|
3. Development
Contributions Policy 2025
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/994794
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Ellen
Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst
|
|
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 for the Council to adopt the draft Development
Contributions Policy 2025.
1.2 The Council has previously received the written and oral submissions
on the draft policy and resulting staff advice.
1.3 The Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA’) requires
all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or
financial contributions and to review it every three years. As the
Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is due for review.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions
Policy 2025 Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions
Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report).
4. Agrees that the Development Contributions
Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 July 2025.
5. Delegates to staff to correct any
typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy
2025.
6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development
contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions
policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment
is reduced under the 2025 policy.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Section
102 of the LGA requires all
local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or financial
contributions. The Development Contributions Policy (‘the policy’)
must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of
the LGA. This includes the policy being reviewed at least once every three
years.
3.2 The
policy has been under review since mid-2023. On 19 February 2025, the Council
resolved to commence public consultation on the draft policy[1].
Consultation ran from 25 February to 26 March 2025 and submitters were heard
between 3 and 15 April 2025 as part of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 process.
3.3 A
post-consultation workshop was held with the Council on Monday 19 May where
submitter feedback and staff advice were discussed. The workshop focused on
issues where submitters requested changes to the policy. Elected member
feedback has informed the final draft policy that is presented for adoption.
Policy changes
reflect principle of averages
3.4 Many
of the key policy changes proposed are designed to ensure the development contribution assessment
provisions are aligned with the overarching principle of averaging.
3.5 The LGA provides for averaging or grouping of different development
types. The policy is built on the assumed average demand for a range of
development types and for most developments this averaging will be sufficient
to determine a development contribution requirement.
3.6 The policy should only look to adjust when actual demand is either
half or double assumed demand. This threshold aligns
with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland Council objection decision. In this
decision, the Commissioner accepted that that a 50% threshold was appropriate
for demonstrating a substantial reduction in demand.
3.7 The current (2021) policy, however, provides several discounts when
this threshold has not been met. The policy does not do the same for
developments where actual demand is slightly higher than the averages. This approach has caused revenue leakages because the Council is
reducing the development contribution requirements within the averages built
into the policy. This means ratepayers are currently subsidising the cost
of growth.
Growth projections and charges
reflect a return to ‘normal’
3.8 Another
change between the current and draft policies is the per-Household Unit
Equivalent (‘HUE’) development contributions charges.
Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to deliver the
growth component of an asset by the number of new or additional households.
3.9 Overall,
the charges in the draft policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy,
however the 2021 charges were unusually low primarily due to a high rate of
growth projected due to post-earthquake population shifts and
changes in the district. The growth modelling that underpins the draft policy
reflects a ‘return to normal’ growth patterns in the district.
Consequently, the draft charges reflect a return to more normal development
contributions charges and are in line with the pre-2021 charges.
Clear split in opinions between developers and
non-developers
3.10 Forty-four
submissions were received on the policy, most from developers or those
associated with the development sector. With respect to the policy changes,
there is a clear split in views between those submitters who have (developers)
and those who have not (non-developers) paid development contributions before.
This reflects the choice that the Council must make in deciding whether or not
ratepayers should subsidise growth development or growth should pay for growth.
Incorporation of feedback into the draft
policy
3.11 Staff
have made changes to the draft policy as a result of feedback received from
submitters and elected members. The proposed post-consultation changes are
outlined in section 10 of this report. A track changes version of the final
draft policy is included as Attachment B.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 Under
the LGA the Council is required to have a policy on development contributions
(s102(2)(d)) and to review it every three years (s106(6)). The current policy
was adopted in July 2021 and a review of the policy is required.
4.2 Development
contributions enable the Council to recover a fair share of the cost of
providing infrastructure to service growth development from those who benefit
from the provision of that investment.
4.3 Development
contributions are a cost recovery tool for the growth component of
projects agreed to in the capital programme. If the Council did not recover
these costs from development contributions, the costs would be recovered from
rates.
4.4 The
policy details the methodology used to establish development contribution
charges per HUE, the resulting cost of those charges, the methodology used to
assess a development for the level of development contributions required and
various process requirements associated with operating a fair and consistent
development contributions process.
5. Policy review process
5.1 Development
contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to
provide infrastructure to service growth development. The revenue is used to
pay down debt taken out to initially fund the investment in growth
infrastructure.
5.2 The
policy has many discrete inputs, all of which must be reviewed as part of any
policy review process. These include residential growth model, business growth
model, transport growth model, capital expenditure programmes related to
growth, interest and inflation rate forecasts and reviews of the numerous
methodologies used as the basis for the calculation and assessment of
development contributions.
5.3 In
addition, this review process has included reviewing the use of catchments to
calculate and assess development contributions. This review has also been an
opportunity to evaluate the content and structure of the policy to improve
clarity and legibility.
5.4 Ten information sessions/workshops have taken place for the members
of the meeting:
6. Community Views and Preferences
6.1 In
June 2024, early conversations with the Halswell Residents Association were had
at their Councillor’s request. This particularly concerned how catchments
work and growth components within transport projects.
6.2 Later
that month, staff presented to the Property Council New Zealand South Island
Regional Committee on all main policy changes. This was to give them a chance
to ask questions face-to-face prior to public consultation opening.
6.3 Staff
presented on or discussed the draft policy at several Developers’ Forums
(as well as sending emails about consultation delays) from mid-2024 until
consultation opened. At these meetings there was clear concern about the
increase in development contribution costs.
6.4 Public
consultation started on 25 February and ran until 26 March 2025.
6.5 Consultation
details, including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero
mai | Let’s talk webpage were advertised via:
· An email sent to over 420
identified stakeholders, including residents’ associations, developers,
interest-groups, and Kōrero mai subscribers who requested to be notified
when projects like this opened for feedback. A follow-up email one week before
consultation closed was also sent to these stakeholders.
· A
Newsline story was published, receiving 469 views. This was shared to
Council’s Facebook page, where 10,741 accounts were reached and 1,153
users interacted (commented, interacted, clicked etc.).
· Consultation documents
were available at all libraries and service centres.
6.6 The
Kōrero mai
| Let’s talk page had 1, 504 views throughout the consultation
period.
6.7 Staff
hosted a webinar on
the consultation that was attended by 10 people at the time and has been viewed
126 times since.
Hearing of submissions
6.8 Submissions
on the draft policy were heard alongside submissions on the draft Annual Plan
2025/26 in April 2025.
6.9 Submissions
were heard by the full Council, chaired by the Mayor. The hearing was open to
the public and livestreamed on the Council’s website.
Overview of submissions
6.10 Submissions
were made by 11 recognised organisations, 18 businesses and 15 individuals. All
submissions will be available on the Kōrero mai webpage.
6.11 Of
the 44 submitters, 24 (55%) have previously paid development contributions or
anticipate paying them within the next three years. 20 (45%) haven’t paid
them and don’t expect to.
6.12 Overall,
when asked whether submitters supported the Development Contributions Policy
Review, 23% (10) said yes, 20% (9) somewhat, 27% (12) said no, and the
remaining 30% (13) didn’t know or didn’t answer this question.
6.13 Submitters
who have never paid development contributions and don't anticipate doing so
were nearly twice as likely to support the policy review. Specifically, 30% of
these submitters (6 out of 20) expressed support, compared to 17% of those who
have paid (4 out of 24).
6.14 A
thematic analysis of submissions is available in section 8.
Council workshop on consultation feedback
6.15 A
workshop was held on submissions and proposed post-consultation changes on
Monday 19 May.
6.16 At
the workshop, elected members were informed on matters related to consultation,
feedback from submitters on the draft policy and resulting staff advice.
Elected members had the opportunity to provide feedback to staff as to their
preferred policy positions and to ask questions and seek clarification on the
policy and associated issues.
7. Principles of Setting and Calculating Development Contributions
Background -
principles of averaging
7.1 The
LGA allows for the use of averaging by development types. This means
developments within a development type category will be assessed as having the
same level of demand, regardless of individual variations.
7.2 A
HUE is the unit of demand used in the policy to calculate development
contributions charges and determine the development contributions requirement
for each development. A HUE represents the average demand a household places on
Council infrastructure and it is assumed that all single households place this
level of demand on Council infrastructure. This is an efficient method of
assessing development contributions for residential development.
Non-residential developments are assessed as a proportion of the HUE.
7.3 The
policy assumes the average household contains 2.6 people, which is consistent
with the growth modelling used in the Long-Term Plan (‘LTP’)
2024-34.
7.4 The
base unit measures for the HUE are outlined in clause 3.2.1 of the draft policy
and are summarised below. The base units are updated as part of each policy
review to ensure an accurate reflection of average household demand.
|
Activity
|
Demand per
HUE
|
|
Water supply
|
644.30 litres
per day
|
|
Wastewater
|
572 litres
per day
|
|
Stormwater
and Flood Protection
|
367 m2 impervious
surface area (ISA)
|
|
Transport
|
6.35 vehicle
trips per day
|
Background -
Special assessments
7.5 The
policy is based on average demand for a range of development types. Development
contributions required for non-residential development are calculated as a
multiple of the HUE. For the transport, water supply and wastewater
activities the development contribution requirement is calculated according to
the average demand on infrastructure per square metre of gross floor area
(‘GFA’) by business type. For stormwater and flood
protection the development contribution is calculated according to the
impervious surface area (‘ISA’) of the development. The non-residential HUE equivalences (also referred to as HUE
multipliers) are detailed in Part 8 of the draft policy.
7.6 For
most developments, the use of the HUE equivalences will be appropriate to
determine a development contribution requirement. There will be some
developments, however, where actual demand is significantly different to the
demand assumptions built into the policy. In these instances, the Council will
undertake a special assessment or an actual demand assessment.
7.7 The
threshold for a special assessment is when actual demand is half or double what
is built into the policy. This aligns with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland
Council objection decision. In this decision, the Commissioner accepted
that that a 50% threshold was appropriate for demonstrating a substantial
reduction in demand.
7.8 The
draft policy did not propose to remove the special assessment provision from
the policy. Some submitters appeared to confuse special assessments and
remissions, but these are quite different issues in the policy. Issues
related to remissions are detailed below.
8. Submission feedback and
workshop discussion
Residential unit adjustments
8.1 The
Council assesses each residential unit at a base rate of 1 HUE. However, there
will be circumstances where actual demand is half or double assumed demand and
therefore it is appropriate to provide a residential unit adjustment.
8.2 Providing
some kind of adjustment for small and/or large residential units is common
across development contributions policies. Councils across New Zealand have
taken a range of approaches to providing these adjustments.
8.3 The
Council has used GFA to make small residential unit adjustments since 2007.
However, there is no data that correlates the GFA of a residential unit with
number of usual residents or with demand on infrastructure. In 2024, 45%
of building consents were for homes less than 100m2. This means the
Council is providing a discount for close to half of all new homes, which is
not what the policy is intended to do.
8.4 Census
data shows that the greater the number of bedrooms in a residential unit the
more people are likely living in it. The more usual residents in a residential
unit, the greater level of demand on Council services.
Average
number of usual residents per dwelling type as at Census 2023
|
Dwelling type
|
One bedroom
|
Two bedrooms
|
Three bedrooms
|
Four bedrooms
|
Five bedrooms
|
Six bedrooms
|
Seven bedrooms
|
Eight bedrooms
|
|
Average residents
|
1.36
|
1.82
|
2.56
|
3.19
|
3.83
|
4.80
|
5.07
|
5.10
|
8.5 The draft policy proposes to move to bedroom-based adjustments as a
result.
Small residential unit adjustment
8.5.1 What
was consulted on: The draft policy proposed moving to a residential unit adjustment based on bedrooms
and keeping a small unit adjustment for one-bedroom residential units only.
This will ensure that the Council only adjusts for developments that fall
outside the assumptions built into the policy.
8.5.2 Feedback from submitters: There were
mixed views on change to small unit adjustment. Five submitters supported the
change, eight were opposed and three expressed mixed views. Several submitters
also requested the Council introduce an adjustment for two-bedroom units. Two
submitters asked that the small unit adjustment just be applied to developments
in the central city.
8.5.3 Staff
advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average one-bedroom
residential unit in Christchurch has 1.36 usual residents living in it. As an
average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put half the
average demand on Council infrastructure.
8.5.4 With respect to a two-bedroom adjustment, 2023
Census data confirms that the average two-bedroom residential unit in
Christchurch has 1.82 people, which does not meet the threshold for a special
assessment under the policy. If a change were to be
made, the large residential unit adjustment would need to come down, either to
four or five bedrooms, to reflect that an adjustment has been made within the
averages and ensure the Council continues to recover the cost of growth from
new development. This would increase the administrative complexity of the
policy and staff do not recommend making this change.
8.5.5 There is no data that would support having a one-bedroom adjustment
just for central city developments.
8.5.6 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the small
residential unit adjustment as proposed.
8.5.7 Recommendation for final policy:
One-bedroom residential units will be assessed at 0.6 HUE for all activities.
Large
residential unit adjustment
8.5.8 What
was consulted on: The draft policy introduced a large residential unit adjustment for dwelling
types of seven or more bedrooms assessed at 1.4 HUE. This was intended to
ensure the development contribution charge better reflects the usually higher
demand on infrastructure from larger homes.
8.5.9 Feedback from submitters: There were
mixed views on the change to the large residential unit adjustment with two
supporting, four opposed and three expressing mixed views. Some submitters
questioned whether the threshold should be lower or whether the adjustment
should increase with each additional bedroom.
8.5.10 Staff
advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average seven-bedroom
residential unit in Christchurch has 5.07 usual residents living in it. As an
average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put double
the average demand on Council infrastructure.
8.5.11 Some
submitters also asked whether the adjustment could be for 0.4 per additional
room. 0.4 HUE is effectively the equivalent of one person so the Council could
add 0.4 per additional room for seven bedrooms and over. However, census data
does not support this change; eight-bedroom homes have only a slightly higher
number of residents compared to seven-bedroom homes. The overall impact of a
change like this is likely to be minimal given the small number of dwellings of
this size in the district. Therefore, staff did not recommend this change.
8.5.12 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the large
residential unit adjustment as proposed.
8.5.13 Recommendation for final policy: Houses
with seven or more bedrooms are charged an additional 0.4 HUE for all
activities except for stormwater.
Stormwater discounts
8.6 The
Council currently provides two reductions for stormwater activity. Both are out
of alignment with the special assessment threshold in the policy and the draft
proposed changes to bring the assessment of the stormwater activity back into
line with the overall principle of averages as discussed in section 7.
Developer provided infrastructure
8.6.1 What
was consulted on: The draft
policy provides that stormwater reductions will only be provided in instances
where developers provide on-site stormwater mitigation and the resulting demand
on Council infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as
detailed in the policy. This would see relatively minor adjustments (such as
for the installation of a rainwater tank) cease.
8.6.2 Feedback from submitters: There were
mixed views on the proposal to bring stormwater adjustments for developer
provided infrastructure into line with the special assessment provisions of the
policy as outlined in paragraphs 7.5 – 7.7. Four submitters supported the change, six were opposed and two
expressed mixed views
8.6.3 Staff
advice in workshop: The change is intended to bring
stormwater adjustments into line with the rest of the policy. The Council
will still undertake a special assessment if the development exerts a level of
demand on infrastructure that will be significantly different from the level of
assumed demand in the policy for that type of development.
8.6.1 Staff follow a set methodology to determine degree to which demand
on the Council's network has been mitigated by the developer provided
infrastructure. Each relevant development is reviewed using this
methodology.
8.6.2 Staff note that on occasion, developer-provided infrastructure is
vested with the Council, but the assessment receives a stormwater discount of
less than 50% due to the level of mitigation provided. Council may consider it
fair to include a provision for these sites to still receive a stormwater
adjustment due to the asset being vested.
8.6.3 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May
workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result
of infill development. Staff discussed the strategies, standards and programmes
in place to manage stormwater in infill areas.
8.6.4 Recommendation for final policy: In
instances where developers provide stormwater infrastructure, a special
assessment will be done only when the demand on Council stormwater
infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in
the policy.
8.6.5 An
additional provision is proposed to allow for a reduction in the stormwater
development contributions assessment for developments where stormwater
infrastructure is vested with the Council regardless of whether the mitigation
provided has reached the threshold for a special assessment. This is wording is
outlined in section 10 of this report.
Stormwater
discount for attached multi-unit developments
8.6.6 What
was consulted on: The draft
policy proposed the Council cease providing a stormwater discount for
developments with at least two attached multi-units on this basis that the ISA
averages built into the policy already takes into account smaller residential
units and changing development patterns.
8.6.7 All base unit demand assumptions have been updated as part of this
review. Average ISA per site (parcel) has been reduced from 427m2 to
367m2 as a result. This reflects the changing development patterns
and increased intensification.
8.6.8 A special assessment would still be triggered if the threshold is
met in line with the special assessment provisions of the policy.
8.6.9 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters
commented on the proposal to remove the multi-unit adjustment for stormwater.
Submitters presented mixed views - two supported the change, five opposed it
and three expressed a mixed view.
8.6.10 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May
workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result
of infill development and questioned whether there should be any discounts
provided for multi-unit developments.
8.6.11 Staff advice in workshop: Staff noted
that under the broader principles of the policy, the Council would still need
to provide some kind of actual demand assessment for developments where actual
ISA was less than half of the ISA assumptions built into the policy. Staff
suggested a compromise would be to change the provision so that if the special
assessment threshold is met, multi-unit developments will be assessed as though
the entire site is impervious (as opposed to using the ISA stated on the
plans).
8.6.12 Recommendation for final policy: The
assessment for the stormwater activity will be undertaken using the HUE
multipliers outlined in paragraph 7.4 of this report. If the assessment results
in assumed demand (ISA) that is more than double the area of the development
site, the development site will instead be assessed as though it is 100%
impervious. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.
Remissions
8.7 What
was consulted on: The current policy includes a clause that provides for
the Council to remit some or all development contribution charges for a
development in “unique and compelling circumstances”. The original
intent of this clause was to allow for the Council to address a matter directly
associated with the development contributions charge. The clause is being used
more widely with developers appealing to the Council to remit development
contributions charges for a range of reasons including that the organisation
applying provides services to the community.
8.8 The
remission provision was removed from the draft policy.
8.9 An
alternative remission provision was also drafted and included in the
consultation material. The alternative clause clarified that it is the
development itself (not the developer or future occupier of the site) that must
be unique, and that the development must be sufficiently distinct from other
developments that remitting a development contribution requirement does not
create a new precedent.
8.10 Feedback from submitters: Thirteen
submitters commented on the removal of the remissions provision. There were
mixed views on removing remission clause with some submitters confusing
remissions and special assessments, and some confusing remissions and
rebates. Submitters did not express a preference for one remission clause
over the other.
8.11 Staff advice in workshop: The term ‘remission’ is used differently by different
councils in their development contributions policies. The Council's policy uses
the term ‘remission’ to refer to the Council intervening on a
development contributions assessment when there is something about the
development that has not been considered in drafting the policy and therefore
the Council considers it necessary to address an aspect of the assessment via a
remission.
8.12 However,
many councils use the term 'remission' to refer to an actual demand remission -
where demand is materially different to the assumed demand built into the
policy. The Council's policy refers to this as a special assessment.
8.13 There
is no proposal to remove the ability for developers to seek a special
assessment (or actual demand assessment) provided that the threshold is met (of
actual demand being half assumed demand).
8.14 Noting
the feedback received on remissions, more generally, staff proposed the Council
adopt the inclusion of the alternative remission clause.
8.15 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the proposal to use the
alternative remission clause.
8.16 Recommendation for final policy: The
alternative remission clause be included in the policy. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.
Life of existing demand credits
8.17 What
was consulted on: The Council position has been to limit the life of
existing use credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on
Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired in the last four years on
buildings and sites of former buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes
– particularly in the central city. This issue was reconsidered as part
of this review and the policy retained the ten-year life of existing demand
credits.
8.18 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters
commented on the life of existing demand credits. Eight submitters asked that
the life of credits clause be extended either to 20 years or indefinitely. Two
submitters supported retention of the current provision.
8.19 Staff advice in workshop: There
is no explicit requirement under the LGA to provide existing demand credits.
The purpose of existing demand credits is to recognise that development may not
result in additional demand on infrastructure. Therefore, only net additional
demand attracts a development contribution requirement.
8.20 The Council
provides credits to assess for net additional demand, promote equity and
encourage timely redevelopment.
8.21 The LGA requires
the Council to manage its infrastructure assets in a way that promotes prudent
stewardship and efficient and effective use of assets. Providing existing
demand credits requires the Council to effectively “reserve”
infrastructure capacity and guarantee infrastructure capacity for the life of
the credits. This creates increased risk for Council the longer the credit is
in place but unused.
8.22 Managing
that risk would require the Council to operate its infrastructure in such a way
as to always carry capacity sufficient to honour the credits. This means
infrastructure would need to have a high level of unused capacity sitting
waiting for redevelopment to again take up capacity once used at some point in
the past. This is not an efficient or prudent way to manage infrastructure and
will result in other ratepayers carrying the cost of having that capacity
available.
8.23 The
current policy setting, where existing demand credits expire after ten years
strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely, being fair
to ratepayers in that a liability to provide infrastructure to service these
lots is not in place forever and being fair to developers in recognising that
development has occurred on a site previously.
8.24 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, a question was asked about the rationale to limit the life of
existing demand credits and what approaches were taken by other councils.
Staff advised that other councils have taken a range of approaches from
providing no existing demand credits through to providing for credits to have a
perpetual life.
8.25 Staff
also noted that walking back a change to existing demand credits would be very
difficult and advised that a rebate scheme would be a sensible way to deal with
central city sites. Work on a rebate for existing demand credits is being
progressed separately.
8.26 Recommendation for final policy:
Existing demand credits expire 10 years after a site last exerts demand on
Council infrastructure.
Fee for development contributions assessments
8.27 What
was consulted on: The draft policy included a provision for the Council to charge a fee for development
contributions assessments.
8.28 Feedback from submitters: Submitters
presented mixed views on the Council charging a fee for development
contributions assessments. Seven submitters were opposed, although several
submitters appear to be mistaking the fee for the Development Contributions
Team to complete an assessment with development contributions charges. Six were
supportive of the proposal.
8.29 Staff advice in workshop: The proposed
fee for development contributions assessments is a one-off, flat fee charged at
invoicing. It was included in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 fees and charges
and is $100 including GST.
8.30 The fee remains the same regardless of how many times a developer or
their agent contacts the Development Contributions Team or whether the
assessment is amended or revised. The Development Contributions Team time
is not charged for as part of a building and/or resource consent application;
it is currently paid for by rates only.
8.31 It is fair that the cost of preparing a
development contributions assessment is funded by the developer because they
both benefit from the assessment of their development and cause the assessment
to be required through submitting their development for consent.
8.32 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the fee for
development contributions assessments as proposed.
8.33 Recommendation for final policy: At the time of invoicing, a fee to cover the cost for the Council to
administer the development contribution assessment will be invoiced alongside
the development contribution requirement. The development contribution
assessment fee is set out in the Council’s schedule of fees and charges.
HUE equivalences/multipliers
8.34 What
was consulted on: A range of changes have been made to the HUE equivalences
or HUE multipliers, most notably the policy reverts to using a land or
activity-based methodology for transport activities. The HUE equivalences cover
a range of land-use types and are outlined in Part 8 of the policy (Tables 4, 6
and 8).
8.35 Feedback from submitters: Three
submitters opposed the proposed HUE equivalences for residential units and care
suites in retirement villages. One submitter opposed the changes to
activity-based HUE multipliers. Another submitter requested all non-residential
assessments be conducted as actual demand assessments.
8.36 Staff advice in workshop: The retirement
village HUE equivalences are based on stated average occupancy of 1.3 in a unit
in an objection to the Council in addition to the Ryman objection
decision. Staff have previously completed a survey of
all retirement villages and confirmed the average water use was accurate and
are therefore comfortable with this HUE equivalence.
8.37 It
was also noted the retirement village community facilities are not assessed for
development contributions and these facilities are assessed as ancillary to the
residential spaces.
8.38 Staff agreed with submitters that residential units in retirement
villages could be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity.
8.39 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, staff were asked why industrial, and
warehousing and logistics development types were separated in the policy. Staff
advised the decision was made to separate the industrial and
warehousing/logistics categories, recognising the growth in warehouse-based
activities and the differing demands these sectors place on land use and
Council services.
8.40 Recommendation for final policy:
Residential units to be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity. Several
clarifications are recommended for Table 4 of the policy; these are outlined in
section 10 of the report. No other changes recommended for the HUE equivalence
or land-use types.
Active Travel and Public Transport catchments
8.41 What
was consulted on: No changes were proposed to the Active Travel and Public
Transport catchments between the current and draft policies.
8.42 Feedback from submitters: One submitter requested the public transport catchment be amended
to include Marshland Road. One submitter requested that Templeton be included
in the active travel catchment.
8.43 One
submitter felt that Lyttleton should be excluded from active travel.
8.44 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors asked why Marshlands Road was
excluded from the Active Travel catchment and why Templeton was not part of the
Public Transport catchment.
8.45 Recommendation for final policy: Staff have made small changes to the Active Travel and Public
Transport catchments to reflect submitter and elected member feedback. The
final catchment maps are included in Appendix 3 of the policy.
8.46 As
active travel includes footpaths and cycleways, it is fair Lyttleton is
included in this catchment.
Development contributions charges
8.47 Feedback from submitters: Some developers submitted that the increase in charges may impact
the viability of developments and affordability of new homes.
8.48 Staff
advice: Development contributions is a cost recovery tool
for the growth component of projects that are in the Council’s capital
programme. Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to
the growth component of an asset by projected growth.
8.49 The overall capital programme increased from $5.78B in 2021 to
$6.51B in 2024. The
cost of the growth component of those projects also increased
– from $730M in 2021 to $923M in 2024.
8.50 The
2024 growth forecast has a slower rate of growth in all aspects compared to
2021 (an average 0.52% per annum over 30 years compared to 2.06% in 2021). Growth projections that informed the 2021 policy were significantly
higher than in the previous policies due to post-earthquake population shifts
and changes in the district. Statistics New Zealand’s projections that
have informed the 2025 policy reflect the ‘return to normal’ growth
patterns in the district.
8.51 The increase in
growth capital expenditure, combined with slower growth projections compared to
the 2021 LTP, has resulted in development contributions charges that are higher
than in the 2021 policy. These charges are, however, in line with pre-2021 charges.
8.52 While the charges
in the 2025 policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy, the 2021 charges
were unusually low. If Council were to set development contributions lower than
what is contained in this policy this would require ratepayers
across the district to meet the cost of the foregone revenue.
8.53 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025
workshop, councillors provided no feedback on the development contributions charges.
8.54 Recommendation for final policy:
Development contributions charges are outlined in Appendix 1 of the policy.
9. Submitter feedback on issues not discussed at workshop
Neighbourhood
Parks and Road Network catchments
9.1 What was consulted on: The policy
proposed to move the neighbourhood parks and road network catchments from a
concentric configuration to localised catchments.
9.2 Feedback from submitters: There was overall support for the move to localised
catchments, but some submitters requested that the catchments be made smaller.
9.3 Staff
advice: Smaller catchments increase the complexity of developing and
operating the policy and the range of per-HUE charges across those catchments
also tends to increase, which may have unintended consequences for funding
growth. Some small catchments may pay very high, targeted contributions, while
others may pay very low contributions, depending on how the catchments are
drawn.
9.4 Additionally,
the risk of under-recovering the cost of growth infrastructure increases with
smaller catchments especially if modelling has not allocated growth in the
correct places. Overall, the smaller the catchments, the greater the risk of
error in the policy. This risk is reflected in the number and size of the
catchments for these activities.
9.5 Recommendation for final policy: No
changes to Neighbourhood Parks and Road Network catchments
Three
Waters catchments
9.6 What was consulted on: The policy
proposed to move to fewer and larger catchments for the three waters
activities.
9.7 Feedback from submitters: There was mixed support for these
catchments, with two opposed, two supportive and one suggesting sub-catchments
may be required.
9.8 Staff
advice: Before 2021, water supply and wastewater
activities were grouped into a district-wide catchment. The 2025 policy
proposes to return to larger catchments for these activities to address several
issues.
9.8.1 Nature
of water infrastructure in the district: The Council has a unique
integrated water network which isn’t necessarily reflected in our current
catchments. The new catchments better reflect the Council’s
integrated delivery of water services. Additionally, infrastructure within the
urban catchment is interconnected within the city and three waters projects
generally benefit the related wider infrastructure network.
9.8.2 Unpredictable
growth and need to be responsive: The Council’s capital spending
for growth-related three waters infrastructure will need to become more
dynamic, reacting to patterns of intensification. Around two-thirds of all new
residential development is occurring in infill areas, and it is likely this
trend will continue. There is a lack of certainty with respect to where that
growth is going to occur
9.8.3 Whilst
three waters infrastructure plans consider growth for the next 50 years, LTP
growth funding is allocated 10 years in advance with specific projects
identified every three years. Development contributions based on smaller
catchments may cause under collection for growth provision not yet ring-fenced
in the LTP. Furthermore, because infrastructure plans are not fully
aligned with the LTP funding period, there may be misalignment when LTP
provision has not yet been made for development triggering upgrades. A
grouped catchment will ensure that development contributions are collected from
all new development on a fair and equitable basis.
9.9 Recommendation for final policy: No
changes to Three Waters catchments
Pause review
9.10 Feedback from submitters: A number of submitters suggested the Council pause the review the of
the Development Contributions Policy with some submitters stating development
levies would be coming in in September 2025 and implying the draft policy, if
adopted, would only be in effect for a few months. This is not correct. The
Government has indicated legislation will be introduced in September 2025 and
will be enacted by mid-2026. Levies will come into effect from mid-2027.
9.11 Staff
advice: Until new legislation is enacted, councils have a
legislative requirement to have a policy on development contributions and to
review it every three years. The Council’s current Development
Contributions Policy was adopted in July 2021, and it is due for review.
9.12 The
current policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver
growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development
contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing
towards additional projects approved in the 2024 LTP. As development
contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other
developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a
development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes
ratepayer funded.
9.13 Recommendation for review: Staff do not recommend the
policy review be paused.
Other comments made during hearing of
submissions
Accuracy
of technical inputs
9.14 During
the hearing of submissions, some submitters questioned the accuracy of the cost
allocations/capital programme.
Growth
projections
9.14.1 The
growth inputs for the policy are based on the Statistics New Zealand medium
population and household growth scenarios. This is consistent with past
development contributions policies. Christchurch has historically tracked very
closely to the medium projections, and they remain a good indication of future
growth.
9.14.2 The
Council’s growth models are used to distribute future growth to a
sub-city level. These models are all connected and talk to each other, to tell
a consistent growth story. The growth models have been peer-reviewed by
external agencies and have been found to be fit for purpose
9.14.3 The
models consider both intensification and greenfield development. The capacity
inputs into the model include a picture of both infill and greenfield capacity.
Cost
allocations for capital projects
9.14.4 The cost allocation process, which identifies the growth component
of each asset is outlined in Part 6 of the draft policy. Council staff review
each capital project and determine the allocation of cost drivers: renewal,
backlog, increase in current level of service or growth. Only the cost of
infrastructure to service growth is funded from development contributions. The
cost allocation methodology takes account of causation (the reason the asset is
being provided), as well as who benefits from the project. The methodology to
determine the exact allocation between the cost drivers varies between the
activities.
9.14.5 The capital programme, and the projects to be delivered for which
the Council collects development contributions, has been informed by the 2024
growth model. The cost allocations for projects not yet delivered, therefore,
reflect projected growth. Projects that have already been delivered (that is,
are noted as 'complete' in the Schedule of Assets) remain unchanged.
Trigger to
assess for development contributions
9.15 One
submitter commented that the Council has an incorrect trigger to assess for
development contributions in the draft policy.
9.16 Section
198(2A) of the LGA requires councils assess for development contributions under
the policy in force at the time the consent/authorisation application was
submitted, accompanied by all required information. Section 4.1.3
confirms the Council will assess using the policy in force at the time the
complete application for consent is received.
9.17 The
developer will be formally notified of their development contribution
requirement as part of the granting of the consent application.
10. Incorporation of feedback into the draft policy
10.1 The consultation and hearing
process allowed submitters to share their insights, comments and suggestions
with the Council about the policy proposals. As a result of these
considerations, staff have incorporated the following items into the draft
policy:
10.1.1 Clause
3.2.4 (4): “The development provides infrastructure to be vested
with the Council, which reduces the impact of the development’s demand on
Council stormwater infrastructure, prior to discharge into the Council
network”.
10.1.2 Clause
3.2.5: “Residential units in retirement villages and care
suites are assessed for development contributions as set out in Table 4”.
10.1.3 Clause 5.6: “The Council
considers that there may be a development that is so unique it has not been
anticipated by the policy, so much so that the Council considers the full
development contribution assessment to be unfair and unable to be remedied
under the provision of a special assessment.
The development, itself, must be
sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development
contribution requirement would not create a new precedent in terms of the
Council’s current interpretation and application of the policy.
In these cases, the Council may, at
its sole discretion, consider and grant a full or partial remission of
development contributions in cases where it is satisfied this threshold has
been met.
The developer must write to the Chief
Executive seeking a remission and explaining how the development has met this
threshold and why the Council should grant a full or partial remission in the
interest of fairness. The explanation must be specific to the development (not
the developer or intended future occupier) and the features of the development
that make it unique”.
10.1.4 Table
4: Footnote: “Community facilities within a retirement village for
the predominant use of residents and their guests are not subject to a
development contribution requirement”.
10.1.5 Table
4: 0.1 HUE reserve assessment for retirement units.
10.1.6 Table
4: Care suites are not charged for the community infrastructure
activity.
10.2 At
the 19 May 2025 workshop, elected members expressed concern about providing
discounts for attached multi-unit developments, citing the importance of
stormwater infrastructure in managing the impact of increased intensification
in infill areas. The following has been added to the draft policy:
10.2.1 3.2.2.5:
“Developments of two or more attached residential units on a single
lot will be assessed for the stormwater and flood protection based on the HUE
rates outlined in section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. If assessed HUEs result in ISA that
is more than double the area of the development site, the development site will
instead be assessed as though it is 100% impervious”.
10.3 On
review of the final draft policy, staff considered the wording of 3.2.4 could
be amended to better reflect the description of the tables contained in Part 8
of the policy.
10.3.1 Clause
3.2.4: Where a development is not consistent with the land use or
business type as detailed in Part 8 of the policy the Council may require a
special assessment for development contributions for the activities considered
to be outside the expected demand. Situations where this may be required
include:
1. Where
the type of development proposed is not adequately covered by Tables 4, 6 and
8.
2. Where
the demand for an activity from the development is expected to be more than
double the value identified as average for that type of development as set out
in Tables 4, 6 and 8.
……
A developer may ask the Council to consider
undertaking a special assessment if:
The
development is expected to place less than half the assumed demand on
infrastructure for the value identified as average for that type of development
as set out in Tables 4, 6 and 8.
11. Transitional provision
11.1 Staff
note the policy may result in lower development contributions charges for some
Akaroa Harbour developments compared to the 2021 policy. Charges for Akaroa
Harbour under the 2021 policy are $68,189.73 including GST compared to
$44,083.25 including GST under the 2025 policy.
11.2 Section
198 (2A) of the LGA requires the Council to undertake its assessment of
development contribution requirement under the development contributions policy
in place at the time it receives a complete application for resource consent,
building consent or authorisation to connect to Council infrastructure.
11.3 Given
the difference in the development contributions requirements in Akaroa between
the two policies, there is risk that developers may surrender consents and then
reapply for consent to trigger a new development contribution assessment under
the 2025 policy. This is an inefficient use of Council consenting resources.
11.4 Clause
4.1.5 of the policy provides for a remission of the difference in cost between
a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous policy and
the 2025 policy where the charge is less under the 2025 policy. A remission is
only available where the developer could lawfully surrender a resource consent
or building consent and reapply for consent and thereby trigger a requirement
for a new development contribution assessment under the 2025 policy.
11.5 The
development would still be assessed under the provisions of the relevant policy
in accordance with section 198(2A) of the LGA, it would just receive the
benefit of the lower per-HUE charge.
12. Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
12.1 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
12.1.1 Adopt
the draft policy.
12.1.2 Decline
to adopt the policy.
Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa
12.2 Preferred
Option: Adopt the draft policy.
12.2.1 Option
Description: The Council would resolve to adopt the draft policy.
12.2.2 Option
Advantages
· Complies with
legislative requirements and ensures development contributions charges
accurately reflect current capital costs required to service growth
development. It also provides an opportunity to make updates to the policy
provisions.
12.2.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Charges would
increase for most development types under the new charges. However, these new
charges accurately reflect the cost to Council to service growth
infrastructure.
12.3 Decline
to adopt the policy.
12.3.1 Option
Description: The Council would resolve to not adopt the draft policy and
direct staff to continue working on the review.
12.3.2 Option
Advantages
· This option
would benefit developers who would continue to be assessed for development
contributions under the 2021 policy, which contains significantly lower than
average charges.
12.3.3 Option
Disadvantages
· The 2021
development contributions charges do not accurately reflect the Council’s
current costs to service growth development. This option therefore
disadvantages ratepayers who would cover the difference between the
Council’s actual costs to provide growth infrastructure and the charges
developers are paying under the current policy.
· This does not
comply with the legislative requirement to review the policy every three years.
13. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
13.1 Cost
to Implement – The cost of reviewing the policy and undertaking community
engagement is funded through existing operational budgets. This work has been
undertaken over more than one year and is funded as a general cost of business
rather than a discrete cost attributed to the project.
13.2 Maintenance/Ongoing
costs - Annual policy and administration costs vary depending on the policy
work required and the level of development needing to be assessed.
13.3 Funding
Source – The cost of preparing and administering the policy comes from
the general rate. The policy proposes to charge an administration fee at
invoicing stage to cover some of the costs associated with administering this
policy. In the previous 12 months, 900 development contributions invoices were
issued, so the anticipated revenue associated with this fee is around $90,000.
14. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me
ngā Whakamātautau
14.1 Development
contributions can be a litigious area of local government activity often with
significant financial implications for developers and councils. Because of this
there is a significant body of case law regarding what can and cannot be done
under the provisions of a development contributions policy.
14.2 As
with any decision made by the Council, there is a risk of judicial review. The
policy (or parts of it) could be quashed by the High Court if the policy is
challenged and the Court finds the decisions made relating to the policy are
unlawful or procedurally unfair. This is a risk of any decision made by
Council, but one that can be minimised as much as possible by ensuring that the
policy has been through a stringent review process and that the Council adheres
to an appropriate and fair consultation process.
14.3 The
Council’s Legal Services Team has provided advice throughout the policy
development process including full review of the proposed policy to ensure the
review and resulting policy reflect legislative requirements.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga
ā-Ture
14.4 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
14.4.1 Section
102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development
contributions and financial contributions.
14.4.2 The
policy must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to
211 of the LGA. Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Council to review its
development contributions policy at least once every three years.
14.5 Other Legal Implications:
14.5.1 This
report and the policy have been reviewed and approved by the Council’s
Legal Services Team.
Strategy
and Policy Considerations Te
Whai Kaupapa here
14.6 The
required decisions:
14.6.1 Do
align with the Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework, particularly the strategic
priorities to manage ratepayers' money wisely and actively balance
the needs of today's residents with the needs of future generations.
14.6.2 Are
assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was
determined by importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely
unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch
district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the
requirement to pay development contributions.
14.6.3 Are
consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular the decisions
support the Council’s approach to funding the provision of infrastructure
to service growth development outlined in the Council’s Revenue and
Financing Policy.
14.7 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
14.8 Strategic Planning and Policy
14.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience
· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and
statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the
Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work
programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements
Community
Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
14.9 Consultation
on the draft policy was undertaken in in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of
the LGA. Consultation and submitter feedback is outlined in section 6 of this
report.
14.10 The
decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.
Impact
on Mana Whenua Ngā
Whai Take Mana Whenua
14.11 The decisions
in this report do not involve a significant decision in relation to
ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value,
therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua,
their culture, and traditions.
14.12 The
decision is not a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will
not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā
Papatipu Rūnanga.
14.13 This is a
funding policy. The Council had a development contributions rebate scheme
for Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga developments, but the rebate
scheme sits outside the scope of this policy.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
14.15 The proposals in this report
are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of
climate change or emissions reductions.
14.16 The policy details
how the Council will fund infrastructure to service growth development. Climate
change considerations are dealt with outside the scope of this policy.
15. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
15.1 If
adopted by the Council, the policy will come into effect from 1 July 2025.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Draft
Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
|
25/1145731
|
|
|
b
|
Draft
Development Contributions Policy 2025 (with track changes) (Under Separate
Cover)
|
25/1145732
|
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Ellen Cavanagh
- Senior Policy Analyst
Hannah
Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor
Andrew
Campbell - Legal Counsel
|
|
Approved By
|
David
Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience
John Higgins -
General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services
|
|
4. Annual Plan 2025/26
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/245303
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Peter
Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning and Performance
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Bede
Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial
Officer
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to present to the Council for its consideration and
adoption:
1.1.1 An
analysis of the submissions and hearings made through the 2025/26 Annual Plan
consultation process;
1.1.2 The
outcome of the Council’s considerations to date before it adopts its
Annual Plan 2025/26; and
1.1.3 The
Annual Plan 2025/26, including any attached documents.
1.2 The
Council is required to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year
(s.95(1)) Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)). The purpose of the plan is to:
1.2.1 provide
integrated decision-making and co-ordination of the Council’s resources;
and contribute to the accountability of the Council to the community;
1.2.2 identify
any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement in the
Council’s Long Term Plan for 2025/26;
1.2.3 contain
the annual budget and funding impact statement for 2025/26.
1.3 The
decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Council:
Noting provisions
and financial prudence
1. Receives the information in the Annual Plan 2025/26 Report and
the attachments to this report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Notes the recommendations of the
Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee at its meeting held on 13
June 2025, as set out in Attachment A of this report.
4. Notes the Thematic Analysis of the Annual Plan
2025/26 Submissions, set out in Attachment B of this report.
5. Notes the Annual Plan 2025/26 - Management
Sign-off for Process set out in Attachment C of this report; and
6. Notes the Annual Plan 2025/26 - Management
Sign-off for Significant Forecasting Assumptions set out in Attachment D
of this report.
7. Resolves that in accordance with section
100(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, it is financially prudent not to set
the Council’s projected operating revenues at a level sufficient to meet
the projected operating expenses in the 2025-26 financial year, having regard
to:
a. The ratio, which is forecast to be 96% in the
2025-26 year; and
b. The estimated expenses of achieving and
maintaining the predicted levels of service provision set out in the long-term
plan, including the estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service
capacity and integrity of the Council’s assets; and
c. The projected revenue available to fund the
estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and
integrity of the Council’s assets throughout their useful life; and
d. The equitable allocation of responsibility for
funding the provision and maintenance of the Council’s assets and
facilities; and
e. The Council's funding and financial policies.
Climate
Resilience Fund Policy
8. Adopts the Climate Resilience Fund Policy as
set out in Attachment K of this report.
9. Resolves to hold the Climate Resilience Fund
in accordance with the Investment Policy adopted by the Council with the
2024-2034 Long Term Plan.
Draft Annual
Plan – Adoption of Attachments
10. Adopts the summary of the financial, rates,
and benchmark impacts including proposed operational changes for 2025/26 set
out in Attachment E of this report.
11. Adopts the changes to the Council’s
capital programme for 2025/26 set out in Attachment F of this report.
12. Adopts the proposed Funding Impact Statement
– Rating Information set out in Attachment G of this report.
13. Adopts a minor change to a level of service
identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set out in Attachment H of this report.
14. Adopts minor changes to the Fees and Charges
schedule identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set
out in Attachment I of this report.
Disposal of Council-owned properties
15. Notes the following in respect of the disposal
of Council-owned properties consulted on as part of the 25/26 draft Annual Plan
process:
a. Separate advertising was undertaken to satisfy
the requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act and section 24 of
the Reserves Act in respect of the following properties:
· 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no
title/street number) reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
· 8 Penn Place and 38 Bexley Road considered to be a
‘Park’ pursuant to section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.
· 8 Martindales Road, 191r Worsleys Road and 193r Worsleys
Road reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and are also considered a
‘Park’ pursuant to section 138 Local
Government Act 2002 for disposal
purposes.
b. Advertising comprised public notices in the Press on 8
and 15 March 2025 for each property and publication on the
council main public notice page. Any resulting submissions have been
incorporated into the overall draft 2025/26 Annual Plan submissions (refer Attachment B of
this report, Thematic Analysis of Submissions) to
inform the Council’s decision.
c. Fair and reasonable consideration has been given to all
submissions/objections and all information in accordance with section 78 and
138 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 to
inform the Council’s decision.
16. Resolves that all
of the properties on the list in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, except 48
Balmoral Lane, as set out in Attachment J of this report, do not meet
the Council’s retention criteria and are therefore declared surplus and
to be disposed of.
17. Resolves that 48 Balmoral Lane shall be
retained due to its ecological restoration potential.
18. Authorises that the reserve revocation process for the
following listed properties is commenced in accordance with the Reserves Act
1977:
a. 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no
title).
b. 8 Martindales Road.
c. 191r Worsleys Road.
d. 193r Worsleys Road.
19. Authorises the Manager
Property Consultancy to implement
resolutions 15-18 above and in doing so make any reasonable decisions necessary
at their sole discretion to effect the sale of these properties in accordance
with Council normal practises and Policies and subject to applicable
legislation.
Draft Annual
Plan - Adoption
20. Adopts the Annual Plan 2025/26 comprising the
information and underlying documents adopted by the Council at the meeting
dated 12 February 2025 (the draft Annual Plan 2025/26), as amended by
resolutions 10 to 19 above and Attachments E-I and K of this report and
including any carried amendments made at this meeting.
Draft Annual
Plan – Authorisations and setting the rates
21. Authorises the General Manager Finance, Risk
& Performance/Chief Financial Officer to make the amendments required to
ensure the published 2025/26 Annual Plan aligns with the Council’s
resolutions of 24 June 2025 and to make any other minor changes that may be
required.
22. Authorises the Chief Executive to borrow, in
accordance with the Liability Management Policy, sufficient funds to enable the
Council to meet its funding requirements as set out in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.
23. Having set out rates information in the
Funding Impact Statement – Rating Information contained in the Annual
Plan 2025/26 (adopted as Attachment G by the above resolutions),
resolves to set the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act
2002 for the 2025/26 financial year, commencing on 1 July 2025 and ending on 30
June 2026 (all statutory references are to the Local Government (Rating) Act
2002).
a. A uniform annual general charge under section 15(1)(b) of $193.00 (incl. GST) per
separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit;
b. a general rate under sections 13(2)(b)
and 13(3)(a)(ii) set differentially based on property type, and capital value
as follows:
|
Differential Category
|
Basis for Liability
|
Rate Factor (incl. GST) (cents/$ of capital value)
|
|
Standard
|
Capital Value
|
0.256336
|
|
Business
|
Capital Value
|
0.569065
|
|
City Vacant
|
Capital Value
|
1.159406
|
|
Remote Rural
|
Capital Value
|
0.192252
|
c. a sewerage targeted rate under sections
16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.088232
cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);
d. a land drainage targeted rate under
sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of
0.045166 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);
e. a water supply targeted rate under
section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a
property is connected or capable of connection to the on-demand water
reticulation system, as follows:
|
Differential Category
|
Basis for Liability
|
Rate Factor (incl. GST) (cents/$ of capital value)
|
|
Connected (full charge)
|
Capital Value
|
0.073750
|
|
Serviceable (half charge)
|
Capital Value
|
0.036875
|
f. a restricted water supply targeted rate
under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units with one or more
connections to restricted water supply systems of $406.00
(incl. GST) for each standard level of service received by a rating unit;
g. a water supply fire connection targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all
rating units receiving the benefit of a water supply fire connection of $135.00
(incl. GST) per connection;
h. an excess water supply commercial targeted
rate under section 19(2)(a) set for all rating units which receive a
commercial water supply as defined in the Water Supply, Wastewater and
Stormwater Bylaw 2022 plus boarding houses, motels, and rest
homes, of $1.47 (incl. GST) per m3 or any part of a m3 for consumption in excess of the rating unit’s
water supply targeted rate daily allowance:
· where the rating unit’s water supply
targeted rate daily allowance is an amount of cubic meters per day, calculated
as the total amount payable under the water supply targeted rate (above),
divided by the cubic meter cost ($1.47), divided by 365;
· provided that all properties will be entitled to a minimum consumption
of 0.6986 cubic metres per day.
i. an excess water supply residential
targeted rate under section 19(2)(a) set for the following:
· all metered residential rating units where the
meter records usage for a single rating unit;
· a rating unit where the meter records usage
for multiple rating units where there is a special agreement in force
specifying which rating unit / ratepayer is responsible for payment,
of $1.47 (incl.
GST) per m3 or any part of a m3 for consumption in excess
of 900 litres per day, per separately used or inhabited part of the rating
unit;
j. a waste minimisation targeted rate under
sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a full
or partial service is provided, as follows:
|
Differential Category
|
Basis for Liability
|
Rate Factor (incl. GST)
|
|
Full service
|
Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit
|
$176.49
|
|
Partial service
|
Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit
|
$132.36
|
k. an active travel targeted rate under
section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of $20.00 (incl. GST) per separately used or
inhabited part of a rating unit;
l. a special heritage (Arts Centre)
targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of 0.000277
cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);
m. a Central City Business Association
targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of $545.69 (incl.
GST) per business rating unit in the Central City Business Association Area,
where the land value of the rating unit is greater than or equal to $90,000;
24. Resolves that all rates except the excess water supply commercial targeted rate
and the excess water supply residential targeted rate are due in four instalments, and to set the
following due dates for payment:
|
Instalment
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
Area 1
|
15 August 2025
|
15 November 2025
|
15 February 2026
|
15 May 2026
|
|
Area 2
|
15 September 2025
|
15 December 2025
|
15 March 2026
|
15 June 2026
|
|
Area 3
|
31 August 2025
|
30 November 2025
|
28 February 2026
|
31 May 2026
|
Where the Instalment Areas are defined
geographically as follows:
|
Area 1
|
Area 2
|
Area 3
|
|
Includes generally the Central City and the suburbs of
St Albans, Merivale, Mairehau, Papanui, Riccarton, Addington, Spreydon,
Sydenham, Beckenham, Opawa and Banks Peninsula.
|
Includes generally the suburbs of Shirley, New
Brighton, Linwood, Woolston, Mt Pleasant, Sumner, Cashmere and Heathcote.
|
Includes generally the suburbs of Belfast, Redwood,
Parklands, Harewood, Avonhead, Bishopdale, Ilam, Fendalton, Hornby, Templeton
and Halswell.
|
25. Resolves that the excess water supply
commercial targeted rate and the excess water supply residential targeted rate
(together, “excess water charges”) have Due Dates and Penalty Dates
based on the week in which amounts are invoiced, according to the following
table:
26. Resolves to add the following penalties to
unpaid rates pursuant to sections 57 and 58:
a. A penalty of 10 per cent will be added to any
portion of an instalment (for rates other than excess water charges) not paid
on or by the due dates set out in paragraph 24 above, to be added on the
following penalty dates:
|
Instalment
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
Area 1
|
20 August 2025
|
20 November 2025
|
19 February 2026
|
20 May 2026
|
|
Area 2
|
18 September 2025
|
18 December 2025
|
19 March 2026
|
18 June 2026
|
|
Area 3
|
04 September 2025
|
04 December 2025
|
05 March 2026
|
05 June 2026
|
b. A penalty of 10 per cent will be added to any
portion of excess water supply
commercial targeted rates and excess water supply residential targeted rates not paid on or by the due dates set out in
paragraph 25 above, to be added on the Penalty Dates set out for these targeted
rates in paragraph 25.
c. For all rates, an additional penalty of 10 per
cent will be added on 01 October 2025 to all rates assessed (including
penalties) before 01 July 2025 which remain unpaid on 01 October 2025.
d. For all rates assessed before 01 July 2025
which remain unpaid on 01 October 2025 (including penalties), and which remain
unpaid on 01 April 2026, a further penalty of 10 per cent will be added on 01
April 2026.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
The draft Annual Plan 2025/26
3.1 The
draft Annual Plan 2025/26 was adopted by the Council on 12 February 2025.
3.2 The
Council carried out consultation with the community, which ran from 26 February
to 28 March 2025. Council received 744 submissions.
3.3 Members
of the public were given the opportunity to present at public hearings between
3 April and 15 April 2025. The Council heard from 94 individuals/organisations.
3.4 All
submissions, written and oral, have been analysed to identify the matters
commented on, the reasons for those comments and the overall themes that
emerged from the consultation process. The summary of this analysis is the
Thematic Analysis, Attachment B of this report.
3.5 Following
the presentation of submissions, the Council then held a series of public and
public excluded workshops to discuss the community’s response to the
topics raised in the Consultation Document. There were held on: 19 May, 22 May,
26 May and 27 May 2025.
3.6 The
Thematic Analysis was presented during these workshops, as was the rates impact
of key questions asked during consultation (Christchurch Cathedral, Airforce
Museum, Central City Shuttle, Increasing Rating for Renewals) along with an
update to the financial position.
3.7 As signalled in the public
Annual Plan Consultation Document the capital programme has been rephased
following a review of its deliverability. Information about the proposed
rephasing was provided to the Council at the Information Session of 29 April
2025, with the Council’s guidance being requested at the Annual Plan
Workshops of 19-27 May 2025. Following guidance that further rephasing of
capital expenditure was appropriate, the proposed movements have now been
incorporated. This has resulted in a $71.5 million movement in the timing
of capital expenditure, plus a permanent change in the accounting treatment of
digital software from capital to operating expenditure of approximately $21
million, bringing the new FY26 capital expenditure total down from
approximately $736 million to $643.6 million.
3.8 Guidance
provided by Elected Members through the Annual Plan information workshops has
been incorporated into the Annual Plan 2025/26 adoption documents, including
expectations for rates increases. Changes made largely reflect community
feedback on the draft Annual Plan or changes to the Council’s operating
environment since February. In summary, through the Workshops staff were
provided with the following guidance from the Council:
3.8.1 Christchurch
Cathedral – confirming the pause of the targeted rate for the remaining
three years as incorporated in the draft Annual Plan.
3.8.2 Airforce
Museum – providing for a capital grant of $5 million in the 2026/27
Annual Plan.
3.8.3 Central
City Shuttle scoping study – including funding to undertake the study as
consulted on in the Annual Plan.
3.8.4 Confirming
a change in accounting treatment for digital software as a service from capital
to operating expenditure.
3.8.5 Including
an additional $2 million of rates to fund renewals, as consulted on.
3.8.6 Rephasing
$71.5 million of the capital programme to later years following the
deliverability review.
The Climate Resilience Fund (CRF)
3.9 The
Climate Resilience Fund (CRF) was established through the 2024–34 Long
Term Plan, with the Council directing staff to consult on the draft policy
settings as part of the 2025/26 Annual Plan. Note that no changes have been
made to the policy as a result of feedback. The CRF is a dedicated financial
reserve established to address future climate adaptation needs across Council
assets. It enables today’s ratepayers to contribute proactively to
the cost of future adaptation, promoting both resilience and intergenerational
equity.
3.10 The
draft CRF policy consulted on includes the following key provisions:
3.10.1 Scope:
The Fund will be used exclusively for climate adaptation requirements related
to Council-owned assets identified in Council-approved Adaptation Plans. In
exceptional circumstances, the Council may approve its use for other
Council-owned assets not yet covered by these plans.
3.10.2 Reserve
Period: The Fund will remain reserved until the 2055 financial year. This
reserve period is intended to preserve the Fund for future adaptation needs,
allowing it to grow and respond to long-term challenges.
3.10.3 Governance:
The Council will retain full oversight of the Fund, including monitoring
compliance with policy settings, approving the final allocation methodology,
and overseeing investment and disbursement decisions.
3.11 The
Council is asked to adopt the Climate Resilience Fund Policy as set out in Attachment
K and note that any future changes to the policy will be subject to the
Council’s approval.
Disposal of Council-owned Properties
3.12 The
Council consulted on a proposed list of Council-owned properties that do not
meet the Council’s retention criteria. They are therefore
considered to be potentially available for disposal. The decision to declare
the properties surplus was informed through the consultation process. Separate advertising
was also undertaken to satisfy the requirements of section 138 of the LGA and
section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 in respect of:
3.12.1 44
Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title/street number) reserves
subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
3.12.2 8
Penn Place and 38 Bexley Road considered to be a ‘Park’ pursuant to
section 138 of the LGA.
3.12.3 8
Martindales Road, 191r Worsleys Road and 193r Worsleys Road reserves subject to
the Reserves Act 1977 and are also considered a ‘Park’ pursuant to
section 138 LGA for disposal purposes.
3.13 The advertising
comprised public notices in the Press on 8 and 15 March 2025 for
each property and publication on the Council main public notice page. Any
resulting submissions have been incorporated into the overall Annual Plan
submissions (refer Attachment B, Thematic Analysis of Submissions) and
inform the proposed resolution.
3.14 The
Council is asked to resolve that all of the properties on the list in the draft
Annual Plan, set out in Attachment J, do not to meet the Council’s
retention criteria and are therefore declared surplus and to be disposed of,
except for 48 Balmoral Lane which shall be retained due to its ecological
restoration potential.
3.15 Fair
and reasonable consideration has been given to all submissions/objections and
all information in accordance with sections 78 and 138 of the LGA and section
24 of the Reserves Act 1977 and inform the resolution above.
3.16 The Council is
also asked to:
3.16.1 Authorise
that the reserve revocation process for the following listed properties is
commenced in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977:
· 44
Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title)
· 8
Martindales Road,
· 191r
Worsleys Road
· 193r
Worsleys Road
3.16.2 Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to implement all the required
resolutions and in doing so make any reasonable decisions necessary at his
discretion to effect the sale of these properties in accordance with
Council’s normal practises and policies.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 The
Council’s deliberations for the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 began with a
series of workshops with staff, the first being held on 27 August 2024, soon
after the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP).
4.2 The
deliberations started with the LTP Year 2 (2025/26) overall average rates
increase of 8.48% (6.73% base rates, plus 1.75% for One New Zealand Stadium at
Te Kaha). This was following a LTP Year 1 Council-approved rates increase of
9.9% for 2024/25.
4.3 Following
further Council information workshops, held with staff between September and
November 2024, the Council agreed to adopt the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 and go
out to the community for consultation with an overall average rates increase of
7.58%, that is 0.9% lower than proposed in Year 2 of the LTP.
4.4 Based
on feedback from the community (submissions and hearings), the Council held
further information workshops with staff throughout May 2025, the result of
which has been to further reduce the overall average rates increase from
7.58% to 6.77% which is being put forward to this final Annual Plan
2025/26 adoption meeting.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Rates
5.1 The
recommended Annual Plan includes a rates requirement (excl. GST) to be levied
for 2025/26 of $825.3 million.
5.2 The
proposed average rates increase for 2025/26 to all existing ratepayers is
6.77%, lower than the 7.58% forecast in the draft Annual Plan. Details of the
makeup of the rates increase is shown in Attachment E.
5.3 The
potential 2025/26 increases for the average capital value property in the 3
sectors is:
· Residential
6.66%
· Business
7.17%
· Remote
Rural
6.64%
5.4 Based
on the recommended rates requirement noted above, the average house would have
a rates increase of $5.08 (incl GST) per week, down from $5.64 (incl GST) in
the draft Annual Plan. Full details of rates, including the total rating
requirement for general and targeted rates, and indicative rates for sample
properties are provided in Attachment G.
5.5 The
proposed Uniform Annual General Charge is $193 (incl GST). It has increased
from $177 (incl GST) based on the average increase in general rates.
Expenditure
5.6 Operational
expenditure of $1,239.9 million is proposed for 2025/26, compared to $1,251.8
million in the draft. The $11.9 million decrease is principally due to:
5.6.1 Reduction
in depreciation ($21.7m), due to the rephasing of the capital programme
following the deliverability review, and the reduction in digital software
depreciation, following the change in accounting treatment for digital software
as a service.
5.6.2 Reduced
interest expense ($8.4m), due to a lower opening debt balance as a result of
changes in on-lending to Council CCO’s, and use of $20 million of the
2024/25 forecast operating surplus to reduce debt.
5.6.3 Reduced
waste management and resource recovery costs ($3.3m), relating to recycling and
collection costs, based on 2024/25 actual expenditure trends expected to
continue into the 2025/26 financial year.
5.6.4 Reduced
electricity expenditure ($3.2m), following updated contract pricing.
5.6.5 Reduced
expenditure on strategy consultants and compliance costs ($1.4m):
5.7 The
reduced expenditure is partially offset by:
5.7.1 Provision
made for the Central City Shuttle scoping study ($0.2m).
5.7.2 Updated
Living Wage provision ($1.0m), a 2.5% increase had been allowed for in the
draft, but the final official announcement was an increase of 4.2%.
5.7.3 Increased
insurance costs ($2.2m) due to updated asset revaluations.
5.7.4 Decreased
staff time capitalisation primarily in the Parks and Water Services activities
($3.6 million).
5.7.5 Digital
capital programme costs relating to software as a service converted to
operating expenditure due to a change in accounting treatment ($19.4 million).
5.8 Details
of all expenditure and revenue changes from the draft to recommended final
Annual Plan are shown in Attachment E.
Revenue
5.9 Total
revenue excluding rates is $370.7 million in 2025/26, compared to $377.0
million in the draft Annual Plan. The $7.7 million decrease is principally due
to:
5.9.1 Reduction
in interest revenue ($7.3 million), due to a reduction in on-lending to
subsidiaries.
5.9.2 Reduction
in Hagley Park parking revenues ($1.4 million), due to updated projections
based on 2024/25 actual revenue expected to continue in 2025/26.
5.10 The
reduced revenue excluding rates is partially offset by:
5.10.1 Increased waste
management and resource recovery revenue ($0.6m), due to recognition of a
volume rebate expected to be received.
Surplus, operating deficits, and sustainability
5.11 The
recommended Annual Plan shows an accounting surplus of $220 million before
revaluations. This is $4 million higher than the draft. Under accounting
standards the Council is required to show all revenue, including recoveries
from central Government and the NZ Transport Agency, as income for the year.
However, some of these recoveries reimburse the Council for capital
expenditure. After adjusting for these capital revenues, the Council continues
to forecast an unbalanced budget for 2025/26 as reported in the draft.
5.12 The
operating surplus for the current 2024/25 financial year is forecast (as at 31
May 2025) to be $43.2m better than budget. The recommended Annual Plan
includes applying $37 million as follows:
5.12.1 $20m
used to reduce current year borrowing, thereby reducing the opening debt
position and lowering future interest costs and debt repayment and therefore
rates.
5.12.2 A
further $3m over and above the $14m provided in the draft Annual plan applied
to reduce rates directly in the 2025/26 financial year.
5.12.3 Staff
to provide advice to the Council in August 2025 on the use of any balance of
actual operating surplus at year end 30 June 2025.
Capital programme expenditure
5.13 The
Council plans to invest $643.6 million in the capital programme in 2025/26.
This is a total decrease of $92.5 million from the draft following a
deliverability review which included a review of funding timing ($71.5m), as
well as a change in the accounting treatment of Digital software (approx.
$21m). The changes are shown in Attachment F.
5.14 The
capital programme has been reviewed with a focus on deliverability, to ensure
ratepayers are not levied in advance of funds being required. Key factors taken
into account when considering deliverability were:
· Supply chain issues
– including resources, materials and labour.
· Cost
escalation/inflationary pressure.
· Human resource
availability (internal and external).
5.15 The
capital programme expenditure proposed in 2025/26 compared to Year 2 of the LTP
mainly relates to the following:
Community Facilities
5.15.1 Re-timing
of $9.5 million of Jellie Park renewals to 2026/27.
Three Waters
5.15.2 Additional
$10.8 million of water supply mains renewals programme works to be included in
2025/26.
5.15.3 Re-timing
of $6.6 million for the Akaroa wastewater treatment plant from 2025/26 to
future years.
5.15.4 Reprioritisation
of the Addington Brook Filtration Devices bringing $4.7m budget from 2030/31 to
2025/26.
5.15.5 Reprioritisation
of the Highsted Styx Mill Reserve Wetland bringing $3.4m budget from 2028/29 to
2025/26.
5.15.6 Re-phasing
of $16.2m from 2025/26 to 2027/28 for the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment
Plant activated sludge plant.
5.15.7 Re-phasing
of $8.8m from 2025/26 to 2027/28 for the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment
Plant biogas storage upgrade.
Transport
5.15.8 Proposing to stage the
delivery of the Papanui ki Waiwhetū Wheels to Wings major cycle route
which includes (carrying forward $9.7 million from 2024/25 to 2025/26):
· linking the Te
Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern
Line major cycle routes, and installing a signalised pedestrian crossing
on Harewood Road, between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street ($4.2m);
· Installing
traffic lights at the Harewood Road, Gardiners Road and Breens Road
intersection, and installing a signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road
at Harewood School ($5.5m); and
· Noting that
the remaining construction programme is yet to be finalised and will be
confirmed through future Annual Plans or Long-Term Plan processes.
5.15.9 Proposing
to defer the Lincoln Road Public Transport project while working on a business
case for NTZA funding from 2025 – 28 to 2028 - 30.
5.15.10 An
additional $2.5m has been added in to 2025/26 and $1m into 2026/27 to enable us
to complete the Te Aratai Cycle Connection project.
5.15.11 An
additional $1.5m has been allocated across 2025/26 and 2026/27 to enable
completion of the Simeon Street Cycle Connection Project.
Capital programme funding
5.16 The
capital programme is funded by subsidies and grants for capital expenditure,
development contributions, proceeds from sales of surplus land, rates and debt.
In 2025/26 Council will rate $205.5 million for asset renewals.
Borrowing
5.17 The
recommended Annual Plan shows gross debt rising from $2.79 billion to $2.89
billion during 2025/26, a net increase of $98.5 million.
5.18 Ratepayer
debt repayment of $81.2 million is planned.
5.19 In
accordance with Council’s Financial Strategy, the Annual Plan ensures
prudent and sustainable financial management of Council’s operations and
that it will not borrow beyond its ability to service and repay that borrowing.
Advances to subsidiaries
5.20 Advances
of $183 million are planned for repayment with a corresponding reduction in
Council debt. This is largely due to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL)
refinancing directly with lenders.
6. Significant Assumptions
6.1 There is no significant change from the draft. Opening debt
balances, rating growth, and Council’s credit rating have been updated.
Assumptions are subject to a rigorous sign-off process across the Council and
results were reviewed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee (Attachments
C and D).
7. Financial Risk Management Strategy
7.1 The
Council’s policies to assist in managing its financial risk, including
liquidity and funding risk management, interest rate exposure and counterparty
credit risk are unchanged from the LTP. An important element in assessing the
value of the Council’s risk management strategy is its five key financial
ratios (two net debt, two interest and one liquidity). All key financial ratios
are expected to be met in 2025/26. These are included within the Financial
Prudence Benchmarks in Attachment E.
7.2 There
are two Financial Prudence benchmarks not expected to be met in 2025/26; the
Balanced Budget benchmark and the Debt Servicing benchmark.
7.3 The
Balanced Budget benchmark measures if revenue is equal to or greater than
operating expenses. The Balanced Budget benchmark is forecast to not be met in
2025/26. This is consistent with the draft, and as explained in the
Consultation document was due to Government funding towards the capital
programme being overestimated in the LTP. Council is forecast to achieve a
balanced budget by 2027/28. Council’s Financial Strategy outlines the
ongoing progress to fully rate for asset renewals by 2032, ensuring in the
medium term this benchmark is met. The Annual Plan forecast is considered
financially prudent having regard to the matters in section 100 of the LGA.
7.4 The
Debt Servicing benchmark (borrowing costs as a percentage of revenue being less
than 10%) is not forecast to be met in 2025/26. It is forecast to be 11.3% due
to projected interest rates, the level of borrowing on-lent to CCHL for
subsidiaries, and the borrowing for One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha. This is
an improvement from the 12.1% forecast in the LTP. Around 19% of the interest
cost relates to on-lending to subsidiaries which generates offsetting interest
revenue that the ratio doesn’t consider (noting that after adjusting for
the on-lending Council meets the Debt Servicing benchmark). There is no
concern around the Council’s ability to service its debt.
7.5 Staff
note that the Council remains comfortably within the parameters of its
Financial Strategy and the Annual Plan does not depart in any significant way
from what was forecast for Year 2 of the LTP.
8. Fees and Charges
8.1 A schedule of minor changes to the Fees and Charges
schedule consulted on is included in Attachment I. These include:
8.1.1 Building
inspection fees – simplification of the distinction between residential
and commercial inspection fees.
8.1.2 Streamline
Residential Dwellings – One-Cost Consent, the proposed new fee to
participants has been simplified and set at $4,850 (incl GST) to cover costs.
8.2 Based on the consultation feedback on the proposed Trade
Waste charges change in methodology, and further consideration from an
operational perspective, the staff recommendation is to move to the three-tier
charging option. This was Option 1, and Council’s preferred option,
as set out in the Consultation Document. Option 1 was also supported by
the majority of submitters.
9. Changes to Levels of Service
9.1 There is a recommended minor change to one Measure of
Success and target (level of service) accompanied by rationale (refer Attachment
H).
9.2 The change relates to the Regulatory Compliance and
Licencing activity. As of July 2025, the Hairdressers Regulations have
been revoked and therefore not requiring inspections to occur. The level of
service performance measure 9.0.23 is therefore to be updated to remove the
reference to hairdressers.
9.3 The
minor change is for administrative purposes and does not require consultation
with the community.
10. Changes to Revenue, Financing and Rating
Policies
10.1 There
are no policy changes from the LTP proposed to the Revenue, Financing and
Rating Policies as part of this Annual Plan.
11. Potential Disposal of Council Owned Properties
11.1 The
Council owns many types of properties of varying configurations and sizes.
Owning property comes at a cost, and it is good financial practice to
frequently review the portfolio to ensure it remains fit for purpose. If a
property is no longer fit for purpose, then the Council should decide whether
to keep it or release its value for community benefit.
11.2 Since
2021 the Council has when appropriate included in its draft LTPs and Annual
Plans a small portfolio of properties to be considered for disposal. The
properties have been put forward for consideration on the basis they were no
longer delivering the original activity or service for which they were
purchased.
11.3 This
process has been continued in this Annual Plan for a small number of properties
identified as no longer used for the purpose for which they were originally
acquired. These have been assessed against, and are considered to meet, the
following criteria adopted by the Council at its meeting of 10 December 2021:
11.3.1
Is the full property still required for the purpose for which it was originally
acquired?
11.3.2
Does the property have special cultural, heritage or environmental values that
can only be protected through public ownership?
11.3.3
Is there an immediate identified alternative public use / work / activity in a
policy, plan or strategy?
11.3.4
Are there any strategic, non-service delivery needs that the property meets and
that can only be met through public ownership?
11.3.5
Are there any identified unmet needs, which the Council might normally address,
that the property could be used to solve? And is there a reasonable pathway to
funding the unmet need?
11.4 In
summary, those properties referred to above (refer paragraphs 3.12 and 3.16),
as well as the attached list of properties (refer Attachment J), are
considered surplus and available for disposal. An exception is 48
Balmoral Lane which was reconsidered following consultation feedback and staff
advice is that this should be retained for ecological retention.
11.5 Fair
and reasonable consideration has been given to all submissions/objections and
all information in accordance with section 78 and 138 of the LGA and section 24
of the Reserves Act 1977 and inform the above resolution.
12. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me
ngā Whakamātautau
12.1 Key
risks for the deliverability of the finalised Annual Plan are as follows:
12.1.1 Significant
amendments or modifications of the Annual Plan at a late stage, preventing
timely advice on proposed amendments being provided and all reasonable options
being considered, and a risk that any significant changes will require an
amendment to the LTP.
Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga
ā-Ture
12.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
12.2.1 The
Council must, at all times, have an LTP / Annual Plan in place (sections 93 and
95 of the LGA). The Annual Plan is required to be adopted prior to the
year to which it relates (section 95(3) of the LGA).
12.3 Other Legal Implications:
12.3.1 The
Council has a legal duty to ensure that each year’s projected operating
revenues are sufficient to meet that year’s projected operating expenses
so that it can achieve a balanced budget (section 100(1) of the LGA). Council
can approve an unbalanced budget (in the final Annual Plan adoption of June
2025) provided it resolves that it is financially prudent to do so, having
regard to the relevant criteria set out in section 100(2) of the LGA.
Broadly section 100(2) requires Council to consider long-term service levels,
estimated asset maintenance expenses across the life of assets, available
funding to maintain service capacity, a fair allocation of ratepayer funding
across the useful life of assets, and its own funding and financial policies.
12.3.2 As
the current Christ Church Cathedral Targeted Rate (Targeted Rate) has been
signalled in the funding impact statement and collected for a specific purpose,
ceasing to levy for the Targeted Rate is a legitimate approach subject to the
appropriate consultation with the community.
12.4 There is
no additional legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.
Strategy
and Policy Considerations Te
Whai Kaupapa here
12.5 The
required decisions:
12.5.1 Align
with the Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework.
12.5.2 Are
assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was
determined by the:
· long-term nature of the decisions;
· number of
people affected and/or with an interest;
· benefits/opportunities
to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decisions;
and
· costs/risks to
the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decisions.
12.5.3 The
decisions are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
12.6 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
12.7 Governance
12.7.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making
· Level of Service: 4.1.18 Participation in and contribution
to Council decision-making - Percentage of respondents who understand how
Council makes decisions: At least 32%
12.8 Internal Services
12.8.1 Activity: Performance Management and Reporting
12.9 Level of Service: 13.1.1 Implement the Long Term Plan and
Annual Plan programme plan - Critical path milestone due dates in
programme plans are met.
Community
Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori
12.10 The
decisions affect all wards/Community Board areas.
12.11 The views
of all Community Boards have been considered by the Council.
12.12 Each of the six Community Boards finalised a Community Board Plan in
May 2023. Each Plan identified key Community Board priorities that they
wish to achieve in the current electoral term and beyond. The Plans were
made available to Heads of Service to inform the development of Activity Plans
for the LTP2024-34.
12.13 Community
Boards submissions were then presented directly to the Council at Hearings on 3
April 2025, which have informed Council deliberations for the final Annual Plan
03.04.25
- Council Annual Plan - Christchurch City Council Meetings
Impact
on Mana Whenua Ngā
Whai Take Mana Whenua
12.14 The
decisions involve matters of interest to Mana Whenua and impact on our agreed
partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.
12.15 The Council
directly engages with the Papatipu Rūnanga who fall within the Council
catchment as mana whenua of respective rohe: Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri
Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Wairewa Rūnanga, Te
Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Ōnuku Rūnanga and Te Taumutu
Rūnanga.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
12.16 The
decisions in this report are likely to:
12.16.1 Contribute
positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
12.16.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.
12.17 The LTP
2024-34 contains a focus on climate change response, with climate change
considerations embedded throughout the process. This was emphasised in the
Mayor and Councillor’s Letter of Expectation for the LTP and the
Council’s Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes. Each Activity Plan
includes a description of how that part of Council will respond to climate
impacts and reduce its emissions. Climate change is also part of the Asset
Management Plans and Infrastructure and Financial Strategies. As a result, the
LTP has an emphasis on both mitigation and adaptation, with actions proposed
across all areas of Council.
12.18 The
proposals in this Annual Plan are unlikely to have a significant impact
on the climate change impact considerations outlined in the LTP.
13. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
13.1 Once
the Council has adopted the final Annual Plan a local authority must, within 1
month after the adoption of its Annual Plan, make it publicly available. This
includes incorporating the decisions of Council made during adoption, followed
by design, publication and printing.
13.2 The
Annual Plan publication will go on-line, while hard-copies will be distributed
to the National Library of New Zealand, Parliamentary Library, The Auditor
General and Governor General, and to our services centres and libraries.
13.3 Feedback
about the Council’s decisions will be provided to all submitters on the
Annual Plan.
13.4 Council
systems will be updated with key content (adopted levels of service and
targets, capital projects, budgets) to enable and support performance reporting
to Finance and Performance Committee (monthly) and Council (Annual Report).
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Audit and Risk
Management Committee Recommendations
|
25/1196648
|
44
|
|
b ⇩
|
Thematic
Analysis of the Annual Plan 2025/26 Submissions
|
25/1053578
|
46
|
|
c ⇩
|
Annual Plan
2025/26 Management Sign-off for Process
|
25/1055803
|
78
|
|
d ⇩
|
Annual Plan
2025/26 - Management Sign-off for Significant Forecasting Assumptions
|
25/1055809
|
90
|
|
e ⇩
|
Financial
changes from the Draft Annual Plan
|
25/1147493
|
111
|
|
f ⇩
|
Proposed
Changes to the Council's capital programme for 2025/26
|
25/1132258
|
114
|
|
g ⇩
|
Funding Impact
Statement - Rating Information
|
25/1132742
|
157
|
|
h ⇩
|
Proposed minor
change to a Level of Service
|
25/1087120
|
178
|
|
i ⇩
|
Proposed minor
changes to Fees and Charges schedule
|
25/1123508
|
180
|
|
j ⇩
|
Proposed list
of Council-owned properties for disposal
|
25/1087117
|
182
|
|
k ⇩
|
Proposed
Climate Resilience Fund Policy 2025
|
25/1129631
|
187
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Boyd Kedzlie -
Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst
Tim Ward -
Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst
Meg Wedlock -
Performance Analyst
Angus Smith -
Manager Property Consultancy
Bruce Moher -
Acting Head of Finance
Steve Ballard
- Group Treasurer
Ron Lemm -
Manager Legal Service Delivery
Paul Dadson -
Senior Capital Programme Advisor Parks & Facilities
Richard Wesley
- Principal Advisor PMO
Peter Ryan -
Head of Corporate Planning & Performance
|
|
Approved By
|
Peter Ryan -
Head of Corporate Planning & Performance
Nicky Palmer -
Head of Programme Management Office
Bruce Moher -
Acting Head of Finance
Bede Carran -
General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer
Mary
Richardson - Chief Executive
|
