Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 21 May 2025

5. Discretionary Response Fund Report - Canty Mathematical Association 21 May
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/908337
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor 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 for the Council to consider an application for funding from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Canty Mathematical Association Inc	Cantamath	$54,055	$0

1.2 This application is being brought back to the Council for consideration at its request with clarifying information included in this report and attachments.

1.3 There is currently a balance of $37,262 remaining in the fund.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund Report - Canty Mathematical Association 21 May 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. Declines the application to the 2024/25 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund from Canty Mathematical Association Inc towards Cantamath.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 The recommendations above are aligned with the Council's Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority to ‘Manage ratepayers’ money wisely’.

3.2 These projects align with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.3 The Council may determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community.

3.4 Allocations must be consistent with any Council-adopted policies, standards or criteria.

3.5 The Fund does not cover:

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

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

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

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

3.8 Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion Kōrerorero

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

Total Budget <Enter Year>	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$484,802	$388,174	$37,262	$37,262

3.10 $216,674 has been awarded from the 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to 36 organisations under the delegation of the Head of Community Support and Partnerships.

3.11 The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the Canty Mathematical Association’s application. This includes organisational details, project details, and financial information, as well as a staff assessment.

3.12 The recommendation to decline the application from Canty Mathematical Association is because the application is:

3.12.1 For a project in an area that is the primary responsibility of Central Government (education).

3.12.2 Not strongly aligned with Council funding objectives and is more closely suited to the goals of industry or education providers.

3.12.3 Not from a group that Council has historically funded, and who the Council has declined two previous funding applications (in 2012).

3.12.4 Different from other Council funded educational projects, as they have been where students would otherwise lack access to the particular subject matter. This is not applicable here, as mathematics is a core component of the national curriculum, and all students in New Zealand have access to it through the standard education system.

3.12.5 There is insufficient funding available to accommodate the request.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Decision Matrix - Canty Mathematical Association	25/908338	8

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Slaughter - City Safety Advisor

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

6. Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2024-2025 FY
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/370650
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Newey - Principal Policy Advisor Biodiversity Nicholas Head – Senior Ecologist Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report:

1.1.1 provides information on applications from groups and landowners for biodiversity funding to protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity on private land within our district, and

1.1.2 seeks a decision on the 19 applications to the fund.

1.2 Biodiversity funding supports the Council's statutory obligations to protect significant indigenous biodiversity on private land and empowers local communities to assist the Council in this task.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment, and the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2024-2025 FY 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 a total of $483,833 from the $496,049 2024/25 Christchurch Biodiversity Fund across the following 19 projects:

a.	$4,800	Lindsay Main Te Pōhue Banks Peninsula weed control
b.	$16,163	Craigforth Limited Pigeon Bay Matai forest fence replacement
c.	$10,000	Altonbrook Farm, French Farm Old Mans beard control
d.	$25,000	Paul Dahl, Purau fencing
e.	$16,000	Te Ahu Patiki Charitable Trust weed control
f.	$30,000	Styx Living Laboratory Trust weed control
g.	$27,600	QEII National Trust various covenants Banks Peninsula weed control
h.	$5,000	Banks Peninusla Conservation Trust, Stencliffe Farm Pigeon Bay weed control
i.	$20,000	Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust Kakanui Covenant Port Levy weed and pest control
j.	$65,960	Hollie Hollander Grehan Valley Residents weed control
k.	$20,000	Livings Springs Governors Bay weed and pest control
l.	$3,200	High Bare Peak Limited Little River weed control
m.	$14,350	Cool Temperate Ecology Ltd Robinsons Bay animal pest control
n.	$4,000	Little River Campground Ltd week control
o.	$60,000	Conservation Volunteers New Zealand Governors Bay animal pest control
p.	$45,000	Summit Road Society Linda Woods Reserve fencing, planting and weed control
q.	$26,760	Hidden Valley Conservation Trust, Purau rare plant survey and management.
r.	$60,000	Refuge Ecology Pahau Catchment weed control
s.	$30,000	Orton Bradley Park Board harbour front planting

4. Declines the application from Richmond Community Garden Trust.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 19 applications to the Biodiversity Fund have been recommended for approval. Funding these applications will provide considerable assistance to local landowners working to protect and restore the district’s significant and vulnerable ecosystems and species.

3.2 For this 2024/25 funding round, funding applications amounted to $651,368, however staff are recommending funding to the amount of $483,833.

3.3 Adoption of this recommendation would mean the fund is under allocated for the 2024/25 financial year by $12,216. The funding contribution, together with applicant-matched funding and funding in kind from volunteers, far exceeds grant contributions. The total funding is a considerable investment in projects that protect and enhance our local biodiversity.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Halting the decline of indigenous biodiversity is a matter of national importance, and a core statutory function of District Councils. The Christchurch district comprises a diverse assemblage of ecosystems that support internationally and nationally important habitats for wildlife, as well as population strongholds for numerous threatened and rare species. Most remnant ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity occurs on private land in the district.

4.2 The Biodiversity Fund supports landowners working to protect ecologically significant sites on their land. The fund is a tool established to both support landowners with Significant Ecological Sites (SES) on their property and as an implementation tool for the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy. The Council can provide funding for eligible projects on private land matched with a similar in-kind contribution by the grant recipient. Up to $496,049 is available for allocation this year.

4.3 Funding supports a partnership approach with landowners or groups. The fund criteria requires the work to be based on private land, and for landowners or groups carrying out the work to be contributing in a “like for like” context through volunteer labour and/or materials.

4.4 The Fund is an opportunity to support private landowners taking voluntary action, and investing their own time and money, to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on their properties. The projects provide real protection for biodiversity in the Christchurch District through empowering locals and local communities to take direct action.

4.5 Since the fund was established in 2017, more than $2,000,000 has been allocated to projects (excluding the current applications). Previous projects involved fencing, restoration planting, pest plant control and pest mammal control. Some projects involve multiple activities.

4.6 Over 2000 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation has been protected, along with the indigenous fauna that live in those habitats. Many projects have also protected streams and important waterways.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.8 Option one is to approve applications as recommended by staff, noting those applications staff have recommended either partially funding or declining referred to in 4.9 and 4.10.

4.9 Option two is to not fund projects which do not meet the fund criteria. Staff have recommended one application, from the Richmond Community Garden Trust, falls into this category. The proposed project, to carry out animal pest control, planting and community engagement along the Ōtākaro River Corridor, is both within Council managed land and the site is not of significant ecological value, thereby not meeting the majority of Biodiversity Fund criteria.

4.10 Option three is to part fund projects. This option has been recommended for the following applications based on staff assessment against fund criteria and alignment with previous funding allocated to applicants:

4.10.1 Living Springs – an application for a Conservation Ranger position at Living Springs to maintain tracks and carry out weed and pest control along with equipment and spray/bait to carry out the work. Living Springs were provided funding from the 23/24 Biodiversity Fund round to fund a Conservation Ranger role. Conditions placed on that funding included it being time bound to 23/24 with no future funding for staff positions. Given that the site is part of a high value mosaic of ecological values and restoration sites on the southern Port Hills and meets national priorities for conservation, staff consider it appropriate to fund the pest and weed control materials needed to carry out work on site but not the staff/ranger component.

4.10.2 Summit Road Society – an application for funds to support fencing, planting and weed control in Linda Woods Reserve, Horotane Valley. The project is seeking 67% of the estimated costs which is higher than the 50% threshold set in the fund criteria. Staff consider it appropriate to fund 50% of the estimated costs, in line with fund criteria.

4.10.3 Orton Bradley Park Board - an application for harbour front planting and associated maintenance to protect foreshore features and an adjacent wetland/stream mouth. The application is for 97% of project costs which does not fit with fund criteria. The site is not of high biodiversity value when compared to other projects applied for, however it does build on previous planting carried out in the adjacent Te Wharau stream which was funded from the Council’s Sustainability Fund. To protect previous investments and support planting in the associated wetland staff are recommending a partial grant for plant propagation and ongoing plant maintenance.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 Applications are assessed by a cross-Council panel of staff and prioritised accordingly. Three primary criteria are used to determine applications’ eligibility:

1: must be private land

2: the site has significant ecological values

3: the site has some form of enduring protection, meaning there is work happening toward enduring protection; or for landscape scale projects there is sufficient governance/experience/expertise in place that staff are satisfied projects will be managed appropriately.

4.12 In addition to these primary criteria, applicants were required to contribute 50% of the cost of the project, either “in kind” through their or others voluntary actions or donation of goods and services.

4.13 To determine relative priority of applications, further consideration was given to the national priorities for protecting indigenous biodiversity on private land, which provides a useful context to compare relative merits of applications if required.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	None other than staff time to administer the fund
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None other than staff time to administer the fund
Funding Source	The Fund is provided for in the 2023-2034 Long Term Plan
Funding Availability	Available for allocation
Impact on Rates	Minor

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks associated with allocating funds to the projects as outlined. Checks and balances are in place to ensure the funding granted to projects is spent in accordance with the project plan and meets expectations, including progress reports, proof of completions and inspections if necessary. Staff time in relation to this is an inherent part of overseeing the fund.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council has the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

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 aligns with the Green and Livable City community outcome “Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy.” by supporting individual landowners to protect and enhance biodiversity on private land.

6.5 The decision is consistent with Council Plans and Policies. The programme aligns with the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, supporting implementation of Goal 1 “Conserve and restore Christchurch’s and Banks Peninsula’s indigenous biodiversity” and Goal 3 “Encourage widespread participation in support of indigenous biodiversity conservation.” To assist with implementation, staff work with Environment Canterbury and covenanting agencies to ensure that projects have adequate support and that our combined resources are efficiently allocated.

6.6 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

6.7 The programme aligns with District Plan policies regarding the protection of ecologically significant sites, and the provision of advice and incentives for landowners who wish to do this on private property.

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

6.9 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.9.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 The community is very supportive of the Council contributing funds to assist with conservation on private land. Several submissions were made by community groups and individuals to the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 requesting that the Council increase the annual allocation to the Biodiversity Fund. As a result, the fund was increased to $400,000 and further to $500,000 for the 24/25 year - an outcome consistent with the Council declaring an ecological and climate emergency.

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

· Te Pātaka o Rākiahautū Banks Peninsula

· Waihoro-Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

· Waitai Coastal Burwood Linwood

6.12 The Community Boards will be advised of the funding decisions once made.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water but does involve indigenous species and ecosystems that have intrinsic values. Therefore, this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. Staff note, however, that the intent of all projects is to have a positive impact on indigenous biodiversity.

6.14 While matters of indigenous biodiversity are of interest to Mana Whenua, this specific decision to allocate funding to enhance biodiversity will not impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The decisions in this report are likely to contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Most of the projects provide protection and enhancement to regenerating vegetative habitats, which will boost the carbon sequestration capacity of these areas. Protecting and enhancing the ecological health of sites will improve the resilience of the district’s habitats and species within them to the impacts of climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The Council approves the report with successful applicants being informed and set up as vendors. Funds will then be allocated so projects can commence.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Biodiversity Fund Matrix 24/25	25/864316	18
b ⇩	Biodiversity Fund applications 24/25 technical summary	25/864329	38

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Dave Newey - Principal Advisor Policy - Biodiversity

Nicholas Head - Senior Ecologist

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

7. St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/667093
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation Safety
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 For the Council to approve the layout changes at the Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street intersection as detailed in Attachment A to this report.

1.2 The report has been written in response to community requests for changes to the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue, and for a right turn green arrow to be provided for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street (east).

1.3 Staff are undertaking a full upgrade of the traffic signals at this intersection including underground cables, new signal poles and lanterns, as critical assets are at the end of their working life and in need of replacement.

1.4 The recommended option is to therefore combine the following improvements while completing the traffic signal upgrade:

1.4.1 Improve the intersection for people crossing by changing the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue to allow people to cross in two stages.

1.4.2 Improve safety for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street, by introducing a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (south).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements 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, pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. All kerb alignments, traffic islands and road markings changes on Fitzgerald Avenue and St Asaph Street as detailed in Attachment A of this report.

b. Changes to traffic signal phasing to allow for the control of right turn movements from Fitz into St Asaph.

4. Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street (east), commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

5. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

6. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in Recommendations 4 and 5 above.

7. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in Recommendations 1 to 6 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A full upgrade of the traffic signals is required at this site as critical assets are at the end of their working life. There is therefore an opportunity to include improvements as part of this project.

3.2 Staff have received requests from the community to improve safety for people crossing Fitzgerald Avenue, in addition to improving safety for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue (south) into St Asaph Street (east).

3.3 As this intersection is within the Part A area of the central city the decision with regard to any changes is a Council decision.

3.4 Engagement has been undertaken with local residents and businesses, and with Blind/Low Vision New Zealand. Following this consultation, staff are recommending the improvements proceed alongside the asset renewal project.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The intersection of Fitzgerald Avenue and St Asaph Street is controlled by traffic signals. The intersection is a busy location used by many people travelling to school or work, accessing the Central City and moving across the community. Whether people are travelling through this intersection on foot, by bicycle, by bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely.

4.2 There are existing pedestrian crossings on each leg of the Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street intersection, however the crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue are particularly long. A ticket has recently been received by Blind Low Vision NZ, who have a blind client using the north side of Fitzgerald Avenue and he feels vulnerable when crossing. This is due to the right turners from the St Asaph Street east approach turning into Fitzgerald Avenue heading north and having vehicles moving both behind and in front of the person when crossing. One other ticket has also been received recently by a pedestrian who was unable to complete the crossing fully before traffic proceeded on a green.

4.3 A request was also received from a local business for a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (south) into St Asaph Street (east).

4.4 There have been 15 recorded crashes within the five-year period from 2020-2024 at this intersection. Of the 15 crashes:

4.4.1 Nine crashes involved people travelling westbound through the intersection and being hit by drivers travelling through red lights on Fitzgerald Avenue. Four involved southbound drivers, and five involved northbound drivers. On one occasion a cyclist was hit by one of the northbound drivers. The remainder were vehicle to vehicle crashes.

4.4.2 Three crashes involved drivers turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street and have failed to give-way to drivers travelling through on Fitzgerald Avenue. Two crashes occurred from Fitzgerald Avenue (n) and one from Fitzgerald Avenue (s).

4.4.3 Two crashes were a result of a rear end collision. One occurred when a driver braked for an orange light and has been hit by a trailing driver as the driver was unable to react quick enough. The other involved a driver falling asleep at the wheel.

4.4.4 One crash involved a vehicle overtaking a moped and hitting the moped.

4.5 As a result of the feedback received, and a review of the crashes it is proposed to:

4.5.1 Rationalise the number of poles around the intersection by providing joint use signal poles.

4.5.2 Introduce staggered pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue to allow people to cross in two stages.

4.5.3 Introduce a small section of cycle lane on St Asaph Street (east) for people travelling westbound by bicycle on St Asaph Street, and advanced stop boxes on Fitzgerald Avenue.

4.5.4 Introduce a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue south, which would operate at the same time as the existing right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (north). This will make it safer and easier for people turning right. Currently right turning traffic must cross over or “filter” through three opposing through vehicle lanes, and visibility for right turners is restricted as the right turn bays are offset, which can make it difficult for drivers to see around an opposing vehicle waiting to turn right. Right turn movements would be “fully protected” and only permitted when a green arrow is provided. This treatment has been implemented at several other intersections on the Four Avenues.

Currently right turning vehicles from the south must give-way to three southbound lanes, while trying to see around right turning vehicles from the north

4.6 The diagram below shows how the intersection operation would change.

A diagram of a phase

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Existing traffic signal phasing with right turning movements filtering through traffic (shown as dashed lines)

Proposed traffic signal phasing with protected right turns

4.7 The changes to the signal phasing are to improve safety and operational capability as there is an ability to control this approach more effectively. There will be a level of service change for southbound drivers, while they must wait for the right turn movements to be completed. After commissioning, the site will be monitored for six months by the Real Time Operations team, to ensure that the best traffic flow optimisation is found.

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

Date	Subject
31/03/2025	Memo to Mayor and Councillors, and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street Traffic Signal Renewal

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Proposed (Preferred) option

4.9.2 Option 2: Do minimum. Add right turn green phase only.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Improve safety for people walking and driving.

4.10.1 Option Description: Implement staggered crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue and a right turn green phase from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street (east).

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Improves crossings for people walking, particularly people who are low/blind vision or people who need more time to cross the road.

· Completing this work when the traffic signals are being renewed will save costs for the Council to undertake this work together.

· Introduces a right turn green arrow for drivers turning from Fitzgerald Avenue (south), making it safer for people completing this movement.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Additional costs when completing the traffic signal renewals.

4.11 Option two: Do minimum. Add right turn green phase only.

4.11.1 Option Description: Provide no changes to the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue while completing the signals renewal.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· No additional costs to the project.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not achieve any benefits for people walking and crossing the road.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Signal renewal only
Cost to Implement	$ 730k	$624k
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance and traffic signals maintenance contract. Would reduce the cost of maintenance in the medium-term due to new assets being provided.	To be covered under the roading maintenance and traffic signals maintenance contract. Would reduce the cost of maintenance in the medium-term due to new assets being provided.
Funding Source	#37293 Delivery Package - Traffic Signals Renewals #50462 Delivery Package – Minor Road Safety	#37293 Delivery Package - Traffic Signals Renewals
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above-named budget.	Funding available in the above-named budget.
Impact on Rates	None	None

5.1 These are estimated costs and not tendered prices.

5.2 The traffic signals require renewal at this site, as the cables are at the end of their working life. As part of the traffic signal renewal, it is proposed to undertake further improvements.

5.3 The pedestrian crossing improvements are to be funded through the Minor Road Safety programme. While not one of the projects on the original list of projects in the programme that was circulated to Community Boards, there would be significant cost savings to Council, particularly around Temporary Traffic Management etc to undertake this work at the same time as the traffic signal renewal.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that people may continue to feel unsafe while crossing if the proposed changes are not approved. Completing this work alongside the traffic signal renewal project reduces cost and risk to Council and impact on the local community.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The intersection is located within the Central City Area marked on Plan A area and therefore reports on these matters must go to the Council to determine.

Local Government Act 1974

6.2.2 Section 331 provides authority to approve concept plans for forming or upgrading footpath, kerbs and channels.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and Community Outcomes. Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes, in particular to be an inclusive and equitable city; build trust and confidence by listening to and working with our residents; and providing safe crossing points for people who walk and cycle will contribute to a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected.

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 the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

6.4.3 The recommended option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:

· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.

· The changes made align with the safe and healthy streets for everyone goal in the draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy 2024-2054.

· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <100 crashes per year

· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <=12 crashes per 100,000 residents

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The proposed option was sent to the property owners and businesses around the intersection. In total 43 letters were delivered by person, and six where set via mail where there was empty property or construction being undertaken.

6.8 Two responses were received from businesses located at the intersection. The submitters were in favour of the proposal.

6.9 The plans were also sent to Blind Low Vision NZ, and this was followed by a meeting. As a result of the meeting, changes were made to the alignment of the crosswalks for ease of use for people who are blind or have low vision.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 This is a minor proposal that is principally intended to improve accessibility and safety for people crossing the road and turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue (south).

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will proceed with construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements	25/823137	83

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Jann Kuhlmann - Team Leader Real Time Operations

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

8. South Express MCR - Revised Tree Removal
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/426556
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha Wells, Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report refers to the section of the South Express Cycleway (Section 1) from the intersection of Waterloo Road and Barters Road, through to Jones Road where the shared path connects with that built by Selwyn District Council.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for some minor changes to previous resolutions. These affect the alignment of the shared path along Railway Terrace, and removal of additional trees.

1.3 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the South Express MCR - Revised Tree Removal 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 removal of the following trees as assessed in the 2024 Tree Removals Report (Attachment A to this report) and as detailed in Attachment B to this report:

a. 103175 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #22.

b. 103178 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

c. 103180 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

d. 136460 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #628.

e. 136464 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #1 Kissel Street.

f. 136465 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, opposite the intersection with Kissell Street.

g. 136466 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #2 Kissell Street.

h. 136467 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #2 Kissell Street

i. 136468 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #622.

j. 136469 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #620.

k. 136472 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #620.

l. 136470 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #618.

m. 136471 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #618.

4. Approves the minor realignment of the shared path along Railway Terrace as showing in Attachment B to this report, noting this supports the tree assessment provided in the 2024 Tree Removals Report (Attachment A).

5. Contingent upon the Council’s approval of Recommendation 4 above, revokes in part, the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s 2019 resolution (ITEC/2019/00022) to remove the following trees and instead approves their retention:

a. 103135 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

b. 103128 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #4.

6. Contingent upon the Council’s approval of Recommendation 4 above, approves the following tree removals as detailed in Attachment B of this report:

a. 103181 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #1/18

b. 103134 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #16

c. 103133 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #16

7. Approves the removal of roadside vegetation (non-listed trees) required for the construction of the South Express Cycleway as identified in Attachment B to this report.

8. Notes that for every listed tree removed in the construction of the South Express Cycleway, a minimum of two new trees will be planted in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Tree Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) approved the scheme design for the South Express Cycleway in July 2019.

3.1.1 The shared path design in Templeton was based on topographic survey data, site walk over and the Council’s tree protection plan (since updated). The Scheme Design in 2019 did not include all the trees now identified for removal.

3.1.2 An updated arborist assessment was completed in 2024 in preparation for tender documentation.

3.2 Due to the condition assessment of many of the trees, a minor path realignment was proposed along Railway Terrace.

3.2.1 This will require the removal of three (3) additional trees not previously identified in the 2019 approved scheme.

3.2.2 Many of these trees provide little canopy cover. The proposed realignment would retain more well-established trees that otherwise would have been removed.

3.3 The assessment also identified ten (10) additional trees requiring removal along Waterloo Road and a further three (3) trees along Railway Terrace.

3.3.1 Regarding the trees along Waterloo Road, these have been assessed as having not shown optimal growth likely as a result of their location and may also impact on the function of the swale drain.

3.3.2 Regarding the trees along Railway Terrace, these were inadvertently left out of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s list of trees requiring removal and still require a Council decision to remove.

3.4 Based on the above, the staff recommendation is to approve minor amendments to the width and alignment of the path, and the removal of sixteen (16) additional trees.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 The Puari ki Niho-toto South Express Major Cycle Route is one of the 13 Major Cycle Routes approved by Council. When complete, it will provide a safe route between the city centre and Templeton, and beyond.

4.2 Staff provided a Memo to Elected Members in April 2025 that provided an update on the project, and information that has led to this change. That is provided as Attachment C.

Tree Assessment

4.3 During the preparation of the tender documentation for the Templeton package of works, the trees were reassessed so that the extent and scope of the works required could be communicated to tenderers (refer Attachment A). This assessment identified that some trees in this location provide significantly less canopy cover than other nearby trees and proposed removing these and retaining the trees with larger canopies.

4.4 A proposed minor re-alignment of the path was developed along Railway Terrace to retain and protect the larger and healthier trees. This will result in the removal of three smaller and/or less healthy trees.

4.4.1 The proposed plan narrows the shared path along a 60m section of Railway Terrace from 4m to 3m. The 3m width of the path is consistent with adjacent sections of this route.

4.4.2 The proposed re-design also creates a tighter bend by the intersection of Kirk Road and Railway Terrace. This is not without precedent across the MCR network (examples include around Little River Link MCR at Church Square; or Northern Line MCR around Restell Street).

4.5 There are ten trees along Waterloo Road that have been assessed as having not shown optimal growth so are proposed for removal.

4.5.1 Some of these will also sit in the swale alongside the shared path so removal will reduce the risk of an impact on the way the drainage operates in this area.

4.6 As per Christchurch City Council’s tree policy, each tree removed will be replaced with at least two trees. The Parks team have requested that as many trees as can fit be planted in the nearby Railway Terrace Reserve with any excess trees to be planted in the western end of Kyle Park, keeping all replacement trees within the local area.

4.7 The changes proposed are similar in cost to the approved design, however, there is likely to be a small increase for replanting trees at a two-to-one ratio in line with Council policy.

Next Steps

4.8 Following approval of the resolutions, the construction tender documents will be finalised.

4.8.1 Staff are aiming to appoint a contractor in time to start work in Spring 2025.

4.8.2 Staff are also investigating some condition-related issues on Railway Terrace, such as the removal of deep-dish channel on the north side of Railway Terrace. While this would be funded from renewals, incorporation into the South Express construction contract would likely realise cost efficiencies and minimise impacts on the local community. These were described in more detail in the Memo of April 2025, and supplied here as Attachment C.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Minor amendments to the shared path alignment.

4.9.2 Retain the previously approved shared path.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Minor amendments to the shared path alignment.

4.10.1 Option Description: Minor realignment and narrowing of the shared path along Railway Terrace which will require the removal of three trees to retain healthier trees with good canopy cover, plus the removal of another ten trees along Waterloo Road.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Trees with healthier, larger canopy will be retained

· Lower chance of drainage issues or increased associated maintenance

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Slight increase in cost for additional tree re-planting in line with Council policy

· A re-assessment of street lighting will be required to confirm the location of light poles still provides the appropriate level of illumination.

· The shared path will be slightly narrowed across a length of approximately 60 meters, and the radius of the corner at the intersection of Kirk Road and Railway Terrace will be decreased.

4.11 Alternative Option: Retain the previously approved share path.

4.11.1 Option Description: Not approve the realignment and narrowing, thereby instructing staff to construct the previously approved shared path, with tree removal as required.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· The risk of potential for further delays is minimised as no change to the design.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are additional trees which will require approval for removal to allow construction to progress.

· Healthy and mature trees will be removed.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 The preferred option is to amend the design, for the following reasons:

· Would retain existing tree canopy cover and healthy trees

· Would reduce potential drainage issues along Waterloo Road

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Alternative Option
Cost to Implement	$6,171,311	$6,155,311
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Likely reduced due to removal of trees within the swale	No change from approved design
Funding Source	Shovel Ready + CAPEX (26608 South Express Section 1)	Shovel Ready + CAPEX (26608 South Express Section 1)
Funding Availability	$17,147,361*	$17,147,361*
Impact on Rates	No addiional impact on rates as this budget is already included in the draft Annual Plan 25/26	No further impact on rates as this budget is already included in the draft Annual Plan 25/26

* This budget is for all three outstanding packages of work within the South Express Section 1 (Hei Hei to Jones Road) – Tranche a.) Kyle Park to Finsbury Terrace including the Parker Street level crossing; Tranche b.) Finsbury Terrace to Halswell Junction Road roundabout; Tranche c.) Halswell Junction Road roundabout to Templeton.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Shared path width and radius: the proposed design changes are consistent with the adjacent sections of the route.

6.2 Damage to tree roots during, and as a result of, construction is a known risk. This will be mitigated by:

· Being pessimistic regarding the number of trees requested for removal. Trees will be assessed on site during construction and will be retained if it is deemed safe to do so for the tree.

· The tender analysis will assess contractors’ construction methodology and experience, to ensure that the selected contractor is capable of delivering the works to standards required to protect the trees..

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Council has retained the delegation for all Major Cycle Routes in the City.

6.4 This report has been reviewed by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking among the mainstream traffic.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined on the basis that all the delivery decisions have been previously made, and this report seeks an amendment to that decision.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=37% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.08 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.2.1 Increasing tree canopy in Parks - A net increase in total number of trees is achieved (1:2 replacement policy), with a minimum of 50% of the trees being medium to very large species .

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 This decision report requests listed trees to be removed to make way for construction of the South Express cycleway. Given the low significance of the decision no additional engagement with the community has taken place.

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

6.10.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

6.11 The Community Board has been advised of the changes proposed and the rationale via memo (Attachment C).

6.12 It is acknowledged that the scale of the changes are of a local scale, however the MCR programme as a whole is listed as metropolitan significance. Therefore, the decision for any changes is a Council decision.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.15.1 Contribute neutrally to the impacts of climate change.

6.16 For each tree removed, two replacement trees will be planted within the project site as per the Council’s Tree Policy.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Complete the procurement process and commence construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Tree Removals Report 2024	25/929765	92
b ⇩	South Express - Templeton - Tree removal and path alignment markup	25/332746	106
c ⇩	South Express MCR: Minor design and tree removal changes	25/550009	109

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Natasha Wells - Project Manager

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

9. Abandoned Trolley Recovery
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/753152
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tania Lees, Team Leader Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Council on the following investigations:

1.1.1 Findings from the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 where abandoned shopping trolleys were included.

1.1.2 What regulatory and non–regulatory options are available to the Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys.

1.1.3 The options of distance and time limits around trolley usage.

1.2 This report was requested by Council on 11/12/24 following the presentation of a staff generated report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Abandoned Trolley Recovery Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Across Christchurch, some shopping trolleys are removed from the premises where they are provided and subsequently abandoned.

3.2 Abandoned shopping trolleys are generally reported via Snap, Send, Solve and directed to the retailer who owns the trolley, for collection.

3.3 Retailers have different systems in place to manage the asset retrieval including:

3.3.1 Planned collection, where a service is provided to recover the trolleys on a regular basis from across the city.

3.3.2 Reactive collection in response to public reports which involves a combination of internal retailer staff or recovery contractors.

3.4 Shopping trolleys are valued at around $700 per unit.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Findings from the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019

4.1 The Auckland Council Bylaw has included a clause related to abandoned shopping trolleys since 2012. To date, there are no processes or resources in place to directly implement this clause.

4.2 In 2014, the New Zealand Retailers Association collaborated with Auckland Council to establish an Industry Accord: Code of Practice for the Management of shopping trolleys (Attachment A). The Accord only applied to the Auckland region and has since expired.

What regulatory and non – regulatory options are available to the Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys.

4.3 The regulatory option is to update the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw with a clause specific to Shopping Trolley retrieval and create a process with sufficient resources to enforce the process.

4.4 The non-regulatory option is to work with the New Zealand Retailers Association to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (modern form of an Accord) for the Management of shopping trolleys.

4.5 The Memorandum of Understanding would acknowledge that managing the theft and abandonment of shopping trolleys requires a multi-party solution. This would provide a collaborative approach to develop systems for trolley management, including preventive measures and the collection and return to stores of abandoned trolleys.

4.6 Regular meetings would be held between the New Zealand Retailers Association, Council and representatives from the retail industry to discuss progress, identify areas of improvement and share best practice.

4.7 Where stores had difficulty in responding to abandoned trolley incidents, options would be discussed and action plans and interventions identified and agreed.

The options of distance and time limits around trolley usage.

4.8 Trolley coin deposit locks work by the trolley being unlocked when a coin is inserted, with the coin being returned to the user once the trolley is returned to the designated storage area. This system can be easily overridden by inserting an item like a coin e.g. the back of a key into the slot, and can be frustrating for the user who does not have an appropriate coin available and may not deter a user from not returning the trolley if the financial loss is not significant.

4.9 Trolley wheel locks are designed to make the trolley unmoveable as they exit the store's premises. Magnetic rails for the trigger system are fitted in the ground at the points at which the trolley is not permitted to pass. The advice provided by the supermarkets where these have been installed is that users continue to push the trolleys once the locks have been engaged which breaks the wheels making the trolley unusable for future use.

Proposed Action

4.10 Council Staff will work with the New Zealand Retailers Association to explore the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (modern form of an Accord) with local retailers which would provide a formal platform to work with the retailers on the abandoned shopping trolley issue.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	NZRA Industry Accord - Auckland Council Signed	25/811397	118

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Tania Lees - Contract Supervisor Resource Recovery

Approved By

Alec McNeil - Manager Resource Recovery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

12. Planning and Consents Unit Update - October 2024 to March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2343678
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning and Consents
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the activities of the Planning and Consents unit for the period from 1 October 2024 to 31 March 2025. This is in accordance with the Council’s decision of 21 February 2024 (Resolution CNCL/2024/000012) and follows the first update of the Planning and Consents unit in November 2024.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Planning and Consents Unit Update - October 2024 to March 2025 Report.

3. Programmes / Projects Update

Overview

3.1 The Strategic Planning and Resource Consents Activity Plan^{^[1]} notes that “This activity helps shape the future of our city through its strategic and regulatory functions”. In this context, the Planning and Consents unit play a significant role in the city’s development and growth while supporting the protection and maintenance of what our communities value.

3.2 Our strategic planning, urban regeneration, urban design, heritage, and transport work impacts many aspects of the Council’s activities and has implications for how and where the city grows, and how people live and move around. It provides the strategic direction for the Council’s operational activities and supports Christchurch to become a greener and more liveable city through ensuring that our neighbourhoods and communities are well planned for and can adapt and respond to challenges.

3.3 Planning that is carried out in shaping the future of the city occurs at all scales from the sub-regional and city-wide context to planning of areas, neighbourhoods and individual sites. In doing so, the integration of land use and transport to achieve the outcomes agreed with our communities is facilitated.

3.4 The Planning and Consents unit has a role in leadership of significant programmes of work including District Plan changes, local area planning to deliver on the frameworks of the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan and Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme while continuing to plan for and support investment in place making and the regeneration of urban spaces.

3.5 The unit also plays a key role in engaging with mana whenua, stakeholders and preparing submissions and providing feedback to Council projects as well as facilitating better outcomes through participation in a range of forums.

3.6 At a site scale, the Council’s regulatory functions under the Resource Management Act are performed by the Planning and Consents unit from early advice to applicants, the processing of applications through to implementation to ensure that resource consent conditions are complied with. In doing so, the resource consents unit makes decisions on applications to manage the effects of activities while the Resource Management Compliance team pro-actively manage the compliance of consent holders to avoid adverse effects on the surrounding environment.

3.7 The District Plan provides a framework for decision making on resource consent applications with specialist input to shape the outcomes proposed for individual sites, including from the Heritage and Urban Design teams. Through early advice and discussions with applicants, the Council seeks to achieve a high standard for developments and realise opportunities for creating good neighbourhoods and healthy environments.

3.8 The unit also plays a significant role in providing advice and input to projects led by other parts of the Council. This includes programmes and projects that benefit from strategic planning, design, expertise and guidance to inform better outcomes. Some of these projects are defined in this report.

3.9 The unit is made up of the following teams: City Planning, Strategic Transport, Urban Regeneration, Urban Design, Heritage, Resource Consents, Resource Consent compliance, Planning and Consents support and Case Management.

3.10 As is outlined in this report, there are emerging issues as well as opportunities for how we achieve the outcomes sought including:

3.10.1 Reform of the resource management and transport systems with significant change to how the Council goes about its planning. This will influence the programmes of work of the unit and Council staff will actively seek to participate and provide input to system changes.

3.10.2 A changing urban environment that has seen significant levels of development in existing urban areas that can support improved outcomes for the city while also impacting on what has been valued such as character and heritage. With changing government direction, there is also anticipated to be greater pressure on the urban rural fringe for development. It is important that growth is enabled while continuing to protect resources including productive land, areas identified as significant for their cultural, landscape and biodiversity values, and support the ongoing operation and development of strategic infrastructure.

3.10.3 The need to adapt to risks presented by climate change through planning for hazards. This is through the plan change programme while also contributing to the work of other teams, particularly the Strategic Policy and Resilience unit.

Local Area Planning

3.11 Updates on recent progress for local area planning priority locations are noted below, ordered by location with reference to the phasing agreed in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme as approved by the Council on 6 November 2024.

3.12 Separate reports provide an annual cross-agency ‘round up’ and commentary on progress for Central City and suburban regeneration activities. The most recent Central City and suburban regeneration reports were presented to the Council on 21 August 2024 and 19 March 2025 respectively.

Central City

3.13 Land purchase investigations are underway to support development of the mid-block green links anticipated by the South-East Central neighbourhood plan.

3.14 An ‘identity-building’ project for the St Asaph Street block was completed, via a series of Neat Places articles, reels and posts, along with incorporation into a pocket guide for Christchurch. This had a total reach to an audience of 150,000 – see Insider’s Guide to Christchurch’s St Asaph Block. Business feedback included: “We definitely had an increase in followers following the Neat Places piece…”

3.15 This work supplements the completed webpages known as Sound in the Central City as part of both the Central City Noise programme and implementing the South East Central Neighbourhood Plan.

3.16 Enliven Places Programme support has included the following projects:

· The Cashel/Clarkson project was completed in January – Makeover for industrial Cashel Street : Newsline

· A concept plan for an upgrade to Welles Street has been prepared. Targeted consultation will commence shortly.

· The ‘gobo’ footpath projector lights, currently sprinkled through the Central City, are in the process of being reimagined. These will be clustered in High Street to provide increased impact and highlight a key pedestrian connection to One New Zealnd Stadium at Te Kaha. These projectors will include a new design theme to highlight the street’s use as a key transport corridor through history and will be installed this coming winter.

· Catenary lighting has been installed on Guthrey Lane to reinforce laneway connections between Riverside and Ballantynes.

3.17 Staff have started evaluating the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan with a view to looking ahead and considering ‘what’s next’ for the Central City.

Suburban priority master plans (Lyttelton, Sydenham, Linwood Village, New Brighton) - implementation

3.18 The Urban Regeneration Biannual Report (Suburban) was presented to the Council very recently. The only further updates for these four centres is to note:

· A temporary pedestrian walkway across 56 Brighton Mall has been created, for use and activation by the community until such time as the Oram Ave extension proceeds.

· A ‘Stanmore Block Party’ community event was supported in Linwood Village on 12 April. This activated the vacant site recently upgraded through the Enliven Places Programme and was co-hosted by Youth and Cultural Development, Euphoria Dance Studio and Stanmore Block. See photos and more about the event here.

· A mural is underway on the Eco Frame & Mirror building in Sydenham, via the Enliven Places Programme.

Linwood (Eastern Regeneration Priority Area – Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan)

3.19 As identified in an urban regeneration biannual report to Council on 19 March 2025, work has commenced on identifying opportunities to support the regeneration of Linwood, aligned to the broader programme of work known as ‘Weaving the East’. This approach was discussed with the Community Boards in November 2024 and an update will be reported at a future date.

Other ŌCPP priority locations

3.20 Tranche 2 of the ŌCPP also identifies work in the western corridor. This will focus on Hornby in the first instance. Staff will provide further information to elected members in due course, once a local area planning approach to this locality has been prepared.

Urban Regeneration

3.21 In addition to the work noted under ‘Local Area Planning’ above, other mahi has progressed, including:

· Identification of land use options for the BP Meats site, Akaroa (support for the Property Team).

· Enliven Places Programme investigations into: uplighting trees in Cathedral Square; and supporting the planned Tuam St upgrade with additional trees (between Barbadoes Street and Fitzgerald Avenue).

· Updates to the Central City progress dashboard Tracking the progress of our Central City.

· Support for the community review of its Little River Big Ideas community plan.

· Investigations into use of a small capital budget available for Edgeware Village streetscape improvements.

· Letters and advice to owners of vacant sites that are provisionally liable for the City Vacant Differential rate in FY25-26.

Strategic Transport

3.22 The adoption of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy at the 19 March 2025 Council meeting represented a significant milestone in the Strategic Transport work programme. Following the integration of changes to the strategy to reflect the Council’s decision and sign-off on these changes, the focus will turn to the preparation of an implementation plan. A core purpose for this plan will be to support Councillor decision-making in the lead-up to the next LTP.

3.23 Other substantive aspects to the work programme underway include:

· Transitioning the Mass Rapid Transport project leadership from NZTA to CCC and establishing the work programme for the next phase of route protection.

· Participating in work to establish the NZTA Hornby and Airport surrounds scoping study.

· Establishing a more integrated joint programme of work with ECan to deliver the next tranche of the PT Futures programme.

· Preparing the Council submission on the Land Transport Management Act – Time of Use Charging Bill amendment; and

· Undertaking preliminary work on the proposed Central City Shuttle scoping study to support Annual Plan decision-making processes.

Heritage

Heritage Festival

3.24 The Christchurch Heritage Festival 2025 will occur from the 11^th to the 27^th October 2025. The Christchurch Heritage Festival is an opportunity to share the stories of the past that link us to this place. He tātai muka, he tātai tangata – weave together the strands, weave together the people. This festival is still being planned but information is available on the link included here along with a summary of last year’s Festival. The Christchurch Heritage Festival : Christchurch City Council. The proposed theme this year will be ‘Building Place – evolving communities’ based around anniversaries connected with the foundation of the city of Ōtautahi-Christchurch and the Waitaha-Canterbury region.

Heritage Resource Consent Advice

3.25 Heritage staff have worked with the owners of properties on specific proposals before they are lodged for resource consent to provide for conservation outcomes. Heritage staff also continue to monitor conditions of resource consents for scheduled buildings and items such as protection of heritage fabric during the works and the provision of photographic records.

Contribution to the Royal Commission on Abuse in Care

3.26 Heritage staff have supported the Council working party implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care on the identification and recognition of those who died in care and who are buried in unmarked graves in Council cemeteries.

Staff Submission – HNZPT Statements of General Policy

3.27 The Heritage Team lodged a staff submission on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Statements of General Policy Draft for consultation. The Council has an interest in the Statements of General Policy (SOGP) document as a property owner, including of places on the New Zealand Heritage List Rārangi Kōrero and as a regulatory body responsible for administering the RMA through the City’s District Plan. The SOGP includes detailed policies advocating for minimum activity standards and rules for heritage places in District Plans.

Presentation at International Conference

3.28 Staff presented at the Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO International Conference on “World Cultural Heritage and Authenticity” held in Nara, Japan 17-19 December 2024 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Nara Document on Authenticity. The topic was ‘Keeping Authenticity Alive Post-Earthquake in the City’s ‘Public Living Room’ - Christchurch Town Hall.’ Sharing our lessons learnt contributes to improving disaster response and resilience both locally and internationally.

Heritage Grant Funding

3.29 In the context of Whāinga Goal 4, Action 4 of the ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga’ Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 strategy of providing Heritage Incentive Grant funding, Council staff have been continuing to administer heritage grants which were previously approved by the Council. A notable grant supported project currently underway is the repairs, re-roofing and repainting of the iconic Antigua Boatshed on Cambridge Terrace. This work will ensure this building’s preservation and ongoing viable use as both a boatshed and café.

Urban Design

3.30 Place Partnership Fund – from the funding of $342k, a total of 16 applications have been funded to date with a further five being considered in April. The Fund supports projects that seek to strengthen connections between communities and their places and spaces. Examples include the CARVE street art trail in New Brighton and and Circability’s Circus in the City central city programme

3.31 Urban design advice was provided on approximately 140 resource consent applications over the period from October 2024 to March 2025, a similar volume to the previous reporting period. Urban designers continue to provide pre-application advice with 20 meetings attended plus informal advice.

3.32 Development of guidance has commenced on medium and high-density residential development to support design quality and implementation of the changes introduced following decisions on plan change 14 to the District Plan. Guidance will also be developed for large buildings within the City Centre Zone.

3.33 Independent, multi-disciplinary design reviews were provided through four Christchurch Urban Design Panel meetings during the period. Panellists also met as part of continuous improvement. A refresh of panel membership is identified as a priority within the coming year.

3.34 Analysis, concept designs, evidence and support for engagement and delivery is provided for projects across Council and those delivered within the unit, as noted in other sections of this report.

3.35 Education and advocacy also occurred through support of professional institute discussions, Christchurch Conversations, and the civic education programme.

3.36 As part of the PacificTA programme, a delegation from Honiara in the Solomon Islands was hosted in February 2025 and Luganville, Vanuatu during December 2024. An urban design team member visited Luganville during March 2025 to support improvements within their town centre. Excellent feedback has been received through the programme on interactions with staff from across the organisation and elected members.

Plan Change programme

3.37 Plan Change 14 – Housing and Business Choice. On 2 December 2024, the Council accepted 58 recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) regarding the intensification within and around many urban commercial centres, as required by Policy 3 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD).

3.38 This introduced High Density Residential Zoning around 10 commercial centres and Medium Density Residential Zoning around 30 other commercial centres, while also enabling development in other zones within and adjoining these catchments.

3.39 The Council further approved 20 alternative recommendations and, in the process, rejected IHP recommendations on those matters. Those decisions that accepted the IHP’s recommendations are now operative. All of the alternative recommendations now have legal effect, alongside the equivalent rules in the operative District Plan, with a final decision expected from the Minister for RMA Reform on the alternatives.

3.40 A further decision on the balance of Plan Change 14 is currently required by the end of 2025, although council has requested the Minister to extend this further to September 2026. This is in order to allow for increased certainty of the outcome from proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act including the option of an opt-out of the MDRS requirement.

3.41 Plan Change 13 – Heritage. The Minister for the Environment has granted an extension of time for decisions on Plan Change 13 until 17 September 2025. This allows time for the hearing, panel report and recommendations, and Council decisions on those recommendations.

3.42 At the 11 December 2024 Council meeting, parts of PC13 were withdrawn to clarify and narrow its scope. This included withdrawing the proposed Residential Heritage Areas (RHA) at Heaton Street and Piko/Shand, reducing in size the Inner City West RHA, withdrawing RHA interface provisions; and withdrawing built form rules for RHAs.

3.43 At the same meeting Council requested staff to investigate a reduction in the extent of the Lyttelton RHA. A reduction in size of the Lyttelton RHA was agreed at the 16 April 2025 Council meeting.

3.44 Plan Change 12 – Coastal Hazards. Plan Change 12 (Coastal Hazards) is continuing to be progressed, with a focus on advancing technical work to support the s32 evaluation. Council staff are also developing the approach to further engagement, specifically to better understanding the potential socio-economic impacts of any proposed policy and rule changes (including testing alternative options and approaches). The PC12 engagement process is being considered alongside other projects and community engagement processes being undertaken in Eastern Christchurch so as to ensure the Weaving the East project objectives are achieved. It is anticipated the s32 technical work and engagement process will be progressed over the coming year, with a goal to completing the s32 and draft plan change provisions by the end of this year. Subject to the Council’s approval and any further consultation required, notification could occur in the second quarter of 2026.

3.45 Plan Change 17 – Earthworks, Flood Management Areas (FMA), and Activities in the Waimakariri Stopbank Setbacks. Officers last spoke to Councillors about this plan change in October last year. Further technical work is currently being undertaken in relation to FMAs, including the resolution of hydraulic modelling, how vertical land movement (particularly since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes) is defined; and exploring ways in which the latest data on flood risk can be integrated. Thereafter, the plan change will be presented to the Council for notification.

3.46 Plan Change 7 – Managing Significant Indigenous Vegetation. The Minister for the Environment has granted an extension of time for Plan Change 7 until 30 April 2026, to complete the plan change process, beginning with notification of variation to incorporate changes to the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB).

3.47 Plan Change 20 – Industrial. A draft package of provisions have been shared with the community and industrial landowners. We’re currently analysing the feedback received and will use this to inform the development of the proposal and the s32 evaluation, including further technical work required. In addition to taking the community’s feedback on board, we’re also working on understanding what impacts the government’s proposed RMA changes will have. Council staff have recently briefed Community Boards on the plan change and expect further briefings will be required to discuss further changes to the draft proposal in light of feedback, and implications on the expected timeframe for completion of the s32 and proposed plan change.

3.48 Plan Change 21 – Central City Noise in Mixed Use Environments. Staff presented to the Council and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board on 25 and 27 February 2025 respectively, and subsequently provided a memo to respond to matters raised in those meetings, on 26 March 2025. Officers are continuing to progress this plan change in order to notify in September 2025. Later in May staff will provide an update on plan change options to the Community Board and to the Council, ahead of anticipated pre-notification engagement with the public and stakeholders.

3.49 Private Plan Changes. The private plan change seeking to enable medium density housing on the corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Harvey Terrace has been withdrawn, following decisions on plan change 14, which implemented the outcome sought by the request.

3.50 There have been enquiries from landowners and developers for the rezoning of land elsewhere in the district and staff are providing preliminary infrastructure and planning advice.

3.51 One private plan change proposal has been formally lodged seeking the rezoning of rural land to enable approximately 300 residential properties located between Cashmere Road and Sparks Road (eastern end of Hendersons Basin). Council staff will brief Council on the timeframes and acceptance to notify this private plan change.

3.52 Resourcing – While there has been an underspend on personnel costs, this reflects vacancies in the City Planning team that will be filled over the coming months to support the delivery of the plan change programme and local area planning. In addition, there has been a significant underspend on consultants in the FY25 financial year, reflecting in part the stage and timing of various plan changes. As reported to Finance and Performance Committee on 30 April, up to $900,000 has been identified for carry-forward to support the ongoing work committed to.

Resource consents

3.53 Resource consent application numbers remained high, averaging approximately 64 per week for the October 2024 to March 2025 period (excluding the two weeks over Christmas/New Year). In total, 1384 applications were processed during this period.

3.54 Since June 2024, 94% of applications have been processed against statutory timeframes, relative to a target of 95% in the Long-Term Plan.

3.55 Approximately 25% of applications were outsourced to external consultants for processing, largely due to high workloads and complexity created by Plan Change 14. Ongoing use of consultants enables peaks in workload to be managed while new staff are recruited and come up to speed. Five full planners were recruited in January and the intention is to recruit two more planners and a subdivision engineer in the short term.

3.56 Monthly lists of resource consent applications received and issued are available on the Council’s website: Resource consent applications of interest : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz).

A graph with numbers and lines

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

3.57 Appeals:

3.57.1 Portlink Industrial Park, 320 Cumnor Terrace, Woolston (RMA/2023/2806, 3100 and 3102): The Council’s decisions to decline to issue certificates of compliance for stacking of containers and other materials were appealed by the applicant. The Environment Court issued a declaration on 21 March 2025 that containers are not buildings in this specific situation, and the appeals were withdrawn.

3.57.2 175 Old West Coast Road (RMA/2022/3623): The applicant appealed the conditions of a resource consent allowing expansion of an existing quarry. This appeal has yet to be heard.

3.58 Our Pre-application Planning Advice service is still suspended due to capacity and need to prioritise the processing of applications. However, our Duty Planner phone and email service remains available as our primary source of planning advice, and enquiries have become more complex since the plan change 14 decisions at the end of last year.

3.59 The 2024/25 survey of resource consent applicants showed a 79% satisfaction level with the resource consenting service. This exceeded the 70% Long Term Plan target. Applicants were also highly satisfied with the manner of planners (89%). This an excellent result for a regulatory service.

Development contributions

3.60 Development Contributions (DCs) are administered within the Planning and Consents Unit.

3.61 Between 1 October 2024 and 31 March 2025 the Development Contribution Assessors have completed 3,316 assessments, which include applications for PIM’s, certificates of acceptance, building consents and resource consents. In addition, they review 15-20 building consent exemptions per day.

Month	BCN	RMA	Total
October	376	303	679
November	355	222	577
December	281	177	458
January	253	228	481
February	303	225	528
March	334	259	593
Total	1,902	1,414	3,316

3.62 The total value of revenue from DCs received from 1 October 2024 – 31 March 2025 was $14,676,234.22 (excluding GST) and in the current financial year $22,302,020.65 (excluding GST)

Policy Review

3.63 The Development Contributions Policy is currently under review and staff have been assisting with this. Consultation on the draft policy ran from Tuesday 25 February to Wednesday 26 March 2025. Forty-four submissions were received with the Council hearing from submitters as part of Annual Plan hearings in April. Staff will discuss the submissions received and workshop policy changes with the Council on Monday 19 May 2025. It is anticipated the policy will be adopted at the end of June.

3.64 During briefings on the policy review, elected members expressed an interest in considering new development contributions rebate schemes alongside the policy. Staff will discuss potential rebate schemes with the Council at a workshop in early May.

Objections, remissions and other issues

3.65 The objection advised of in the last report has now been resolved and the objection has been withdrawn.

3.66 The remission application submitted by the Arts Centre and advised in the last report is on hold while a replacement resource consent is being processed. Confirmation is currently being sought from the applicant if they want to proceed with the remission application under the replacement resource consent.

Resource Consent compliance

3.67 For the period, 1 October 2024 – 31 March 2025, 750 consents were received for monitoring and 751 completed. Key issues include the following –

3.68 Temporary carparking within the Central City: The team continues to work closely with the Urban Regeneration team to address non-complaint carparking i.e. vacant car parks with resource consent where conditions have not been complied with. The removal of infrastructure and landscaping has been observed from a number of Central City carparks and the team are working with new and existing operators to ensure carpark conditions are complied with.

3.69 Filling in hill sites: The team have identified a number of incidents recently where private owners have carried out unauthorised filling during the construction of dwellings. The Council’s compliance strategy is followed of education, and in cases where compliance is not achieved, enforcing requirements.

3.70 Erosion and Sediment Control (ESCP): The team are now utilising an inspection app developed by the Three Waters team to assist with ESCP inspections. This is designed to assist Council in demonstrating compliance with the Global Stormwater Discharge consent. Infringement notices have been issued recently as a result of non-compliances detected.

Portlink Industrial Park: Following the Environment Court’s decision, Council has withdrawn abatement notices previously issued.

Case Management and Relationships

3.71 The team of case managers provides a valuable service to assist developers and other customers in navigating the approvals and authorisations required for commercial and residential development projects across the city. 87% of customers have expressed satisfaction with the case management service in a recent survey, exceeding the target of 80% and reflected in feedback in different forums.

4. Government direction

Resource Management Reform

4.1 Building on amendments to the Resource Management Act introduced in October 2024^{^[2]} and gazettal of the Fast Track Approvals Act in December 2024, the second amendment bill^{^[3]} is expected to be passed in the third quarter of 2025, following the release of the Select Committee’s report in June 2025. The bill, introduced in December 2024 included provision for an opt-out of the MDRS requirements.

4.2 A package of national direction is anticipated to be released mid this year although a release date has not been announced. This has been rescoped from previous announcements and is now narrower in focus, including changes to existing and new National Environmental Standards (NESs) that are intended to have immediate effect. The package is grouped into three areas: freshwater changes, primary sector changes and infrastructure and housing changes – the last being of most interest to the Council. We anticipate that these will be targeted changes, which support the Government’s identified priorities. A discussion document is also anticipated on urban development, which will inform changes introduced as part of the broader reform to the resource management system.

4.3 The third phase of reforms is the proposed replacement of the Resource Management Act with two acts, the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act. It is intended to narrow the scope of the resource management system and the effects it controls with the enjoyment of private property rights as the guiding principle. It is anticipated that the bills will be released in October, following the local government elections.

4.4 The cabinet proposals are broadly in line with recommendations of an Expert Advisory Group established in September 2024 and that have reported their findings in a report known as a ‘Blueprint’. This provides the Council with an indication of what the proposed bills will include.

4.5 Staff are reviewing the EAG’s report and Cabinet papers on the changes signalled with consideration to be given to the impacts it has on the Council’s work programme. Staff are preparing for the introduction of the bills with a view to making a submission and will keep the Council updated given their timing.

Transport

4.6 As noted above, the Land Transport Management Time of Use Charging amendment bill was recently released for public submissions. This legislation was signalled as a government transport priority in the 2024 GPS Land Transport as part of the Future of the Transport Revenue System programme of work. This also includes: a review of tolling, equity finance and value capture.

4.7 The proposed time of use charging legislation is concerned with congestion management and network efficiency. Key submission points raised by staff for Council consideration included: a request for a more locally focused governance model, alignment with existing regional transport planning processes; and the inclusion of the operational costs of local authorities in excess revenue re-investment scope.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Sarah Oliver - Team Leader City Planning

Darren Bridgett - Team Leader City Planning (E)

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Craig Jorgensen - Team Leader RMA Compliance

Katrina Mansell - Team Leader Planning & Consents Support

Paul Lowe - Manager Resource Consents

Catherine Elvidge - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] Note the unit’s activities are under the ‘Strategic Planning and Resource Consents Activity Plan’ and the ‘City Growth and Property Activity Plan’ (Urban Regeneration and Case Management).

[2] Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024

[3] Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

13. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/588733
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

10. Three Waters Activities Report - January, February and March 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/194695
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

11. Transport Operations Report (January to March 2025)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/710054
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport and Waste Management
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure