbourhood Association, Marjorie Manthei and Shala Hall presentation

b Dominic McKeown - presentation

c Sumner Community Residents Association presentation

d Aaron Ghattas presentation

e Christchurch Central Business Association presentation

f Michael Sweeney presentation

g Greater Ōtautahi supporting document

h The Ferrymead Trust presentation

Karakia Whakamutunga

Hearing concluded at 1.56 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 7^TH DAY OF MAY 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

Withdrawal of Agenda Item

In accordance with Standing Order 6.8, the Mayor advised that Item 19 - Notice of Motion - Micromobility parking was withdrawn from the Agenda.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00183

That the apologies from Councillor Johanson for potential partial absence and lateness, and Councillor Gough for early departure be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillors Gough and Keown declared an interest in Item 9 - Local Alcohol Policy - Proposed Draft LAP for Consultation.

23. Resolution to Include Supplementary Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00184

Decision

That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Wednesday, 16 April 2025.

Open Items

24. Appointment of Electoral Officer

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker Carried

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

There were no public forum presentations.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 9.34 am and returned at 9.37 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.
Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 9.35 am and returned at 9.36 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Greater Ōtautahi

Harrison McEvoy spoke on behalf of Greater Ōtautahi regarding Item 15 - Derelict Buildings Issues and Options.

Attachments

a Harrison McEvoy - Presentation to Council

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Council Minutes - 5 February 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00185

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 5 February 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. Council Minutes - 19 March 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00186

That the Council confirms the open and public excluded Minutes from the Council meeting held 19 March 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

7. Council Minutes - 2 April 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00187

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 April 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

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

Council Comment

1. The Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter.

2. Councillor Fields put forward a proposed amendment to amend the terms and conditions of the licence.

3. The Mayor adjourned the Item to later in the meeting to allow Council Officers to prepare advice on the proposed amendment.

Moved/Seconded

That the Council:

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

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

a. A term of 25 years less one day.

b. A negotiated licence fee.

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

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

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

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

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded

Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00188

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 9 - Local Alcohol Policy - Proposed Draft LAP for Consultation.

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/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 9.49 am and returned at 9.55 am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 9.53 am and returned at 9.55 am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 9.53 am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 10.24 am and returned at 10.28 am during consideration of Item 9.

9. Local Alcohol Policy - Proposed Draft LAP for Consultation
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Thomas Lee and Elizabeth Wilson joined the table to present the report. 2. Council Officers tabled the following documents: a. A table of proposed Councillor amendments containing Council Officer advice (Minutes Attachment 9a). 3. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter (the Motion) which included minor changes to Motions 3 and 4, as noted below. 4. Councillors Moved their proposed amendments as contained in Attachment 9a of the Minutes and confirmed their Seconders. To note: a. Amendment A1 was amended for staff to include information in the consultation document about other options considered but not currently in the draft policy proposal and a brief explanation of them. b. Amendment A3 was updated to the alternative wording provided by Council Officers: Amending proposed Policy 3 (sensitive sites restrictions) in the draft LAP for consultation to state that a 50m rule shall apply to sensitive sites in Banks Peninsula. c. Amendment A4 was withdrawn. 5. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of the Movers and of Council Officers. 6. The meeting held one debate for the proposed amendments and the Motion. 7. The meeting voted on each proposed amendment individually (refer to the individual decisions below). 8. The meeting voted on the Substantive Motion, to approve the draft Policy for consultation (incorporating all carried amendments).
	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.
	Moved/Seconded 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 including any carried amendments made at the meeting. 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. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00189 Proposed Amendment A1 A1. That staff include information in the consultation document about other options considered but not currently in the draft policy proposal and a brief explanation of them. Councillor Coker/Councillor Templeton Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00190 Proposed Amendment A2 A2. Amends proposed Policy 3 (sensitive sites restrictions) in the draft Local Alcohol Policy for consultation to state that this policy applies to bottle stores only. The division was declared carried* by 11 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Scandrett *Against:* Councillor Coker, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton Councillor Moore/Councillor MacDonald Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00191 Proposed Amendment A3 A3a. Amends proposed Policy 3 (sensitive sites restrictions) in the draft Local Alcohol Policy for consultation to state that a 50m rule shall apply to sensitive sites in Banks Peninsula. Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried
	Council Decision Proposed Amendment A5 A5. Amends proposed Policy 2 (freeze on off-licences in high deprivation areas) in the draft LAP for consultation to remove the exemption for applicants where the sale and supply of alcohol is not the primary purpose. The division was declared lost* by 4 votes to 10 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton Deputy Mayor/Councillor Peters Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00192 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, including any carried amendments made at the meeting. 4. Delegates responsibility to the Chief Executive to make changes to the draft Local Alcohol Policy and the consultation document to reflect any resolutions passed at the meeting. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried
	Attachments a LAP - Proposed amendments and staff advice - Presentation to Council

Reinstatement of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00193

That the Standing Orders set aside above, be resumed.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.03 am and reconvened at 11.27 am.

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 11.29 am during the debate of Item 8.

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 11.30 am and returned at 11.36 am during consideration of Item 8.

Report from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - 10 March 2025
8. Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)
	Council Comment 1. Earlier in the meeting: a. The Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. b. A proposed amendment was put forward by Councillor Fields, and the Item was adjourned to allow Council Officers to provide advice. 2. Upon reconvening and following Council Officer advice, the proposed amendment was updated and Moved by Councillor Fields and Seconded by Councillor Coker. 3. The meeting held one debate for the Motion and Amendment. 4. When put to the vote, the Amendment was declared carried as the Substantive Motion. 5. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor withdrew their Original Motion.
	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council That the Council: 1. Approves the granting of a licence over unformed legal road adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road, Port Levy to legitimise the legacy encroachment of the dwelling (the bach) as shown in Attachment A attached to the meeting agenda report. 2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to: a. A term of 25 years less one day. b. A negotiated licence fee. c. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m. d. The public’s right of access must not be obstructed, and the macrocarpa hedge must be trimmed to the Council’s satisfaction or removed and the retaining wall must be removed and the foreshore returned to its natural form. e. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered. f. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard.
	Moved/Seconded That the Council: 1. Approves the granting of a licence over unformed legal road adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road, Port Levy to legitimise the legacy encroachment of the dwelling (the bach) as shown in Attachment A attached to the meeting agenda report. 2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to: a. A term of 25 years less one day. b. A negotiated licence fee. c. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m. d. The public’s right of access must not be obstructed, and the macrocarpa hedge must be trimmed to the Council’s satisfaction or removed and the retaining wall must be removed and the foreshore returned to its natural form. e. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered. f. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00194 1. Approves the granting of a licence over unformed legal road adjoining 23 and 3B Puari Road, Port Levy to legitimise the legacy encroachment of the dwelling (the bach) as shown in Attachment A attached to the meeting agenda report. 2. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate and enter into the Deed of Licence on Council’s standard terms and conditions, including but not limited to: g. A non-transferable licence with a term of five years to the current proposed licensees, with one right of renewal for a further five years. h. A negotiated licence fee. i. The requirement for the licensee to hold public liability insurance of at least $2m. j. The public’s right of access must not be obstructed, the macrocarpa hedge must be removed, and the retaining wall must be removed and the foreshore returned to its natural form and these areas excluded from the licence area, to be completed within 12 months of the signing of the licence. k. Reassessment of the licence if the structure is reconstructed or altered. l. Council will not be responsible to repair or retain the structure in the event of coastal sea level rise or other natural hazard. 3. Notes that the standard licence requires a licensee to comply with the terms and conditions of the licence, including all applicable bylaws, statutes and other regulations, which includes wastewater discharge, and provides the Council with rights of inspection and to deal with any non-compliance as a breach of the lease. Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillor Coker and Fields left the meeting at 11.33 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 11.35 and returned at 11.36 am during consideration of Item 10.

The meeting adjourned at 11.46 am and reconvened at 11.58 am. Councillors Barber, Coker, Fields, Keown, Johanson and Moore were not present at this time.

Councillors Keown, Johanson and Moore returned to the meeting at 11.59 pm, and Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 12 pm, during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12.02 pm during the debate of Item 10 and did not return.

10. Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request
	Council Comment 1. The Officer Recommendations (Original Motion) were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor Keown. 2. An Amendment was Moved by Deputy Mayor Cotter and Seconded by Councillor Templeton to: a. Update Recommendation 4 as follows: Declines to commit to the increased capital levies proposed in the Canterbury Museum’s draft 2025/26 Annual Plan at this time and formally requests the capital levy remain at current levels. b. Include two new Recommendations 5 and 6 as follows: 5. Agrees to consult with the community on the proposed capital levies, and other relevant provisions, in the Canterbury Museum’s Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and directs staff to report back to Council no later than 10 December 2025. 6. Notes that Councillors appointed to the Canterbury Museum Trust Board will be asked to review the draft consultation document prior it its release. c. Remove Original Officer Recommendation 5. 3. The meeting began debate on the Original Motion and Amendment. The Mayor adjourned debate to allow Councillors to ask further questions of clarification regarding the Amendment. 4. The meeting adjourned to clarify the wording of the Amendment. 5. Upon reconvening, the Mover and Seconder of the Original Motion agreed to incorporate the Amendment into the Original Motion and to amend Motion 5 further as follows: Agrees to consult with the community on the proposed capital levies, and other relevant provisions, in the Canterbury Museum’s Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, which would be contingent on other crown and local government funding requirements being secured for stage 5 ( fit out), and directs staff to report back to Council no later than 10 December 2025. 6. The Mayor resumed debate on the Item, and when put to the vote the Motion was declared carried.
	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.
	Original Motion Moved/Seconded 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. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Moved/Seconded
	Amendment Moved/Seconded 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 at this time and formally requests the capital levy remain at current levels. 5. Agrees to consult with the community on the proposed capital levies, and other relevant provisions, in the Canterbury Museum’s Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan and directs staff to report back to Council no later than 10 December 2025. 6. Notes that Councillors appointed to the Canterbury Museum Trust Board will be asked to review the draft consultation document prior it its release. 7. 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. 8. ~~Invites the Canterbury Museum to present their updated funding request in time to inform the Christchurch City Council’s draft 2026/27 Annual Plan.~~ Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Moved/Seconded
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00195 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 at this time and formally requests the capital levy remain at current levels. 5. Agrees to consult with the community on the proposed capital levies, and other relevant provisions, in the Canterbury Museum’s Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, which would be contingent on other crown and local government funding requirements being secured for stage 5 ( fit out), and directs staff to report back to Council no later than 10 December 2025. 6. Notes that Councillors appointed to the Canterbury Museum Trust Board will be asked to review the draft consultation document prior it its release. 7. 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. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Carried

Councillor Coker and Fields returned to the meeting at 12.08 pm during consideration of Item 11.

11. Potential Reduction in Extent of Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Glenda Dixon and Mark Stevenson joined the table to present the report. 2. Councillor Fields Moved, Seconded by Councillor Templeton, Original Officer Recommendations 1 to 3 and a further Motion (4 below). 3. Following debate, Motions 1 to 3 were voted on and declared carried. 4. Motion 4 was declared carried by way of division.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00196 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. Councillor Fields/Councillor Templeton Carried
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00197 4. Withdraws from the proposed Lyttelton Residential Heritage Area, four additional properties at 40, 42, 44, and 46 Cressy Terrace. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett Councillor Fields/Councillor Templeton Carried
	Attachments a Extent of Lyttelton RHA - Presentation to Council

12. Gloucester Street Layout and Traffic Resolutions

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00198

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillors Coker and Templeton requested for their vote against Resolution 3 be recorded.

16. Old Municipal Chambers - Sublease Approval Process

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00199

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

20. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00200

Mayor’s Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

17. Standing Orders Amendment - Notices of Motion
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Samantha Kelly and Jo Daly joined the table to present the report. 2. As requested by Councillors, Council Officers tabled an option of amending the timeframe of submitting a Notice of Motion to 10 clear working days, or a shorter time at the discretion of the Chief Executive. This option was Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor McLellan. 3. Following debate, when put to the vote, the Motion was declared carried.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00201 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 10 clear working days before such meeting, or a shorter time 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 10 clear working days before the meeting, or a shorter time 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. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor McLellan Carried
	Attachments a Standing Order Amendment - Presentation to Council

The meeting adjourned at 12.50 pm and reconvened at 1.55 pm. Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillors Coker, Fields, McLellan and Templeton were not present.

Councillor Keown left the meeting during the adjournment and did not return.

Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillors Fields, McLellan and Templeton returned to the meeting at 1.56 pm during consideration of Item 13.

13. Council submission on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

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.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00202

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.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor Coker returned to the meeting at 1.58 pm during consideration of Item 14.

14. Council Submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards
	Council Comment 1. The Council approved the Council’s submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards, with the addition of delegating authority to Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor Templeton to approve any further changes to paragraph 17 of the draft submission.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00203 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. And 4. Delegates authority to Deputy Mayor Cotter and Councillor Templeton to approve any further changes to paragraph 17 of the draft Council submission on the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards to Taumata Arowai. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 2.15 pm and returned at 2.22 pm during consideration of Item 15.

15. Derelict Buildings Issues and Options
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Mark Stevenson and John Higgins joined the table to present the report. 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett. 3. Councillor Donovan Moved an Amendment, Seconded by Councillor Harrison-Hunt, to: a. Request staff to proceed with a derelict building trial in New Brighton, with additional aspects listed (refer to Resolutions 3a to 3d) b. Include the Antonio Hall site in the trial. c. Include noting provisions (Notes 1 and 2) for staff to report back to the Council and that an Information Session is scheduled. d. Amend 5 to remove reference to maintaining the current approach. 4. Following debate, the Amendment was declared carried as the Substantive Motion.
	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.
	Moved/Seconded 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. Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Moved/Seconded
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00204 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. Requests staff to proceed with a derelict building trial in New Brighton, to include: a. Defining what constitutes a derelict building (beyond what may otherwise be classified as a dangerous and insanitary building or earthquake-prone building); b. Identifying derelict buildings in the area bound by Hawke Street and Beresford Street, to the east of the former school and Hardy Street at New Brighton; c. Engagement with landowners to encourage and facilitate improvements or redevelopment of sites; d. Exploring additional tools and approaches (both regulatory and non-regulatory) that may support the objectives of c. above, including rating tools 4. That the trial also include the Antonio Hall site. Note 1: This is intended as a trial and staff will report back by 28 February 2026 on progress, effectiveness and costs associated with this work to inform further decisions (including resourcing required) on addressing derelict buildings in other areas across the city. Note 2: An Information Session is scheduled on the Council’s compliance approach to dangerous and derelicts building focused on residential and commercial. The Information Session is intended to occur before June 2025. 5. Notes no additional resource or budget is required to be allocated in a future Annual Plan process. Councillor Donovan/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 2.40 pm and returned at 2.41 pm during consideration of Item 18.

Councillor Harrison–Hunt left the meeting at 2.43 pm and did not return.

18. Community Support and Partnerships Unit Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00205

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Community Support and Partnerships Unit Update Report.

Councillor Barber/Mayor Carried

19. Notice of Motion - Micromobility parking

Council Comment

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

24. Appointment of Electoral Officer

Council Comment

1. Council Officers Helen White and Carolyn Gallagher joined the table to present the report.

2. The meeting resolved to go into Public Excluded to discuss Attachment A of the Officer report.

3. Refer to Item 24 below for the final decision.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00206

That Carolyn Gallagher, Election Programme Manager remains after the public has been excluded for Item 21 of the public excluded agenda as she has knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

That at 3.07 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 308 to 309 of the agenda and pages 10 to 11 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

Deputy Mayor/Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 3.26pm.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 3.04 pm and returned at 3.06 pm during consideration of Item 24.

24. Appointment of Electoral Officer

Council Comment

Secretarial Note: The public interest consideration for Public Excluded Attachment A of this Item should read:

There is public interest in transparency when considering the expenditure of public funds. This is ~~not~~ outweighed by the risk of prejudice to the commercial position of a contractor. To disclose this information would give competitors and prospective contracting parties of the supplier an unfair advantage.

1. Earlier in the meeting, the Council agreed to go into Public Excluded to discuss Attachment A of the Officer Report.

2. Upon readmitting the public, the Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by the Mayor.

3. When put to the vote the Motion was declared carried.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00207

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Appointment of Electoral Officer Report.

2. Appoints Warwick Lampp of electionz.com as Electoral Officer for the purposes of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

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

4. Notes that Public Excluded Attachment A can be released to the public when the current contract with electionz.com expires.

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 7^TH DAY OF MAY 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Report from Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board – 10 April 2025

11. Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/730670
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mansour Johari, Passenger Transport Engineer Samantha Smith, Engagement advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

The Board considered the submissions and deputations on the proposed bus passenger shelter installations and associated bus stop changes.

Submitter, Richard Ashton Owen, in lieu of being available for his deputation, provided the statement and plan at Attachment E prior to the Board meeting, which relates to the proposed bus passenger shelter at 47 Hereford Street.

The Board is recommending that the Council approve all six shelter installations proposed within the Central City Plan A area.

The only departure of the Board from the Officer Recommendations in respect of these is an added request (refer to Recommendation 10b) that staff have a conversation with the resident immediately affected by the proposed shelter at 202 Gloucester Street to mitigate the privacy issue – the Board being advised staff can offer options to reduce the visibility through the shelter.

2. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area 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 that any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they conflict with the parking and stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 – 13 below are revoked.

Bus stop 54260 – 83 Victoria Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

4. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the west side of Victoria Street commencing at a point 28 metres north of its intersection with Peterborough Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 52915 – 47 Hereford Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

5. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 16 metres east of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 51616 – 332 Hereford Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

6. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 23 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

7. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 29 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 1 metres.

Bus stop 14263 – 164 St Asaph Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

8. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 36219 – 202 Gloucester Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

9. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that bus stop be revoked on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 24 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (western side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (western side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

c. Approves that bus stop be installed on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 8 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (western side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 22 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (western side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

10. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 12 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west end) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

b. Request staff have a conversation with the immediately affected resident to mitigate the privacy issue.

11. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Stop control be placed against Latimer Square (western side) at its intersection with Gloucester Street.

Bus stop 32180 – 106 Ferry Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

12. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 102 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

13. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A to the agenda report.

14. Approves that these resolutions 3 – 13 take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area 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.

Bus stop 54260 – 83 Victoria Street (Attachment A)

4. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 52915 – 47 Hereford Street (Attachment A)

5. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 51616 – 332 Hereford Street (Attachment A)

6. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

7. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

Bus stop 14263 – 164 St Asaph Street (Attachment A)

8. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 36219 – 202 Gloucester Street (Attachment A)

9. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

10. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

11. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Stop control be placed against Latimer Square (western side) at its intersection with Gloucester Street.

Bus stop 32180 – 106 Ferry Road (Attachment A)

12. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

13. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A.

14. Approves that these resolutions 3 – 13 above take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

15. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area Report.

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

17. Approves that any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they conflict with the parking and stopping restrictions described in resolutions 18 – 46 below are revoked.

Bus stop 24231 – 60 Briggs Road (Attachment A)

18. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Briggs Road commencing at a point 89 metres west of its intersection with Akaroa Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 20632 – 44 Hills Road (Attachment A)

19. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the east side of Hills Road commencing at a point 102 metres north of its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the east side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 115 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the east side of Hills Road commencing at a point 115 metres north of its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

20. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Hills Road commencing at a point 117 metres north of its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 12010 – 83 North Avon Road (Attachment A)

21. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the north side of North Avon Road commencing at a point 55 metres east of its intersection with Stapletons Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 40628 – 342 Stanmore Road (Attachment A)

22. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 5 metres south of its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

23. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 25 metres south of its intersection with North Avon Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 24441 – 458 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

24. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 12 metres south of its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 33 metres south of its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 47 metres south of its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 2 metres.

25. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 37 metres south of its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 24402 – 516 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

26. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 18 metres south of its intersection with Canon Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 38465 – 656 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

27. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Barbadoes Street commencing at a point 92 metres south of its intersection with Warrington Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 45184 – 1024 Colombo Street (Attachment A)

28. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at its intersection with Canon Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

29. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 10 metres south of its intersection with Canon Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 28797 – 212 Bealey Avenue (Attachment A)

30. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Bealey Avenue commencing at a point 49 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 53185 – 33E Rolleston Avenue (Attachment A)

31. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the island separating the cycle lane and traffic lane on the west side of Rolleston Avenue commencing at a point 44 metres south of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 46339 – 249 Gloucester Street (Attachment A)

32. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 90 metres west of its intersection with Barbadoes Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 28637 – 214 Fitzgerald Avenue (Attachment A)

33. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 30 metres north of its intersection with Elm Grove and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 28713 – 217 Fitzgerald Avenue (Attachment A)

34. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that bus stop be revoked on the west side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 44 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the west side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 43.5 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

c. Approves that bus stop be installed on the west side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 47.5 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the west side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 61.5 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 2 metres.

35. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the west side of Fitzgerald Avenue commencing at a point 55 metres north of its intersection with Armagh Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 53233 – 168 Ferry Road (Attachment A)

36. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 49 metres west of its intersection with Lancaster Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 18938 – 442 Tuam Street (Attachment A)

37. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 68 metres east of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 36 metres east of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in an westerly direction for a distance of 3 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 33 metres east of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

38. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 26 metres east of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

39. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Give way control be placed against Phillips Street at its intersection with Tuam Street.

Bus stop 41002 – 500 Tuam Street (Attachment A)

40. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 66 metres east of its intersection with Nursery Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 81 metres east of its intersection with Nursery Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 70 metres east of its intersection with Nursery Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

41. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 64 metres east of its intersection with Nursery Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 18827 – 18 Harrow Street (Attachment A)

42. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the south side of Harrow Street commencing at a point 18 metres east of its intersection with Bordesley Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Harrow Street commencing at a point 54 metres west of its intersection with Bordesley Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the south side of Harrow Street commencing at a point 64 metres west of its intersection with Bordesley Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the south side of Harrow Street commencing at a point 78 metres west of its intersection with Bordesley Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 2 metres.

43. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of Harrow Street commencing at a point 70 metres west of its intersection with Bordesley Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 13310 – 51 North Parade (Attachment A)

44. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the west side of North Parade commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Randall Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the west side of North Parade commencing at its intersection with Randall Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

c. Approves that a bus stop be installed on the west side of North Parade commencing at a point 15 metres north of its intersection with Randall Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

Bus stop 36901 – 116 Aldwins Road (Attachment A)

45. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop be revoked on the east side of Aldwins Road commencing at a point 365 metres south of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

46. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A.

47. Approves that these resolutions 17 – 46 above, take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area 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.

Bus stop 24231 – 60 Briggs Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

4. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 20632 – 44 Hills Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

5. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

6. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

b. Requests staff have a conversation with the immediately affected resident to mitigate the privacy issue.

Bus stop 12010 – 83 North Avon Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

7. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 40628 – 342 Stanmore Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

8. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

9. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 24441 – 458 Barbadoes Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

10. Requests staff investigate an alternative site for this bus passenger shelter, with the Board signalling a need for a shelter at the BP on Cranford Street.

Bus stop 24402 – 516 Barbadoes Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

11. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 38465 – 656 Barbadoes Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

12. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 45184 – 1024 Colombo Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

13. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

14. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28797 – 212 Bealey Avenue (Agenda Report Attachment A)

15. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 53185 – 33E Rolleston Avenue (Agenda Report Attachment A)

16. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 46339 – 249 Gloucester Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

17. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28637 – 214 Fitzgerald Avenue (Agenda Report Attachment A)

18. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28713 – 217 Fitzgerald Avenue (Agenda Report Attachment A)

19. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

20. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 53233 – 168 Ferry Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

21. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 18938 – 442 Tuam Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

22. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

23. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

24. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Give way control be placed against Phillips Street at its intersection with Tuam Street.

Bus stop 41002 – 500 Tuam Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

25. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

26. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 18827 – 18 Harrow Street (Agenda Report Attachment A)

27. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

28. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 13310 – 51 North Parade (Agenda Report Attachment A)

29. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

Bus stop 36901 – 116 Aldwins Road (Agenda Report Attachment A)

30. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

31. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A to the agenda report.

32. Approves that these resolutions 3 – 31, take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

· Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage

· Submission Table

· Recording of the Board meeting at which the deputations were heard and the recommendations to the Council decided

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area	24/1104325	147

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Bus stop upgrades plans (Under Separate Cover)	25/509389
b ⇨	Bus stop list for shelter installation (Under Separate Cover)	25/509393
c ⇨	Memo to Community Board (Under Separate Cover)	25/244855
d ⇨	Optioneering for each bus stop (Under Separate Cover)	25/519847
e ⇨	Richard Ashton Owen - statement and plan in relation to proposed bus passenger shelter at 47 Hereford Street (Under Separate Cover)	25/730798

Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1104325
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mansour Johari, Passenger Transport Engineer Samantha Smith, Engagement advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Uptake Pūrongo

1.1 For the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board to approve proposed bus stop upgrades within its area, and to make recommendations to Council for the proposed bus stop upgrades that rest with the Council for decision making.

1.2 The report originates from staff investigations to install the remaining bus stop shelters from the Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project at well-used bus stops.

1.3 Staff are seeking this decision to achieve the best value for money, and improvements in public transport outcomes. There is a risk in delaying shelter installation, as this could result in additional storage costs.

1.4 The proposed bus stop upgrades were consulted on together and are presented in a unified report to streamline time and costs. However, the decision concerning each bus stop is independent, and they can be pursued separately if necessary.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area 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.

Bus stop 54260 – 83 Victoria Street (Attachment A)

4. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 52915 – 47 Hereford Street (Attachment A)

5. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 51616 – 332 Hereford Street (Attachment A)

6. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

7. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

Bus stop 14263 – 164 St Asaph Street (Attachment A)

8. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 36219 – 202 Gloucester Street (Attachment A)

9. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

10. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

11. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Stop control be placed against Latimer Square (western side) at its intersection with Gloucester Street.

Bus stop 32180 – 106 Ferry Road (Attachment A)

12. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

13. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A.

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:

15. Receives the information in the Shelter installation at well-used bus stops across the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area Report.

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

Bus stop 24231 – 60 Briggs Road (Attachment A)

18. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 20632 – 44 Hills Road (Attachment A)

19. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

20. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 12010 – 83 North Avon Road (Attachment A)

21. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 40628 – 342 Stanmore Road (Attachment A)

22. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

23. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 24441 – 458 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

24. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

25. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 24402 – 516 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

26. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 38465 – 656 Barbadoes Street (Attachment A)

27. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 45184 – 1024 Colombo Street (Attachment A)

28. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

29. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28797 – 212 Bealey Avenue (Attachment A)

30. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 53185 – 33E Rolleston Avenue (Attachment A)

31. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 46339 – 249 Gloucester Street (Attachment A)

32. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28637 – 214 Fitzgerald Avenue (Attachment A)

33. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 28713 – 217 Fitzgerald Avenue (Attachment A)

34. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

35. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 53233 – 168 Ferry Road (Attachment A)

36. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 18938 – 442 Tuam Street (Attachment A)

37. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

38. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

39. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. That a Give way control be placed against Phillips Street at its intersection with Tuam Street.

Bus stop 41002 – 500 Tuam Street (Attachment A)

40. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

41. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 18827 – 18 Harrow Street (Attachment A)

42. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

43. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

Bus stop 13310 – 51 North Parade (Attachment A)

44. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

Bus stop 36901 – 116 Aldwins Road (Attachment A)

45. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

46. Approves that directional and warning tactile pavers, hardstand areas, bus stop signs, and green surface treatments are installed at the above bus stops, as shown on Attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Staff propose enhancements at 23 well-used bus stops within the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area.

3.2 The planned improvements consist of installing 23 new shelters, accommodating approximately 800 passengers daily. The number of boardings per bus stop are listed in Attachment B.

3.3 The plans will improve accessibility and bus waiting areas by providing hardstand areas, tactile pavers, seating, new bus stops, and bus stop relocations. Standard line markings will also be provided to allow the bus to be able to access and egress the bus stop easily and safely.

3.4 The construction of this project will be funded by Public Transport Futures programme (CPMS 78850). Construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2025 calendar year.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 At the 11 December 2024 Council meeting (Minutes, Item 11), the Council approved the installation of the remaining bus stop shelters from the Linwood Bus Stop Improvement Project at well-used bus stops across the Linwood, Central, Eastern, Northeast, and Southeast suburbs of Christchurch.

4.2 Funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Waka Kotahi will cover the purchase of the shelters and the Council will be responsible for the installation expenses (i.e. investigation, design, and construction).

4.3 According to the funding agreement with the NZTA Waka Kotahi the shelters must be purchased before the end of June 2025. Staff will work to install the shelters by June 2025. However, if some shelters are not installed by that time, they must be purchased and stored, otherwise Council will lose the funding to buy the shelters. Storing the shelters could incur costs for Council (additional storage costs).

4.4 Staff define a bus stop as “well-used” if it serves about 20 or more passengers daily, which is the established traditional threshold by Council for installing a shelter.

4.5 The planned improvements involve installing 23 new shelters, accommodating approximately 800 passengers daily. These bus stops are listed in Attachment B. Six of the shelters are within the Plan A area and require resolution by the Council.

4.6 Figure 1 presents an example of the shelters installed at Linwood Village. The shelters that are part of this project will have a width of 1 metre, similar to the photograph below. If necessary to meet minimum footpath width requirements, a slimline shelter, which is 0.5 metres in width, will be installed instead.

Figure 1: Shelter installed at Linwood Village.

4.7 The anticipated impact on on-street parking is minimal, as the upgrades primarily involve adding shelters to existing bus stops.

4.8 The proposed upgrade for bus stop 13310 outside 51 North Parade, which includes standard line marking and a new seat, originated from a community request. These upgrades have been consulted on and are included in this report to reduce consultation and reporting costs.

4.9 Staff note that the existing layout of Rolleston Avenue may only remain in place during the Canterbury Museum redevelopment. However, staff propose to install a shelter at bus stop 53185, located outside 33E Rolleston Avenue. This suggestion follows multiple community requests for a shelter at this stop. The presence of the concrete island at the location negates the need for a concrete slab, simplifying the installation process and making the upgrade cheaper. Accordingly, should the layout change in the future, the shelter can be easily unbolted and relocated.

4.10 A plan has been developed by staff for the shelter installation at bus stop 53251 outside 77 Ferry Road. However, following feedback from affected residents, staff have deferred this shelter installation for further investigation.

4.11 The proposed relocation of bus stop 36901 outside 116 Aldwins Road moves it to within the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area. As a result, the officer recommendations in this report solely include the removal of this bus stop. The proposed upgrades will be presented to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board for approval.

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

Date	Subject
05/02/2025	Bus stop upgrades within the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area (Attachment C)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.13 The primary objective of this project is to install bus shelters at well-used bus stops. Staff have considered other changes, including bus stop relocation, standard bus stop layout markings, provision of hardstand areas, and installing tactile pavers, which were identified as necessary to meet the Council’s standard for bus stops.

4.14 Additionally, measures such as green surface treatment, stop and give-way controls, and no-passing lines have been included to enhance the safety of all road users.

4.15 The options assessment table (Attachment D) presents the preferred option for each bus stop alongside other options considered but that were not assessed as being reasonably practicable. Please note the following points when reading the table.

· The table outlines only the key upgrades in the preferred option, such as shelter installations, additional no stopping restrictions, and bus stop relocations. Upgrades that have minimal impact on residents, such as tactile pavers, hardstand areas, and green surface treatments, are excluded.

· The table includes only the points specific to each bus stop. The general advantages and disadvantages, which apply to all bus stops, are discussed below but are not repeated in the table.

o For bus stops where there have been no operational or safety issues raised, relocation has not been considered an option.

o The installation of a shelter at each bus stop will provide weather protection for passengers. It will lead to increased maintenance and cleaning costs for the Council.

o The Do-nothing option was considered alongside the preferred option for each bus stop. The main advantage to the do-nothing option is that the Council would incur no costs. However, the key disadvantage is that none of the targeted improvements would be realised. Additionally, the delay in installation of the shelters could lead to additional storage costs.

· The standard bus stop line marking layout consists of 12 metres of no stopping restrictions, followed by a 14-metre bus stop, and an additional 6 metres of no-stopping restrictions. This layout enables the optimum access for bus drivers by allowing them to easily pull into and out of the bus stop. It also improves boarding/departing conditions for passengers by making sure the bus is parallel to the kerb. This is important for elderly people, children, and visually and mobility impaired passengers.

· For bus stops where the bus stop line marking layout upgrades are proposed, the installation of a shelter, without altering/providing line markings, was considered but was not assessed as being reasonably practicable for the following reasons:

o The standard bus stop line marking layout improves access for bus drivers into and out of the bus stops by minimising the likelihood of cars parking too close to the bus stop, which makes manoeuvring difficult.

o As these are well-used bus stops, it is likely staff will receive future requests from the community or bus operators for the standard bus line marking layout. Therefore, considering these upgrades alongside the shelter installation provides better value for money by avoiding multiple projects at the same bus stop.

o The changes are minor, and the resulting loss of on-street parking is minimal.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The estimated costs for the recommended option and the do-nothing option are provided in the table below.

5.2 The implementation costs in the table below include the expenses for construction of bus stop upgrades to install the shelters. NZTA Waka Kotahi funds the purchase of the shelters.

5.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - The Transport Unit Operational Expenditure budgets include maintenance of bus stop infrastructure.

5.4 Increased maintenance costs will be allowed for as part of future Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. Budget will be required from year two.

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do-nothing
Cost to Implement	$350,000	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$5500 per year	$39,000 (storage costs)
Funding Source	PT Futures (CPMS 78850)	PT Futures (CPMS 78850)
Funding Availability	Available	Available
Impact on Rates	In LTP Budget	In LTP Budget

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If the Community Board selects the do-nothing option, none of the improvements highlighted in the options table will be achieved. This not only includes the benefits of shelter installations but also opportunities to enhance public transport accessibility and safety.

6.2 If the Community Board selects the do-nothing option, the associated risk in delaying shelter installation is that additional storage costs could occur. As per the funding agreement between NZTA Waka Kotahi and CCC, the shelters must be purchased by June 2025. A delay in installation will lead to extra storage costs, as detailed in the Capex/Opex table above.

6.3 If the Community Board selects the do-nothing option, the shelters will be considered for other bus stops locations potentially outside of this Community Board area. This is a notable risk as staff observations have determined that many of well-used bus stops within this Community Board area have a lower level of service than those across other parts of Christchurch and require upgrades to meet the standard. Opting for "Do-nothing" would result in a missed opportunity to improve these bus stops and the experience of people using public transport system. This could also increase the chance of receiving push back from community.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The relevant Community Board or Committee have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolutions of:

· Stopping, standing, and parking restrictions (including bus stops) under Clause 7 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

· Bus passenger shelters under Section 339 (1) of the Local Government Act 1974.

· To hear and determine objections to bus stop shelters.

· Traffic control devices under Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017.

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

6.4.3 Staff confirm the shelters will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

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

6.6.2 Are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the number of people impacted by each individual plan, the low risk and cost associated with the decision.

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 Transport

6.8.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.4.1 More people are choosing to travel by public transport - >=13 million trips per year

· Level of Service: 10.4.4. Improve customer satisfaction with public transport facilities (quality of bus stops and bus priority measures) - >=73%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Early engagement with ECan took place during the design stage through multiple in-person meetings. Staff have considered ECan's comments, and ECan are supportive of all the plans.

6.10 Consultation started on 10 February and ran until 5 March 2025. Consultation details including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage were advertised on 10 February 2025 via:

6.10.1 An email sent to 65 key stakeholders, including schools and businesses impacted by plans, emergency services, AA, Disabled Persons Assembly, Orion and Chorus, Spokes, Greater Ōtautahi, Generation Zero, Environment Canterbury’s Accessibility Reference Group (ARG) and Environment Canterbury’s Public Transport Stakeholder Reference Group (PTSRG).

6.10.2 Consultation documents that included plans and a summary of improvements delivered to 105 residents and absentee owners.

6.11 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage had 123 views throughout the consultation period.

6.12 Orion had several queries on specific plans regarding the alignment with cables and minimum approach distances to overhead services with shelters.

6.12.1 Staff response: For each site, our contractor will conduct an underground service assessment, and appropriate actions will be taken. For sites with specific requirements, we will collaborate with service providers to ensure all aspects are addressed. Additionally, staff have worked on new types of foundations for shelters facilitate easier access to underground services for service providers.

6.13 Street meetings were offered to residents to discuss plans during the consultation period. Feedback from the street meetings for 44 Hills Road and 656 Barbadoes Street are summarised in the table in section 6.16.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.14 Submissions were made by three recognised organisations, two businesses and 15 individuals. All submissions are available on the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

6.14.1 The Canterbury/West Coast Automobile Association (AA) District Council agreed with all plans and highlighted that they were essential for the continued improvement of bus patronage.

6.14.2 Other organisations and businesses submitted on individual plans, and their feedback is summarised in the table in section 6.16.

6.15 We did not receive any submissions for the following bus stop improvement plans:

Bus stop address and ID	Ward
83 North Avon Road – 12010	Central
342 Stanmore Road - 40628	Central
212 Bealey Ave – 28797	Central
1024 Colombo Street - 45184	Innes
249 Gloucester Street – 46339	Central
332 Hereford Street – 51616	Central
214 Fitzgerald Ave – 28637	Central
217 Fitzgerald Ave – 28713	Central
106 Ferry Road – 32180	Central
168 Ferry Road - 53233	Central
18 Harrow Street – 18827	Central
60 Briggs Road – 24231	Innes
164 St Asaph Street – 14263	Central

6.16 The following bus stop improvement plans received submissions. A summary of submitter support and submission themes are provided in the table below.

Bus stop address, ID and changes	Ward	Overall, do you support the plan?			Themes
Bus stop address, ID and changes	Ward	Yes	Somewhat	No	Themes
44 Hills Road – 20632 (new shelter, tactile pavers, footpath resurfacing, extending yellow no-stopping lines, green paint for cyclists)	Central	1		3	Concerns · Intrusive placement · Loss of privacy due to lower fence height · Increased difficulty exiting shared driveway · Worries about turning with trailer in busy traffic Questions · Why relocate instead of upgrading the existing stop? · Can the road elevation of the shelter be provided? Requests · Keep the bus stop in current location and upgrade it instead
202 Gloucester Street - 36219 (bus stop relation, new shelter, tactile pavers)	Central	2		2	Support · Improved bus stop design · Increased parking availability Concerns · Loss of parking and access for residents with mobility issues · Increased noise and potential for loitering · Privacy concerns due to proximity to ground-floor units · Security risks from visibility into unoccupied units · Negative impact on property value Questions · Will the current bus stop area be converted into car parking? Requests · Keep bus stop in current location
33E Rolleston Ave – 53185 (new shelter)	Central			1	Concerns · Blind spot created by shelter obstructing views of cyclists/passengers · Increased risk of collisions due to cyclist speed and curved cycleway path · Headlight glare on shelter glass reducing visibility · Low usage of stop for waiting passengers · Availability of alternative nearby shelter options Questions · Do you have data on the number of passengers waiting for buses versus those using this as an exit point? Requests · Reconsider shelter placement due to safety risks and low waiting passenger usage We have answered the safety concerns, and the bollards have been added to the plan accordingly.
450 Tuam Street – 18938 (new shelter, shifting the bus stop west, tactile pavers, extending yellow no-stopping lines)	Central			2	Concerns · Shelter placement blocking office windows, reducing natural light and privacy · Increased safety risks due to reduced visibility exiting car park · Potential obstruction of business sign · Risk of people gathering near building entrance, impacting safety and emergency access · Increased risk of traffic hazards at Phillips Street intersection Requests · Keep bus stop in current location · Ensure shelter placement does not obstruct business sign or office windows We have moved the shelter to ensure it does not interfere with the advertising signage.
500 Tuam Street – 41002 (new shelter, shifting east, tactile pavers, extending yellow no-stopping lines, adjusting bus markings to standard size)	Central			1	Concerns · Proposed bus shelter placement conflicts with approved resource consent for new vehicle crossings Requests · Shift the bus shelter to the neighbouring site to accommodate planned development We have updated the plan to eliminate the interference with the driveway as per the approved consent.
51 North Parade – 13310 (new seat, adjusting bus markings to standard size, tactile pavers, footpath resurfacing, extending yellow no-stopping lines)	Central		1		Concerns · Frequent litter and broken glass from bus stop users · Windblown rubbish affecting shared driveway · Glass a safety risk for nearby kindergarten Requests · Install a rubbish bin at the bus stop to reduce litter
77 Ferry Road – 53251 (new shelter)	Central			1	Concerns · Bus shelter placement would block potential future entrance/exit · Existing stop location creates visibility hazard for vehicles exiting car park · Removal of car parks worsens parking issues, especially during school pick up Requests · Relocate bus stop outside 75 Ferry Road, where it won’t interfere with driveways · Reevaluate the street design to address parking and traffic flow issues We have tabled this plan for further investigation due to the completion of a new development in the area, which may provide an alternative option.
83 Victoria Street - 54260 (new shelter)	Central	1			Support · Proposed bus shelter location should not interfere with the garden · Hedge will eventually grow to blend the shelter in
47 Hereford Street - 52195 (new shelter, tactile pavers)	Central			1	Concerns · Lack of need for shelter given Council building awning · Landscaping was proposed after the earthquake · The Hereford Street frontage is bleak without landscaping and trees Requests Do not install a shelter and consider landscaping Hereford Street
458 Barbadoes Street – 24441 (relocating bus stop, new shelter, tactile pavers, footpath resurfacing, green paint for cyclists)	Innes			2	Concerns · Removal of grass verge affecting privacy · Loss of parking space for residents · The current bus stop location is not busy and works fine · Proximity to the next bus stop, only 100m away · The proposed changes are costly and unnecessary · Loss of car parking space · Current bus stop is already safe and out of the way Requests · Keep the bus stop in its current location · Retain current parking arrangement · Focus on adding a shelter without relocating the stop · Maintain existing parking layout
518 Barbadoes Street – 24402 (new shelter, tactile pavers)	Innes	1			Concerns · Incorrect property data in the notice (a property labelled wrong) Requests · Correct the property data and map for clarity
656 Barbadoes Street – 38465 (new shelter)	Innes	N/A (site meeting only)			Requests · Shelter location – could we shift this down slightly to improve proximity to living space We proposed an improved location in collaboration with the resident on-site by repositioning the bin.

6.17 A plan has been developed by staff for the shelter installation at bus stop 53251 outside 77 Ferry Road. However, following feedback from affected residents, staff have deferred this shelter installation for further investigation.

6.18 Some submitters have suggested alternative locations for proposed bus stop upgrades, the options assessment table presents why those options were considered but were not considered to be reasonably practicable options.

6.19 In the case where a submission included a question (e.g. shelter specifications, patronage of the bus stop, etc), staff have answered those through an email back to submitters.

6.20 In response to the feedback, staff provide answers to common concerns raised by submitters:

6.21 On-street parking loss

Staff response: Kerbside spaces are limited and need to be considered for all road users, particularly for public transport, which is an essential transport mode for many individuals such as those with disabilities, elderly people, and children and youth. It is important to note that the Council’s Suburban Car Parking Policy prioritises the use of kerbside spaces for bus stops over other types of parking. It’s also worth noting that existing bus stops, even if not marked, already require 12 metres of no stopping restrictions. To make sure that buses can safely pull in and stop close and parallel to kerb, both CCC and NZTA standards now require a 14-metre bus box with 12 metres and 6 metres no stopping restrictions before and after the bus box.

6.22 Driveway interruption

Staff response: Avoiding marking bus stops at driveways is usually the preferred method. However, in a few cases, due to the limited spacing between driveways or to avoid removing a healthy tree, it may be that the bus stop marking interrupts a driveway. It is worth noting that buses will be there only a few times per day and each time for a short period (e.g., 30 seconds). Therefore, we do not expect any safety or operational issues to arise. Additionally, there are many similar situations around Christchurch that have been operating without any issues.

6.23 Bus shelter will block the sightline/ obstruct our window / is an unpleasant view

Staff response: It is important to note that the design of the new generation of bus shelters in Christchurch is modern, featuring a combination of metal and toughened glass elements, as shown in the figure below. The glass walls ensure that the shelter has minimal impact on sightlines and obstructing views.

Although staff have tried to place the shelters in locations that minimise effects on residents, the needs of public transport users must also be considered. These individuals may need to wait for buses in severe weather conditions, sometimes for long periods. They could include elderly people, children, and those with disabilities. The primary function of a shelter is to provide weather protection and a place for these individuals to wait.

6.24 Privacy, vandalism, and graffiti

Staff response: Vandalism, privacy issues, and graffiti may occasionally occur at some bus stops, but they are not widespread issues across Christchurch. Should such an incident arise, the police can be contacted, as this behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of graffiti, the relevant Council team will address the issue.

Furthermore, the shelters are being installed at existing, well-used bus stops. This means the concerns mentioned may already exist at these locations, and the addition of a shelter will not significantly increase the likelihood of such incidents.

6.25 Fence/hedge

Staff response: We will ensure that the shelter is installed as recommended in the relevant guides. CCC will not be responsible for maintaining the hedge or fencing as the proposed plans do not affect them.

6.26 Requests for bins

Staff response: The Maintenance team handles bin installations. We will pass these requests on to them for review.

6.27 Bus stop affecting the property value

Staff response: Staff have not found any evidence that a bus stop or shelter beside a property result in property value reduction.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.30 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. However, providing shelters along with other bus stop upgrades will enhance public transport user satisfaction and encourage more people to use public transport.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Once recommendation approved, staff will engage with contractors to proceed with construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A: Bus stop upgrades plans (Under Separate Cover)	25/509389
b	Attachment B: Bus stop list for shelter installation (Under Separate Cover)	25/509393
c	Attachment C: Memo to Community Board (Under Separate Cover)	25/244855
d	Attachment D: Optioneering for each bus stop (Under Separate Cover)	25/519847

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mansour Johari - Passenger Transport Engineer

Samantha Smith - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

12. Local Water Done Well Service Delivery Model
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/648461
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
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 formal Council decision to approve a proposed model for delivering water services in Christchurch. This model will be included in the Council’s Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP), as required under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024.

1.2 The report is the result of a comprehensive process undertaken by the Council to meet the statutory obligations of the Local Water Done Well reform programme.

1.3 The Council’s decision will provide the structural foundation for the remainder of the WSDP, guiding the development of the financial, operational, and implementation components of the plan. The confirmed model will be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs as part of the WSDP by the statutory deadline of 3 September 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Local Water Done Well Service Delivery Model Report.

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

3. Notes that under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024, the Council is required to identify its proposed model for delivering water services in its Water Services Delivery Plan.

4. Notes that public consultation on three delivery model options has been undertaken, and that community feedback has been considered in making this decision.

5. Agrees that the In-House Model is included in the Water Services Delivery Plan as the Council’s proposed water services delivery model.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

Background

3.1 The Local Water Done Well (LWDW) reforms require all local authorities to develop a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) by 3 September 2025. The WSDP must set out the current state of water infrastructure, future investment needs, and the financial and operational strategies needed to meet strengthened regulatory standards.

3.2 A key statutory requirement is for each local authority to identify its proposed or anticipated model for delivering water services under the framework established by the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024.

3.3 Three delivery models were evaluated and publicly consulted:

· In-House Delivery Model – The Council retains full governance and operational responsibility for water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services.

· Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO) Model – Transfers governance and operational responsibility to an independent entity solely focused on water services, with the Council retaining strategic oversight as the shareholder.

· Two-Waters WSCCO Model – A hybrid model where water supply and wastewater are managed by a WSCCO, with stormwater services retained in-house.

Evaluation and Consultation Findings

3.4 Each model was evaluated with a strategic assessment and a financial assessment. All three models were found to be technically feasible under the LWDW framework, however the In-House Delivery Model performed strongest overall. It offers stability, builds on existing Council capability, avoids the complexity and cost of new structural arrangements, and maintains alignment with other Council services.

3.5 Public consultation was undertaken from 7 March to 6 April 2025, followed by hearings on 15 April 2025. The Council used the alternative consultation procedure provided under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024, which focused community feedback on the proposed In-House Delivery Model and two alternative options involving WSCCOs.

3.6 In total, 681 submissions were received, with respondents asked to indicate their preferred delivery model. 612 submitters indicated a preference:

· In-House Delivery Model: 80% (487 responses)

· Three-Waters WSCCO Model: 14% (87 responses)

· Two-Waters WSCCO Model: 6% (38 responses)

3.7 Feedback highlighted the importance of local control, public ownership, and cost-effectiveness. While some support was received for the WSCCO and Two-Waters WSCCO models, primarily due to their potential for long-term investment certainty and operational specialisation, these were less favoured overall.

Decision Before the Council

3.8 The decision before the Council is to confirm its proposed water services delivery model for inclusion in the WSDP.

3.9 Based on the evaluation findings and the outcome of public consultation, it is recommended that the In-House Delivery Model be confirmed as the preferred option. This model provides a robust platform for ongoing improvement while retaining flexibility to revisit alternative structures in the future if circumstances change.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Overview of the Local Water Done Well Reform

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

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

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

Key Objectives of LWDW

Fit-for-Purpose Service Delivery Models

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

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

Financial Sustainability

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

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

Enhanced Oversight and Regulation

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

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

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

Legislative Framework

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

Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024

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

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

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

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

4.14 Introduced in December 2024, this Bill sets out the enduring legislative framework for water services delivery. It sets out the options available for service delivery models, establishes a new economic regulation and consumer protection regime regulated by the Commerce Commission, and implements changes to water quality regulations, including enhanced standards for wastewater and stormwater. Submissions on the Bill closed on 23 February 2025. The Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the Bill including any recommended changes is due on 17 June 2025.

Water Services Delivery Plan

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

4.16 The Council is actively developing its WSDP. This plan will detail the current state of Christchurch’s water infrastructure, identify future investment needs, and outline the financial and operational strategies required to comply with current and anticipated regulatory standards set out under the LWDW reforms. The WSDP must be finalised and submitted to the DIA by 3 September 2025.

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

Selection of a Water Services Delivery Model

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

4.19 Councils must choose one of the below models:

· Deliver services directly.

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

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

· Enter into joint arrangements with other councils.

· Become shareholders in water organisations established by other councils.

· Explore other compliant arrangements.

4.20 If a water organisation is used, it must:

· Be a company under the Companies Act 1993.

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

· Operate exclusively in water services or related activities.

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

5. Summary of the Evaluation and Community Feedback

Summary of the Evaluation

5.1 In the Council report considered on 19 February 2025, the Council was presented with the Indicative Business Case (see Attachment A) and an accompanying report which set out the rationale for consulting on its proposal and two other viable water service delivery models. That material remains the analytical foundation for this decision and should be read alongside this report.

5.2 The models evaluated in detail were:

· In-House Delivery Model (Council’s proposal): Retains direct Council governance and operational control over water services, including water supply, wastewater, and stormwater. This model supports strong community accountability and integration with other Council functions and services.

· Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO): Involves establishing a new, independent entity governed by a professional board, with the Council as a shareholder. This model offers increased financial flexibility and potential efficiencies through dedicated focus on water services, but also introduces setup costs and governance separation.

· Two-Waters WSCCO Model: A hybrid model that transfers governance and delivery of water supply and wastewater to a WSCCO, while retaining stormwater within the Council. This structure aims to balance some of the benefits of a CCO model with the integration and coordination advantages of Council-retained functions.

5.3 The evaluation assessed each model against a comprehensive set of financial and strategic criteria, including value to ratepayers, regulatory compliance, financial agility, operational effectiveness, governance and accountability, community expectations, and implementation feasibility.

5.4 The analysis showed that while all three models could meet the Government’s financial and regulatory requirements, the In-House Model scored highest overall, primarily due to its stability, lower transition risks, and close alignment with Christchurch’s existing systems and strategic direction.

What the Community Said in Response

5.5 Public consultation was undertaken from 7 March to 6 April 2025, followed by hearings on 15 April 2025. The Council used the alternative consultation procedure provided under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024, which focused community feedback on the proposed In-House Delivery Model and the two alternative options involving WSCCOs.

5.6 The consultation document is provided in Attachment B and an analysis of the consultation feedback is provided in Attachment C.

5.7 In total, 681 submissions were received, with respondents asked to indicate their preferred delivery model. 612 submitters indicated a preference:

· In-House Delivery Model: 80% (487 responses)

· Three-Waters WSCCO Model: 14% (87 responses)

· Two-Waters WSCCO Model: 6% (38 responses)

5.8 The consultation process generated a wide range of thoughtful and constructive feedback across all three delivery models. Governance, control, value for money, long-term infrastructure investment, and public ownership were consistent areas of focus.

Summary of Feedback Supporting the In-House Delivery Model

5.9 The majority of submitters supported the Council’s proposal, an In-House Delivery Model. Submitters provided a range of feedback, but generally indicated that this model best addressed concerns about governance and control of Christchurch’s water services and assets. Many emphasised the value they place on the ability to have a say in how water services are managed, stating that an in-house model enables stronger community involvement and accountability through elected representatives.

5.10 A recurring theme was the desire to maintain local governance and public ownership. Submitters expressed concern that a CCO structure would reduce accountability to the community and introduce another layer of governance, perceived as less responsive. They highlighted the importance of elected members remaining answerable for water service delivery and felt this helped ensure decision-making reflects local values and needs.

5.11 Privatisation was also raised as a concern. Some submitters expressed fears that moving to a CCO model could create a pathway for future privatisation, with public ownership seen as essential to protecting water services from profit-driven decision-making.

5.12 Financial considerations featured strongly. Submitters supported the in-house model for its perceived cost-efficiency and value to ratepayers, noting concerns about the added overhead costs of a separate governance and leadership structure under a CCO. Many viewed the Council’s existing delivery as effective and questioned the need for change, often citing a “don’t fix what isn’t broken” sentiment. Several also valued the integrated delivery of services that occurs under Council and noted concerns that this integration could be lost under a CCO model.

Summary of Feedback Supporting the Three Waters CCO Model

5.13 Fourteen per cent of submitters supported the Three Waters WSCCO model. These submitters also focused on governance and control, but from a different perspective. They raised concerns about the influence of political decision-making on critical infrastructure planning and investment. Many felt a specialised organisation would enable more consistent, long-term planning and reduce short-term decisions influenced by political cycles.

5.14 Submitters supporting this model considered a WSCCO structure to offer more transparency and oversight than the current arrangement, and saw the governance structure as better suited to delivering high-quality, efficient, and compliant water services. There was a belief that a WSCCO could deliver better value for ratepayers over time by operating more commercially and with greater operational focus.

5.15 Many viewed the model as a way to future-proof Christchurch’s water services, noting the potential for stronger alignment with national regulatory expectations and more stable investment in infrastructure over time.

Summary of Feedback Supporting the Two Waters CCO Model

5.16 Six percent of submitters preferred the Two Waters WSCCO model. Their feedback closely reflected that of full CCO supporters, with a focus on the challenges of political influence in infrastructure decision-making. These submitters raised concerns that Council governance can lead to short-term investment decisions, particularly where there is pressure to limit rates.

5.17 They generally favoured the establishment of a specialist entity for water supply and wastewater, believing it would support better long-term infrastructure outcomes and compliance with national standards. However, they supported retaining stormwater management within Council, recognising the benefits of the Council’s integrated approach, especially its alignment with flood protection, transport, parks, and environmental planning.

5.18 This group tended to view the Two Waters CCO model as a compromise, offering both targeted expertise in core network services and the retention of Council-led stormwater management.

Consultation Considerations for Decision-Making

5.19 From a decision-making perspective, several points are clear:

· Community values around governance, accountability, and public ownership were prominent. Many submitters indicated a strong preference for retaining direct Council control over water services, with concerns about governance separation and potential risks of privatisation under a CCO model.

· At the same time, a proportion of submitters expressed support for a specialist water services entity, believing it would provide greater long-term planning stability, operational efficiency, and improved compliance outcomes.

· Views on financial sustainability were mixed, with some favouring the borrowing headroom and focus of a CCO, while others preferred the more integrated and cost-stable in-house approach.

· There was a recognition of trade-offs across all models, including the costs and risks associated with establishing new governance structures, the importance of aligning with national standards, and the need to maintain community trust and transparency.

5.20 Overall, the consultation highlighted a well-informed and engaged community that recognises the complexity of the decision and the trade-offs inherent in each model. While the In-House Delivery Model received the strongest support, the feedback across all three options provides valuable insight into the outcomes the community expects from any future approach – including transparency, long-term investment certainty, efficient service delivery, and accountability. This reinforces the importance of ensuring that whichever model is adopted, its implementation is guided by these principles.

6. Decision Before The Council

6.1 The decision before the Council is to approve the anticipated or proposed model for delivering water services in Christchurch, for inclusion in its WSDP. This is a statutory requirement under the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024.

Implications of the Decision

6.2 Agreeing on a preferred delivery model at this stage signals the Council’s intended approach for meeting its obligations under the LWDW framework. The selected model will guide the development of the full WSDP, including the financial strategy, operational settings, and implementation pathway.

6.3 While this decision does not lock in every detail of delivery, it establishes the structural foundation for how it proposes water services will be governed and managed. Further detailed planning will follow, ensuring the Council is well positioned to meet its current and future regulatory responsibilities and deliver high quality, safe, and financially sustainable water services over the long term.

Options For Consideration

Option One (Recommended): In-House Delivery Model (consulted on proposal)

6.4 This model retains Council governance, and operational responsibility for all three waters services – water supply, wastewater, and stormwater. It maintains integration with other Council services and leverages existing systems, processes, and relationships.

6.5 Consultation Result:

· 487 of the 612 submitters that indicated a preference (80%) supported this model, indicating strong alignment with community preference.

· Supporters cited local control, accountability, cost stability, and a preference for avoiding structural change.

6.6 Advantages:

· Maintains direct accountability to the community through elected representatives.

· Utilises existing Council systems, reducing transition risks and administrative disruption.

· Avoids significant establishment and transaction costs associated with setting up a new legal entity.

· The Council retains full flexibility to adjust its approach to water service delivery over time as community needs, financial conditions, or regulatory settings evolve.

· Preserves flexibility over funding tools and pricing structures (e.g. the Council can choose to continue with targeted rates or transition to non-rates-based method of charging).

· Strong alignment with community expectations based on consultation feedback.

6.7 Disadvantages:

· Borrowing capacity is constrained to 280% of revenue (LGFA limit), which may limit flexibility for large-scale investment in future decades.

· May require more deliberate effort to embed efficiencies, given its integrated delivery across Council portfolios.

6.8 Summary:

· Given the model’s stability, the strength of community support, and its compatibility with Christchurch’s existing water services operations and strategic direction, this model provides the most practical and locally appropriate foundation for delivering on the Local Water Done Well framework.

Option Two: Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation (WSCCO)

6.9 This model would transfer responsibility for all water services to an independently governed entity, wholly owned by the Council, with a professional board focused solely on water delivery.

6.10 Consultation Result:

· 87 of the 612 submitters that indicated a preference (14%) supported this model.

· Submitters recognised potential long-term efficiency gains and enhanced borrowing capacity but raised concerns about governance separation and loss of local control.

6.11 Advantages:

· Provides increased borrowing capacity (up to 500% of revenue), supporting long-term infrastructure investment.

· Governance structure enables specialised operational focus.

· Potential for efficiencies and innovation through independent operation.

6.12 Disadvantages:

· High transition and setup costs in the short term.

· Separation from Council governance may lead to a perception of reduced accountability and responsiveness among the community, even if formal oversight mechanisms remain in place.

· Reduced flexibility over funding mechanisms and pricing, with a shift to fixed fees or volumetric charging required.

6.13 Summary:

· While this model offers financial scalability and specialisation, the loss of integration with wider Council functions and lower community support present implementation and engagement risks.

Option Three: Two-Waters WSCCO Model

6.14 This hybrid model transfers water supply and wastewater to a WSCCO, while retaining stormwater within Council, maintaining integration with land use planning, parks, and climate resilience activities.

6.15 Consultation Result:

· 38 of the 612 submitters that indicated a preference (6%) supported this model.

· Submitters generally valued a compromise approach but noted the complexity of managing two delivery frameworks.

6.16 Advantages:

· Retains stormwater within the Council, preserving alignment with other Council activities.

· Offers increased borrowing capacity for water supply and wastewater through the WSCCO.

· Balances operational specialisation with some continued Council integration.

6.17 Disadvantages:

· Dual governance and financial arrangements increase complexity.

· Setup costs still apply, albeit slightly lower than full WSCCO.

· Potential inefficiencies from managing two governance and delivery structures.

6.18 Summary:

· While this model seeks a middle ground, the administrative complexity and limited public support mean it offers fewer advantages than a unified approach.

Rationale for Recommendation

6.19 Following the evaluation of delivery model options and a comprehensive public consultation process, the In-House Delivery Model is recommended for inclusion in the WSDP as the Council’s proposed model for delivering water services in Christchurch.

6.20 This recommendation reflects a balanced consideration of strategic, operational, financial, and community engagement factors, and is based on the following reasons.

Evaluation Outcomes

6.21 The In-House Model scored the highest across the business case evaluation framework, particularly in areas such as governance and control, community expectations, value to ratepayers, and implementation feasibility.

6.22 It also demonstrated strong performance in financial sustainability and regulatory compliance, confirming its ability to meet the requirements of the Local Water Done Well framework without introducing unnecessary complexity or risk.

Clear and Consistent Community Support

6.23 Public consultation showed overwhelming support for the In-House Model, with 80% of submitters identifying it as their preferred option. This is a significant majority, with submitters consistently referencing the importance of maintaining elected member accountability, avoiding the costs of structural change, and ensuring alignment with local values and priorities.

Strategic and Operational Alignment

6.24 The model aligns well with Christchurch’s existing approach to water service delivery. It builds on well-established operational systems, governance structures, and relationships – both within the Council and with the community. It maintains integration with other Council activities such as land use planning, flood management, parks, and transport, which is increasingly important given the interdependencies between stormwater, climate resilience, and urban development.

Financial Prudence and Stability

6.25 While the model does not offer the same borrowing capacity as a WSCCO (capped at 280% of revenue), the Council is currently in a strong financial position, and modelling indicates this borrowing headroom is sufficient to meet forecast investment needs. The model avoids the upfront establishment and transition costs associated with setting up a new legal entity, which would otherwise place additional pressure on operating and capital budgets.

Implementation Feasibility

6.26 The In-House Model is the most straightforward and least disruptive option to implement. It requires no governance or structural overhaul and compliance with the new LWDW requirements can be advanced within existing organisational systems. This enables the Council to progress the development of its WSDP with confidence and meet the statutory submission deadline of 3 September 2025.

Future Flexibility and Adaptability

6.27 The Council retains full flexibility to adjust its in-house approach to water service delivery over time as community needs, financial conditions, or regulatory settings evolve. This includes the ability to refine internal governance and delivery structures, explore shared services or partnerships, and adapt resourcing or operational models without requiring major structural change. The Council also maintains direct control over pricing and investment decisions, ensuring that water services can continue to reflect local priorities and respond to emerging challenges.

6.28 Furthermore, adopting the In-House Model does not preclude the Council from considering a WSCCO or other more significant structural changes in the future. Once the WSDP is in place and the national regulatory and funding environment has stabilised, the Council will be better positioned to assess alternative models with greater clarity. This approach avoids the risks of premature or unnecessary structural change in a volatile setting, while preserving the ability to make considered, evidence-based decisions at the appropriate time.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The figures presented in this table are estimates based on current assumptions and are intended to support comparative analysis between the delivery model options. While the costs for the In-House Model are based on existing budgets, the figures for the WSCCO and Two-Waters WSCCO models represent the best available projections and may be subject to change.

7.2 Further detailed costing and financial analysis would be required if either WSCCO model is progressed, particularly to confirm implementation costs, governance arrangements, and future operating structures. These figures are considered robust for strategic decision-making purposes but should not be interpreted as final or fixed until implementation details are confirmed.

	Recommended Option – In House Model	Option 2 – 3 Waters WSCCO	Option 3 – 2 Waters WSCCO
Cost to Implement	Within existing budgets	$15m Capex over 5 years	$15m Capex over 5 years
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Within existing budgets	New Board of Directors $450k per year New Senior Leadership & Management Team $1.5m per year Opex Efficiency Saving 0.75% per year from 2029/30	New Board of Directors $450k per year New Senior Leadership & Management Team $1.5m per year Opex Efficiency Saving 0.75% per year from 2029/30 on Water Supply & Wastewater
Primary Funding Source	Targeted Rates	Water Services Charges (volumetric or fixed water charges)	Water Supply & Wastewater - Water Services Charges (volumetric or fixed water charges) Stormwater – Targeted Rates
Funding Availability (Net Debt to Operating Revenue)	Limit 280% 2027/28 = 210.6% 2033/34 = 182.6%	WSCCO Limit 500% 2027/28 = 304.6% 2033/34 = 222.1% Council Limit 280% 2027/28 = 169.0% 2033/34 = 166.1%	WSCCO Limit 500% 2027/28 = 272.2% 2033/34 = 135.3% Council Limit 280% 2027/28 = 190.4% 2033/34 = 198.6%
Impact on Rates	No Impact	(0.31%) over 10 years	(0.02%) over 10 years

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

Risk	Description	Planning Considerations
Policy and Plan Alignment	Choosing a delivery model will affect key Council plans (e.g. LTP, Infrastructure and Financial Strategies). Misalignment could delay implementation or cause confusion.	Review plans to ensure they reflect the delivery model and WSDP. Consider a cross-team approach to coordinate any updates.
Missed Opportunity for Structural Reform	While the In-House Model avoids disruption, it may be perceived as a more conservative choice that misses potential long-term benefits of structural change.	Acknowledge the model provides stability now, noting Council can explore other models or partnerships in future if needed enabling it to access all options at a later date.
Governance and Operational Transition	If a WSCCO is chosen, moving services to a new entity could cause disruption and staff uncertainty.	If needed, prepare a transition plan to manage timing, communication, and minimise disruption.
Implementation Capacity	Delivering a fully compliant WSDP, alongside operational changes to meet new standards, will require strong internal coordination and sufficient resource.	Set up a dedicated delivery programme within the Council to lead the implementation, with senior leadership oversight. Identify key capability gaps early and secure external expertise where required.
Pace of Efficiency Gains	The in-house structure may take longer to drive operational improvements and efficiencies (as compared to a WSCCO), given the broader scope of Council functions and legacy systems.	Use the implementation period to look for areas to improve systems and processes.
Regulatory Compliance	New national standards will apply, regardless of the model. Failing to prepare could lead to non-compliance.	Stay up to date with regulatory changes and plan ahead for compliance milestones.
Community Confidence and Trust	Any change in how water services are delivered could affect public confidence if not well explained.	Maintain clear, consistent messaging and reinforce the Council’s ongoing role and accountability.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.2 Other Legal Implications:

8.2.1 The Water Services Bill sets out the key details relating to the water services delivery system, the economic regulation and consumer protection regime and changes to the water quality regulatory framework. Public submissions closed on 23 February 2025 and it is currently at the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. The Bill is therefore subject to change and the Council won’t have certainty on the legislative requirements prior to its decision on a proposed water services delivery model.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.3 The required decisions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.3.3 The decision outlined in this report and the eventual inclusion of the Council’s proposed delivery model in the WSDP will necessitate a comprehensive review and update of relevant Council plans, policies and strategies. This will be included as part of the implementation phase.

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

8.4.1 Strategic Planning and Policy.

· Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

8.5 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

8.6 The majority of submitters (80%) indicated support for the Council’s proposal: An in-house delivery model. The remaining submitters supported one of the two CCO models, with more indicating support for a three waters CCO than a two waters CCO; 69 provided feedback but did not indicate a preference.

8.7 The decision affects all wards and Community Board areas.

8.8 Feedback was received from the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula, Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton, Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central, Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote, and Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood community boards.

8.9 The Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board did not make a submission.

8.10 All boards who submitted feedback supported the Council’s proposal: An in-house delivery model.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

8.12 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

8.13 Mana Whenua maintain that the current Local Water Done Well reforms are fundamentally flawed because they lack a truly integrated water management strategy that appropriately honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and fully recognises rangatiratanga, while also overlooking the collaborative Takiwā approach required to address both historical challenges and future environmental concerns.

8.14 These issues highlight the critical need for water reforms that are not only financially sustainable but also culturally sensitive, environmentally robust, and strategically planned for long-term success. For Mana Whenua, water governance goes beyond physical infrastructure to encompass cultural identity, traditional knowledge, and the exercise of rangatiratanga.

8.15 Mana Whenua emphasise that genuine engagement involves being actively included in transparent and continuous discussions right from the beginning of the water services reform. Consequently, their involvement in shaping the water services delivery plan and its implementation processes is crucial.

8.16 In light of this, staff consider there is a need to strengthen partnership approaches and support more collaborative implementation of the Water Services Delivery Plan. The flexibility offered by the in-house delivery model allows for continuous improvement, and there is scope to work alongside Mana Whenua to embed inclusive governance practices, reflect mātauranga Māori where appropriate, and ensure locally responsive water management. As implementation progresses, staff recommend that ongoing engagement supports shared problem-solving and helps build enduring relationships that improve outcomes for water, people, and place.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.17 Climate change considerations will be an ongoing consideration in the implementation and future delivery of water services.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Staff will progress work to finalise the WSDP, which must be submitted to the DIA by 3 September 2025. This includes developing the financial, operational, and compliance components that support the implementation of the confirmed delivery model.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Indicative Business Case - Water Services Delivery Models (Under Separate Cover)	25/775195
b ⇨	Local Water Done Well consultation document (Under Separate Cover)	25/775196
c ⇨	Local Water Done Well Submissions Analysis (Under Separate Cover)	25/775295

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

1. Local Water Done Well: Service Delivery Models for Consultation. Council Resolution CNCL/2025/00151, page 4. https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/02/CNCL_20250219_MIN_8571_AT.PDF

2. Local Water Done Well: Service Delivery Models for Consultation. Council Report, page 5. https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/02/CNCL_20250219_AGN_8571_AT.PDF

3. Local Water Done Well: Service Delivery Models for Consultation. Agenda and Submissions.

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/04/CNCL_20250415_AGN_10582_AT.PDF

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Luke Adams - Principal Advisor Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Gavin Hutchison - Acting Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

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

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

13. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/566008
Presenter Te Kaipāhō:	Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel (the Panel) recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2025.

1.2 The Panel has no decision-making powers but, per its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council on the final form of the bylaw. The Council can then accept, reject or amend those recommendations bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Panel having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Panel’s considerations and deliberations. A link to the written submissions is also available should you want to review them. Submissions received

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Adopt the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025, in its final form (Attachment A of this report).

2. Note the following changes to the clauses of the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025, as a result of the consultation and hearings process (as shown in Attachment B of this report):

a. Insert a new definition of construction activities in clause 5(1), as follows: Construction activities mean trade activities including, but not limited to, dewatering, earthworks, hydro-excavation, concrete production and stone cutting.

b. Amend the definition of dewatering in clause 5(1) so that it excludes stormwater runoff.

c. Remove the definition of inorganic mineral solids in clause 5(1).

d. Amend the explanatory note on the definition of trade waste in clause 5(1) to clarify it does not include trade premises discharging wastewater unrelated to a trade activity.

e. Amend the explanatory note on clause 8 (classification of trade waste discharges) to clarify that the classification of a trade waste discharge is assessed and determined by the Council on a case-by-case basis.

f. Amend the explanatory note on clause 10(1) (application for trade waste consent) to reflect that the Council may also consider the discharge of water from dewatering activities where there is no stormwater network available.

g. Amend clause 37(5) (transitional provisions) to remove the term “inorganic mineral solids”, and replace with silts and sediments resulting from construction activities.

h. Replace schedule 1A, clause 1A.2.4(b) (permitted discharge characteristics – TSS limits) to remove references to the term “inorganic mineral solids” and replace with “silts and sediments resulting from construction activities”

i. Amend schedule 1A, clause 1A.2.4(c) (permitted discharge characteristics – TSS limits) to exclude application where subclause (b) applies.

j. Amend schedule 1B, clause 1B.1 (prohibited characteristics – introduction) to reference clause 13(4) (discretion for approval of discharge of a prohibited characteristics), and provide clarity that no prohibited characteristic may be discharged unless it is subject to a conditional trade waste consent issued in accordance with clause 13(4).

k. Amend schedule 1B, clause 1B.2.2(h) to:

i. remove reference to the broader term ‘persistent organic pollutants (POPS)’

ii. add reference to perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)

iii. reference national guidance from the Environmental Protection Authority and the Ministry for the Environment on acceptable levels.

3. Determine, in accordance with section 155(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4. Note that the special requirements for bylaws relating to trade wastes (section 148 of the Local Government Act 2002) have been met.

5. Approve the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 coming into force on 1 July 2025.

6. Approve that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 comes into force.

7. Give public notice as soon as practicable that the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on 1 July 2025 and that copies of the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

8. Delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to amend any explanatory notes in the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 as the case may be, and that this power may be delegated.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Trade wastes are discharges to the wastewater network from activities undertaken at businesses and industrial premises which contain contaminants that need to be managed (e.g. greases, solids, chemicals etc.) A trade waste consent is required for these types of discharges.

3.2 The Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 regulates the discharge of wastes from commercial and industrial trade processes into our wastewater network. It sets the framework for trade waste consents, including monitoring and the ability to charge associated fees.

3.3 The bylaw is a regulatory tool which also enables the Council to take enforcement action if any person is failing to comply with any bylaw provision.

3.4 The bylaw is required by legislation to be reviewed by 26 November 2025. The Council considered the review of the bylaw on 6 November 2024 and decided to consult on proposed amendments to the bylaw (CNCL/2024/00182).

4. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.1 Formal consultation started on Monday 11 November 2024 and closed on Sunday 12 January 2025.

4.2 Public consultation on the proposed bylaw included seeking feedback on the proposed amendments to the bylaw, including directly notifying every trade waste consent holder in the district, and consulting with the Minister of Health.

4.3 The engagement that was carried out on the proposed bylaw, and the views of the community including their preferences, is outlined in the staff report (section 5 in Item 5 of the agenda). In summary:

· Twenty-four submissions were received. Ten submitters initially indicated they would like to be heard.

· Submitters comprised ten current trade waste consent holders, two other businesses, four Community Boards, one community organisation and seven individuals.

· In addition, feedback received from the Minister of Health was in support of the proposed amendments to the bylaw. This feedback is not included in the summary of submissions.

4.4 The staff report noted that the proposed changes were generally supported by submitters, with suggestions for changes in some areas. The main area of contention was the proposal to classify persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as prohibited characteristics of trade waste discharges, by listing these substances in Schedule 1B of the Bylaw

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Panel consisted of Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt (Chair) and Councillors Mark Peters, Melanie Coker, Yani Johanson and Tim Scandrett. The Panel convened on Wednesday 12 March 2025 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2 Before hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposed bylaw amendments, an overview of the written submissions received, and presented the Panel with further information concerning the Local Water Done Well Reform in relation to the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2025.

5.3 In their presentation staff noted the section 155 report included in the 6 November 2024 report to the Council. This covers the determinations which must be considered when making and reviewing bylaws under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 i.e. whether the bylaw is the most appropriate way to address a perceived problem; whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and, whether the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5.4 The Council made section 155 determinations when adopting the draft Trade Waste Bylaw in November 2024. These determinations should be made again on adoption of the final form of bylaw and are reflected in the Hearing’s Panel’s recommendations to the Council.

5.5 A copy of the staff presentation can be found at Staff Presentation on proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 (page 3).

5.6 Following the hearing of submitters staff were called back to the table to provide additional information as requested and answer any further questions the Panel members had.

5.7 Staff outlined the requests from submitters to amend the proposed bylaw, and why these proposals were either supported, or not supported, by staff. This information is contained in the table in Attachment B to Item 5 on the Agenda https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/03/BHPCC_20250312_AGN_10472_AT.PDF (page 127)

6. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

6.1 The Panel considered and deliberated on all written submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing. Also considered was the information provided by the 5 submitters who spoke at the hearing, and the written statement provided by one submitter.

6.2 The Panel noted that the current bylaw must be reviewed by 26 November 2025, and that the proposed changes seek to address gaps and emerging issues. The Panel noted the advice from staff that the feedback from submitters is that the current bylaw is generally fit for purpose.

6.3 Key issues considered by the Panel include:

6.3.1 Dewatering definition – Clause 5(1)

a. The Fuel Companies requested clarification of the definition of “dewatering”. Staff supported amending the definition to clarify that storm water runoff is not dewatering, and that stormwater won’t be unintentionally captured as dewatering. The Panel agreed that this clarification will be beneficial.

6.3.2 Trade Waste definition -Clause 5(1)

a. Winstone Wallboards were concerned that the definition of trade waste may unduly capture non-trade waste wastewater from trade premises as “trade waste” and unintentionally require a trade waste consent for these discharges. Staff recommended a change to the explanatory note to clarify that trade waste does not include wastewater discharges from premises where the discharge is not related to a trade activity (that is: where a business is only discharging wastewater from staff bathrooms and kitchens). The Panel agreed with this amendment.

6.3.3 Application for Trade Waste Consent – Clause 10

a. The Fuel Companies sought an extension to the Explanatory Note in Clause 10 Application for a Trade Waste Consent so that Council could also consider discharges from dewatering into the wastewater network where there is no stormwater network available. Staff noted that the submitter’s suggestion is helpful for clarity and completeness and staff recommended a change to this effect. The Panel agreed with the amendment proposed by staff.

6.3.4 Inorganic Mineral Solids (Schedule 1A)

a. The Panel questioned staff on the impact of the changes on businesses. Staff noted that a small number of consents will be impacted by this change and most already have pre-treatment to remove sediment to a compliant level (and are already doing so) or can achieve this level with industry standard pretreatment. If a site needs to improve their discharges, small process changes for better management on-site are usually sufficient (e.g. more frequent cleaning of pretreatment, or a slower flow rate). Further staff advice on this matter is contained in Attachment B to Item 5 on the Agenda (pages128-129).

b. Staff noted that comments received on Schedule 1A.2.4. Solids indicated that the proposal for inorganic mineral solids was not as clear as it could be, or the intent was being misinterpreted. Staff clarified that the proposal was not intended to apply to all trade waste discharges containing Total Suspended Solids, only those which are from construction-based activities. Staff recommended changing the clause by removing the term ‘inorganic mineral solids’, and instead directly specifying the characteristics targeted i.e. total suspended solids concentration of silts and sediment resulting from construction activities must not exceed a maximum concentration of 100g/ m3. Staff noted the proposed change would not change the intent, but it would make the drafting of the bylaw clearer and more certain on what the regulation applies to. The Panel agreed with the proposed change.

6.3.5 Proposal to include Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) / Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on the prohibited characteristics list

a. The Panel questioned staff on the process for disposing of PFAS and the changes that would occur if the proposed amendments were to be implemented. Staff noted that the majority of businesses aren’t discharging PFAS, and those who have stockpiles of PFAS contaminated wastewater know about the specialised treatment services available. The bylaw is currently silent on these substances, and the proposed amendment is for the purpose of ensuring the Council has strict control on any PFAS discharges (prohibited by default, with avenue for conditional consent if appropriately treated and managed).

b. Several submitters recommended that PFAS contaminated wastewater should have an available path for treatment within New Zealand and the avenue of disposal of adequately treated wastewater should be through the wastewater network. Staff noted that this was always the staff intention, and they have recommended a number of changes to respond to feedback from submitters related to the practicality of strict prohibition, the current national guidance available, the types of PFAS regulated, and the uncertainty for businesses.

c. Staff noted that from the consultation feedback, their intended approach, and particularly enabling a route to discharge for specialised disposal services with appropriate treatment processes under cl.13(4) wasn’t clear enough. The Panel supported the approach recommended by staff which is to:

I. Keep PFAS on the prohibited list but include context on acceptable PFAS discharge in relation to current guidance (i.e. prohibited in excess of levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Ministry for the Environment).

II. Provide a clearer link to the avenue for consent under clause 13(4) by way of inserting a reference in Schedule 1B.

III. Clarify categories of discharge are determined on a case-by-case basis

IV. Staff also noted the feedback on the use of the broad POPs term, and the specific types of PFAS that are regulated, and based on that, are recommending removing the broader term “POPS” in Schedule 1B and focus on the specific PFAS to regulate – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS.

d. The staff advice is that these changes combined provide more clarity, give scope to strictly regulate to ensure compliance, and allow flexibility in the future if new evidence shows PFAS limits should be stricter or relaxed.

e. The staff preference is for a flexible approach rather than having set limits because knowledge and guidance on PFAS is still evolving. The Panel accepted this advice.

f. The Panel queried whether the specific wording changes to 1B.2.2(h), suggested by the Fuel Companies, had been considered:

I. Use of the term “comprising” instead of “including”

II. Removing reference to guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).

g. Staff advised that “including” would be more expansive to capture additional substances, should this be necessary in future. Staff also advised that MfE also sets limits for biosolids and ocean outfall and retaining the reference to MfE guidance is useful because it could be relied upon in future if the wastewater treatment plant cannot keep up with demand and we need to impose stricter PFAS limits as a result. The Panel accepted this advice.

6.3.6 Annual maximum permitted volume - Schedule 1A.2.1

a. The Panel asked about those submissions that were turned down and in particular the annual maximum permitted volume limit (Schedule 1A.2.1). The Fuel Companies sought an increased limit, due to the impact on discharges from car washes. Staff advised the 1,245m3 permitted limit has been in place since 2006. It was not previously in the bylaw but was included on the trade waste consent application forms and in other information. Staff also clarified that discharges of greater volume are acceptable through a conditional trade waste consent. Staff did not recommend increasing the annual maximum permitted volume limit in Schedule 1A because:

I. A higher permitted volume will result in fewer conditional consents, and a loss in revenue while handling the same amount of network volume.

II. A higher limit would mean all existing permitted consents (approximately 1,200), would be permitted to discharge an additional 580m3 per year.

III. There are costs associated with moving extra volume through the network and treating the extra volume at the wastewater treatment plant. The sites that discharge greater volumes should contribute to those costs.

IV. A number of current consents for carwashes have installed water reclamation systems which allow them to achieve under the existing limit.

b. The Panel agreed the current approach was fair, and did not recommend a change to the annual maximum discharge limit.

6.3.7 General

a. The Panel asked about the rationale behind individual characteristic limits set in the schedules of the Bylaw. Staff advised that generally, many of these were set based on the national guidance provided by the 2004 NZ Standards Model Trade Waste Bylaw.

b. The Panel queried consent durations and the trade-offs between 5 or 10 year consents. The change consulted on was to introduce a maximum term for permitted consents, so that there are no longer open-ended permitted consents. Staff clarified that the bylaw sets the maximum duration of consent, and that the term set on each individual consent may be shorter if considered necessary (i.e. based on risk).

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Costs to implement changes (staff time) accommodated within existing budgets.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Costs associated with administration of trade waste consents (status quo)
Funding Source	Existing budgets - three waters unit
Funding Availability	Yes
Impact on Rates	None

7.1 The information in the above table was provided to the Panel by staff.

8. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 Hearings Panel Agenda including all submissions	Hearings Panel Agenda including submissions received (Item 5 - Attachment C -Page 141)
Hearings Panel Minutes	Confirmed minutes from Hearings Panel meeting held on 12 March 2025
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	Presentations and written submissions given at the Hearing
Have Your Say Webpage	Consultation document, webinar recording and other collateral

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author David Corlett - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 - clean copy (Under Separate Cover)	25/762559
b ⇨	Trade Waste Bylaw 2025 - tracked changes (Under Separate Cover)	25/762451

14. The Ferrymead Trust - Citywide Discretionary Response Fund Application
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/775452
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Funding Team Leader
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 for the Council to consider an application from the Ferrymead Trust (Trust) to the 2024/25 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) for ‘bridging’ funds to support the operation and development of Ferrymead Heritage Park until the outcome of the Trust’s bid for permanent additional funding in the Annual Plan is known.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the The Ferrymead Trust - Citywide Discretionary Response Fund Application Report.

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

3. Declines the Ferrymead Trust application for $48,000 from the 2024/25 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund as it is inconsistent with the purpose of the fund, noting that the Council is currently considering the Ferrymead Trust’s Annual Plan funding request.

4. Notes that Public Excluded Attachment A of this report can be released to the public one year after the Council’s decision on this Citywide Discretionary Response Fund Application.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Discretionary Response Fund assists community groups with emergency or unforeseen situations, the focus is on assisting with unforeseen or unexpected costs that could not be predicted. Applications are to support community-focused projects that contribute to the strengthening of community wellbeing in the Christchurch city area. There is $190,628 remaining for allocation in the DRF this financial year. Staff anticipate the DRF will be oversubscribed and will be exhausted by the end of May 2025. There are a number of applications due to be submitted that will request funding from the DRF.

3.2 The Ferrymead Trust has applied to the Citywide DRF for a $48,000 grant to provide “bridging” funding for the Trust until the outcome of their Annual Plan bid is known in June 2025. The Trust has received funding through other Council grants that were intended to secure the Park’s operation until September 2025. The Trust has stated that without the requested funding the Park will not continue to operate at its current level. This application is not as a result of an emergency or unforeseen circumstance and is prima facie inconsistent with the purpose of the DRF.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Discretionary Response Fund

4.1 The purpose of the Discretionary Response Fund is to assist community groups with emergency or unforeseen situations. Applications are to support community-focused projects that contribute to the strengthening of community wellbeing in the Christchurch city area. The focus is on assisting with unforeseen or unexpected costs and circumstances that could not be predicted.

4.2 This fund operates differently at a citywide and local level:

4.2.1 Local applications are open from 1 July each year.

4.2.2 Citywide applications can be submitted from July but may not be considered until September.

4.3 When applications to the DRF are received, certain considerations and criteria are assessed, including:

4.3.1 Sufficient funding available in the DRF.

4.3.2 Eligibility.

4.3.3 The impact on other DRF applicants.

4.3.4 The extent to which unforeseen and/or extraordinary circumstances contributed to and/or justified the need for additional funding.

4.3.5 Steps that could be taken to reduce costs substantially and negate the need for a DRF grant.

4.4 Once the annual allocation of funds is exhausted the fund is closed until the following financial year. In 2024/25, the total budget made available to the DRF by the Council’s Funding Committee was $484,802. To date $294,174 has been awarded to 42 organisations. There is $190,628 remaining for allocation in the DRF this financial year.

4.5 Staff are anticipating the DRF will be oversubscribed and will be exhausted by the end of May 2025. There are three applications being considered in a separate report to the Council at the 7 May 2025 meeting; a number of applications that have been assessed but not moderated; and a number of groups that the Council is working with that will put in applications soon. Some of these are applications for large amounts.

Ferrymead Heritage Park

4.6 Ferrymead Heritage Park is one of New Zealand’s only ‘living heritage parks’, where visitors are able to interact with historical items, as they used to be. The Park holds and showcases a large variety of items from the Edwardian Era (1901-1910). It is the site of New Zealand’s first railway and is a local attraction for the city with about 40,000 visitors annually. The Park functions through the independent operations of around 18 incorporated societies (Tramway Society, Aeronautical Society, Radio Preservation Society, etc.). The operation and advertising of the Park itself is handled by its business arm: Ferrymead Park Ltd.

4.7 The Council has financially supported the Park through the Strengthening Communities Fund, totalling approximately $1.5 million over the last 10 years (annual grants ranging between $140,000 and $200,000). For the 2024/25 financial year, the Trust received $130,000 from the Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.8 In the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, the Council allocated an additional $40,000 to the Trust for it to commission an independent strategic review of the Park (PX Attachment A). This review supported the Trust to develop a strategic plan and address many of its legacy issues, including sustainable business models. The rationale behind this investment was to provide the Park with resources and information that would support the Trust to plan for a sustainable financial future, and to reduce its reliance on contestable funding.

4.9 In 2022, as a proactive response to support the Park in addressing the recommendations in the strategic plan, the Council granted $400,000 from the Better Off Fund. The Council’s Strengthening Communities Fund and Better Off Funding allocations to the Trust were intended to be sufficient to support the Park operations through to the Strengthening Communities Fund 2025/26 application process in September 2025.

4.10 The Park is continuing to work on its transformative efforts to implement the recommendations from the independent strategic review and make positive shifts for the future. They have changed their governance structure, limited opening days to focus on weekend attendance, and standardised service delivery so that the tram is running while the park is open. However, the Park remains heavily reliant on Council financial support for its financial stability.

4.11 The Trust has made an application to the Annual Plan 2025/26 of between $700,000 and $1.2 million per annum to subsidise the operation and future development of the Park (Attachment B). The amounts requested through the Annual Plan bid will be considered through the Annual Plan process.

Application from the Ferrymead Trust to the Citywide Discretionary Response Fund

4.12 The Trust has applied to the Citywide DRF for a grant to provide “bridging” funding for the Trust until the outcome of their Annual Plan bid is known in June 2025. In order to meet essential operating and staffing costs until that time, $48,000 has been requested. The Trust has stated that without the requested funding the Park will not be able to continue to operate at its current level.

4.13 The immediacy of the financial pressure on the Trust is what they are seeking to address through this application. However, the Trust has not advised of any extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances over and above standard operating expenses of the Park. The Trust has advised Council staff that the $48,000 grant will not make a material difference to securing the viability of the Park other than providing a “bridging” function to the end of June 2025 when it will receive an outcome on its Annual Plan bid.

4.14 The Trust has also applied for funding from:

4.14.1 Lotteries for two projects:

· Support for Education programmes - $20,000.

· Work on cataloguing and preservation of taonga – amount TBC.

4.14.2 The Roger and Norah Watt Heritage fund for the restoration of the Hays playground.

4.14.3 The Sumner Ferrymead Foundation for a community grant to support education and community programmes - $5,000.

4.15 The Trust has advised the Council that the only funds they have are term deposits that are ring-fenced for earthquake repairs to buildings.

4.16 The following related information sessions have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
06 March 2025	Councillors were invited to an on-site discussion with the Ferrymead Park trustees.
29 March 2025	Elected members were forwarded the Annual Plan submission from the Ferrymead Heritage Park (Attachment B)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Preferred Option: Decline the application from the Ferrymead Trust for a $48,000 grant

· Option 2: Grant $48,000 to the Ferrymead Trust

4.18 The following option was considered but ruled out:

· A partial grant to the Trust - when assessing applications to the DRF, occasionally staff recommend a partial grant. In this instance, the Trust has advised staff that a partial grant will not be sufficient to fund the operation of the Park at its current level until the outcome of their Annual Plan bid is known. Therefore, a partial grant would not be a viable option for the Park.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.19 Preferred Option: Decline the application from the Ferrymead Trust for a $48,000 grant

· Option Description: Under this option, the Council would decline the Ferrymead Trust’s application to the Citywide Discretionary Fund for a grant of $48,000.

· Option Advantages

· Consistent with DRF purpose and assessment criteria.

· Consistent with the Council’s approach to supporting the Park through funding schemes and the independent strategic review that recommended less reliance on applying for grants.

· Approximately 3-4 projects from other DRF applications could be supported (based on an average DRF grant-size of $13,500).

· Option Disadvantages

· The significant and immediate financial pressure faced by the Trust would continue and the Trust may need to make interim operational changes.

· The outcome of the Trust’s Annual Plan bid will not be known until the Annual Plan process is completed.

· Could place added pressure on to the next SCF funding round (to be considered by the Council in September 2025), if the Trust chooses to apply for funds through that process

4.20 Option 2: Grant $48,000 to the Ferrymead Trust.

· Option Description: Under this option, the Council would agree to grant $48,000 to the Ferrymead Trust, as per their application to the Citywide DRF.

· Option Advantages

· The Trust will be able to continue operations at their current level until the outcome of the Trust’s Annual Plan bid is known.

· Option Disadvantages

· Inconsistent with the DRF purpose as it is not for an unforeseen or emergency request that could not be predicted.

· There is no guarantee that Trust will be successful in their bid for additional funding in the Annual Plan, potentially prolonging the Park’s financial difficulties.

· The amount requested from the DRF is only enough to sustain the Park at its current operating level until July 2025.

· Could be perceived as the Trust receiving funds for purpose that they have already secured Council funding for.

· Approximately 3-4 projects from other DRF applications would miss out on funding opportunities (based on an average DRF grant-size of $13,500).

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.21 Financially, the Park is in a difficult situation. Without large trading income, they are heavily reliant on grant funding to meet their operational needs. Funding has been secured for specific projects and building improvements, but it is the salaries of staff and other operational costs that has proven challenging to support.

4.22 The Trust has already received substantial funding through other Council grants, which were intended to see the Park through until the next round of Strengthening Communities Funding in September 2025. In light of that, the Trust could have reasonably been expected to foresee this eventuality and taken steps earlier in the financial year to mitigate its expenditure rather than requesting urgent financial assistance through the DRF. This application is not as a result of an emergency or unforeseen circumstances and is prima facie inconsistent with the purpose of the DRF.

4.23 The Trust could consider other options, such as ceasing operating or significantly scaling-down their services. This would reduce the pressure on costs over the winter, which is traditionally a quieter time for public visitation. The independent societies at the Park could continue to operate, but there would be no general maintenance, coordination of activities, or public events held at the Park.

4.24 Under the DRF analysis criteria, staff also consider the impact on other applications to the DRF. A grant of $48,000 would mean that approximately 3-4 other projects would be unsuccessful in the DRF process (based on an average DRF grant-size of $13,500.00). The Council is anticipating a number of applications with substantial funding requests to be received in coming weeks.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option: Decline the Application	Option 2: Award a full grant
Cost to Implement	$0.00	$48,000.00
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	N/A	The Citywide Discretionary Response Fund
Funding Availability	N/A	Available.
Impact on Rates	Nil.	Nil.

5.1 The DRF is a one-off payment. Ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of the Park. However, the Trust has received funding from the Council for many years, mainly through the Strengthening Communities Fund. There is also an Annual Plan bid for extended funding to support the ongoing operations of the Park.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks to the Council associated with choosing to fund or not fund Ferrymead Heritage Park through a $48,000 DRF grant. The amount requested by the Trust is on the higher end for a DRF grant, however the Council has been supporting the Trust financially to a larger extent for a number of years.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 The Council has the authority to make decisions on grant applications. Grants up to $15,000 are delegated to the Head of Community Partnerships and Support, the Council makes decisions for amounts for over$15,000.

6.3 All grant agreement documentation is reviewed by Council’s Legal Services team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Specifically, the Strategic Priority to ‘Manage ratepayers’ money wisely’.

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance is determined by this decision involving the administration of an existing funding scheme provided for in the 2024/34 LTP.

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: 2.3.1.2 Enable volunteer participation through the effective administration of the community grant schemes - Strengthening Communities Fund supports 2,185,000 volunteer hours annually, subject to eligible applications

· 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

· This report aligns with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy. Specifically, the Place and Participation strategic pillars.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

· Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote.

6.8 The Community Board viewpoint has not been sought, as the delegation to consider DRF sits with the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.10 The decisions do not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. This is because the subject matter of the report and decision involves the administration of an existing funding scheme provided for in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions as the decisions relate to the allocation of grant funding towards a Heritage Park.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to one of the options in this report (to approve or decline the application for $48,000 in the DRF), staff will communicate the outcome to the Trust.

7.2 Staff will also continue to support and offer advice to the Trust, as needed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Independant Strategic Review Report (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/803584
b ⇩	The Ferrymead Trust Annual Plan Submission	25/684511	196

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

16. Environmental Partnerships Fund - Terms of Reference
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/378601
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding
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 approval for a Terms of Reference for the Environmental Partnership Fund.

1.2 The report originated following the Long-Term Plan 2024 – 2034 (LTP) where the Council resolved (MR23) to provide annual funding for the Environmental Partnership Fund, with a contribution from the Capital Endowment Fund, Better Off Funding, and rates.

1.3 A Council workshop to discuss the draft Terms of Reference for the fund was held on 18 February 2025, with the recommendations in this report reflecting the outcome of those discussions.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Environmental Partnerships Fund - Terms of Reference Report.

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

3. Approves the proposed Terms of Reference for the Environmental Partnerships Fund as detailed in Attachment A of this report, taking effect from July 1 2025.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Environmental Partnerships Fund has existed within the Parks unit for a number of years. At the beginning of the 2024/25 financial year, staff were tasked with developing a Terms of Reference (ToR) for the implementation of the budgeted funding. A Council workshop was held on 18 February 2025 to review the draft ToR. This report seeks the Council’s approval, allowing implementation to commence from 1 July 2025.

3.2 A key recommendation, developed in consultation with elected members, is to allocate the annual budget as follows: 50% through a contestable community funding round; and 50% managed as an internally-led discretionary fund, supporting groups with a strong track record of partnering on environmental projects with the Council.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

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

Date	Subject
18 February	Environmental Partnerships Fund - Terms of Reference

4.2 This workshop presented the draft ToR and sought guidance before final ratification. Elected members were broadly supportive of the terms proposed but suggested that the staff delegation might be increased from 30% of the fund (as initially proposed) to 50%.

4.2.1 This change has been reflected in Attachment A.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.3.1 To approve the proposed Terms of Reference.

4.3.2 To decline the proposed Terms of Reference.

4.3.3 To approve the proposed Terms of Reference, with variations to the percentage allocated to each of the community-contestable and staff-delegated portions.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.4 Preferred Option: To approve the proposed Terms of Reference.

4.4.1 Option Description: An approved Terms of Reference (Included as Attachment A) would be enacted from FY26 onwards.

4.4.2 Option Advantages

· This option has been workshopped with elected members and budgeted as part of the LTP.

· It would allow for delivery of $700,000 in FY26 (and $1m ongoing) to projects that fit the criteria of the fund, and in doing so, support local community organisations to deliver many environmentally focused outcomes.

· Providing for a new contestable fund, will allow groups who may not have otherwise received funding, to pitch their environmental partnership projects, and potentially receive funding.

4.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· This model (50% community contestable, and 50% discretionary) will require staff time to collect applications, assess the applications and present the recommendations to the Council for final decision.

4.5 Option 2 - To decline the proposed Terms of Reference.

4.5.1 Option Description: This would see the funds budgeted in FY26 and onwards, not be delivered for the purpose set out in the LTP.

4.5.2 Option Advantages

· Each year that this funding is not delivered, there will be a savings to the Council of the equivalent amount.

4.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· This funding has been budgeted and agreed as part of the Long Term Plan.

· Staff have been directed by the Council to develop this draft Terms of Reference.

· The Terms of Reference has already been workshopped with the Council to check for strategic alignment and to determine the draft community funding methodology.

· There are several existing initiatives underway in partnership with the Council Parks unit that would effectively lose their funding.

· The Council would not have a financial vehicle to support environmental partnership projects across the City.

4.6 Option 3 - To approve the proposed Terms of Reference, with variations to the percentage allocated to each of the community-contestable and staff-delegated portions.

4.6.1 Option Description: The current draft Terms of Reference (Attachment A) provides for 50% of the budgeted funds to be allocated as a community contestable fund, with decisions made by the Council; and 50% to be allocated as a discretionary fund, with decisions to be made by the Manager Regional Parks and Head of Parks. The Council could choose to amend these percentages.

4.6.2 Option Advantages

· A higher proportion being allocated as a staff-led discretionary fund would allow for faster processing of funding requests from the community and would be more responsive throughout the year to emergent environmental priorities.

· A higher proportion being allocated to the community contestable fund would provide more opportunities for new initiatives to potentially be identified and supported, with a greater opportunity for elected members to influence which environmental projects should receive financial backing.

4.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Terms of Reference has already been workshopped with the Council to check for strategic alignment and to determine the draft community funding methodology.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.7 The recommended approach (50%:50%) represents a balance between the different approaches of funding being distributed as a once-yearly contestable community fund, and a discretionary throughout-the-year fund.

4.8 It is expected that the contestable community funding will be heavily oversubscribed with applicants, as with most of the Council’s contestable funding schemes. Difficult decisions will need to be made as to what projects receive support, and which applications are declined.

4.8.1 Regardless of the percentage allocated to the contestable allocation of the fund, staff will provide technical advice to elected members on which projects appear the most viable, are most strongly aligned to the Council strategies, and will likely deliver the greatest benefit.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The Environmental Partnership Fund is provided for in the Long-Term Plan, detailed under ‘Rates-funded General Grants’.

LTP 2024/34	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29	2029/30	2030/2031+
Environmental Partnerships Fund	$700,000	$1m	$1m	$1m	$1m	$1m

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 A majority of the Council’s contestable funding schemes receive significantly more applications than is available, resulting in high demand from community organisations and limited capacity to support all applicants. While this allows the Council to engage with new groups, it also introduces an application process for the groups and requires staff time to assess.

6.1.1 There is no direct mitigation for this; however, many of the groups likely to apply are already familiar with contestable funding processes.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Under this ToR the delegated financial authority would be as follows:

· Discretionary applications seeking up to and including $50,000 will be decided by the Manager Regional Parks.

· Discretionary applications seeking over $50,001 will be decided by the Head of Parks based on a recommendation from the Manager Regional Parks.

· All contestable fund applications will be decided by the Council, based on a recommendation from the Council Officer Environmental Partnerships Panel.

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.

· Particularly the strategic propriety to ‘Manage ratepayers’ money wisely’.

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by examining the number of people that may be affected by this decision.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically:

· The Strengthening Communities Together Strategy (Place Pillar).

· Climate Resilience Strategy (Goal 4).

· Waterways and wetlands natural asset management plan.

· Sustainability Policy.

· Biodiversity Strategy.

· Public Open Space Strategy.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 This decision involves a body of work that will likely contribute positively to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision may impact Mana Whenua and their interests.

6.8 The Treaty Partnerships Team will be engaged in decision-making processes via the Council Officer Panel.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.9.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

· The funding provided through this scheme will (among other areas) support carbon mitigation, and support both public awareness of & active engagement in environmentally focused issues.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will work to establish the contestable portion of the fund so that it may collect applications from community organisations who wish to apply to the fund in mid-2025, with decisions on those applications being presented to the Council towards the end of the year.

7.2 The discretionary applications will be managed by the Manager Regional Parks and Head of Parks based on existing organisations with a strong track-record of partnering with the Council on environmental projects.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Terms of Reference - Environmental Partnerships Fund	25/380102	215
b ⇩	CCC Environmental Funds Comparison Diagram	25/118935	219
c ⇩	Supporting Information - Presentation Slides	25/223332	220

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Roslyn Kerr - Manager Parks Programmes & Partnerships

Paul Devlin - Manager Regional Parks

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

17. Quarterly Governance Report - Q3 2024/2025 (January - March 2025)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/687261
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sean Rainey – Manager Official Information Matt Boult – Team Leader Governance Process
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This quarterly report updates the Council on key governance activities and compliance with statutory and related obligations.

1.2 The report:

· Is staff-generated and has the primary purpose of enhancing governance transparency.

· Covers governance process performance, including Council, Committees, and Community Board meeting management, decision-making, and progress toward key governance-related targets.

· Includes and analyses data from the third quarter of the 2024/2025 financial year, from January 1 to March 31, 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Quarterly Governance Report - Q3 2024/2025 (January - March 2025).

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Governance is a fundamental responsibility of the Council. Ensuring efficient and transparent decision-making is essential to achieving the Council’s long-term objectives.

3.2 This quarterly report monitors governance performance, including the handling of official information requests such as LGOIMA requests and elected member information requests.

3.3 Attachment A outlines the methodology used to compile the report and provides definitions for key terms.

3.4 The following section summarises the key results for this quarter, while Attachment B presents further detailed statistical data.

3.5 The report also tracks the Council’s performance against the Governance Levels of Service in the 2024–2034 Long Term Plan, with an emphasis on transparency and efficiency.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Quarterly Highlights

4.1 The following dashboard compares key governance metrics from Quarter 3 of the 2023/2024 year with Quarter 3 of 2024/2025.

Key Metrics Comparison (Q3 2023/2024 and Q2 2024/2025):

Metric	Q3 2023/2024	Q3 2024/2025	Change (%)	Year to Date
Number of meetings held	111	86	🔻 -23%	315
% of eligible meetings were live streamed	New Metric	92%	N/A	97%
Meetings compliant with legislation and process standards	96%	100%	🔼 +4%	99%
% of overall reports in Public Excluded (PX)	6.2%	7.4%	🔼 +1.2%	5.7%
% of 2022 – 2025 PX Reports reviewed for release	New Metric	79%	N/A	82%
New meeting actions generated from meetings	282	167	🔻 -40%	919
Meeting actions closed	339	546	🔼 +61%	1420
% Ombudsman requests compliant	100%	100%	No change	100%
% LGOIMA requests compliant	99.4%	99.7%	🔼 +0.3%	99.7%

Key Points to Note:

4.2 Efficiency: Various teams across the Council have been supported in managing the backlog of open actions, freeing up capacity to work on other priority areas.

4.3 Transparency: 92% of all eligible meetings were live-streamed, 87% of all Information Session items were open to the public, and 93% of reports were considered in open meetings.

4.4 Compliance: The Council met all statutory requirements for meetings.

4.5 Performance: Progress is on track to meet most of the Long-Term Plan (LTP) targets for the financial year.

5. Service Level Performance - Meetings

5.1 The Council’s LTP outlines two service levels related to meetings:

5.1.1 Service Level 4.1.28.1: Support between 500 and 600 governance meetings annually.

5.1.2 Service Level 4.1.28.6: Ensure that 90% of eligible meetings are live-streamed and available for digital access.

Meeting Activity

5.2 In Q3 2024/2025, the Council held 86 meetings, a 23% reduction compared to the last year. This decrease is primarily from having mostly open, informal meetings. This means more items are now discussed and decided in a single public meeting, so fewer closed briefings beforehand are required.

5.3 Based on the planned meetings for Quarter 4, the Council is not expected to meet Service Level 4.1.28.1. The total number of meetings for the year is projected to be 430, falling short of the measurable of 500. This decrease reflects a decline in informal meetings compared to the previous year, with an estimated reduction of at least 78 Information Sessions/Workshops. The measurable will be revised in future years to reflect current practice.

Live Streaming

5.4 92% of eligible meetings were live-streamed and made available for on-demand viewing, continuing the successful implementation of the Ombudsman’s Open for Business recommendations. Four recordings failed due to technical issues during the meetings.

6. Service Level Performance - Decision-Making Transparency

6.1 Transparency remains a cornerstone of the Council’s governance efforts. Legislation and the Ombudsman recognise that there are times when it is reasonable and appropriate for matters to be considered in Public Excluded (PX). The Council continues to focus on minimising the use of PX reports and maximising the release of PX content to the public whenever possible.

6.2 The LTP contains two related service levels:

6.2.1 Service Level 4.1.28.4: A maximum of 6.5% of reports considered in PX.

6.2.2 Service Level 4.1.28.5: 85% of all PX reports from the current triennium are reviewed for potential release.

PX Report Summary:

6.3 In Q3, 87% (67 of 77) of Information Sessions and Workshop items were open to the public. In contrast, during the same period last year, 30% (22 of 74) were considered open to the public.

6.4 7.4% of new staff reports were considered under PX in Q3 2024/2025, an increase of 1.2% from the previous year. Year-to-date, the Council remains under the LTP target.

6.5 Since the beginning of the current triennium, 82% of PX reports from this term have been reviewed, and 46% (161) have been released publicly or will never be released.

6.6 84% (930) of PX reports from the previous two terms have been released in part or full.

7. Service Level Reporting Governance Process Compliance

7.1 The following two Levels of Service Levels relate to governance compliance:

7.1.1 Service Level 4.1.22: Provide services that ensure all Council and Committee meetings are held with full statutory compliance (98% compliance)

7.1.2 Service Level 4.1.28.3: 100% of governance processes are maintained and published on the Website that ensure statutory compliance.

7.2 Governance compliance remains a high priority, with the following performance metrics for Q3 2024/2025:

7.2.1 Statutory Compliance: 100% of meetings were held in compliance with legal requirements.

7.2.2 Timely Reporting: 100% of meeting agendas and minutes were published within the required timeframes, and 100% of meeting records were archived on time.

7.2.3 Monthly audits of the Council’s website confirmed that all 100% of core governance process documents were current and accessible.

8. Service Level Reporting - LGOIMA Requests and Elected Member Inquiries

8.1 The LTP has two Levels of Service related to Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests:

8.1.1 Service Level 4.1.29.1: 100% of investigations into process and compliance by the Ombudsman's Office are responded to within their requested deadlines.

8.1.2 Service Level 4.1.29.2: Provision of information is in accordance with LGOIMA principles and requirements (99% compliance).

8.2 The Ombudsman received six investigations into process or compliance this quarter.

8.3 The Council continues to handle a high volume of LGOIMA requests.

8.3.1 464 LGOIMA requests were received this quarter, compared to 320 in the same quarter last year.

8.3.2 Compliance Rate: The Council maintained a 99.6% compliance rate in responding to requests within the statutory timeframe.

8.4 Councillor requests increased, with 307 requests logged in Q3 2024/2025 compared to 272 in the same quarter last year.

8.5 There were 86 Community Board requests logged in Q3 2024/2025. As this is a newly introduced process and reporting metric, there is no comparative figure from the same period last year.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The Council has largely met its governance obligations for Q3 2024/2025 and continued to improve its processes, particularly in decision-making transparency and action follow-up.

9.2 Based on the results of this quarter, future focus areas include:

· Maintaining low numbers of actions closed late (see Attachment B), limiting publicly excluded reports to essential cases, and maintaining adherence to the established Level of Service targets.

· Maintaining the pace of PX review processes. Using data analytics to prioritise PX reports nearing statutory deadlines for review.

· Working with the Digital unit to review current meeting room technology to reduce the number of live-streaming failures.

· Offering targeted workshops for high-demand units to improve the quality of advice, action and PX management.

9.3 As the Council moves into the next quarter, the focus will remain on maintaining high levels of compliance and transparency while improving the efficiency of governance activities.

10. Work Programme Updates this Quarter

10.1 Key highlights of work completed between January – March includes:

· CCC website changes: Applied various changes to how governance information is presented online including an online application for deputations, public forums, and petitions.

· Governance Dashboards: Development of a set of reporting tools to support reporting and auditing to replace manual processes.

· Infocouncil Update: Various changes to support and improve governance processes.

· Public Interest: Developed and rolled out guidance for staff on Public Interest assessments when completing PX reports.

11. Next Quarter

11.1 Key work planned for the April – May 2025 quarter includes:

· Infocouncil Update: (Started in Quarter 2) The Council system for running meetings (InfoCouncil) will be updated to keep it compliant with linked systems and to deliver automations and process improvements.

· Actions Management: Reviewed the action management process to identify improvements that can be implemented in administration and reporting. Changes will be implemented following approval by the Chief Executive.

· Transparency: To fulfill the Annual Plan resolution request, the team is working with Digital to investigate and report back in May on options to provide voting in meetings and public reporting of governance matters.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Approach to Compiling the Quarterly Governance Report for Council	21/1389620	234
b ⇩	Detailed Q3 2024/25 Governance Report Statistics	25/689855	235

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Matt Boult - Team Leader Governance Process

Sean Rainey - Manager Official Information

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

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

18. Building Consenting Unit Update - October 2024 to March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1488941
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Steffan Thomas, Head of Building Consenting
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Building Consenting Unit activity during the period October 2024 to March 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Building Consenting Unit Update - October 2024 to March 2025 Report.

3. Summary

3.1 Year to date, 4038 building consents have been issued. This is approximately 10% higher than the same time in the previous financial year.

Table 1: Residential and Commercial Consents Granted Per Year

Financial Year	Residential Consents Granted	Commercial Consents Granted	Total Consents Granted
2023/24	4321	822	5143
2022/23	4289	728	5017
2021/22	4340	762	5102
2020/21	4062	729	4791
2019/20	3676	828	4504

4. Levels of Service Summary

4.1 Levels of Service results for the period January 2025 to March 2025 are shown on Table 2:

Measure:		Jan	Feb	Mar	YTD	Target
Grant Building Consents	LOS	95%	96%	94%	90%	95% within 19 working days
Grant Building Consents (STF)	STF	95%	99%	97%	94%	20 working days
Ensure % satisfaction with building consents process	LOS	80%	80%	81%	80%	Target is 79%
Grant Code Compliance Certificates	LOS	98%	99%	98%	92%	95% within 19 working days
Grant Code Compliance Certificates (STF)	STF	98%	99%	98%	95%	20 working days
Carry out building inspections in a timely manner	LOS	98%	94%	96%	92%	98% booked within 3 working days
Customer satisfaction with building consenting pre-application service	LOS	100%	100%	100%	100%	Target is 90%
Audit Building Warrant of Fitness to ensure public safety and confidence	LOS	83	142	145	1028	Audit 20% of stock annually (1250 audits)
Pools are inspected in accordance with legislative requirements	LOS	51	110	93	1025	Inspect 1410 pool and spas annually
Process PIM applications within statutory timeframes	LOS	100%	100%	100%	100%	PIM only 90% within 20 working days

LOS = LTP Level of Service			Will meet target
STF = Statutory Time Frame			Requires remedial action

4.2 All levels of service are currently being met except the following three levels of service that are currently tracking just under the targets.

Building Consents Granted (processing timeframes)

4.2.1 Year to date, 94% of consents have been processed within statutory timeframes. Against the LTP target of 95% of consents granted within 19 days, the year-to-date result is 90%.

4.2.2 There has been a significant month on month improvement from 56% in the month of August 2023 to the current month’s result of 94%.

4.2.3 For information, the full year results for the previous three financial years were:

2023/24	73.0%
2022/23	64.5%
2021/22	42.4%

Inspections

4.2.4 Year to date, 92% of inspections have been carried out within agreed timeframe.

4.2.5 Demand for inspection services remains high because of higher consenting numbers last year and through the start of this year.

4.2.6 Each day around 180 inspections are booked and undertaken (3,300 per month, 39,000 per year). Traditionally, around 30% of inspections have resulted in a failed inspection and this puts additional pressure on inspection resources. Inspections fail for a number of reasons including quality of work, not being ready for the inspection, required information not present. The team has been working with the industry to bring down this number which has resulted in a reduction to the current failure rate of around 20%.

Code Compliance

4.2.7 Year to date, 95% of code compliance certificates issued within statutory timeframes. Against the LTP target of 95% of consents granted within 19 days, the year-to-date result is 92%.

4.2.8 There has been an increase in the number of code compliance certificates (CCC's) issued as a result of increased consent numbers and the high volume of inspections being completed. However, there has been a significant month on month improvement from 50% in the month of August 2023 to 98% in the month of March 2025.

5. Building Warrants of Fitness

5.1 Year to date 1028 building warrants of fitness have been audited. The annual target is 20% of the building stock or 1250 buildings. As such, after 9 months, this level of service is currently on track to achieve the annual target.

6. Earthquake Prone Buildings

6.1 During the six-month period, the Council received confirmation that 57 buildings were removed from the register with 13 buildings being demolished and 40 buildings strengthened. 4 buildings were reassessed in this period.

6.2 There have been 1400 Christchurch based buildings registered on the National Earthquake Prone Building Register. 906 buildings have since been removed with 494 remaining.

7. Significant Building Consents (October 2024 – March 2025)

Address	Value of Building Work ($)	Building Consent Details
170 Oxford Terrace	$50m	Alterations to Hotel. (While the project is still ongoing, we granted a staged building consent with a value of $50M for structural works only.)
129 Ilam Road	$46.8m	Construction of 8 level student accommodation for UC
115 Orchard Road	$42m	Construction of engine preparation and test facility
107 Cambridge Tce	$34m	Construction of office building - granted
40B Johns Road	$23.4m	Construction of a care home – Radius Care - granted
129 Waimairi Road	$29m	Construction of Digital Technologies Building for UC

8. IANZ Assessment

8.1 From 3 – 13 March 2025, International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) carried out its biennial accreditation assessment of the Christchurch City Council Building Consenting Authority (BCA). The outcome of this assessment was that Christchurch City Council remain a low-risk BCA and that our accreditation is continued.

9. Eco Design

9.1 The Eco Design Service has focused on individual consultations for residential building and have carried out 246 of the 300 consultations required for the financial year (82%).

10. Erosion Sediment Control

10.1 Requiring erosion and sediment control measures to be in place when earthworks are occurring is a condition of Council’s Stormwater Discharge Consent. This is managed by the Three Waters Unit.

10.2 When building work is being undertaken the Building Code (clause E1 – Surface Water) requires surface water from sitework to be disposed of so that it avoids the likelihood of damage or nuisance to other property. This includes protecting roads, drains and waterways.

10.3 Examples of how building work may result in the Council not complying with its Stormwater Discharge Consent include:

· Sediment run-off from the disturbed ground; and

· Transfer of sediment off the site by vehicles.

10.4 The Building Consenting Unit has a role when earthworks are undertaken as part of a building consent. Building consent applications are checked that a suitable erosion and sediment control plan is included as a part of the approved plans and specifications.

10.5 Inspections of building work under a building consent includes ensuring the erosion and sediment control measures are in place. For sites that are deemed high-risk, a specific inspection will be undertaken of the erosion and sediment control measures before earthworks begin.

10.6 Sites that are considered to be high-risk, and therefore require a specific inspection are where there is a disturbed area greater than:

· 1,000m²; or

· 500m² and the proximity to a waterway is less than 20m: or

· 500m² and the slope is greater than 5 degrees.

10.7 Since we began undertaking specific erosion and sediment control inspections in May 2021 there have been 2327 inspections undertaken with 467 (20%) failing. For this calendar year 20% inspections have failed. This is compared to 32% in 2021 – the first year that this inspection was undertaken.

11. Other Items

11.1 Government led BCA Reform

11.1.1 The Government is investigating reform of the building consent system in New Zealand. 

11.1.2 MBIE is progressing work to identify the best way to deliver consenting services. This work includes looking at the:

· way BCAs are structured,

· scope of building work is exempt from a building consent, and

· liability settings and the role of private insurance in the consent system. 

11.1.3 MBIE is also looking at what building work could be exempt from building consents and potential changes to liability settings across the whole building system.

11.1.4 This work is being done in addition to work already underway, such as:

· making it easier to build granny flats,

· increasing the uptake of remote inspections, and

· mandating the acceptance and use of overseas building products.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Steffan Thomas - Head of Building Consenting
Approved By	John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

20. Youth Portfolio Lead Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2311929
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Youth Portfolio Lead

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the biannual Youth Portfolio Lead report to the Council.

1.2 This report has been prepared by Councillor Harrison-Hunt in collaboration with staff.

2. Youth Portfolio Lead Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

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

3. Background Information

3.1 The Youth Portfolio was established in November 2022 following the triennial election. The Mayor created Council committees under Section 41A(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and introduced portfolios to enhance engagement with specific population groups and issues. Portfolio holders were to be the champion for their designated group or issue.

3.2 Youth are often defined as persons aged between 12 and 24 years. A population made up of approximately 850,000* young people across Aotearoa New Zealand, making up 17% of the population. Within this group, 25% are Māori, 19% are from ethnic communities, 13% are Pacific, 9% have an identified disability, and 14% of 18 to 24-year-olds identify as rainbow.

3.3 The youth demographic plays a crucial role in shaping the future of Ōtautahi Christchurch, with those aged 10 – 24 making up around 20% (77,955*) of the city's population.

3.4 Council work in this space is guided by the Te Haumako; Te Whitingia | Strengthening Communities Together Strategy (2022-2032) and the Equity and Inclusion Policy (2024). These documents commit to building authentic, trusted relationships with the youth sector, promoting equitable access to services, and ensuring inclusive decision-making for all residents of Ōtautahi Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

3.5 The Positive Youth Development Aotearoa approach is a key related strategy within the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy, guiding constructive, empowering, and holistic methods of engaging with youth.

3.6 The Christchurch Youth Action Plan (2017) identifies key youth needs and aspirations across areas such as transport, wellbeing, employment, and education, aiming to empower young people to be part of the decisions that affect them now and in the future.

· The considerations of each issue defined in the Action Plan show great promise, however, the decision-making mechanism bares difficultly, due to the limited power of individual elected members in addressing these issues. Collaboration is essential to achieve positive outcomes for youth and the community.

· It may be timely to engage with the youth sector to assess whether the Plan continues to reflect the experiences of young people in Ōtautahi and to gauge interest in its revision.

4. Metropolitan/National Organisation updates

YCD / Youth and Cultural Development

4.1 Youth and Cultural Development (YCD) advocates for Christchurch’s youth, offering services and outreach activities that engage and support young people, particularly targeting high-deprivation areas. They create an inclusive environment that reduces barriers to participation, especially for Māori and Pacific rangatahi.

4.2 Many of YCD’s events are delivered in partnership with the Council, including the FRESH pool parties, House of Hoopz basketball series, and the annual Christchurch Hip-Hop Summit held at Tūranga.

4.3 In March 2025, The Igloo – Youth Hub marked its first year of operation at the Christchurch Bus Exchange. The combination of a designated space and trained youth workers has proven to be an effective model for fostering positive youth development and creating safer environments.

4.4 YCD has proactively partnered with local businesses, including Grizzly Bakery and Kairos Food Rescue, to provide free kai at the hub. This initiative has proven successful in attracting new youth to the hub, where they can access further support and services.

The Christchurch Youth Council (CYC) / Runanga Taiohi o Ōtautahi

4.5 The partnership between the Council and the Christchurch Youth Council (CYC) is guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (2022–2025), set for review this year. Council staff and CYC will work together to review the document after the 2025 Local Body Elections, assessing both the agreement and the partnership to ensure continued collaboration, regular information sharing, and open communication. The MOU aims to amplify youth voices in decision-making and local democracy in Ōtautahi.

4.6 Youth Takeover Survey: CYC have recently undertaken the annual Youth Takeover Survey, usually completed by approximately 600 youth across Waitaha. The survey is a tool for CYC to identify up-to-date insights on youth needs, opinions, and understanding of democracy.

Christchurch Youth Council – Home page

A group of people posing for a photo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Christchurch Youth Council AGM, 2024

Rerenga Awa / Canterbury Youth Workers Collective NZ

4.7 Rerenga Awa advocates for youth workers and services across Canterbury, offering professional development, networking, accountability, and resource sharing.

4.8 In late 2024, Rerenga Awa surveyed 37 youth work organisations across the region (35 within Christchurch, two from wider Canterbury). This sample of organisations represented 283 paid youth workers collectively delivering 4,156 hours of work per week. Additionally, 1,959 volunteers were involved throughout the year, contributing an average of 4,963 hours weekly.

4.9 Across these 37 organisations, a total of 64,998 young people were engaged annually. On average, the annual cost to have a young person attend programmes is $140. When accounting for both paid and volunteer time, the cost of youth work was estimated at $19.20 per hour.

Rerenga Awa | Canterbury Youth Workers Collective – Home page

Youth Hub Christchurch / Youth Hub Trust

4.10 Since opening in October 2024, the Hub now hosts the following tenant organisations:

· Rerenga Awa; Christchurch Youth Council; Collaborative Trust; Voyce – Whakarongo Mai; Te Tahi Youth; Youthline

4.11 The Hub now offers hot desk memberships and bookable meeting spaces and is in discussions with additional organisations regarding tenancies and memberships.

4.12 The Transitional Housing Unit, managed by Methodist Mission, opened on 3 February 2025. As of 21 February 2025, nine young people were residing there. Due to high demand, the unit is expected to reach full capacity quickly.

4.13

The activity/event centre is expected to be completed by the end of the year, further expanding opportunities for young people. The Council’s support in making this project possible is greatly appreciated by The Hub.

Te Tahi Youth

4.14 Originally established as the 198 Youth Health Centre in 1995, Te Tahi Youth (TTY) have a long history of supporting youth well-being in Ōtautahi.

4.15 Dame Sue Bagshaw, formerly a board member, stepped away to dedicate her efforts to developing the Youth Hub, ensuring both Te Tahi Youth and the Hub could thrive with distinct yet complementary roles.

4.16 TTY provides free medical, sexual, and mental health services, along with mentoring and employment support for young people. TTY operates satellite consultation spaces at the Christchurch Youth Hub for some services, however its primary location is on Churchill Street.

4.17 However, in response to growing demand, TTY is launching a Capital Campaign to raise funds to fit-out a new facility that will replace the Churchill Street site as its primary location.

The Kind Foundation (previously YMCA)

4.18 The Kind Foundation supports young people through a range of programs, youth-led events, and volunteering and work experience opportunities, led by a team of youth workers.

4.19 Their 4C Centre is a free technology hub designed to reduce barriers to digital access, foster skill-sharing, and create pathways into entrepreneurship. A retail space is also planned at the Kind Foundation, offering young people the opportunity to sell products developed in the 4C Centre while gaining valuable business experience.

4.20 Their key events include their Ōtautahi Youth Mākete and the annual youth talent show, Platform.

The Kind Foundation – Home Page

sPACPAC

4.21 sPACPAC (sPacifically Pacific) is a Canterbury-based initiative dedicated to enhancing the aspirations and achievements of Pasifika students by harnessing their identities, languages, and cultures.

4.22 Established in partnership with the Ministry of Education, local schools, and the Pacific community, it provides programs such as the Pacific Leadership Retreat, Canterbury Pacific Youth Awards, and Canterbury Polyfest.

4.23 This year, Council staff will lead in organising and hosting the annual entrepreneurial programme, previously run in a Dragon’s Den style format. Staff are working alongside sPACPAC to explore ways to increase participation, reduce barriers, and strengthen mentorship support from Pacific and business leaders. The programme will also seek to more closely involve the student’s families in celebrating the final outcomes.

A collage of posters with people in the background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

sPACPAC’s signature events include Canterbury Polyfest and Pacific Speech Competition

SS4C / School Strike 4 Climate

4.24 In September 2024, SS4C held a climate action strike at Council. Since 2021, their key messages have focused on reducing emissions, improved cycle infrastructure and shifts to sustainable transport, investing in renewable energy, and advocating for climate education and action.

4.25 SS4C has been working more closely with Council staff and governance to better understand how they can have a voice in local decision-making.

4.26 The group has observed a shift in its participant demographics, with more secondary-tertiary aged members compared to the younger primary school-aged participants when SS4C first began. They are now considering ways to better engage younger audiences, seeing SS4C as a key stepping stone for youth involvement in activism.

School Strike 4 Climate NZ - Instagram

A group of people holding signs and holding a banner

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

School Strike 4 Climate Demonstration Christchurch, 2022

Ara Taiohi

4.27 Ara Taiohi is the peak body for youth development in Aotearoa, dedicated to developing projects and sharing resources, tools, and information to enhance youth engagement practices. They also advocate on issues impacting young people and those who work with them.

4.28 Ara Taiohi leads the annual INVOLVE conference, the national event for youth development in Aotearoa. INVOLVE 2025 will be hosted in Ōtautahi Christchurch, marking the first time since 2006. The most recent conference attracted over 1,000 attendees.

5. Engagement at Youth Events

Event	Date	Cr. Harrison-Hunt attended	CDA – Youth attended
Attended Intergenerational Fairness hui	Aug 20	Yes
Attended Rerenga Awa AGM	Aug 28		Yes
Attended School Strike 4 Climate workshop	Aug 30	Yes
Panellist at UN Youth event	Sept 8	Yes
Attended Next Gen Careers Expo	Sept 11	Yes
MC for Hikoi mo te reo Maori for schools	Sept 20	Yes
Attended Smart Christchurch Innovation Expo	Sept 27		Yes
Present for School Strike 4 Climate demonstration	Sept 27	Yes
Attended Te Akatoki workshop	Sept 30	Yes
Attended/spoke at YCD Hip Hop Summit Welcome Reception	Oct 1	Yes	Yes
Attended NZ Amateur Boxing champs	Oct 2	Yes
Attended Linwood Pasifika Garden Launch	Nov 6		Yes
Participated in Youth Hui, Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote	Nov 7	Yes	Yes
Spoke at MHAPS (Mental Health Advocacy and Peer Support Trust) Network	Nov 11		Yes
Attended Youth Participation Coordinators Network	Nov 12		Yes
Attended Christchurch Youth Hub opening	Nov 12	Yes	Yes
Attended Pacific Students Leadership workshop	Nov 13	Yes
Attended La Vida Youth Trust 20th Anniversary	Nov 13	Yes
Participated in YAVU, Engagement with Pacific Communities session	Nov 18		Yes
Panellist for Inspiring the Future, St Martins School	Nov 23	Yes
Attended Rangatahi Photo exhibition	Nov 26	Yes
Attended Ninja Valley grand opening	Nov 30	Yes
Attended Christchurch Youth Council AGM	Dec 9		Yes
Attended YCD “Xmas in da Hood” event	Dec 18		Yes
Attended Te Akatoki workshop	Feb 3	Yes
Attended SOIF Intergenerational Fairness workshop	Feb 13	Yes
Hosted stall at UC Orientation Market	Feb 14		Yes
Hosted stall at UC Clubs Day	Feb 18		Yes
Hosted stall at ARA Support Carnival, Trades Campus	Feb 20		Yes
Spoke at Whakaraupō Youth Hui	Feb 25		Yes
Attended Children’s Day	March 2	Yes
Attended Cultural/Tourism event for International Students	March 3	Yes
Hosted stall at ARA Support Carnival, Madras St Campus	March 6		Yes
Spoke at Waitai Youth Leaders Hui	March 17		Yes
Spoke at UN Youth “Be Heard” event	March 22		Yes
Panellist at UN Youth “Be Heard” event	March 23	Yes
Hosted a Local Government 101 event in collaboration with UC POLS	March 25		Yes
Attended Race Unity Week Youth Speeches	March 25	Yes
Guest Lecture on Leadership for LU Students	April 2	Yes

6. Community Board Insights and Updates

6.1 The Council actively supports youth-focused initiatives and groups across community board areas by providing funding, resources, fostering networking and partnerships, and assisting with navigating local government processes.

6.2 Fostering youth leadership and civic participation remains a key focus, with the Council supporting young people to advocate for their aspirations and actively engage in community decision-making. One example is the half basketball court in Addington, which was proposed by rangatahi residents to the Waihoro Community Board and officially opened in December 2024. In Diamond Harbour, the Youth and Community Trust is leading a community-driven proposal to develop an indoor climbing space and youth hangout area.

6.3 Our community boards have supported a range of recent successes, including;

· Te Pā o Rākaihautū’s Zayed Sustainability Prize Win – Te Pā a Rākaihautū School recently won the Zayed Sustainability Prize in Abu Dhabi for its project “Puku Māra” which combines traditional Māori knowledge and indigenous biocultural technology to convert food waste into soil regenerative compost.

· House of Hoopz Competition Series – This highly valued competition continues to provide a welcoming space for young people and their families to enjoy basketball and social connections. With no cost to participate, it remains accessible to all. This year, the House of Hoopz series will be rolled out across ten Christchurch suburbs.

· BLAST Programme Support – Through “Youth Development Funding” the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board funded approximately 30 young people to participate in the BLAST programme, facilitated by Akaroa Police in partnership with Akaroa Area School.

· Youth Space at Northlands Mall – Opened in October 2024, this safe and welcoming space provides a place for young people to gather after school. Established through partnership with Papanui Youth Development Trust and Te Ora Hou, it features a homework area, gaming zone, board games, and other activities. Youth workers are on-site to create a supportive and inclusive environment.

A collage of people in a room

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Youth space located at Northlands Mall

6.4 Community governance teams are observing a range of challenges facing young people and the youth sector, including limited support systems in young people’s lives, disengagement from education, and growing mental health concerns.

6.5 However, in many areas, local residents and organisations are coming together to engage in discussions about youth issues and collaborate on potential solutions.

· In March, community groups from Whakaraupō came together to discuss challenges facing youth in Banks Peninsula, including geographic challenges, where transport and access to activities are limited.

· Burnside Bryndwr Community Network plans to engage with youth in the Burnside/Bryndwr area to hear their thoughts on safety and connection within the community and collaborate with them on shaping future actions.

7. Youth Initiatives across the Council

Parks Team

7.1 The Council's Parks Team engages youth through a range of initiatives that offer hands-on experience, education, and opportunities in conservation, parks maintenance, and environmental stewardship. These include:

· The School Leaver Parks Cadet Programme (launched in 2024), providing high school graduates with practical experience in parks maintenance. Partnerships with nine high schools resulted in six cadets starting in August 2024, with five more beginning in January 2025. In 2025, selected cadets will transition into horticulture or sports turf training.

· The MSD Cadet Programme, offering 12-week placements for youth and other applicants in parks, with strong employment outcomes.

· The Council’s internship programme, placing 15 tertiary students in 2024, including roles in parks and environmental work.

· The Learning Through Action programme, has engaged over 3,332 students in environmental and civics education, receiving 100% teacher satisfaction.

· Community Partnership Rangers, working with schools on restoration planting, murals, nature play, and environmental education, with youth also volunteering for projects such as Burnside High School’s stream restoration and invertebrate monitoring.

· Support for Enviroschools and youth-led conservation initiatives, including the Nature Lab iNaturalist club, where students engage in biodiversity monitoring.

· Work experience for youth with disabilities, through school partnerships, supporting conservation and parks maintenance projects.

· Youth engagement through initiatives like Ranger for a Day, introducing young people to conservation skills during KidsFest.

Library Network

7.2 Christchurch City Libraries provide valuable opportunities for young people to explore resources, develop digital and craft skills, and connect socially through shared kaupapa.

7.3 Libraries play a vital role in supporting the wellbeing, learning, and engagement of young people across Ōtautahi through a diverse range of inclusive programmes, initiatives, and events, including:

· Teen clubs and Teen Takeover sessions across the network offer youth-friendly, social environments. Older teens and young adults can attend craft-based programmes like Crafty Connections Crew (Fendalton), Creative Stitching (Te Hāpua), and Crafting for Wellbeing (Tūranga).

· A new Student Workplace Experience programme offers hands-on experience within libraries.

· GenConnect pairs Riccarton High students with older adults for tech support, fostering intergenerational learning and work readiness.

· Return to Reading (Upper Riccarton) helps young adults reconnect with reading post-study.

· Events like TinyFest, Festival of Women and Girls in Science, and Days of Ice expose youth to new experiences and learning.

· Book groups (for all ages) and personalised recommendations like Book Bags and Read with Pride Book Bundles support youth reading engagement.

Coastal Adaptations Team

7.4 Christchurch City Council has actively involved children and youth in coastal planning through education, creative projects, and interactive engagement. Key initiatives include:

· Youth Representation: Young people contributed to decision-making through the Coastal Panel, bringing valuable insights to the process.

· Climate Change Learning Programme: Reached 800 students across 13 schools in coastal hazard areas, fostering awareness and engagement.

· Next-Generation Conversation (NGC): A student-led group, formed in 2021, continues to meet regularly to discuss policy issues and engage with decision-makers.

· Creative Climate Projects: Supported school groups in Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour to develop climate-focused street art, songs, documentaries, and spoken word poetry.

· Interactive Community Engagement: Hosted a tile painting workshop for community feedback, with artworks displayed in local areas, and ran ‘beachinars’—hands-on learning sessions at local beaches to explore coastal processes and sea-level rise.

Transport Team

7.5 The Council’s Travel Demand Management team offers initiatives that promote active, public, and shared transport modes for youth, including:

· The Crash Bash stage show, which educates high school students on safe driving.

· Walk & Wheel to School Week

· The Aotearoa Bike Challenge

· The Good-to-go school travel program, which promotes road safety and active transport in schools, helping to reduce school gate congestion while encouraging walking and cycling.

7.6 Staff are exploring opportunities to expand the Good-to-go program into high schools, co-designing the approach with youth.

Recreation, Sports and Events

7.7 Recreation Initiatives

· 3,000 Player of the Day 2-for-1 pool vouchers were distributed to sports clubs, supporting increased youth engagement across the pools network.

· YCD pool parties have seen over 3,927 participants across their first 19 events, with more pool parties being delivered in 2025.

· Events with high youth-participation included Sparks Young Performers, Space Academy All Ages Gigs, Go Live Festival and Summer Theatre.

7.8 Active Communities Initiatives

· Three Kapa Haka rōpū qualified for Te Matatini 2025, were supported by the Better Off Fund for Haka Fit campaigns and access to pools and gyms.

· Active Wāhine is an after-school programme aimed at boosting the confidence of wahine in physical activity, developed in partnership with School Sport Canterbury and RSE Group Fitness.

· New initiatives such as the Sensory Hydroslide session and a revised Tumbletimes session at Taiora QEII and Cowles Stadium respectively aim to support young people and adults with disabilities.

· Tangaroa Guardians Youth Development Trust supports rangatahi Māori in gaining PADI Dive Certifications, offering access to pools and gyms for skill development and confidence-building.

· The Ōtautahi Interagency Fast Track Initiative received grants to provide at-risk youth access to pools with mentorship and support.

Art Gallery

7.9 The Art Gallery offers a variety of ongoing and seasonal programs aimed at engaging young people in creative and cultural activities. Key initiatives include:

· Artists’ Toolbox: A six-week after-school course for young artists (ages 8-12).

· Workshops: Matariki-themed badge-making, printmaking workshops, and artist-led sessions for youth.

· Youth Film & Events: Events like Preseason Pictures, a student film competition, and Coco Reo Māori, a te reo Māori film screening.

· Work Experience: In partnership with Ara College, the Art Gallery offers 8 graphic design undergraduates the opportunity to work with the gallery and a professional design company to take over the design of the quarterly Bulletin publication, providing valuable work experience. The gallery also offers various internships in the archive and conservation departments throughout the year.

· Exhibitions: exhibitions and resources are curated with youth in mind, exploring themes such as human rights, Te Ao Māori, and the environment.

8. General State of the Sector

8.1 The most recent State of the Nation report by The Salvation Army's Social and Parliamentary Unit highlights key trends and challenges facing youth in Aotearoa:

· Youth Offending: The serious and persistent youth offending rate (ages 10–17) dropped slightly in 2024, from 21 to 20 per 10,000 population, affecting 1,073 young people, or 0.2% of the 541,000 youth in this age group. However, the disparity for rangatahi Māori remains significant, as they are four times more likely to be charged than non-Māori.

· Violence Against Youth: Violence against youth aged 15-19 years is increasing, with 5,709 young people reported as victims of violent crime in 2024, up from 4,295 in 2019.

· Educational Achievement: The proportion of students leaving school without at least NCEA Level 1 in 2023 was the highest since 2013, with a decrease in those achieving University Entrance or higher. Socio-economic disparities in educational outcomes have also grown.

· Mental Health: Since the Covid-19 pandemic, high levels of mental distress have surged among young people, creating a major social and health challenge. Young people are facing long waiting times for services, a lack of youth-focused services, and workforce shortages in the mental health sector.

9. Links

· Infometrics | Christchurch City Demographics

· Mayors Taskforce for Jobs | Youth Employment Dashboard

· Ministry of Health | Overview of youth health - Briefing

· Positive Youth Development in Aotearoa (2021) – Wayne Francis Charitable Trust

· State of the Nation 2024 – The Salvation Army

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

22. Notice of Motion - Request for advice regarding freedom camping
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/338559
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Celeste Donovan
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 provide the Council with a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Donovan and the associated Council Officer advice.

1.2 Pursuant to Standing Order 22 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders Councillor Donovan provided a Notice of Motion which reads as follows:

That the Council:

1. Requests staff to provide advice on:

a. The process for amending the Christchurch City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw to prioritise prohibiting freedom camping at North Beach car park and Broadpark Road, while also reviewing the need for further restrictions or a ban in other parking bays directly adjacent to the beach, considering community concerns such as litter, noise, and environmental impact.

2. Requests staff advice on non-regulatory and additional measures to manage and mitigate the impacts of freedom camping, including:

a. Considering additional education and awareness initiatives, including investigating the employment of ambassadors who can also provide outreach services by connecting with City Mission regarding displaced people.

b. Enforcement and improved complaint-handling processes (e.g., Snap Send Solve).

3. Requests staff advice on a comparison of the current frequency of services (such as toilet cleaning and bin clearance) at the North Beach car park during peak summer periods, relative to areas with full restrictions on freedom camping, including:

a. What the additional operational expenditure is for these services; and

b. Whether the additional frequency is proactive or reactive.

4. Requests staff advice summarising the free facilities currently available to freedom campers at the North Beach car park and at Broadpark Road.

5. Requests staff advice on whether there are opportunities for Council Enforcement Officers to work with the City Mission, including with training to proactively identify and report homelessness near popular freedom camping hotspots during regular patrols.

6. Requests staff advice on the process for limiting the number of freedom campers at the North Beach car park and Broadpark Road (similar to the restriction at Lyttelton’s Naval Point).

7. Requests staff advice confirming the rationale for amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw in Akaroa.

8. Requests staff advice on the process and rationale required for a temporary freedom camping ban at the North Beach car park and at Broadpark Road.

9. Requests staff provide a summary of past freedom camping temporary bans imposed by the Chief Executive, and how they differ to the request for a temporary at the North Beach car park and Broadpark Road.

10. Requests staff advice on upgrading the Council’s website with relevant information and guidelines on freedom camping.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Does not proceed with the request for staff advice on the process for amending the Christchurch City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw to prioritise prohibiting freedom camping at North Beach car park and Broadpark Road, noting the following:

a. Legislation gives councils limited powers to put bylaws in place to regulate freedom camping activities, and requires that a bylaw must be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem.

b. Changes to the requirements for self-contained vehicles will come into effect in June 2026.

c. That people experiencing homelessness are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘freedom camp’ in legislation.

d. Vehicles that can be used for freedom camping are subject to the same parking rights and obligations as other vehicles during the day.

e. Further advice on reviewing or an amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw at specific locations would require additional resources and reprioritising of other planned bylaw reviews which have legislative deadlines.

2. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice on non-regulatory and additional measures to manage and mitigate the impacts of freedom camping as:

a. There are unlikely to be non-regulatory measures that do not require additional resources to be put in place.

b. The Council operates proactive freedom camping enforcement during summer and a reactive approach at other times which are undertaken by a third-party contractor. Any changes would require a variation of the contract, which has financial implications.

3. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice on a comparison of the current frequency of services including what the additional operational expenditure is for these services and whether the additional frequency is proactive or reactive as:

a. The comparison will be of limited benefit in assessing freedom camping issues.

b. Data cannot distinguish use by freedom campers from use by the general public.

c. Staff resource would be required to undertake a more detailed analysis which would require reprioritising existing work.

4. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice summarising the free facilities currently available to freedom campers at the North Beach car park and at Broadpark Road as:

a. There are no dedicated freedom camping facilities. Free, public facilities, such as toilets, are available for anyone to use.

5. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice on whether there are opportunities for Council Enforcement Officers to work with the City Mission, including with training to proactively identify and report homelessness near popular freedom camping hotspots during regular patrols as staff note:

a. That people experiencing homelessness are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘freedom camp’ in legislation and cannot be treated the same.

b. Council staff already have a process in place to share information on people experiencing homelessness that might require assistance.

c. This information has already also been provided to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board at a recent Information Session.

6. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice on the process for limiting the number of freedom campers at the North Beach car park and Broadpark Road (similar to the restriction at Lyttelton’s Naval Point) as staff note:

a. Naval Point is not directly comparable to the city coastal area.

b. This would require amendment to the Bylaw which would require addition resource and reprioritisation of existing work as outlined in 1e above.

7. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice confirming the rationale for amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw in Akaroa as:

a. This information is contained in the report to the Council’s meeting of 8 November 2018.

8. Does not proceed with requesting staff advice on the process and rationale required for a temporary freedom camping ban at the North Beach car park and at Broadpark Road as:

a. The decision to temporarily close an area to freedom camping, sits with the Chief Executive and must meet the grounds under the legislation and Bylaw.

b. Advice is being prepared for the Chief Executive following the public participation to the Council on 2 April 2025 regarding North Beach car park and Broadpark Road.

9. Does not proceed with requesting for staff to provide a summary of past freedom camping temporary bans and explain how they differ from the request for a temporary ban at North Beach carpark and Broadpark Road as:

a. The comparison will be of limited benefit in assessing temporary freedom camping closures as the Bylaw has been reviewed since any previous temporary closures, and additionally the requirements for self-contained vehicles come into effect in June 2026.

b. Advice is being prepared for the Chief Executive following the public participation to the Council on 2 April 2025 regarding North Beach car park and Broadpark Road.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background to the Notice of Motion

3.1 A Notice of Motion was received in February 2025 refer to 1(a), and 2(a) and (b).

3.2 Additional requests to amend the Notice of Motion were received being a minor clarification to 2, and additional requests 3 – 10.

3.3 The staff advice provided below in response to request 1(a) reflects the advice that was provided to the Chief Executive at the time of the first Notice of Motion request prior to amendments. Since that time, additional information has been received, including a petition requesting a temporary ban at North Beach Car Park and concerns about freedom campers on Broadpark Road that were presented to the Council on 2 April 2025. Staff advice that will be provided in relation to (1)(a) should the Notice of Motion be resolved by the Council, will consider and incorporate such additional information, and will be prepared concurrently with the response to the petition and other complaint.

Background to Freedom Camping

3.4 Freedom camping is limited by a combination of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act) and the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021. The Act allows anyone to freedom camp on any Council land if certain conditions are met (including self-containment with onboard services) unless a bylaw or other law prohibits or restricts it. Vehicles that can be used for freedom camping have the same parking rights and obligations as other vehicles during the day. Any ban on overnight freedom camping does not restrict these vehicles during the day.

3.5 The Bylaw prohibits or restricts freedom camping in certain circumstances and locations and can only do so in compliance with the bylaw-making powers in the Act. These powers are limited to:

3.5.1 A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that—

3.5.2 (a) the bylaw is necessary for 1 or more of the following purposes:

3.5.3 (i) to protect the area:

3.5.4 (ii) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area:

3.5.5 (iii) to protect access to the area; and

3.5.6 (b) the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area; and

3.5.7 (c) the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3.6 The Bylaw enables the Chief Executive to temporarily close an area to freedom camping in certain circumstances and locations. These powers are limited to:

· prevent damage to the local authority area or facilities in the area; or

· allow maintenance to the local authority area or facilities; or

· protect the safety of persons or property; or

· provide for better public access, including in circumstances where events are planned for that area.

3.7 It must also be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing perceived problems and must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. People experiencing homelessness are specifically excluded from coverage (s.5(2A) a person is not freedom camping if they are unable to live in appropriate residential accommodation).

3.8 The vehicles freedom campers use can vary from large motorhomes to converted vans. Legal requirements around the certification of self-contained vehicles are changing. This transition will be completed by 7 June 2026, when all vehicles must be certified to the new standard. This is likely to reduce the proportion of smaller camping vehicles, which are often the vehicles that cause concern to the community due to e.g. needing to open the boot for access to cooking facilities. The impact of this change is yet to be seen, however it may mean that some of the issues are naturally resolved when the requirements come into effect. Therefore, it would be premature to initiate work to consider an amendment at this point.

3.9 Camping is prohibited in parks and reserves under the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016. Camping on a park or reserve is possible in limited circumstances, such as when an area has been set aside as a camping ground. The Council has two areas set aside for camping in parks in the area (Spencer Park and South Brighton), which are both run as commercial camping grounds.

4. Officer Advice

Resource implications of the Notice of Motion

4.1 Should the Notice of Motion be resolved by the Council, this unplanned work would have an impact on existing work programmes and priorities. It will result in delays to current work due to the need to reallocate resources and time to the new request, impacting other scheduled work and the process of gathering the requested advice may take some time.

4.2 Prioritising work in response to the Notice of Motion will delay implementation of the Dog Control Bylaw (currently being reviewed, very high level of public interest evidenced in submissions) and delay the start of the review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw. This will have flow-on effects for the substantial bylaw review programme scheduled for the next Council term.

4.3 The substantial work programme next Council term reflects legislative deadlines for bylaws review and additional work expected to be required to align our bylaw settings following legislative change. Bylaw reviews require resource from across the Council, including Policy, Legal, Regulatory Compliance and the teams with relevant subject matter expertise. There are nine bylaws with legislative deadlines for review during the next Council term, plus two bylaws on water issues that may also need to be reviewed as a result of the Local Water Done Well (LWDW) reforms. Staff anticipate that there will be other policy reviews as a result of LWDW.

4.4 The Impacts for prioritising this work from a Regulatory Compliance perspective would be that the Council’s Principal Advisor Compliance would be diverted from providing technical advice, coaching and mentoring to the Compliance Officers completing investigations. In addition, the Principal Advisor Compliance would be diverted away from reactionary high profile safety risk investigations such as Taylors Mistake Bach Dangerous building assessments and supporting the resolution of the Antonio Hall Dangerous Buildings. Often, the Council have compliance matters that require an immediate, experienced response which would be dealt with by the Principal Advisor Compliance.

4.5 In addition, staff resource and time would be required from the Parks Regional Park Rangers and Community Parks team.

4.6 If the Council were to pursue a bylaw amendment, there would be resource implications which is outlined in paragraph 4.10 below.

Officer Advice on each aspect of the Notice of Motion

1) Requests advice on amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw

4.7 Legislation requires bylaws to be reviewed at least once every 10 years. A bylaw amendment can happen at any time, provided legislative requirements are met and staff have capacity to complete the work. Amending a bylaw is a significant process which requires consultation.

4.8 The current level of service for bylaws is to undertake reviews to meet emerging needs and legislative deadlines. While staff can provide advice on amending the Bylaw, bringing forward a review (or unanticipated amendment), if grounds under the Act apply, would require additional resource to complete or the setting aside of other planned bylaws work with consequences for our ability to meet legislative deadlines. A significant amount of work would need to be undertaken even if an amendment were minor.

4.9 Work to consider a bylaw amendment would involve the Strategic Policy, Parks, Traffic Operations, Compliance and Legal teams and would need to be accommodated in the bylaws work programme for the next Council term. This is already under pressure due to the Local Water Done Well reforms requiring an early review of two water-related bylaws, as well as nine other bylaw reviews scheduled for next term to meet legislative deadlines.

4.10 If the Council were to pursue a bylaw amendment prioritising this work from a Transport perspective would be that:

4.10.1 The Council’s Operational Traffic Area Engineer would be diverted from providing technical engineering advice for the Community Board, responding to queries, questions and LGOIMA requests. This would require an additional resource to backfill this work.

4.10.2 The Council’s Manager Operations would also be required which would divert away from providing technical advice, coaching and mentoring to Officers regarding traffic operational matters. In addition, the Manager Operations could be diverted away from high profile issues that require an immediate, experienced response which would typically be dealt with by the Manager.

4.11 The issues raised in the NOM (location in a residential area, amenity and noise concerns) do not appear to meet Freedom Camping Act grounds for limiting freedom camping activities.^{^[1]} On the basis of current information, there are no clear grounds under the Act to prohibit freedom camping in this area, therefore staff do not recommend further work to explore an amendment. The 2021 review of this Bylaw included specific changes to address concerns about freedom camping in the coastal area^{^[2]}, including:

· adding a prohibited area at North Beach Car Park to support public access in summer;

· creating a new City Coastal Restricted Zone limiting how long freedom campers can stay in the coastal area (zone extended to include Broadpark Road area following submissions);

· prohibiting freedom camping on Southshore Spit; and

· adding a clause preventing campers from setting-up in a way that blocks thoroughfares.

4.12 The permanent weekend ban at North Beach Car Park prohibits freedom camping at weekends, from 7pm Fridays until 7pm Sundays between 1 October and 1 May each year. A more extensive permanent ban was considered, but there was no strong evidence that access issues were a problem on weekdays or over the winter months.

4.13 Some aspects of where or how a vehicle is parked may be covered by the Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 or Road User Rules. All vehicles need to adhere to these restrictions. Transport staff are also preparing advice for a Notice of Motion from the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board meeting of 10 March 2025 (CCBCC/2025/00012). That Notice of Motion relates to parking restrictions in the vicinity of North Beach, which may lead to other solutions.

2) Requests staff advice on non-regulatory and additional measures to manage and mitigate freedom camping impacts

4.14 2a - Additional education and awareness initiatives, including outreach ambassadors: It is not clear what is meant by outreach ambassadors. Staff also note:

· Funding for freedom camping ambassadors has been discontinued by the Government.

· Outreach for people experiencing homelessness is already provided by City Mission supported by Council funding. The City Mission team prioritised New Brighton this summer with weekly visits (plus as required for specific complaints).

· If the proposal is for additional City Mission staff, then additional funding would need to be found. If the proposal is for volunteers to undertake outreach activities, they would still need to be trained and managed, which would require resourcing.

4.15 If the Notice of Motion is resolved by the Council, the advice on non-regulatory measures could include additional communications and signage in the area. However, there are unlikely to be non-regulatory measures that do not require additional resources to put in place.

4.16 2b - Enforcement and improved complaint-handling processes - There have been 24 complaints about freedom camping in the coastal area over the summer season (begins 25 October Labour weekend), which were referred for reactive compliance investigations. There is also an education and proactive compliance campaign over the summer season. Ten infringements for non-compliance with freedom camping regulations have been issued over the summer season.

4.17 Three residents in the coastal area have been having ongoing discussions with staff about freedom camping at Broad Park and the perceived nuisance associated with freedom campers (noise, litter and carparking are the predominant concerns).

4.18 Staff also note:

· The Council operates proactive freedom camping enforcement during summer and a reactive approach at other times. Monitoring and enforcement activities over the summer period run from Labour Weekend to ANZAC Weekend (October – April) each year, and are undertaken by a third-party contractor. Any changes would require a variation of the contract, which has financial implications.

· Traffic Operations are monitoring the coastal area including these specific locations, as are Parking Compliance.

3) Requests staff advice comparing frequency of services (toilet cleaning, bin clearance) at North Beach car park during summer peak compared to areas with freedom camping restrictions including (a) what the additional operational expenditure is for these services and (b) whether the additional frequency is proactive or reactive.

4.19 If the Notice of Motion is resolved by the Council, staff note the comparison will be of very limited benefit in assessing freedom camping issues. The bylaw already prohibits freedom camping at North Beach Car Park at weekends between 1 October and 1 May each year (when the car park is at its busiest).

4.20 Data cannot distinguish use by freedom campers from use by the general public. Use increases over the busy summer months in popular coastal areas and can depend on the weather, together with other attractions and activities nearby, including events. Servicing is scheduled based on projected use.

4.21 Toilets at North Beach car park and Broadpark Road are cleaned twice a day mid-December until end-March each year, and once a day for the rest of the year. Any changes to this or additional expenditure would need to be negotiated with the supplier through the Facilities Maintenance Contract.

4.22 Bin clearing frequency is also adjusted for the busy summer season. Bin clearance is three times a day during peak demand (mid-December – Waitangi Day each year) and twice a day for the rest of summer. Spring, autumn and winter bin clearing is once a day. This is the same for coastal areas that do not have the impact of freedom camping.

4.23 The smart bins along the foreshore nearby were replaced in late 2024 due to frequent "hopper jams" caused by people attempting to dispose of takeaway boxes or larger item. These blockages led to waste accumulating around the bins, often outside of staff working hours. To resolve this, the smart bins have been replaced with models that feature both increased initial capacity and wider chutes, allowing for the disposal of larger items without compromising the bins' functionality.

4.24 Staff resource would be required from Parks, Policy and Facilities to do more detailed work and the data is unlikely to provide a useful comparison.

4) Requests staff advice summarising free facilities available to freedom campers at North Beach car park and Broadpark Road.

4.25 Staff note free, public facilities, such as toilets, are available for anyone to use, which may include freedom campers. There are no dedicated freedom camping facilities.

5) Requests staff advice on opportunities for Council enforcement officers to work with the City Mission, including with training to proactively identify and report homelessness near popular freedom camping hotspots during regular patrols

4.26 Staff note this information has already been provided to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board at a recent Information Session. Council staff already have a process in place to share information on people experiencing homelessness that might require assistance.

4.27 There are three groups that could be referred to when responding to this question:

· Staff in the Council who work with the City Mission Outreach Service on supporting people experiencing homelessness to connect them with services (Community Support and Partnerships Unit).

· Council Enforcement Officers (Regulatory Compliance Unit), who undertake reactive freedom camping monitoring and enforcement activities in the off-season and manage the third-party enforcement contract.

· The external contractor, the staff of which undertake proactive freedom camping monitoring and enforcement activities over the summer season (Labour Weekend to ANZAC Weekend, October to April each year).

4.28 The reference to regular patrols implies that the question is about the external contractor. The external contractor reports to the Regulatory Compliance Unit following patrols. This includes noting instances that could be people experiencing homelessness. The Regulatory Compliance Unit shares this information with the Community Support and Partnerships Unit, which works closely with the City Mission.

6) Requests staff advice on the process for limiting the number of freedom campers at North Beach car park and Broadpark Road (similar to the Naval Point restriction)

4.29 Staff note this would require amendment to the Bylaw, and that Naval Point is not directly comparable to the city coastal area.

7) Requests staff advice confirming the rationale for amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw in Akaroa

4.30 The original report to the Council meeting of 8 November 2018 explains the rationale for the Akaroa Bylaw amendment.

4.31 If the Notice of Motion is resolved by the Council, advice regarding what would be required to make amendments at the North Beach car park and Broadpark Road would be included alongside Notice of Motion 1a.

8) Requests staff advice on a temporary ban on freedom camping at North Beach carpark and Broadpark Road

4.32 Staff are preparing advice for the Chief Executive on whether or not to exercise her powers under the Freedom Camping Bylaw to temporarily close an area to freedom camping, following the presentation of a petition to Council on 2 April 2025. This can be shared with Councillors once a decision is made. This advice has required input from Policy, Legal, Parks, Transport (Traffic Operations and Parking Compliance), and Regulatory Compliance.

9) Requests staff provide a summary of past freedom camping temporary bans and explain how they differ from the request for a temporary ban at North Beach carpark and Broadpark Road

4.33 If the Notice of Motion is resolved by the Council, this will require resource from Policy to compile the previous requests and outline the considerations that differ for a temporary closure at North Beach Car Park and Broadpark Road.

10) Requests staff advice on upgrading the Council website with relevant information and guidelines on freedom camping.

4.34 This section of the Notice of Motion has been declined by the Chief Executive and cannot proceed under Section 22.2(d) does not meet the requirements of the Local government Act 2002 in respect of decisions of the type sought by the notice of motion.

4.35 The website was last updated in November/December 2024 and includes all relevant information on guidelines and rules, including on recent changes to self-containment compliance. Staff would need further detail on what information Councillor Donovan feels is missing from the website.

Other Considerations (e.g. Risks, impacts on Mana Whenua, climate change, accessibility, Annual Plan/Long Term Plan implications)

4.36 There need to be clear grounds under the Freedom Camping Act to further restrict freedom camping, otherwise bylaw provisions could be challenged. It requires that the Council is satisfied that regulating with a bylaw is a reasonable and proportionate response to the identified problems. A number of other councils have had their freedom camping bylaws challenged and, in some cases, overturned through the courts.

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Officer Advice Provided by

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy and Resilience

Brent Smith – General Manager City Services

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory

Andrew Rutledge – General Manager Citizens and Community

Approved By

Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

[1] Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 enables a bylaw to be made if a council is satisfied that the bylaw is necessary to “protect an area, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and / or to protect access to an area”. A council must also be satisfied that a bylaw is “the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem”, and any bylaw must not be “inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990”. Legal challenges have been brought against freedom camping bylaws that have considered wider matters in their reasoning for regulating. See: Queenstown told its freedom camping rules are invalid | RNZ News (24 September 2024)

3.3 Annual Plan 2025/26
The following submitter spoke to the Council about the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.
	Kit Doudney (Deputy Chairperson) for Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust (Submission 723) Supporting document available at Attachment A
	Attachments a Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust - Supporting Document

9. Appointment of representative to attend Transwaste Canterbury Limited Annual General Meeting
	Committee Comment 1. Councillor Peters nominated himself as the Committee representative to attend and vote at the Transwaste Canterbury Limited AGM, and Councillor Robbie Brine as the alternate, which was Moved by Councillor Peters and Seconded by Councillor Brine and when put to the vote was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee: 1. Appoint [insert Councillor’s name] as the Committee representative to attend and vote at the Transwaste Canterbury Limited AGM on 28 November 2024. 2. Appoint [insert Councillor’s name] as an alternate, if the person appointed in recommendation 1 above is unable to attend.
	Joint Committee Resolved CRLC/2024/00009 Part C That the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee: 1. Appoint Councillor Mark Peters as the Committee representative to attend and vote at the Transwaste Canterbury Limited AGM on 28 November 2024. 2. Appoint Councillor Robbie Brine as an alternate, if the person appointed in recommendation 1 above is unable to attend. Councillor Peters/Councillor Brine Carried

8. Annual Budget Update for the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee
	Committee Comment 1. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Peters and Seconded by Councillor Brine which included incorporating a sentence for the purpose of clarification into Recommendation 4. 2. The Committee voted on Recommendations 1 to 5 as a block and when put to the vote were declared carried. *Secretarial note:* Subsequent to the meeting, Recommendation 2 was edited, maintaining the facts and intention, to read logically as a singular recommendation for the purpose of allowing the recommendation to be considered by each member Council for a final decision.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Report. 2. Recommends to member Councils that the pro rata contributions to the $112,000 waste minimisation projects contestable fund are updated, based on the 2023 census population data and the Q1 2024 CPI. 3. Consider the options presented for the future of the Regional Waste Projects Facilitator role, to continue progressing collaborative waste minimisation and management across the region. 4. Approve the option of a 1FTE permanent position, with a salary cap of $86,400 for the first year, to be advertised on the open market and employed by Christchurch City Council, with flexible working options across other member councils. 5. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Joint Committee Resolved CJWC/2024/00012 Part C That the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Report. 3. Considered the options presented for the future of the Regional Waste Projects Facilitator role, to continue progressing collaborative waste minimisation and management across the region. 4. Approves the appointment of a 1FTE permanent position, with a salary cap of $86,400 (cost-shared amongst the member authorities as per table 2 in the report) for the first year, to be advertised on the open market and employed by Christchurch City Council, with flexible working options across other member councils. 5. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Councillor Peters/Councillor Brine Carried

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813824	70
b ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813825	76
c ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813826	88
d ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813827	94
e ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813828	110
f ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report April 2025	25/813829	118

1. Organisation	2. Project Name	3. Amount Requested	4. Amount Recommended
Screen Edge Limited (Doc Edge)	Doc Edge International Documentary Festival 2025	$30,000	$0
Canty Mathematical Association Inc	Cantamath	$54,055	$0
New Zealand Opera	Additional support for New Zealand Opera’s 3-season Christchurch programme.	$32,000	$25,000

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 3 April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/774333
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Cathy Harlow, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

6. Council Minutes - 15 April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/775453
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Council Minutes - 16 April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/780643
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

8. Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 5 August 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/704536
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

9. Canterbury Waste Joint Committee Minutes - 5 August 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/704571
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/813367
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

15. Citywide Discretionary Response Fund Applications May 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/770243
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

19. Resource Recovery Unit Update - Q2 and Q3 FY25
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/423528
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Dr Alec McNeil, Manager Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

21. Notice of Motion - Micromobility parking
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/769367
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Harrison-Hunt
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

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
14.	The Ferrymead Trust - Citywide Discretionary Response Fund Application
	Attachment a - Independant Strategic Review Report	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	Attachment A contains an independent strategic review of the Ferrymead Heritage Park which contains commercially sensitive information about the Park’s operations. To disclose this information would prejudice the Park's ability to enter into other philanthropic and other business relationships which outweighs the public interest.	24 April 2026 One year after the Council's decision on this DRF application.
24.	Public Excluded Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 5 August 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
25.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 16 April 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
26.	Update on Contract Negotiations	s7(2)(i)	Conduct Negotiations	The report contains specific information pertaining to ongoing negotiations between Council and external parties, this outweighs the public interest as putting the information in the public domain could compromise the negotiations.	31 December 2026 With the approval of the Chief Executive. If applicable, the report or sections of the report will be released prior to the meeting and included in the open agenda.