Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 18 June 2025

5. Moorhouse Avenue - Pedestrian Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/667103
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation Safety
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to make a decision on pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements at two intersections on Moorhouse Avenue; the intersections of Madras Street/Gasson Street and Barbadoes Street/Waltham Road.

1.2 The report has been written in response to a need to improve pedestrian facilities (safety and accessibility) at two intersections on Moorhouse Avenue. This is due to the number of people crossing in these locations as a result of pedestrian movements generated by Ara and the surrounding businesses, and the future impact of Te Kaha One NZ Stadium and the likelihood of people parking south of Moorhouse Avenue for events and Project 8011 (South-east Neighbourhood).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Moorhouse Avenue - Pedestrian Improvements Report.

2. Notes that the decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019.

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham

3. Approves pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Moorhouse Avenue, Barbadoes Street and Waltham Road as detailed as Option A in Attachment A of this report (plan TP365401, dated 19/05/2025).

4. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a Pedestrian Crossing be installed on Moorhouse Avenue, located on the south-east corner of its intersection with Waltham Road, and as detailed as Option A in Attachment A of this report (plan TP365401, dated 19/05/2025).

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse

5. Approves pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, traffic islands and road markings on Moorhouse Avenue, Madras Street and Gasson Street as detailed as Option A in Attachment B of this report (plan TP347601, dated 10/03/2025).

6. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a Pedestrian Crossing be installed on Moorhouse Avenue, located on the south-east corner of its intersection with Gasson Street, and as detailed as Option A in Attachment B of this report (plan TP365401, dated 19/05/2025).

7. Approves that in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that a Pedestrian Crossing be installed on Moorhouse Avenue, located on the south-west corner of its intersection with Gasson Street, and as detailed as Option A in Attachment B of this report (plan TP365401, dated 19/05/2025).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Barbadoes Street/Moorhouse Avenue/Waltham Road intersection and the Gasson Street/Madras Street/Moorhouse Avenue intersection are busy with many people walking, cycling, accessing public transport and driving through. This is due to people travelling to work and through the community, in addition to:

· The location of the Ara Central City campus, between the two intersections;

· Adjacent to Project 8011/South East Neighbourhood plan, an area anticipated for increased housing density; and

· Events being held at the new stadium. It is envisaged that users that will park in free unrestricted parking south of Moorhouse Avenue and walk to the stadium.

3.2 Whether people are travelling through this intersection on foot, by bicycle, by bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely. Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the Christchurch City Council. Providing safe infrastructure is key to ensure people get to where they are going safely irrespective of their mode of travel. Council has a Level of Service to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries from all crashes by 40% in 2030. That is a reduction of five or more per year, and for this to be under 71 crashes per year within the 10-year period. This is also a goal in the Road Safety Action Plan, which is a collaborative plan between Christchurch City Council, NZTA Waka Kotahi, ACC, FENZ and New Zealand Police.

3.3 This Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection is ranked number 7 (medium-high collective risk) of intersections within the Christchurch District in terms of there being a risk of a crash, compared to over 5700 Council controlled intersections citywide (excludes State Highway intersections). Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse is ranked number 23 in terms of crash risk with a medium collective risk.

3.4 Public consultation was completed in April 2025. Submissions were made by seven recognised organisations, one business and 183 individuals. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Boards were supportive of the changes.

3.4.1 For the Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection, 96 submitters were supportive of the changes, 26 were somewhat supportive of the changes, 65 were not supportive of the changes and 4 didn’t know.

3.4.2 For the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection, 90 submitters were supportive of the changes, 28 were somewhat supportive of the changes, 69 were not supportive of the changes and 4 didn’t know.

3.4.3 Submitters who cycle, walk and take the bus were more likely to support the proposals.

3.4.4 Full or partial support for the proposals was generally strongest from submitters aged under 50, and split for those aged over 35.

3.5 Following this consultation, staff recommend Option A, provided in Attachment A and Attachment B, as this presents the lowest risk option to all road users as it:

3.5.1 Introduces new pedestrian crossings on the east side of both the Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection and the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection to improve accessibility for people crossing.

3.5.2 Introduces traffic calming and a priority crossing on the slip lanes at both the Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection and the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection to improve safety for people crossing.

3.5.3 Removes the slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street at the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection. Bringing the left turn lane into the intersection and controlling this through signals, will create additional waiting space for people crossing particularly when travelling in family or larger groups, and provides a secondary benefit of improving cycle safety for people travelling northbound by bicycle.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Moorhouse Avenue is classified as an urban connector route. It carries approximately 46,000 movements a day. There are multiple cross streets for people to access the central city, including the main distributor streets of Madras Street and Barbadoes Street.

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham

4.2 The existing layout has no pedestrian crossing point over Moorhouse Avenue on the east side of the intersection.

Aerial view of a road intersection

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1: Existing layout at Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection

4.3 The intersection is located adjacent to Ara, Catholic Cathedral College, and the Washington Way Skate Park. All of which, generate pedestrian crossing movements at the intersection.

4.4 Slip lanes can make crossing a road feel unsafe for people walking, particularly children, the elderly and mobility or visually impaired pedestrians. At slip lanes, drivers are focussing on what traffic may be coming from the right to see if they can pass through without stopping, which can sometimes lead to people speeding up to take the gap. The location is surrounded by activities that generate foot traffic and therefore should drivers speed up to take a gap in the traffic when there is a presence of a priority crossing and people have the right to cross, it could result in a crash.

4.5 A staggered pedestrian crossing on the east side of the intersection was originally proposed as part of the AMI Stadium Walkway project in 2010. Consultation was undertaken and presented to Council in August 2010, and the project was approved (meeting minutes). However, with the 2010/2011 earthquake sequence the remainder of the AMI Stadium Walkway project was put on hold and the crossing was never installed. The intersection recently had all its traffic signal cabling renewed and was futureproofed for these works.

4.6 There have been no crashes in the past ten years involving people walking at this intersection. There was one fatal crash in 2019 involving a person riding a bicycle and being hit by a driver who had failed to see the red signal on Moorhouse Avenue.

4.7 To improve pedestrian accessibility at the Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection it is proposed to:

4.7.1 Install a staggered crossing on the east side of Moorhouse Avenue. This provides an improved level of service and accessibility for pedestrians wanting to cross Moorhouse Ave on the eastern side of the intersection, where there is currently no facility. The staggered treatment is consistent with improvements that have been made at other intersections on the Four Avenues in recent years.

4.7.2 Install a zebra crossing and speed hump on the slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Waltham Road to provide priority to people crossing. Aligned with NZTA best practice guidance, a speed hump would be added in advance of the priority crossing on the slip lane to slow vehicle speeds on the approach to the conflict point to reduce the likelihood and severity of a crash.

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse

4.8 The existing layout of the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection is shown in Figure 2 below. It is a large four-approach intersection controlled by traffic signals. There is currently no pedestrian crossing point on the east side of the intersection.

Aerial view of a road intersection

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2: Existing layout at Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection

4.9 The intersection is located adjacent to Ara Institute, Woolworths supermarket and retail outlets, and a food establishment on the southeast corner. All these activities generate crossing movements at the intersection.

4.10 There are three slip lanes at this intersection, two on the southern side for people entering and exiting Gasson Street, and one from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street. As per paragraph 4.4, slip lanes can make crossing a road feel unsafe for people walking, particularly children, the elderly and mobility or visually impaired pedestrians. Risk remains for people crossing in these locations if drivers are looking for gaps in the traffic and do not see people crossing ahead.

4.11 The current slip lane island on the northwest corner of the Moorhouse/Madras/Gasson intersection, which separates the through lanes and the left turn lane is approximately 9sqm including the traffic signal poles. This space can generally hold around 6-8 people excluding any wheelchairs, mobility assisted devices or prams (assuming 1-1.5sqm per person). Due to the size, it could feel uncomfortable having this many people on the island, and there is a risk that they could spill into the traffic lanes particularly at busy times and after events. It is usually recommended that separating islands be at least 16sqm where signal infrastructure/poles are required to be on the islands also.

4.12 There is no room within the current kerblines to increase the size of the island to accommodate additional pedestrian demands, particularly at peak times and when events are on at the stadium and people are discharged in a large group. In observations of two 30-minute periods during the morning peak period, the following was noted:

Crossing location	Tuesday 15 April 2025 08.30-0900 - school holidays	Tuesday 3 June 2025 08.30-0900 - Not school holidays
Madras Street	14 people including two people on bicycles.	29 people crossed including four people on bicycles.
West side of Moorhouse Avenue	34 people including two people on bicycles, parents walking with children and a pushchair, and also a young person with luggage.	33 people including including two people on scooters and one on a bicycle.
Northbound cyclists	20	36

People travelling by all modes across Moorhouse Avenue

4.13 The largest group of people observed walking and crossing in the above counts, was six people heading towards Ara Institute. In addition, people on bicycles were using the island as a hook turn facility to cross over to the east side of Madras Street and continue north on the footpath. With the stadium soon to open, pedestrian demand is likely to exceed available space on the traffic island during events.

4.14 The issue is compounded by:

4.14.1 A narrow footpath on the northwest corner which varies between 1.5 - 2.2 metres, which limits the space that people can wait until there is space available on the island. There is no scope to increase the width of the footpath and retain the island due to private property and the need to retain sufficient width in the traffic lane for turning vehicles.

4.14.2 Long cycle times for the traffic signals at the intersection, meaning people on the island are waiting for a long time before being able to cross (generally around 120 seconds). The island has to accommodate people crossing both Moorhouse Avenue and Madras Street, so will only clear some pedestrians dependent on which signal phase is running.

4.15 Another issue is the angle of the slip lane. Currently this intersects Madras Street at an angle which makes it more difficult for drivers to observe conflicting traffic on the right approaching from Gasson Street or Moorhouse Avenue (west). Drivers are currently encroaching into the narrow cycle lane on Madras Street at this point to improve the visibility of traffic. In a 30-minute period during on-site observations (date and time period above), 20-36 people on bicycles travelled north past the slip lane.

4.16 There have been no crashes in the past ten years involving people walking or cycling at this intersection.

4.17 Red light cameras were installed at the intersection in April 2022. Since then, there have been seven reported crashes, two of which were minor injury crashes. Both minor injury crashes involved drivers failing to see a red light, and three of the five non-injury crashes also involved a driver travelling through a red signal. In the previous eight years, there were 31 crashes, 22 of which occurred between 2015 and 2017. Following that there were approximately two crashes per year. Therefore, the cameras have had a neutral effect on safety at this intersection.

4.18 To improve pedestrian accessibility at Moorhouse/Madras/Gasson it is proposed to:

· Install a staggered crossing on the east side of Moorhouse Avenue. This provides an improved level of service and accessibility for pedestrians wanting to cross Moorhouse Avenue on the eastern side of the intersection, where there is currently no facility. The staggered treatment is consistent with improvements that have been made at other intersections on the Four Avenues in recent years.

· Install a zebra crossing and speed hump on the slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into and from Gasson Street to provide priority to people crossing. Aligned with NZTA best practice guidance, a speed hump would be added in advance of the priority crossing on the slip lane to slow vehicle speeds on the approach to the conflict point to reduce the likelihood and severity of a crash.

· There is insufficient room in the intersection to create a larger slip lane island on the northwest corner. The proposal is therefore to remove the slip lane and create a larger waiting space for people wanting to cross. Bringing the left turn lane into the intersection and controlling this through signals, will improve pedestrian safety primarily, and provide a secondary benefit of improving cycle safety for people travelling northbound by bicycle.

4.19 Changing the left turn slip lane to a left turn-controlled movement through the signals is unlikely to have a significant effect on the intersection’s overall performance. Drivers using Moorhouse Avenue currently experience delay and queueing in the peak hours. Modelling for both the morning and evening peak was undertaken to understand the effects of the left turn lane change (from slip to controlled). The traffic modelling predicts:

Delays and performance

4.19.1 In the short term, following the change to the intersection, the movement most affected is the left turn from the Moorhouse Avenue west approach, which will experience an increase in delays of approximately 40 - 45 seconds. This is expected given the nature of the change (i.e. going from a give-way to controlled left turn).

4.19.2 Currently the intersection runs a split (lead-lag) right turn phasing. The right turn is tied to the through movement on both approaches on Moorhouse Avenue. There could be a slight reduction in the green time given to the right turn movement in the morning peak, as more time is needed for the opposing left turn into Madras Street.

4.19.3 There is a slight increase in the predicted performance of the right turn movement from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street with the option in the morning peak period (average of additional 6 seconds). The predicted delay in the evening peak remains broadly similar.

Queuing

4.19.4 The signalisation of the left turn from Moorhouse Avenue to Madras Street is expected to increase the queuing along Moorhouse Avenue (i.e., on the west approach to Moorhouse/Madras/Gasson intersection). The queue length effectively doubles in length, however the additional queuing from the change in design of the left turn can be contained within the available storage space between Madras Street and Manchester Street.

4.19.5 The traffic modelling shows that the additional queuing as a result of the change is not expected to affect the through movements significantly. The queue lengths for the through movement on the west approach does not change.

4.19.6 There will be some adjustments to the signal timing to accommodate the new controlled movement (i.e., left turn from Moorhouse Avenue to Madras Street). There will be a need to reallocate green time between the movements until an equilibrium (i.e. people choosing to change their travel times, choosing alternative routes, and optimisation of the signal timings), is reached, an equilibrium that aims to reduce overall delay. The modelling shows that this process of reaching a new equilibrium can result in more delay to other existing controlled movements.

4.19.7 For six months post-implementation, the CCC Real Time Operations team continue to review the best traffic flow optimisation and make adjustments dependent on traffic volumes and time of day (peak am/pm or off-peak) where needed.

Summary

4.19.8 In summary, the change is within the intersection’s capacity to accommodate without significant delays. The long terms effects of this change to commuter travel times are predicted to be negligible.

4.20 As a comparison, the left turn demands from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street (2023 count) in the morning (265 left turners) and evening peak (341 left turners) are less those turning into Montreal Street (2021 count) in the morning (451 left turners) and evening (403 left turners) peak period. There is no slip lane for the equivalent left turn movement at Montreal/Moorhouse intersection.

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

Date	Subject
31/03/2025	Moorhouse Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements (Attachment C)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham

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

4.22.1 Option A: Install a crossing and improve the slip lane crossing (as per previously approved plan).

4.22.2 Option B: Do Nothing.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.23 Preferred Option: Option A - Install a crossing and improve the slip lane crossing (as per previously approved plan).

4.23.1 Option Description: Introduce a staggered pedestrian crossing on the east side of the intersection, in addition to a priority crossing on the slip lane.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· Provides an additional crossing point for people walking.

· The staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection improves accessibility and safety, particularly for people who are low/blind vision or people who need more time to cross the road.

· Provides priority for people crossing the slip lanes on the south side.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· Additional cost to Council.

4.24 Option B: Do Nothing

4.24.1 Option Description: Make no improvements for people using this intersection.

4.24.2 Option Advantages

· No additional costs to Council.

4.24.3 Option Disadvantages

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

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse

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

4.25.1 Option A: Install a crossing on the east side of the intersection, improve the slip lane crossings and remove the slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street.

4.25.2 Option B: Install a crossing on the east side of the intersection, improve the slip lane crossings, retain the slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street and provide no additional space for the storage of pedestrians to cope with anticipated demand.

	Option A	Option B
Slip lane into Madras Street from Moorhouse Avenue	Slip lane removed	Slip lane retained
Increases waiting area for groups of people travelling at this intersection together on foot	Increases waiting area	Makes no improvements for the storage of pedestrians to cope with anticipated demand

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.26 Preferred Option: Introduce a staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection, priority crossings for people at the slip lanes, removal of the left turn slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street.

4.26.1 Option Description: Introduce a staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection, priority crossings for people at the slip lanes, removal of the left turn slip lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street.

4.26.2 Option Advantages

· Provides an additional crossing point for people walking.

· The staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection improves accessibility and safety, particularly for people who are low/blind vision or people who need more time to cross the road.

· Changing the design of the northwest corner provides more space for the storage of pedestrians to cope with anticipated demand.

· Provides priority for people crossing the slip lanes on the south side.

· Improves safety for people travelling north by bicycle as the left turn is now a controlled movement.

4.26.3 Option Disadvantages

· Introduces a minor delay and additional queuing. However, the modelling shows that the queuing can be accommodated between Madras Street and the intersection with Manchester Street.

4.27 Option 2 – Option B

4.27.1 Option Description: Introduce a staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection, provides priority crossings for people crossing the slip lanes to and from Gasson Street.

4.27.2 Rather than remove the slip lane in the northwest corner, this option would provide a zebra crossing with a platform in the left turn slip lane. This would not address the lack of waiting space issue but would provide priority for people crossing the slip lane. NZTA guidance does not recommend to installing priority crossings without the supporting traffic calming, therefore the platform is proposed to manage speeds at this point. There is a manhole in advance of the crossing location, so the platform would also remove any need for changes to the manhole and pipes that service the manhole.

4.27.3 Option Advantages

· Provides an additional crossing point for people walking.

· The staggered crossing on the east side of the intersection improves accessibility and safety, particularly for people who are low/blind vision or people who need more time to cross the road.

· Provides priority for people crossing the slip lanes.

4.27.4 Option Disadvantages

· Does not provide more space for the storage of pedestrians to cope with anticipated demand. The risk remains that demand exceeds capacity at busy times, increasing the risk of a crash for people crossing.

· Improves safety for people travelling north by bicycle as the left turn is now a controlled movement.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/ Waltham	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do nothing
Cost to Implement	$288k	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.	N/A
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.	N/A
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above-named budget.	N/A
Impact on Rates	None	N/A

Gasson/Madras/ Moorhouse	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Option B
Cost to Implement	$990,530	$899,530
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.	Traffic Operations Minor Road Safety Budget.
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above-named budget.	Funding available in the above-named budget.
Impact on Rates	None	None

5.1 The costs are high-level estimates and are not tendered prices.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Accessibility and safety issues have been identified at two large intersections on Moorhouse Avenue. This could be exacerbated when events are held at the Stadium and there are large platoons of people exiting and heading south beyond Moorhouse Avenue. It is proposed to increase the space available for people waiting and crossing the road at the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection by removing the left turn slip lane.

6.2 It is proposed to improve accessibility and safety at other slip lanes by introducing pedestrian priority and traffic calming.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

6.3.1 Clauses 7 and 8 provides the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

Local Government Act 1974

6.3.2 Section 319 provides general powers of councils in respects of roads, including the authority to:

· divert or alter the course of any road

· increase or diminish the width of any road subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the district plan, if any, and to the Local Government Act 1974 and any other Act

· determine what part of a road shall be carriageway, and what part a footpath or cycle track only

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

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

6.4.2 This project is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Although this project could affect a high number of commuters including pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists, the significance was determined by the nature of the project – being minor safety improvements - with little to no impact on strategic outcomes or Council operations.

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

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

· The changes made align with road safety and liveable streets goals in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).

· The changes made align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change Impact Considerations section below.

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

6.4.4 Central City is poised to be one of the bigger growth areas in the city in coming years). The area has been identified as an area of intensification to allow high density residential development within a walkable catchment of Central City. This would lead to an increase in the number of people wanting to walk and cross the road to access local services.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 625 kilometres (total combined length)

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within 15 minutes to key destination types by walking (to at least four of the five basic services: food shopping, education, employment, health, and open spaces) - >=49% of residential units with a 15- minute walking access

· Level of Service: 10.5.39 Increase the numbers of people cycling in the central city - >=2,000 cyclists

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Consultation started on 3 April and ran until 21 April 2025.

6.8 Consultation details including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage were advertised via:

· An email was sent to 49 key stakeholders, including Environment Canterbury, bus operators, emergency services, neighbouring education facilities – Ara Institute of Canterbury and Catholic Cathedral College, neighbouring businesses and organisations and community advocacy groups.

· Social media posts on the Council Facebook page and information on Newsline.

· Social media posts targeting Ara’s students and staff.

· Signs on the intersection crossings to target pedestrians.

· An online news article on Chris Lynch Media.

6.9 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage had 4027 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.10 Submissions were made by seven recognised organisations, one business and 183 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

· Six out of seven organisations were supportive of the changes. These were Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central and Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Boards, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Living Streets Aotearoa, Spokes Canterbury and Greater Ōtautahi.

· Canterbury/West Coast AA District Council were not supportive of the changes.

· Crester Foundation Limited (business) were not supportive of the changes.

Submitters were asked whether they supported the proposed changes on Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection and Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection.

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection

· 96 submitters were supportive of the changes, 26 were somewhat supportive of the changes, 65 were not supportive of the changes and 4 didn’t know.

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection

· 90 submitters were supportive of the changes, 28 were somewhat supportive of the changes, 69 were not supportive of the changes and 4 didn’t know.

6.8 Submitters were asked how often they travelled through the intersections and what their most common method of travel was. Of the 191 submitters, 13 did not provide information that could be analysed. Their preference is shown below:

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection

6.8.1 Submitters who cycle, walk and take the bus were more likely to support the proposal at Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection, regardless of how often they travelled (78%). Slightly more car drivers opposed the proposal (51%). However, this slight majority was limited to those that drove through the intersection more than once a week.

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection

6.8.2 Submitters who cycle, walk and take the bus were more likely to support the proposal for the Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection, regardless of how often they travelled (83%). Slightly more car drivers opposed the proposal (54%). However, this majority was limited to those that drove through the intersection more than once a week.

6.9 Age was collected from submitters during the consultation. Answering this question was optional which means the age group totals do not match the total number of submissions. The preference of those who answered is shown below:

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection

6.9.1 Full or partial support for the proposals was generally strongest from submitters aged under 50, and split for those aged over 35.

A table with numbers and text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection

6.9.2 Full or partial support for the proposals was generally strongest from submitters aged under 50 years of age and split for those aged over 35.

A table with numbers and letters

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.10 Submitters were asked to elaborate on their preferences. The following themes were identified:

Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection

Supportive

· Specifically supportive of staggered signalised crossing (33)

· Specifically supportive of the speed humps (14)

· Felt the proposal made the intersection safer (12)

Opposed

· Specifically opposed to the speed humps (45)

· Concern that this proposal would be a waste of money (17)

Requests

· Add additional protection for cyclists (10)

· Ensure light phasing allows pedestrians to cross in a single phase (10)

Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection

Supportive

· Specifically supportive of staggered signalised crossing (35)

· Felt the proposal made the intersection safer (26)

· Specifically supportive of the installation of a signalised left turn and removal of slip lane (16)

· Felt the proposal would improve accessibility for vulnerable users (15)

· Specifically supportive of the speed humps (12)

Opposed

· Specifically opposed to the speed humps (55)

· Concern that congestion will increase on Moorhouse Avenue because of the proposal (26)

· Specifically opposed to the installation of the signalised left turn and removal of slip lane (24)

· Concern that this proposal would be a waste of money (23)

Requests

· Add additional protection for cyclists (13)

· Ensure light phasing allows pedestrians to cross in a single phase (11)

· Change all slip lanes to signalised turns (9)

Supplementary information

6.11 Ara Institute of Canterbury ran their own quick poll and provided the results to staff. They received 350 views on their poll and received the following ratings:

· Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham intersection – 83% in support, 17% opposed

· Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse intersection – 86% in support, 14% opposed

6.11.2 Ara students expressed their appreciation for the improvements to make the area more pedestrian-friendly and were particularly supportive of the new eastern crossings. However, students who cycle, highlighted safety concerns at these intersections and requested more attention to cycle safety improvements.

6.12 A quick poll that was conducted on the Let’s Talk webpage to reduce barriers to participate. Participants were asked “Rate our plans to improve pedestrian crossings at these two intersections – 5 stars: I love the plans, 1 star: I don’t like the plans”. Out of 375 responses, the following ratings were received:

· 5-star ratings - 142

· 4-star ratings - 28

· 3-star ratings - 8

· 2-star ratings - 5

· 1-star ratings - 192

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

6.13.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote.

6.13.2 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 The decision does 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.16.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.17 The emission reductions associated with this project have not been estimated.

6.18 Improving the ability for people to walk, cycle, scoot and catch the bus are a key part of the Council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low emission way for residents to move around the city.

6.19 Improving safety and making the intersection feel safer would address some of the barriers to people making sustainable travel choices. Removing these barriers will lead to reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and consequently emissions from transport.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, the next step will be to tender the work and undertake construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Barbadoes/Moorhouse/Waltham Intersection - For Approval Plan	25/1044245	22
b ⇩	Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse Intersection - For Approval Plan	25/1044259	23
c ⇩	Memo to Mayor & Councillors - Moorhouse Ave Pedestrian Improvements	25/1082828	24
d ⇩	Gasson/Madras/Moorhouse Intersection - Option B	25/1091400	29

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

6. Setting of Speed Limits - Speed limits around schools
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/667133
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni – Principal Advisor Transportation David McCormick – Senior Traffic Engineer Hannah Ballantyne – Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve variable speed limits outside of all Ōtautahi Christchurch and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula schools, as required by the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (Rule).

1.2 The report has been written in response to the new Rule, which has changed the requirement for speed limits outside of school gates. To meet the requirements set out under Section 5 of the Rule, the Council is required to set a variable speed limit of 30 km/h outside a school gate for all schools which do not currently have either a permanent speed, or variable speed limit of 30 km/h during School Travel Periods. The proposed extents of variable speed limits are provided in Attachment A.

1.3 As per Section 5.4 of the Rule, a Road Controlling Authority (RCA) must use reasonable efforts to ensure that all roads under its control have speed limits that comply with Section 5 set by 1 July 2026.

1.4 Due to the prescriptive nature of the Rule, there was little opportunity for the community to meaningfully influence the formal decision. However, staff informed all schools of the proposals and invited them to provide any feedback or comment, particularly if the information provided was out-of-date or incorrect.

1.5 School Travel Periods can vary across schools. The proposed times have been discussed with all schools, and the times proposed are provided in Attachment B. It is recommended that the delegation to approve future changes to the School Travel Periods is provided to the Head of Transport. The alternative is that separate reports will need to be provided to the Council for changes to School Travel Period times which could result in delays to changing the School Travel Period for the school.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Setting of Speed Limits - Speed limits around schools 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. In accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, adopts the Speed Limits around School’s Plan, which includes the extents of the speed limit as recommended on the maps in Attachment A to this report.

4. Notes that staff will enter the agreed speed limits into the National Speed Limit Register to create land transport records to formally set each speed limit.

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

School Travel Periods

6. Approves the School Travel Periods as provided in Attachment B to this report.

7. Delegates to the Head of Transport the authority to approve any future changes to School Travel Periods for schools with a variable speed limit.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (Rule) has changed the way speed limits are set.

3.2 The Rule, which came into force in October 2024, revokes the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limit 2022 (the 2022 Rule) and introduces a requirement for Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs, such as the Council) to implement variable speed limits of 30 km/h during school travel periods outside all schools. RCA’s must use reasonable efforts to complete this by 1 July 2026.

3.3 Staff have undertaken site visits and have assessed each school that requires a variable limit. Direct engagement has been undertaken with each school that requires a new variable speed limit to understand their gate locations. All 144 schools were contacted, and the information has informed the plan being recommended.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Christchurch City Council previously set speed limits using the Interim Speed Management Plan, which was developed in line with clause 12.10 of the 2022 Rule. The Interim Speed Management Plan was approved by Council in July 2023 (Agenda, Item 17).

4.2 Under the 2022 Rule clause 3.6(1), the Council was required to prepare a full Speed Management Plan. The Council was working towards these timeframes and completed engagement with the community on the Draft Safer Speed Plan in late 2023. The Council resolved in April 2024 to pause the Hearings Panel process as part of the decision making on adopting the Safer Speed Plan, until further guidance on any new Land Transport Rule relating to setting of speed limits was received following the change in Government.

4.3 A notice of the draft Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the draft Rule) was published and circulated to RCAs by the Ministry of Transport Te Manatū Waka on 13 June 2024. Public consultation was completed on the draft Rule, and the Council made a submission on the draft Rule in July 2024. The Rule was published on 28 September 2024 and became operational on 29 October 2024, revoking the 2022 Rule.

4.4 The Council were provided initial information regarding the new Rule during an Information Session/Workshop on 29 October 2024.

4.5 The Interim Speed Management Plan included a proposal for changes to speed limits outside each school in Christchurch that did not have a 30km/h speed limit (either permanent or variable) at the time. New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi guidance states that speed limit changes in speed management plans (like the Council’s Interim Speed Management Plan) which were approved and uploaded to the register, but not in force as of 30 October 2024, can no longer be implemented. To be ‘in force’ the speed limits must be ‘live’ with road signs and traffic control devices in place. Where this is not the case, a new speed management plan or alternative method proposal must be prepared to meet the requirements of the new Rule. This means the Draft Safer Speed Plan can no longer proceed, and the new approach for the Council to set speed limits will be developed in due course.

4.6 The Rule requires RCAs to use reasonable efforts to meet deadlines for setting speed limits outside the school gate (by 1 July 2026). All schools in Christchurch are categorised as Category 1 schools and will have 30km/h speed limits as per the Rule.

4.7 RCAs must set the variable speed limit of 30 km/h on all roads outside a school gate during school travel periods (both the school gate and travel periods are further defined below).

4.8 The Rule defines outside the school gate, in relation to a road, means a section of road immediately adjacent to a gate or other access used by students to enter or leave the school, usually measuring (with any reasonably practicable modifications): 300 metres for a category 1 school. The 300 metres is the total road length, so if a school gate is in the middle, it would cover 150 metres either side of the school gate.

4.9 The Rule defines School travel periods with the following parameters (Clause 5.3(2)):

· There must be a school travel period for the start of the school day and another school travel period for the end of the school day.

· School travel periods must occur only on days on which the school is open for instruction.

· School travel periods for the start of the school day:

· Must not begin any earlier than 45 minutes before the start of the school day; and

· Must end no later than 45 minutes after the start of the school day.

· School travel periods for the end of the school day:

· Must not begin any earlier than 45 minutes before the end of the school day; and

· Must end no later than 45 minutes after the end of the school day.

4.10 It is recommended that the delegation to approve future changes to the School Travel Periods is provided to the Head of Transport. The alternative is that separate reports will need to be provided to Council for changes to School Travel Period times which could result in delays to changing the School Travel Period for the school.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 30 km/h school variable speed limits – Installing variable 30 km/h speed limits outside of school gates for schools which do not currently have one, in accordance with Section 5 of the Rule.

4.12 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.12.1 Do nothing. As set out above, the national process for setting speed limits has changed, and the Council is required to address school speed limits as per the Rule. If a RCA does not comply with the requirements within the Rule, the Agency has the authority to act as the local RCA in setting the speed on local roads to comply with the rule.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: 30 km/h school variable speed limits

4.13.1 Option Description: As per Section 5 of the Rule, implement a variable speed limit of 30 km/h during school travel periods before 1 July 2026 at schools, which do not currently have a 30km/h permanent or variable limit.

4.13.2 The schools that are the focus of this programme have:

· A permanent speed of 50 km/h or higher outside the school gate; or

· A current permanent or variable 40 km/h speed limit outside the school gate requiring a variable 30 km/h to comply with the Rule.

4.14 The Rule is prescriptive about the length permitted for the variable speed limit, being 300 metres outside of a school gate. This can be altered with engineering judgement, regarding visibility, driveways and other conflicts.

4.15 Staff have completed site visits of all schools that are proposed to review a variable speed limit of 30 km/h to confirm the locations of school gates and assess the length of the variable speed limits for each individual School.

4.16 As part of the programme, it is proposed to use the following approach in relation to signage:

· On local neighbourhood streets, static variable signs are to be used.

· On main connector roads, electronic variable signs are to be used. This is because there are typically higher vehicle volumes and speeds on these roads.

Static speed sign Electronic variable sign

Examples of signage to be used (static signage on the left, electronic signage on the right)

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.17 The options have been developed to address the legislative changes introduced in the 2024 Rule. Staff have assessed all the schools requiring variable speed limits against the requirements in the Rule.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Do Nothing
Cost to Implement	$5.8M	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.	N/A
Funding Source	#80775 Delivery Package - School Speed Zones #80776 Speed Limit Changes #75054 Programme – Speed Management Plan	N/A
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above-named budgets.	N/A
Impact on Rates	None	N/A

5.1 The costs are high-level estimates and are not tendered prices.

5.2 It costs approximately $4,000 to install a set of static signs and approximately $40,000 for a set of electronic signs. Each school gate requires a minimum of two signs, in addition to the signs to advise drivers exiting the school speed limit.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Delays to approvals for speed limits around schools could result in Council not meeting the timeframe requirements that are set out in the Rule. The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 requires the completion of speed limit changes outside schools by 1 July 2026. Approval of this report will enable the Council to meet this requirement.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 requires RCA’s (such as the Council) to set speed limits for roads under their control and sets out requirements that must be complied with when setting speed limits.

6.2.2 The Rule requires RCA’s to use reasonable efforts to ensure that all roads under its control have speed limits that comply with Section 5 set by 1 July 2026. This report has been produced to allow Council to meet these timeframes.

6.2.3 The decision-making authority for speed limit changes sits with the Council and cannot be delegated to a Committee of Council or other body.

6.2.4 The Rule requires speed limits to be set by creating land transport records and entering those records into the National Speed Limit Register. Once the speed limit is migrated into the Register, the land transport record will become the legal instrument for the speed limits.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

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

6.4.2 The decision within this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by every school community in the city being affected, balanced by the local area of changes.

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

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

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

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Between 1 April and 2 May 2025, staff contacted all 144 schools in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula to get an understanding of their gate locations to assist in the implementation of this Rule. This has informed the plan being recommended.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will commence with implementation of the required 30 km/h variable speed limits outside of Schools.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	School Variable Speed Limits by Community Board Area	25/971758	38
b ⇩	School Variable Speed Limits - Operational Times	25/839122	44

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

David McCormick - Senior Traffic Engineer

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

7. Tsunami Alerting System Review
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/494502
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rachel Hunt, Community Resilience Coordinator Brenden Winder, Manager Civil Defence & Emergency Management
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the recommendations from a review of the Council’s tsunami alerting system and to agree to changes to the tsunami siren network.

1.2 The report is staff generated following a review into the Council’s tsunami warning system and resulting recommendations that reflect best practice (Attachment A).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Tsunami Alerting System Review Report.

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

3. Notes that, on 5 May 2025, the Director of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) provided guidelines on a changed tsunami evacuation zone which must be conformed to by 1 July 2031.

4. Notes that a multi-modal approach with Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMAs) as the primary tsunami alerting method is consistent with New Zealand and international best practice.

5. Agrees to rationalising and updating the tsunami warning siren network for use as a secondary tsunami alerting system by:

a. Installing new and updated sirens in vulnerable areas within the updated tsunami evacuation zone, where there is limited cell phone coverage and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert.

b. Removing the existing 45 sirens which are installed from Brooklands to Taylors Mistake.

6. Revokes the decision made at its meeting on 12 August 2021 (Item 20, Tsunami Warning System as an alerting tool, Resolution 1) as it does not align with the recommended option:

Agrees, in principle, to extend the Tsunami Warning System to reflect the updated tsunami evacuation zones (updated 2019/2020) noting that funding has been approved as part of the adopted 2021/31 Long Term Plan.

7. Notes that these changes to the tsunami alerting system will be integrated into the project implementing new tsunami evacuation zones, accompanied by the installation of signage and increased community education and resilience building programmes.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Multi-modal emergency alerting systems use primary notification methods that are reinforced by a number of secondary notification methods. Primary and secondary alerting methods are continually reenforced by proactive public education, signage, evacuation planning and community preparedness and resilience initiatives. Utilising numerous methods provides more thorough warning communication, giving a clear message to on the actions to take, allowing communities to respond earlier and prevent loss of life.

3.2 The Council currently uses Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMAs - alerts sent directly to compatible mobile phones, using the National Warning System protocols) and sirens as its primary methods; and television, radio, websites and social media as secondary methods.

3.3 A Council decision on 12 August 2021, based on information available at the time, required additional tsunami warning sirens be installed in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula to align with the tsunami evacuation zones (which have subsequently been updated again). The initiation of this project prompted a review of the Council’s approach to tsunami alerting systems as it was identified that the Council’s current tsunami siren network was potentially not fit-for-purpose.

3.4 The review concluded that the current alerting system would benefit from simplification. The Council’s current use of sirens as a primary alerting method is inconsistent with best practice standards, particularly for local source tsunamis, which, due to the short time from generation to impact are a highly consequential threat.

3.5 The recommendation of the review and the preferred option in this report is that:

· The Council focus on the primary aim of preventing loss of life from the highly consequential threat of tsunami

· The Council move from a fragile, unreliable, over-complicated and inconsistent alerting system to a straightforward and effective alerting system with EMAs as the primary alerting method

· Emergency services, television, radio, websites, social media and a number of strategically positioned sirens, be used as secondary tsunami alerting methods

· All of the recommended changes to tsunami alerting systems be supported by increased community education and resilience building programmes and signage.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Tsunami, whilst unlikely to occur, is potentially Christchurch and Banks Peninsula’s most consequential emergency management risk. Particularly local source tsunami which could inundate the evacuation zones of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula in less than 60 minutes.

4.2 In the instance of a tsunami, the Council’s top priority is preventing loss of life. Critical to this outcome is a straightforward and effective alerting system giving a clear message to evacuate.

Tsunami evacuation zones

4.3 Tsunami evacuation zones are areas that may need to be evacuated if there is a long or strong earthquake or if there is an official tsunami warning. The Council’s website provides information and an interactive map.

4.4 On 12 August 2021, based on information available at the time, the Council agreed, in principle, to extend the Tsunami Warning System to reflect the 2019/2020 tsunami evacuation zones, which extended 20% more inland compared to the previous update in 2017. This proposed expanding the extent of the siren network into Banks Peninsula and to other at-risk areas.

4.5 On 5 May 2025, the Director of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) provided guidelines on a changed tsunami evacuation zone which must be conformed to by 1 July 2031. The Council, working with the Canterbury Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group are currently planning to implement this from July 2026. This was detailed in a memo to Councillors dated 6 May 2025 and is attached to this report as Attachment B.

4.6 The implementation of new tsunami evacuation zones will be accompanied by extensive public information, the installation of signage and community resilience building initiatives, an increasing number of which, will be community-led.

4.7 Tsunami messaging will form part of a wider messaging framework that includes risks, changes and challenges arising from identifying inundation zones in the District Plan and the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Programme; many of which will affect the same coastal communities. This is necessary to ensure messaging is effective and minimises distress particularly in coastal communities who are still managing several other risks and issues.

4.8 No decision has yet been made regarding the geographic area of focus for the next round of Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning. However, options are currently being tested with elected members through workshops with the Coastal Hazards Working Group, and scheduled discussions with the Community Boards with coastal wards before a Council decision in late 2025/early 2026.

Multi-modal tsunami alerting system

4.9 The purpose of the tsunami alerting system is to provide an early warning to residents living, working or using the beaches for recreation purposes along coastal Christchurch to evacuate safely from the area due to a national tsunami warning being issued.

4.10 When receiving and reacting to warnings, communities experience a seven-step process, which is influenced by the agencies issuing the warning and the methods used to communicate.[1] These steps are: hearing; understanding; believing; personalising; deciding; responding; and confirming.

4.11 Multi-modal emergency alerting systems use primary notification methods that are reinforced by a number of secondary notification methods. Primary and secondary alerting methods are continually reenforced by proactive public education, signage, evacuation planning and community preparedness and resilience initiatives. Utilising numerous methods provides more thorough warning communication, giving a clear message on the actions to take, allowing communities to respond earlier and prevent loss of life.

4.12 Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMAs - alerts sent directly to compatible mobile phones, using the National Warning System protocols) are used across New Zealand as the primary alerting method as there is sufficient network coverage and confidence in the EMA system, for example:

· Approximately 97% of inhabited areas in New Zealand have sufficient network coverage to receive EMAs. More specifically, Spark claims 98%, One NZ claims 99% and 2 degrees claims 98.5% of the network coverage.

· Each year approximately 90% of New Zealanders successfully receive the test EMA alert or are near someone else who receives the alert.

· 75% of New Zealanders believe EMAs to be an effective alerting method in emergencies.

· Development of the capability of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite connectivity for issuing EMAs will allow for the alerts to be received through mobile or satellite coverage.

4.13 The Council currently runs a multi-modal approach based on:

4.13.1 Primary alerting methods:

· Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMAs) - full risk area coverage

· Sirens - partial risk area coverage - 45 sirens installed from Brooklands to Taylors Mistake (there are currently no sirens in Banks Peninsula). The sirens are tested each year at 11am on the Sundays when Daylight Saving starts and ends.

4.13.2 Secondary alerting methods:

· Television - full risk area coverage

· Radio - full risk area coverage

· Websites - full risk area coverage

· Social media - full risk area coverage

Proposal to rationalise the tsunami siren network

4.14 After initiating the project in 2021 to expand the tsunami siren network, it quickly and conclusively became apparent that the reliance on sirens as a primary alerting method was not optimal and did not reflect current best practice. The project was put on hold and a wider piece of research was undertaken to identify options for the future of tsunami alerting in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula (Attachment A).

4.15 For this review of the Council’s tsunami alerting system, staff engaged with industry experts, partner agencies and government to assess the current alerting methods as well as looking at future methods and making recommendations.

4.16 The review recommends that:

4.16.1 The project to update the siren network does not proceed

4.16.2 The Council changes its approach to tsunami alerts as the Council’s current use of sirens as a primary alerting method is inconsistent with New Zealand and international best practice, particularly for local source tsunamis, which, due to the short time from generation to impact are a highly consequential threat

4.16.3 The Council engages in a substantial community education and resilience-building initiative to inform communities and build resilience by developing capacity in at-risk communities to act quickly in the event of tsunami threat.

4.17 The current siren array in Christchurch is only suited to be utilised in a distant source tsunami that will take longer than three hours to arrive. The sirens will reach the end of their lifecycle between 2027/30. Additionally, resupply and maintenance services are no longer available from the current contractor, an alternative contractor would therefore be required.

4.18 Under this proposal, the Council will continue with a multi-modal approach, with EMAs as the primary alerting method, with a small number of strategically positioned sirens being used as secondary alerting methods. Emergency services, television, radio, websites, and social media will continue to be used as secondary alerting methods.

4.19 As a secondary alerting method, it is proposed that the Council removes the existing array of sirens and installs new and updated sirens in vulnerable areas positioned within the updated evacuation zone where there is limited cell phone coverage and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert. If the Council agrees to the proposal, it will need to revoke the previous decision from 2021 that resolved to extend the siren network.

4.20 The expected locations and number of sirens will be confirmed by detailed modelling and an expert risk analysis but is expected to be in the range of four to six. The locations will be consulted on at an appropriate time.

4.21 Sirens are no longer considered to be suitable as a primary tsunami alerting method as they can cause confusion and delay communities responding effectively. This is because:

· Warnings from sirens can be mistaken for different hazards due to the use of multi-purpose sirens (e.g. rural fire sirens)

· Sirens can create a false sense of security, with communities waiting for official warnings that may not be issued in time during local and some regional source tsunami events

· Sirens can distract from public education messages around responding to natural tsunami warning signs, with the public instead waiting for official warnings to be issued

· Limited information on the tsunami hazard is provided in siren warnings, requiring the public to seek further information before evacuating

· Damage can be sustained, or power can be cut to sirens during locally generated earthquakes, making sirens inoperable

· Sirens may be inaudible in windy conditions, especially prevailing easterly winds

· NEMA, GNS Science, and New Zealand’s Tsunami Working Group do not support the use of sirens for local source tsunami hazards, a highly consequential tsunami threat for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

· Sirens are established on aging technology and infrastructure known as the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) network. The SCADA network trigger for the tsunami siren array cannot be operated locally and relies on a contractor in Auckland to operate (human error was the cause of the failure of the siren test on 6 April 2025).

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

Date

Subject

6 July 2023

6 May 2025

27 June 2024

1 April 2024

Apr- May 2025

Memo - Tsunami Warning System Update, July 2023 (Attachment C)

Memo – Tsunami evacuation zone changes (Attachment B)

Waitai Board Briefing June 2024

Council Briefing April 2025

Waitai, Banks Peninsula and Waihoro Board Briefings April – May 2025

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.23 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and assessed:

· Option 1: Rationalise and update the siren network (preferred option)

· Option 2: Decommission the siren network

· Option 3: Replace the current network with new sirens and expand the network to cover tsunami evacuation zones in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.24 All options will be supported with community education and resilience-building programmes and signage.

4.25 The option of replacing the existing siren network only was considered but not progressed – The existing sirens need to be upgraded because of the ageing technology, but replacing the existing sirens only would be expensive and not be a fit-for-purpose alerting method. The locations of the current network of 45 sirens from Brooklands to Taylors Mistake does not effectively cover the updated tsunami evacuation zone, and there are areas of Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula within the evacuation zone that have no siren network at all.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.26 Preferred Option: Option 1: Rationalise and update the siren network

4.26.1 Option Description: under this option, the Council would shift away from using sirens as a primary alerting method (but retaining a multi-modal approach with EMAs as the primary method). The Council would continue to use sirens as a secondary alerting method but would remove the existing network and install new sirens with updated technology in vulnerable areas where there is limited cell phone coverage and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert. The locations will be determined following a risk analysis within the new tsunami evacuation zone, public consultation and a future decision by the Council.

4.26.2 Option Advantages

· The use of EMAs as the primary alerting method is in line with national consistency and international best practice for tsunami alerting.

· The community will get clear messages through the EMAs as well as through the secondary alerting methods to process and act on, sooner and more effectively therefore preventing loss of life in the event of a tsunami

· Does not rely on sirens as a primary alerting method, which are prone to damage and failure in earthquakes, which are the main cause of local source tsunami

· A smaller number of strategically placed sirens will ensure that vulnerable communities where there is limited cell phone coverage, and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert, will still have sirens as a method of tsunami alerting

· Lower costs to the Council as EMAs have no cost and a reduced number of sirens would be cheaper to maintain and replace at end-of-life

· Work can begin immediately and be included in the implementation of new tsunami evacuation zones and the Council’s wider coastal hazards messaging framework.

4.26.3 Option Disadvantages

· Communities near to existing sirens or anticipating new sirens may feel a layer of perceived protection has been removed and/or they have lost something they would have otherwise received.

4.27 Option 2: Decommission the siren network

4.27.1 Option Description: under this option, the Council would remove the existing siren network and have no tsunami sirens in Christchurch. The tsunami alerting system would use EMAs as the primary alerting method, and the secondary alerting methods would include television, radio, websites, and social media.

4.27.2 Option Advantages

· The use of EMAs as the primary alerting method is in line with national consistency and international best practice for tsunami alerting.

· Does not rely on sirens as a primary alerting method, which are prone to damage and failure in earthquakes, which are the main cause of local source tsunami

4.27.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are a small number of areas within Christchurch and Banks Peninsula with limited cell phone coverage and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert.

· Communities near to existing sirens or anticipating new sirens may feel a layer of perceived protection has been removed and/or they have lost something they would have otherwise received.

4.28 Option 3: Replace the current network with new sirens and expand the network to cover tsunami evacuation zones in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula

4.28.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would retain an extensive network of sirens. The existing 45 sirens from Brooklands to Taylors Mistake would need to be replaced with upgraded sirens (a number would need to be moved to rectify gaps in coverage in those areas). The network would also need to be expanded to cover the area in the new tsunami evacuation zone, this would mean approximately an additional 41 sirens added to the network. Detailed modelling would be required to determine the exact number needed to cover the new tsunami evacuation zone.

4.28.2 Option Advantages

· There will be consistency in tsunami alerting methods across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

· Vulnerable communities may feel safer.

4.28.3 Option Disadvantages

· Relies on sirens as a primary alerting method, which are prone to damage and failure in earthquakes, which are the main cause of local source tsunami

· Poses risks to affected communities as the reliance on sirens can cause confusion, create a false sense of security, and distract from public education messaging

· Further work is needed to model and plan the number and location of sirens to ensure adequate coverage. This will not automatically integrate with the implementation of new evacuation zones and Council’s wider coastal messaging framework and will result in a longer and more complex process

· Does not progress national consistency for tsunami alerting in New Zealand

· There will be a substantial cost to the Council to upgrade the existing 45 sirens and add approximately 41 new sirens for adequate coverage across the new tsunami evacuation zone.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.29 Since the Council decision in 2021, advances in early warning technology and best practice have made other alerting options more viable. Best practice indicates that a multi-modal approach provides the optimum mix of warning coverage and cost. These systems use a primary source of notification, in New Zealand this is the Emergency Mobile Alert (EMA), and secondary sources of notification such as mainstream media, social media, local radio, television, and sirens.

4.30 The Council’s existing system that includes sirens as a primary alerting method is subject to degradation in high winds; is not an official warning system or directly connected to the National Warning System; and is at risk of partial or complete failure in an earthquake.

4.31 The sirens need replacing as they have a design life of 15 years (the existing sirens were installed in 2012 and 2015) and are not located to cover the entirety of the tsunami evacuation zone.

4.32 Most of the district has good cell phone coverage which makes EMAs an accessible method to the majority of communities and visitors. There are a small number of areas in the tsunami evacuation zone where coverage is limited and the staff proposal for sirens to be located in these areas will provide a secondary alerting method.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Rationalise and update	Option 2 - Decommission	Option 3 -Replace & Expand
Cost to Implement	$2,667,247 - CAPEX	$408,480 - OPEX	$9,274,775 - CAPEX
Ongoing Costs	$70,000 p.a. - OPEX	$0	$536,000 p.a. - OPEX
Current Funding Availability	2024/34 LTP: $3,000,000 – CAPEX $25,000 p.a. – OPEX	2024/34 LTP: $3,000,000 – CAPEX $25,000 p.a. – OPEX	2024/34 LTP: $3,000,000 – CAPEX $25,000 p.a. – OPEX
	Immediate	2026/27 Annual Plan	2026/27 Annual Plan
Shortfall	$45,000 p.a. – OPEX from FY27	$383,480 – OPEX In FY26	$6,274,775 – CAPEX $511,000 p.a. - OPEX
Cost Certainty	High	High	Medium - Low
Impact on Rates	Negligible	0.05%	0.09%FY26 0.06%FY27

5.1 The paramount priority to the Council when assessing the risks of tsunami and alerting methods is preventing loss of life. EMAs have no cost to the Council or the communities receiving these alerts.

5.2 The widespread use of sirens incurs a substantial CAPEX and OPEX cost to the Council which is not currently budgeted. Depending on the Council’s decision, any financial shortfall will be addressed through the 2026/27 Annual Plan process if it cannot be absorbed.

5.3 The estimated costs for Option 1 include the decommissioning of the existing siren array and the modelling required to determine the locations of a smaller number of new sirens to be installed in vulnerable locations.

5.4 The estimated cost for Option 3 includes a number of assumptions including the number of sirens, their location and the cost impact of remote sites. Siren numbers and their location are approximate as they were modelled using the current tsunami evacuation zones, existing siren mapping, and tsunami inundation modelling. The number of sirens and the cost of remote locations may increase following detailed modelling. If Option 3 is the Council’s preferred option, staff will undertake further work to model, plan and budget for the number and location of sirens to ensure adequate coverage to be presented to the Council through the 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that some individuals or groups/communities near to existing sirens, or in locations anticipating new sirens, may feel a layer of protection has been removed. This risk can be mitigated by increased community education and resilience building programmes to improve public awareness and understanding of the tsunami alerting methods and evacuation zones.

6.2 There is a risk that local communities may be concerned at the location of new sirens in their community in vulnerable areas where there is limited cell phone coverage and/or there are likely to be larger numbers of people with limited access to cell phones at the time of an alert. This risk can be minimised by engaging with the local community and Community Board when the tsunami modelling identifies the broad location of a siren. This will ensure its actual location meets functional requirements and the preferences of the local community.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 Council has statutory authority to undertake proposals in the report.

6.3.1 The Civil Defence Emergency Act 2002 (CDEM Act) includes general powers for CDEM Groups and their members, which include they “may provide, maintain, control and operate warning systems” (s18(2)(d)).

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The Council uses EMAs as the primary alerting method as well as other secondary tsunami alerting methods. There is no legal requirement under the CDEM Act to have tsunami alerting sirens, therefore there are no major legal implications for either rationalising, decommissioning, or expanding the siren network.

6.4.2 If the Council does use tsunami alerting sirens as part of its multi-modal alerting system, these sirens must comply with the Tsunami Warning Sirens Technical Standard [TS03/14].

6.4.3 Any new sirens will need to comply with noise provisions under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. This decision links to Council’s Strengthening Communities Together Strategy, in particular, Pillar 4: Preparedness.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low-medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by estimating the level of public interest in the option to rationalise and update the current tsunami sirens.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The decision is also consistent with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and the Tsunami Warning Sirens Technical Standard [TS03/14].

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

6.7 Citizens and communities

6.7.1 Activity: Civil Defence Emergency Management

· Level of Service: 2.5.2.4 Council maintains an effective response capability and capacity to manage civil defence emergencies in its area (Designated facilities, equipment and infrastructure for use in an Emergency) - CDEM emergency communications equipment is readily available and maintained for immediate operational use .

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The decision is a city-wide issue affecting all of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, particularly the coastal communities.

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

· Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood.

· Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote.

· Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula.

6.10 The review of the Council’s alerting methods (Attachment A), although technical in nature, has been discussed with an extensive range of practitioners, experts and stakeholders. It examines case studies and approaches to tsunami alerting around New Zealand and the world. Statements, facts and conclusions are supported by a diverse evidential basis.

6.11 Progress has been shared and discussed with the Council by Memos in 2023 and 2025 and a briefing in April 2025. It has been discussed with Community Board Chairs and Deputy Chairs in October 2024. It has been discussed with the Waitai Community Board in October 2024 and May 2025. Tsunami resilience is a pillar of the Weaving the East Programme. This has also been discussed with the Waihoro and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Community Boards in May 2025.

6.12 The three affected community boards were supportive of the preferred option. All emphasised the need for increased community resilience, (particularly community led initiatives) and public information. Waitai specifically asked that any savings derived from the preferred option were reinvested in community resilience. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū emphasised concerns over tsunami warning sirens being confused with rural fire sirens.

6.13 If the Council supports the preferred option, staff will engage with the local community and Community Board when the tsunami modelling identifies the broad location of a siren, to ensure its actual location meets functional requirements and the preferences of the local community.

6.13.1 The broad location of a siren will involve an informed expert risk analysis. This will be transparent, and details will be available to the public.

6.14 Community education and resilience building programmes will be increased to improve public awareness and understanding of the changes to the tsunami siren network and evacuation zones.

6.15 Local communities will also be engaged in the placement of signage ensuring local knowledge and preferences inform decisions.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.16 The decision does 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. The decision concerns the extent to which the Council uses sirens as part of the tsunami alerting system. There is no decision required which will affect any land or water and no decision required on the placement of signage or sirens.

6.17 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua but will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. Due to the regional implications and the technical nature of the subject matter the proposed approach to tsunami alerting was discussed with the then Team Leader Whanau and Emergency Team, at Ngāi Tahu, who sat on the Canterbury CDEM Group Coordinating Executive Group and Joint Committee. No concerns were raised with the recommended approach. Papatipu Rūnanga and Marae will be engaged over the proposed location of any sirens and tsunami warning signage.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.18 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. The recommendations aim to simplify the multi-modal tsunami alerting system by rationalising and updating the outdated and not fit-for-purpose tsunami siren network. Tsunami are not caused by climate change impacts.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will integrate this into the wider project to implement the new tsunami evacuation zones and the Council’s wider coastal messaging framework.

7.2 Following technical modelling, staff will engage with local communities and the affected Community Boards over the location of sirens and signage. The existing sirens will be decommissioned and removed.

7.3 Staff will report progress to the Council through the Community Support & Partnerships Unit six-monthly report to Council. Locally based community teams will report back to Community Boards, as appropriate.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Christchurch & Banks Peninsula Tsunami Alerting System Review Supporting Paper (Under Separate Cover)	24/749373
b ⇩	Changes to Tsunami Evacuation Zones	25/592938	60
c ⇨	Tsunami Warning System Update July 2023 (Under Separate Cover)	24/1708287

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Rachel Hunt - Community Resilience Coordinator

Approved By

Brenden Winder - Manager Civil Defence & Emergency Management

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

8. Development Contributions Rebate Schemes
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/983464
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 agree to commence consultation on proposed development contributions rebate schemes for development in the central city.

1.2 The report presents rebate schemes for Council consideration. The first scheme provides a rebate for the expired existing demand credits on central city sites where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024. The second scheme provides a rebate for central city development, where the residential component comprises at least six storeys.

1.3 This report has been written in response to elected members indicating an interest in considering rebate schemes alongside the review of the Development Contributions Policy. The schemes reflect the preferences indicated by elected members in workshops with staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Rebate Schemes Report.

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

3. Approves the draft Existing Demand Credits Development Contributions Rebate Scheme (Attachment A to this report) for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4. Approves the draft Central City High Density Residential Development Contributions Rebate Scheme (Attachment B to this report) for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Development Contributions Rebate Policy (rebate policy) enables the Council to implement rebate schemes to help achieve certain strategic development goals.

3.2 The Development Contributions Policy (policy) has been under review since mid-2023. During briefings and workshops on the policy review, elected members expressed an interest in considering new development contributions rebate schemes alongside the adoption of the new policy.

3.3 Elected members provided guidance to staff as to their rebate preferences on Tuesday 6 May and Monday 19 May. As a result, two draft rebates have been prepared:

3.3.1 The existing demand credits rebate scheme provides a rebate for the expired existing demand credits on sites within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024.

3.3.2 The central city high density residential rebate scheme provides a rebate for development within the Four Avenues of the central city, where the residential component comprises at least six storeys.

3.4 These proposed rebates reflect the Council’s strategic goals of a vibrant central city that is attractive to residents, visitors and investors.

3.5 If the Council agree, staff will commence public consultation on the proposed rebate schemes with the aim to have the schemes presented to the Council for adoption before the end of the triennium.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) enables councils to charge development contributions to help fund infrastructure to service growth development. Development contribution requirements must be consistent with the provisions of the LGA. This requires a consistent and transparent approach to be taken in setting a development contributions requirement and there is very little scope for adjustments to meet the Council’s strategic development goals.

4.2 As a result, the Council’s rebate policy was established in 2015 to enable the Council to promote its strategic objectives by establishing rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

4.3 The rebate policy has several key principles to be considered when setting schemes including:

4.3.1 A rebate scheme will only be considered where there is a clearly identified benefit to the wider community. For example, to encourage development to occur faster or on a larger scale than it would without a rebate scheme in place.

4.3.2 Rebate schemes should not be used solely to address issues of affordability for the developer.

4.3.3 Development contributions rebates are to address specific situations for a finite period of time.

4.3.4 Any rebate scheme should be as user-friendly for the developer as possible while being as efficient as possible for the Council to administer.

4.4 A rebate is the waiving of development contributions. The LGA does not allow councils to require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it. Development contribution rebates therefore must be treated as revenue foregone by the Council and are funded by rates.

4.5 The Council currently has two active rebate schemes – social housing and Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga. The Council has previously operated rebate schemes to encourage post-earthquake redevelopment in the central city.

5. Proposed development contributions rebate scheme

5.1 During briefings and workshops on the policy review, elected members expressed an interest in considering new rebate schemes alongside the adoption of the new policy. The proposed rebates were workshopped with the Council on 6 and 19 May 2025. The feedback and guidance received in these sessions has informed the drafting of the potential schemes.

Rebate for expired existing demand credits in central city

5.2 The purpose of existing demand credits in development contributions policies is to recognise that development may not result in additional demand on infrastructure. Therefore, only net additional demand attracts a development contribution requirement.

5.3 There is no explicit requirement under the LGA for councils to provide existing demand credits in their development contributions policies. Consequently, councils take a range of approaches in their policies – from providing no credits to providing credits with a perpetual life.

5.4 The Council has chosen to provide existing demand credits to assess for net additional demand, promote equity and encourage timely redevelopment. The Council’s position has been to limit the life of existing demand credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired on sites of buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in central Christchurch.

5.5 This issue was considered as part of the review of the policy and staff proposed to retain the ten-year life of existing demand credits.The rationale behind this policy setting is it strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely and 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 and allowing time for redevelopment to occur.

5.6 There are a number of sites in the central city that are still pending redevelopment post-earthquake, and some developers and property owners have asked the Council for their credits to be reinstated.

5.7 Staff consider a rebate scheme to be a preferable way to deal with this. This would allow the Council to address a specific issue in a specific part of the city, in a time limited way that ringfences the revenue that will be forgone. It could also potentially encourage faster redevelopment of central city sites where progress has been slow or has stalled.

5.8 Given the prominence of some of these sites, and the potential for negative perceptions of the city for visitors and investors, it could be considered encouraging redevelopment of these sites is in the interest of the wider community.

Proposed scheme criteria

5.9 The proposed scheme (Attachment A) is for any development within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on the lot on or after 1 March 2024.

5.10 The rebate is for the existing demand credits on the site, assessed based on the previous use of the site using the highest level of actual or otherwise verifiable demand between 3 September 2010 and 3 September 2020. Essentially, the scheme provides developers with the credits that were sitting on the development site the day before the first earthquake on 4 September 2010.

5.11 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $5 million. The scheme will expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated.

Rebate for six storey residential development in central city

5.12 The Council has set an ambition to have 20,000 central city residents by 2028. The current estimated population is 9,160[2]. The Council has a range of Plans, Strategies and programmes of work intended to facilitate an increase in the number of central city residents.

5.13 The Council has also set the goal to create a range of housing choices, including high density housing. This is reflected in Project 8011 and the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan.

5.14 Despite the progress of residential development in the central city, there remains a lack of higher density residential development typologies with developers currently preferring attached townhouse and lower-rise apartment developments.

5.15 The proposed scheme is intended to encourage higher density residential development in the central city. Higher density housing could also further boost population growth in this area.

Rebate for high density residential development

5.16 The proposed scheme (Attachment B) is for any residential development within the Four Avenues of the central city. The residential development, or residential component, must comprise of at least six storeys.

5.17 The rebate is for 100 per cent of the development contribution requirement.

5.18 Because the purpose of the rebate is to support more permanent residents in the central city, the draft rebate excludes any property used for any purpose other than residential, including short term guest accommodation. The developer will be required to register a covenant on each title to limits the use of residential units within the development to residential use only.

5.19 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $2 million. The scheme will expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated.

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

Date	Subject
15 May 2025	Development Contribution Rebates

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

Date	Subject
6 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes
19 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy - workshop on submissions and post-consultation changes and Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

5.22.1 Introduce a rebate for the value of expired existing demand credits in the central city.

5.22.2 Introduce a rebate for residential develop with six or more stories in the central city.

5.22.3 Do not introduce any rebate schemes.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.23 Preferred Option: Introduce a rebate for the value of expired existing demand credits in the central city.

5.23.1 Option Description: The proposed scheme is for any development within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024.

5.23.2 Option Advantages

· Could encourage timely redevelopment of final central city sites that are pending redevelopment.

· Allows the Council to be targeted in the outcomes of the scheme by focussing on unrepaired buildings that may be considered unsightly and impact negatively on the perceptions of the central city.

5.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· A rebate would result in some loss of development contribution revenue for the Council and result in some ratepayer subsidisation of growth.

· This scheme excludes sites that have been demolished already, and some developers may consider that unfair.

5.24 Preferred Option: Introduce a rebate for residential develop with six or more stories in the central city.

5.24.1 Option Description: The proposed scheme is for any residential development, comprising at least six storeys, within the Four Avenues of the central city.

5.24.2 Option Advantages

· Could encourage greater residential intensification of the central city.

· Supports the development of a residential typology that has had poor uptake in the city.

· Supports the Council’s goal to increase the number of permanent residents in the central city.

5.24.3 Option Disadvantages

· A rebate would result in some loss of development contribution revenue for the Council and result in some ratepayer subsidisation of growth.

· The requirement of the covenant to restrict short stay accommodation could result in low uptake of the scheme.

5.25 Do not consult on any new rebate schemes.

5.25.1 Option Description: The Council could decide not to consult on any new rebate schemes.

5.25.2 Option Advantages

· The Council would not forgo any development contributions revenue.

5.25.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Council would miss an opportunity to encourage and support desired development types in the central city.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 Funding Source – The funding for the schemes is development contribution revenue foregone rather than budgeted expenditure. This results in the Council’s borrowing requirement increasing, due to the lost capital revenue.

6.2 Cost to Implement – The cost to implement and administer the rebate scheme will come from existing operational budgets.

6.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The ongoing costs of the schemes relate to the foregoing of development contribution revenue. This revenue would have been used to reduce new borrowing required in the provision of infrastructure to service growth development.

The cost incurred accumulates as the scheme funding is drawn on. The estimated impact on rates is outlined in the table below.

	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
DC Rebate Drawdown	$2.0m	$3.0m	$2.0m	$0.0m
DC Rebate Rates Impact	0.01%	0.02%	0.02%	0.01%

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 Risk – The draw down on the available funding is quicker than expected and exhausts available funds.

7.2 Mitigation – Staff will monitor the uptake of the schemes. If required, the Council or Finance and Performance Committee could approve an extension of the funding limit.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.3.1 The Council requires development contributions in accordance with sections 102, 106 and 197AA-211 of the LGA.

7.3.2 The Development Contributions Rebate Policy enables the Council to establish development contributions rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The required decisions:

7.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, in particular the community outcome to be a thriving and prosperous city.

7.4.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected, financial cost of the schemes and difficulty in reversing the decision once made.

7.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Development Contribution Rebate Policy provides for the Council to adopt rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

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

7.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.7 The views of the public, including those in the development sector, will be sought as part of public consultation.

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

7.8.1 Central ward.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

7.11 The Council has a separate rebate scheme, which seeks to encourage residential and community development on Māori freehold and Māori-owned general land within the Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga zone of the Christchurch District Plan.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7.16 There are no direct climate change impact considerations associated with the decision required. However, the residential rebate scheme looks to incentivise increased housing density in the central city which could contribute to the Council’s emissions reduction goals.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 If the Council agrees, staff will commence consultation on the proposed rebate schemes.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Existing Demand Credits	25/886936	70
b ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Central City High Density Residential	25/885000	72

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Development Contributions Rebate Policy

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Council submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1115486
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Adams, Principal Advisor Strategic Policy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to submit the Council’s submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

1.2 The submission outlines the Council’s concerns with the Bill as currently drafted, particularly its implications for local government regulation, statutory obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the risk of narrowing legitimate regulatory purposes.

1.3 The submission recommends several amendments to ensure that any legislative reform supports an effective, inclusive, and locally responsive regulatory environment.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Council submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill Report.

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

3. Approves lodging the Council submission on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (Attachment A of this report) to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Government is currently consulting on the Regulatory Standards Bill, with submissions due by 23 June 2025. While the Bill is framed as applying to central government, its provisions have potential implications for local government, including Christchurch City Council.

3.2 The Bill introduces a framework to define and assess “responsible regulation”, including a set of principles and new oversight mechanisms. These include Consistency Accountability Statements for both primary and secondary legislation and a new Regulatory Standards Board. If enacted, the Bill could alter how legislation and regulation – including those developed by local authorities – are reviewed, justified, and interpreted over time.

Relevance to the Council

3.3 Although not explicitly directed at local government, several provisions in the Bill could affect the Council’s regulatory role, either directly (e.g. through the inclusion of secondary legislation such as bylaws or district plans) or indirectly through the evolution of government practice and interpretation. Key areas of concern for the Council include:

3.3.1 Impacts on local government autonomy: The Bill could influence or be extended to include Council-made regulations. This risks centralising control over regulatory quality in ways that are not aligned with local decision-making processes or place-based governance.

3.3.2 Absence of Treaty considerations: The Bill does not reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga Māori, or Māori participation in governance, despite the statutory obligations councils hold under the Local Government Act (LGA), Resource Management Act (RMA), and Treaty settlement legislation. This omission risks marginalising Treaty-based and tikanga-informed approaches in regulatory development.

3.3.3 Duplication of existing mechanisms: The proposed new tools duplicate existing processes like Regulatory Impact Statements (RIS), select committee scrutiny and guidance from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), but with unclear enforceability or benefit. There is concern the new mechanisms proposed could introduce unnecessary compliance costs and confusion instead of enhancing regulatory quality. Local government is already required to follow very robust processes in our regulatory work.

3.3.4 Narrow definition of regulatory quality: The Bill’s principles largely focus on individual rights, economic efficiency, and limiting intervention. While these are valid, they do not reflect the broader range of legitimate regulatory purposes that underpin much of modern New Zealand legislation. For example, public health, equity, environmental protection, community wellbeing, and Treaty commitments.

Submission Position

3.4 The draft submission proposes that the Council does not support the Bill in its current form. While the intent to improve the quality and consistency of regulation is acknowledged, the submission highlights the need for significant amendments if the Bill is to proceed.

3.5 The Council’s proposed submission makes the following recommendations:

3.5.1 Clarify the scope of the Bill to explicitly exclude local government instruments, or affirm that they remain governed by their enabling legislation (such as the LGA and RMA).

3.5.2 Include Treaty principles and recognise tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori as relevant to the quality of legislation.

3.5.3 Avoid duplicating existing review mechanisms and instead invest in improving the effectiveness of, and compliance with, current tools and practices.

3.5.4 Broaden the principles of “responsible regulation” to include goals such as equity, environmental sustainability, social and cultural wellbeing, and community voice.

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

Date	Subject
6 June 2025	Draft submission circulated to Councillors for their feedback

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

3.7 The Council has two reasonably practicable options:

3.7.1 to make a submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill, or

3.7.2 to not make a submission.

3.8 The Council routinely makes submissions on legislative proposals that may significantly impact Christchurch residents or the Council’s statutory responsibilities. Submissions are a key tool for ensuring local government perspectives are considered in national decision-making.

3.9 The Regulatory Standards Bill introduces a new framework for assessing regulatory quality that may influence, or eventually extend to, local government regulation. Given its potential implications for local decision-making, Treaty obligations, and regulatory practice, the Council has a direct interest in ensuring its perspective is reflected.

3.10 Choosing not to submit is not recommended. Without a submission, the Council forgoes an important opportunity to highlight the potential impacts on local government and to advocate for changes that reflect the realities of our statutory role and community obligations.

3.11 On balance, preparing a submission enables the Council to provide constructive feedback, help shape the regulatory framework to better reflect New Zealand’s policy context, and ensure local government voices are heard in the legislative process.

4. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

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

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

5.3 Other Legal Implications:

5.3.1 Given the impact of the proposed Bill on the Council’s powers regarding secondary legislation, in particular bylaws and district plans, any legal implications or impacts of the Bill itself should be appropriately considered in the submission.

5.3.2 The Legal Services Team has provided input to the submission.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.4 The required decision:

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

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

5.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

5.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

5.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.7 The decision to submit does not involve a significant decision relating to ancestral land, a body of water, or other elements of intrinsic value. Therefore, it does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, or traditions.

5.8 However, the submission raises concerns that are of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, particularly in relation to the Bill’s omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga Māori, and Māori participation in public decision-making. The Council’s submission emphasises the importance of upholding Treaty obligations and recommends amendments to ensure Māori values and statutory responsibilities are appropriately recognised in any future regulatory framework. This reflects the Council’s commitment to its partnership with Mana Whenua and to honouring its obligations under relevant Treaty settlement legislation.

6. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.1 If the Council approves the submission:

· Staff will lodge the final submission with the Finance and Expenditure Committee by the due date of 23 June 2025.

· A copy of the final submission will be published on the Council’s website to ensure transparency.

· Staff will monitor the progress of the Regulatory Standards Bill and any subsequent select committee deliberations.

6.2 If Council chooses not to approve the submission, no formal feedback will be provided by Christchurch City Council on the Bill at this stage of the legislative process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch City Council submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill	25/1147530	84

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCFIN_SCF_E22299B3-B67B-4F74-023D-08DD9688D2C5/regulatory-standards-bill

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Adams - Principal Advisor Policy

Kirstie Watts - Legal Counsel

Kataraina Fitzell-Beynon - Paearahi

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Council submission on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1133484
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Steffan Thomas, Head of Building Consenting
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the draft Christchurch City Council (Council) submission on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill (Bill).

1.2 The Transport and Infrastructure has called for submissions on the Bill, with consultation closing Monday 23 June 2025.

1.3 The draft submission sets out the Council’s position on the Bill and makes a range of recommendations for drafting changes.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Council submission on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill Report.

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

3. Approves lodging the Council submission on the proposed Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill (Attachment A of this report) to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Government has proposed, through the Bill, to exempt stand-alone dwellings of up to 70 square metres from needing a building consent provided certain criteria have been met.

3.2 The Bill sets out proposed roles of a territorial authority (TA) in relation to non-consented small stand-alone dwellings constructed under the provisions of this Bill.

3.3 Several provisions in the Bill will affect the Council’s regulatory role, including through the requirement to provide a new form of project information memorandum (PIM), and record information in new ways.

Submission Position

3.4 The submission outlines the Council’s position on the Bill. While the intent to improve the efficiency of building small dwellings is acknowledged, the submission highlights the need for significant amendments if the Bill is to proceed.

3.5 The submission raises concern that due to the way the Bill is currently written, it may result in unintended consequences to Council in its role as a TA. Details of these concerns sit alongside recommendations to how the Bill could be amended to address these issues.

3.6 Key areas of concern for the Council include:

3.6.1 Unclear definitions: The Bill currently contains inconsistent definitions which leave room for conflicting interpretations. These should be addressed before the amended Act is passed.

3.6.2 Ability for a person to avoid completion for financial gain: The Bill current allows homeowners to put off completing their building work, to avoiding paying development contributions required fund the additional demand the dwelling places on Council infrastructure. The submission recommends the Bill be amended to address this.

3.6.3 Other minor amendments: The submission recommends other minor amendments throughout the Bill, primarily to provide clarity to all parties.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

3.7 The Council has two reasonably practicable options:

3.7.1 To make a submission on the Bill, or

3.7.2 To not make a submission on the Bill.

3.9 The Bill, introduces a new framework for non-consented small stand-alone dwellings constructed under the provisions of this Bill. Given its potential implications for regulatory practice, the Council has a direct interest in ensuring its perspective is reflected.

3.11 On balance, preparing a submission enables the Council to provide constructive feedback. If Council’s recommendations are adopted, this will lead to greater clarity in the Act as it relates to small stand-alone buildings, with less opportunity of misinterpretation of requirements. This will assist in ensuring that buildings are constructed in a compliant manner with minimal additional costs that are not user-paid.

4. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere


Cost to Implement	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost
Funding Source	No cost
Funding Availability	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/a

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

5.1 The decision to lodge a Council submission is of low risk

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

5.3 Other Legal Implications:

5.3.1 The proposed Bill on will allow the construction of small buildings without requiring building consent. In the Christchurch district there are very few building consents issued for buildings that could potentially fit into this category (e.g. less than 10 per year)

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.4 The required decision:

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

5.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as although there may be some interest in the Government’s proposal it is likely to be minor and only impact those that choose to construct a small dwelling.

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

5.6 Regulatory and Compliance

5.6.1 Activity: Building Regulation

· Level of Service: 9.1.1 Grant building consents within 20 working days - The minimum is to issue 95% of building consents within 19 working days from the date of acceptance

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.1 If the Council approves the submission:

· Staff will lodge the final submission with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by the due date of 23 June 2025.

· Staff will monitor the progress of the Bill.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Submission Cover Letter Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill	25/1156422	95

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

Steffan Thomas - Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. Multicultural Portfolio Lead Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/348006
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Cr. Tyla Harrison-Hunt

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the biannual Multicultural Portfolio report to the Council.

1.2 This report was prepared by Councillor Harrison-Hunt with administrative support from the Community Planning and Projects Team.

2. Multicultural Portfolio Lead Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Multicultural Portfolio Lead Report Report.

3. Background Information

3.1 It is crucial to acknowledge that Multiculturalism exists within a bi-cultural framework. “All cultures are valued for the contributions they bring. Everybody has rights and responsibilities as citizens/residents of New Zealand; however, Te Tiriti o Waitangi affords Māori a dual set of rights as Tangata Whenua. Therefore, it is important to recognise that New Zealand is a multicultural society underpinned by the foundations of Te Tiriti and establishing ongoing relationships between Māori and the Crown”[3].

3.2 Culturally and linguistically diverse communities (CALD) play a crucial role in shaping the future of Ōtautahi Christchurch, bringing cultural, economic and social benefits to the city.

3.3 The Multicultural Portfolio was created in November 2022 after the triennial election. The Mayor established the committees of the Council under Section 41A (3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Portfolios were introduced to ensure the Council engages appropriately with specific population groups/issues. Portfolio holders were to champion a particular population group or issue.

3.4 Council work in this space is guided by the Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy and Te Rautaki Mātāwaka Rau Christchurch Multicultural Strategy (2017-2022). These strategies acknowledge and commit to making Christchurch a city where diversity is harnessed, welcomed and celebrated.

3.5 85% of the Multicultural Strategy Implementation Plan 2021 has been delivered or is in play. A review of the Strategy will be undertaken in 2025 along with a refreshed Implementation Plan.

4. Census and other data

4.1 Support and promote community solutions for economic and social exclusion of cultural and ethnic communities (Objective 1.4, Action).

4.2 Based on the 2023 Census data for Christchurch City, the labour force status across cultural and ethnic groups reveals notable patterns. The following figures highlight both shared trends and disparities in employment engagement across Christchurch’s diverse communities.

4.2.1 Full-time employment is the dominant status for all groups, with the highest rates observed among those identifying as "Other ethnicity" (58.2%) and Asian (56.2%). Māori and Pacific Peoples also show strong full-time employment rates, though slightly lower, at 48.7% and 51.7% respectively.

4.2.2 Part-time employment remains relatively consistent across ethnicities, ranging from 12.6% to 15.2%.

4.2.3 Unemployment is most pronounced among Māori (5.3%) and Pacific Peoples (5.1%), nearly double the rate seen in European and New Zealander groups (both at 2.5%).

4.2.4 Meanwhile, a significant portion of the European population (33.6%) is not in the labour force, the highest among all groups, while "Other ethnicity" has the lowest at 23.0%.

4.3 According to the stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of people by ethnicity across New Zealand Deprivation Index deciles (1 = least deprived, 10 = most deprived) in Christchurch City, based on the 2023 Census:

4.3.1 European and “New Zealander” populations are more concentrated in lower deprivation deciles (1–4), places with better access to things like healthcare, education, income, and housing. These areas are generally more affluent and have fewer social or economic challenges.

4.3.2 Māori and Pacific Peoples are more heavily represented in higher deprivation deciles (7–10), especially Pacific Peoples in decile 10 (16%). These communities are more likely to face challenges like lower income, poorer housing, and limited access to services. The fact that 16% of Pacific Peoples live in the most deprived decile is a strong indicator of inequality.

4.3.3 Asian and Middle Eastern/Latin American/African groups show a more even spread, but still with noticeable presence in higher deciles. These groups are more evenly distributed across all areas, but there is still a significant number living in more deprived areas. This suggests that while some individuals in these communities are doing well, others may still face barriers to opportunity.

4.3.4 Other ethnicity also shows a relatively balanced distribution, with a slight peak in decile 7.

4.4 Housing tenure. In the 2023 Census for Christchurch City, patterns of household tenure varied significantly across ethnic groups.

4.4.1 Europeans had the highest proportion of people living in homes that were either owned or held in a family trust, reflecting a strong presence in homeownership.

4.4.2 In contrast, Māori and Pacific Peoples were more likely to live in dwellings that were not owned or held in a trust, indicating a greater reliance on rental housing or other non-ownership arrangements.

4.4.3 The Asian population showed a relatively balanced distribution across ownership types, while the Middle Eastern/Latin American/African group had one of the lowest ownership rates.

4.5 Life in Christchurch Survey – The Life in Christchurch survey series (external link) is a web-based survey conducted by the Council's Monitoring and Research Team. Life in Christchurch is a web-based survey that uses a snowball method to reach respondents, using a word-of-mouth approach rather than the more traditional random sample selection methodology. This method provides results that are indicative rather than representative of the wider community. It also results in high numbers of respondents because the sample size is unlimited. Typically, each Life in Christchurch survey can receive between 2000 to 4500 respondents.

4.5.1 The comparison between the 2023 Census and the Life in Christchurch Survey about Climate Change 2024 reveals significant disparities in ethnic representation. European respondents make up 92.8% of survey participants, far exceeding their 75.9% share of the Christchurch population.

4.5.2 In contrast, Māori (4.6% in the survey vs. 11.2% in the census), Asian (3.3% vs. 17.1%), and Pacific Peoples (1.1% vs. 4.3%) are notably underrepresented. MELAA communities also show a slight underrepresentation (1.0% vs. 1.9%).

4.5.3 These findings suggest that the Life in Christchurch Survey may not fully reflect the city’s ethnic diversity, highlighting the need for more inclusive outreach and engagement strategies to ensure all communities are equitably represented in civic decision-making.

5. The Multicultural Sector: well-connected, collaborative and proactive

5.1 The multicultural sector in Ōtautahi Christchurch is characterised by strong inter-organisational connections, a general spirit of collaboration, and a proactive approach to addressing community needs. While some networks are facilitated by the Council, many stakeholder groups and hui are self-directed and self-facilitated, reflecting the sector’s growing capacity, autonomy, and commitment to collective progress.

INFoRM Network

5.2 The Interagency Network for Migrants and Refugees continues to meet regularly (bimonthly) at the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre. The network consists of approximately 350 stakeholders from a wide range of agencies, NGOS and community organisations working with and for migrants and refugees. However, meetings are consistently well attended with a core group of approximately 30/40 people joining both in person and online. In 2025, the Network continued working on the Sector Emergency Response Plan, Moreover, the agendas included presentations from the Electoral Commission, Christchurch Resettlement Services, Red Cross Pathway to Employment, Welcoming Communities Coordinator. Staff from MBIE - Refugee and Migrant Services (RMS) – are visiting in September to connect and hear from the stakeholders in Christchurch.

5.3 While the Council provides secretarial support, the Network operates independently. Its interests and priorities are identified and driven by the group itself, with a strong sense of autonomy and self-direction.

CLING

5.4 The Community Language Information Network Group (CLING) continues to hold monthly meetings. The Network is facilitated by Christchurch Resettlement Services and includes representatives from Interpreting New Zealand, Purapura Whetu, Christchurch City Council, Citizens Advice Bureau, New Zealand Red Cross, Te Whatu Ora, and Immigration New Zealand. CLING provides regular updates to INFoRM to stay connected with agencies that aren’t directly involved in its kaupapa but could still benefit from the information being shared.

5.5 Attendance at CLING meetings tends to fluctuate from month to month. A brief evaluation was conducted to assess the perceived value of these hui. The findings indicate that, overall, participants appreciate the meetings and find the topics discussed to be relevant and worthwhile.

5.6 CLING has almost finalised the series of webinars aimed at the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) sector funded by CCC. These webinars showcase best practices in engaging with CALD communities and serve as a sustainable resource. They will provide ongoing access to crucial information, including interpreter and translation services, as well as other relevant best practice communication topics for professionals working with CALD communities.

Christchurch Former Refugees Steering Committee

5.7 One of the most significant outcomes of the project funded by MBIE to support and enhance Meaningful Refugee Participation has been the recent establishment of a community-led Former Refugees Steering Committee. A co-designed recruitment model empowered leaders from former refugee communities to identify and nominate one or two representatives from their respective communities to serve on the committee.

5.8 In early December 2024, a subcommittee composed of former refugees developed the process and drafted the Terms of Reference. The Council provides secretarial support only, assisting with facilitation and the development of ideas and initiatives. A call for nominations was widely circulated among former refugee communities in February and March 2025. Ten nominations were received. Following eight months of dedicated preparatory work—including extensive engagement with agencies and organisations working with and for former refugee communities—the inaugural meeting of the Former Refugees Steering Committee was held at the Multicultural Centre in late March 2025.

5.9 The vision of the Former Refugees Steering Committee is to foster a cohesive and empowered community of former refugees in Christchurch. Its primary aim is to build trust and collaboration both within former refugee communities and between these communities and settlement providers and stakeholders. The committee seeks to ensure that former refugees are actively involved in shaping decisions that affect their lives. Through strategic advocacy and meaningful participation, the committee aims to improve settlement outcomes and promote a supportive environment in which former refugees can thrive and contribute positively to wider society.

5.10 The Steering Committee is composed of ten individuals with lived experience of displacement, each nominated by their community. This diverse group, which reflects balanced gender representation, includes members from the Somali, Afghan, Eritrean, Nepalese, Bhutanese, and Iranian communities. They bring a wide range of skills, ages, and experiences. Some members are employed by agencies that support former refugees, while others work in the private sector and maintain strong community ties, often volunteering their time and expertise. Nominations from other communities remain open to broaden representation and further enhance resettlement outcomes in Christchurch.

5.11 In its initial months, the Steering Committee has focused on identifying key priorities and developing a strategic plan. The group continues to welcome input and engagement. The Committee has been invited to attend Refugee Day at Parliament on 24 June 2025. This visit will provide members with the opportunity to meet MBIE staff from the Refugee and Migrant Services office and to connect with agencies and organisations in Wellington involved in refugee resettlement.

A group of people sitting around a table

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

5.12 MBIE has confirmed a new round of funding for the 2025/2026 financial year to continue supporting Meaningful Refugee Participation. The agreement between Christchurch City Council and MBIE is currently being finalised.

Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG)

5.13 Staff are currently undertaking a review of the Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG). A recent change in leadership has prompted discussions around the group’s sense of achievement, its overall impact, and the potential need to revise its Terms of Reference. Some longstanding members have observed that, since the disestablishment of the Multicultural Committee three years ago, their contributions and advice no longer appear to have a clear or direct pathway to the Council or elected Councillors.

These conversations have led to the decision to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the MAG’s work and its influence over the years, to identify new opportunities and potential improvements. The review process includes the following components:

· An online survey for current MAG members and relevant staff

· Individual interviews

· An online survey for former MAG members

· A facilitated focus group

5.14 The findings will be compiled into a report, which will outline key insights, assess the MAG’s effectiveness, and propose recommendations for future direction and development. The Report is expected to be completed by the end of August 2025.

5.15 In response to earlier discussions around the perceived lack of impact and meaningful contribution within the Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG), a new pilot initiative has been introduced. Currently, several MAG members are supporting Council staff in the assessment of Strengthening Communities Fund applications within the multicultural sector. As part of this trial, an advisory group - comprising selected MAG members - has been established to guide the Multicultural Community Development Advisor (CDA) during the funding assessment process. Participating members have signed confidentiality agreements and declarations of any conflicts of interest. Their role is strictly advisory and involves evaluating applications based on priority, using a scale from 1 to 4 (with 1 indicating projects of significant value, and 4 for applications that do not meet Council criteria). MAG members are not required to recommend funding amounts.

5.16 A review of the trial will be undertaken in September to evaluate whether this advisory process has the potential to be formally integrated into the Strengthening Communities Fund assessment framework. The review will also consider the feasibility of extending this model to other Portfolios, to enhance community participation and ensure more representative decision-making across Council funding processes.

Empowerment Network (former Elderly Abuse)

5.17 The Empowerment Network is a newly established collaborative group to raise awareness and provide education to communities on elder abuse and overall family wellbeing. Facilitated by Christchurch Resettlement Services, the Network brings together a range of organisations working in this space. Although still in its early stages, the group is currently focused on developing a clear statement of purpose, Terms of Reference, and confirming its membership.

5.18 At present, the Network includes representatives from the Multicultural Council, Asian Family Services, Christchurch City Council, New Zealand Police, and several community leaders. Council staff are supporting the group through its capacity-building phase and assisting with the expansion of its membership base.

Refugee Response and Resettlement Stakeholders Network

5.19 Initiated and facilitated by Purapura Whetu, this stakeholder network serves as a platform for sharing updates on newly arrived quota refugees. Its primary purpose is to strengthen collaboration among service providers to support improved settlement outcomes. The network aims to foster a shared understanding of who is involved in the resettlement process, the services each organisation offers, and how to effectively connect and coordinate with one another.

5.20 Current members of the network include Hagley College, New Zealand Red Cross, Pegasus Health, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch Resettlement Services, the Ministry of Education, New Zealand Police, Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), Peeto, Environment Canterbury (ECan), Canterbury Refugee Resettlement and Resource Centre, English Language Partners, and Christchurch City Council.

6. Enhancing visibility of the cultural and ethnic communities

6.1 Staff engagement with a wide range of ethnic and cultural communities highlighted a common perception: that the city does not visually reflect the rich diversity of its population. In response, one of the initiatives developed was to invite community-led exhibitions into the Civic Building - the symbolic heart of local democracy and the home of Christchurch’s citizens. This project aims to make the city’s cultural fabric more visible in its most public and symbolic space, ensuring that the stories, identities, and contributions of all communities are acknowledged and celebrated. These exhibitions are meant to be not only artistic or commemorative displays but also acts of civic participation - bringing visibility to underrepresented groups, fostering intercultural understanding, and reinforcing the idea that the Civic Building is a place where all citizens, regardless of background, are seen, heard, and valued.

6.2 Sow a LYTTEL Seed 51 Threads Exhibition

On the occasion of the Unity Week, from the 10 to the 21 March 2025, Sow a LYTTEL Seed, displayed at the Civic building, part of its 51 Threads Connection exhibition, was a moving tribute to the events of 15 March.

Through the delicate arts of calligraphy and embroidery, stories are told with chosen words or phrases rendered in Arabic calligraphy and hand-embroidered on fabric.

Participants, honouring the memory of loved ones lost in the tragic attacks, use this poignant medium to express their grief and remembrance five years on.

A collage of different images of different colors

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.3 Nowruz, the Persian New Year

Organised by Kia Ora Academy and the Kazakh community, on 21 March, the Civic Building hosted a small gathering in the celebration of Nowruz. The Persian New Year is celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox, marking the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere.

For the occasion, a haft-sin was arranged. It is an arrangement of seven symbolic items whose names start with the letter "س" (pronounced as "seen"), the 15th letter in the Persian alphabet.

The event was attended by members of the Afghan, Kazakh and Iranian communities.

A close-up of a label

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A group of men standing in front of a table with a candle and a mirror

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A group of people standing in a room

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A child in a dress

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.4 Berlin Wall Exhibition

Originally commissioned by the German Embassy in New Zealand to Alexandra Falk (Journalist, Correspondent and Producer) to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the German reunification, it was displayed on the Exhibition Wall in the Civic Building for the whole month of April.

The Berlin Wall Stories exhibition explores the stories of 10 unique people and their relationship with the Berlin Wall, a concrete wall that once divided East and West Berlin, along with a border strip that ran between the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Those two German states (as well as Berlin) were finally reunited after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. It is a historical event of great significance, not only for Germans.

Within the exhibition, you will be able to meet New Zealanders, Germans, and some who are both, along with people who have their roots in Eastern Europe but call Aotearoa their home now. What they have in common is a “Mauergeschichten" - a Berlin wall story. By diving into those stories, you will get to see different angles of the historical event and will learn about Germany's more recent story.

The Exhibition was officially opened on 7 April with a small gathering for the German community

A person and person standing in front of a poster

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A group of girls playing a violin

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.5 InCommon Inclusivity poster campaign Te Kōrero Tākaro Stories of Play

On the UNESCO World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development, InCommon and Sport Canterbury launched an Inclusivity Campaign that celebrates the diversity of Aotearoa and the opportunity for connection and understanding that play and sport create, across culture, faith and generations – between us all. The online launch coincided with an exhibition at the Civic Building from the 19^th to the 23^rd of May 2025.

This is the fourth Inclusivity Poster Campaign created by InCommon, highlighting the common ground between and the diversity of our communities. The community members featured in these Campaigns highlight points of connection - from personal preferences to shared values.

This Campaign builds off Te Kōrero Tākaro | Stories of Play, a collaborative oral history project between InCommon, Our Stories Project, Gap Filler Pae Tākaro that celebrates the diversity of Aotearoa and connects people across different cultures, faiths and generations through play. The audio stories of memories of play and traditional games from different ethnic communities can be listened to from the InCommon website.

Two women holding a sign

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A group of people standing together

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7. Upskilling opportunities and information sessions

7.1 Promoting equitable access to resources and opportunities for everybody regardless of their identity, cultural or linguistic background is a key objective of the Multicultural Strategy. To enhance awareness and improve access to funding opportunities, staff have organised a series of drop-in sessions - both online and in person - to assist Pacific, ethnic and cultural communities in understanding the Council’s funding framework, strategic priorities, and the new application platform. In total, more than 75 groups participated in these sessions.

7.2 In recognition of the bicultural framework within which multiculturalism is situated, a series of Te Tiriti o Waitangi workshops—specifically tailored for migrants and former refugees—have been delivered. This initiative was made possible through collaboration with the New Zealand Red Cross, Tangata Tiriti, and the Welcoming Communities programme. To ensure the workshops were inclusive and accessible to all participants, translation support was made available where required. The next step involves organising a workshop aimed at training new facilitators from ethnic communities based in the South Island.

7.3 In light of the concerning global rise in hate-related attacks targeting public events and gatherings—and acknowledging that, while New Zealand is generally a safe country, it remains vulnerable to potential threats from lone individuals or organised groups—Council staff, in collaboration with the New Zealand Police, have organised a safety-focused workshop.
This workshop is designed to support ethnic communities, as well as the wider public, in planning safe events by identifying potential risks and implementing strategies to minimise danger. The session centres on the Crowded Places Strategy, a national framework developed to assist organisations and venue operators in assessing vulnerabilities and strengthening protective measures. The strategy provides practical tools and self-assessment resources that empower community groups, event organisers, and venue managers to evaluate their preparedness and develop effective safety plans.

8. Reinstating the Intercultural Assembly

8.1 In 2000, the Mayor's Working Party on Ethnic Relations commissioned Hassan Haji Ibrahim and Patric O’Connor to conduct comprehensive consultations with ethnic communities and other stakeholders. The objective was to gain a nuanced understanding of the state of Christchurch's ethnic relations at that time, identify appropriate recommendations and actions needed, and determine potential partners and stakeholders to advance these recommendations for enhancing positive ethnic relations in the city. The findings and recommendations were encapsulated in the report titled “Inter-Cultural Relations in Christchurch: A Report for the Mayor’s Working Party on Ethnic Relations” (October 2000). The Report emphasised the necessity for any proposed strategy or model to have high visibility and credibility, bolstered by the endorsement and promotion from the Mayor and the City Council, with clear support from all citizens, particularly Tangata Whenua and Ethnic Communities.

One of the report's high-priority actions was the recommendation to establish an Intercultural Assembly (ICA) “genuinely representing an extensive cross-section of stakeholders”.

8.2 The Intercultural Assembly would not duplicate the role or any existing organisation but provide a coordinating role to ensure that the implementation of any model created would be relevant, cohesive, accountable and generally robust. The Intercultural Assembly (ICA) was officially launched in March 2003 to provide a forum to recognise and positively foster the growing ethnic diversity in Christchurch through improved communication and coordination of services. The ICA was community-owned and described itself as a “networking body” for existing and new initiatives relating to intercultural understanding (Terms of Reference for Intercultural Assembly - Feb 2005).

8.3 The proposal to reinstate the Intercultural Assembly is derived from Goal 4, Priority Action 1 of the Christchurch Multicultural Strategy's Implementation Plan. This action mandates an investigation into the feasibility and benefits of reinstating the Assembly, recognising its potential to:

· Enhance intercultural dialogue and understanding: Fostering intercultural relationships is essential, especially considering the current international geopolitical tensions that are affecting relationships and social cohesion in Christchurch.

· Provide a structured platform for cultural communities to voice their concerns and to influence local decisions and policies to be more inclusive and representative of Christchurch's diverse population: This is particularly relevant with the disestablishment of the Multicultural Committee, which previously served as a channel for such expressions.

· Foster shared communication, collaboration and partnerships among different cultural groups: Internal divisions within ethnic communities are quite common, often resulting in multiple funding applications for the same cultural events. The Assembly could streamline these efforts and promote unity.

8.4 Staff are currently exploring potential models, partnerships, and approaches that will support a sustainable, community-led delivery of the project. The focus is on identifying frameworks that empower community ownership while ensuring long-term viability.

9. Ethnic Media Network

9.1 Staff are collaborating with various stakeholders (Plains Media, ethnic leaders, broadcast education providers, mainstream media…) on the development of an ethnic media network which aims to strengthen the ethnic media sector by fostering collaboration among ethnic media outlets, enhancing their capacity through targeted training, and promoting trusted communication within diverse communities. By connecting media platforms and encouraging partnerships with broadcast education providers, mainstream journalists, and Council communications teams, the project seeks to improve content quality and sector resilience.

9.2 A key focus is on empowering community leaders to deliver vital messages in their native languages, particularly during emergencies, ensuring timely, culturally appropriate information reaches non-English speaking residents. Ethnic media are frequently underutilised and undervalued as a significant and impactful means of reaching ethnic communities. Many ethnic groups prefer to read, listen to, or watch media produced by their communities. Engaging these communities can often be more effectively achieved through non-English language media.

10. Culture Galore

10.1 In April 2025, the Culture Galore Feasibility Report was finalised. The study was initiated in recognition of the event’s significant growth in popularity, which has led to increasing logistical challenges at its current location, Ray Blank Park in Ilam. The primary objective of the feasibility study was to identify the most suitable alternative venue for hosting the event from 2026 onwards. Five potential venues across Christchurch were assessed, with the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre emerging as the preferred option. This recommendation reflects the Centre’s unique capacity to support an event of this nature and scale, as well as its demonstrated success in engaging a wide range of communities since opening in early 2024.

10.2 The report also outlines several potential risks associated with the relocation and ongoing delivery of the event, including issues related to governance, staffing, funding, community expectations, and long-term sustainability. To address these, the report proposes a range of mitigation strategies, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities, inclusive and transparent planning processes, diverse community representation, open communication, and collaborative decision-making. Since its inception in 2001, Culture Galore has been financially supported by the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board and the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (and their predecessor boards).

10.3 As the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre is operated by the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust, whose kaupapa is to successfully manage the Centre, not to run Culture Galore, the report recommends the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Council and the Trust. This MoU would serve to clarify expectations, define roles and responsibilities, and outline key deliverables to ensure the successful delivery of Culture Galore at its new venue.

10.4 The recommendations included in the Feasibility Report are the following:

· Confirm the ongoing commitment to delivering a vibrant multicultural festival that celebrates the diversity of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

· Relocate the annual Culture Galore event to the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre, utilising both indoor and outdoor spaces to further enhance the event programme.

· Establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Council and the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust to host the event annually. The MoU will outline roles, responsibilities and key deliverables for both parties.

· Fund the delivery of the Culture Galore event either as a Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan budget item (like Children’s Day) or as a multi-year funding agreement with the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust. Council funding should cover the budget for hosting the event, which would allow any grant funding the Trust receives from outside, from the Council, to be utilised to enhance the event programme, for example, increasing the range of activities offered.

· Retain the Culture Galore Committee (as the community representatives for the planning and organising of the event) and invite a member of the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust to join the committee.

· Collaborate between Council and Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre staff on a Culture Galore project team that will work with the Committee and lead the transition, continuity and future development of the event.

· Acknowledge the implications of work currently underway to determine the long-term use of the netball courts. Should the lease be extended, then the event would need to hire the courts from Christchurch Netball, which would affect future funding needs. Should the lease not be extended, any considerations for the future use of the space would include implications for hosting the Culture Galore event.

· Listen to community and stakeholder feedback to understand the changing needs and aspirations and how they can be incorporated into the event in the future.

11. Te Ngira Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre

11.1 Te Ngira, the Christchurch Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre, has now entered its second year of operation. The Council continues to provide in-kind support through the placement of an Establishment Manager, whose role is to assist the Trust in activating the space and strengthening its organisational capability. This support is scheduled to conclude by the end of March 2026.

11.2 The Establishment Manager’s current priorities are focused on the following key areas:

· Financial sustainability – ensuring the Centre can operate independently in the long term.

· Emergency preparedness – positioning the Centre as a hub for ethnic and cultural communities in times of crisis.

· Tiriti-based development – fostering a Centre whose spaces, practices, policies, and governance are grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles.

11.3 The Centre is well utilised, particularly following the recent replacement of the lift, which has significantly enhanced accessibility. Further improvement works are scheduled for 2025, including the replacement of heating tiles in the two function rooms and the refurbishment of the ground floor toilets. The latter upgrade will ensure the Centre is fully accessible to all users, both in terms of physical accessibility and inclusive facilities that respect diverse gender identities.

11.4 The Centre continues to generate a steady and reliable income through venue hire. Since March 2024, approximately 192 groups and organisations have utilised the Centre’s facilities. In addition to the MRCC Charitable Trust staff, the Centre also accommodates five community organisations on a longer-term basis, providing dedicated office space to: Terra Nova Foundation, Moana Vā, Interpreting NZ, the Korean Society, and the Maona Pacific Trust. An additional office continues to be designated as a hot desk, available to community groups requiring part-time or flexible office space. Furthermore, the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board is currently based at the Multicultural Centre while the South Library undergoes redevelopment.

11.5 The composition of the Board of Trustees has recently changed. Due to personal and professional commitments, several original members have stepped down, and the Trust has since welcomed new trustees. The staffing structure currently includes one full-time Coordinator and one part-time Financial Administrator. Through a Flexi-Wage Agreement with the Ministry of Social Development, the Trust also employs a full-time Cleaner and a full-time Groundskeeper. In addition, the Trust is supported by approximately 20 volunteers, contributing a combined total of around 100 volunteer hours per week. These volunteers, who come from a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, assist with various roles including front-of-house duties (five days per week, mornings and afternoons), barista services during the Saturday Netball season and parking management for five afternoons per week during the School Netball season.

12. Welcoming Communities updates

12.1 The Welcoming Communities Coordinator has completed the Stocktake Report of Welcoming Communities in Christchurch and finalised the first draft of the Welcoming Communities Action Plan, which is now ready to be shared for consultation.

12.2 The stakeholder report highlights many positive elements already in place to support newcomers in Christchurch, including strong community engagement, accessible services, and a growing number of inclusive initiatives. However, it also identifies several areas for improvement. The identified areas are:

· Inclusive leadership

· Connected and Inclusive Communities

· Equitable Access

· Economic Development, Business and Employment

· Civic Engagement and Participation

12.3 In January 2025, the first Newcomers Volunteering Expo was successfully held at the Multicultural Centre, through a partnership between Volunteering Canterbury, the Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre Charitable Trust, and Welcoming Communities. The event attracted strong community interest and engagement, providing newcomers with the opportunity to connect with local organisations, explore volunteering pathways, and foster a sense of belonging through active participation.

12.4 Staff contributed to the delivery of the first public-facing Te Tiriti o Waitangi workshop, which received excellent feedback from participants. Due to high demand, a second workshop has been scheduled for June 2025.

12.5 Support was provided for the ongoing Ōtautahi Welcoming Dinner series, hosted at the Multicultural Centre. Each session reached full capacity, offering a warm and inclusive environment that fosters meaningful connections among diverse community members and former refugees.

12.6 In collaboration with Christchurch Art Gallery, a creative initiative was launched combining art and storytelling with welcoming practices. This included a Welcoming Morning Tea featuring a guest artist and highlighting migrant stories through artistic expression.

12.7 Staff organised and hosted the Regional Welcoming Communities Hui, which brought together stakeholders from across the region to strengthen partnerships, share best practices, and build collective capacity in welcoming initiatives.

12.8 Support was provided for the development of a Chinese Safety Video Project, aimed at addressing key safety concerns within the growing Chinese community. The video promotes awareness and provides culturally appropriate guidance on personal and community safety.

12.9 Staff contributed to the CLING Webinar Project, which is developing a sustainable series of video resources showcasing best practices for working with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. These resources aim to support service providers and community organisations in delivering more inclusive and effective services.

13. Pacific Liaison Report

13.1 From November 2024 to May 2025, Staff have continued to strengthen relationships across Pacific groups in Ōtautahi Christchurch through a wide range of events, programmes, and engagements. These initiatives have actively supported the Council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy by empowering community leadership, fostering intergenerational connections, and enhancing the cultural wellbeing and resilience of Pacific residents. Highlights include the successful Pasifika Community Garden Launch, multiple working bees, and a harvest celebration involving Matua groups, Linwood Ave School, and Te Aratai College students — nurturing both food sovereignty and cultural exchange.

Upskilling and capability building

13.2 A significant investment was made in cultural capability building, with events like the Pacific Leadership Retreat, the Yavu Foundations workshops, and Kapasa policy engagement sessions delivered in collaboration with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. These helped to uplift Pacific voices in policy and service design while deepening organisational understanding of Pacific worldviews and protocols. Further engagement at Te Aratai College Expo, Careers Expo, and the Dragons Den entrepreneurship programme strengthened opportunities for Pacific youth by connecting them to pathways in education, employment, and leadership.

Emergency preparedness and foundation training

13.3 A strong focus has been placed on resilience and emergency preparedness through foundation training courses and the establishment of community-led Pacific Emergency Response Hubs. These were complemented by talanoa (conversations) that drew on lived experiences from past crises to better equip Pacific communities for future emergencies. Engagements such as the Yavu Foundations and Kapasa Policy Tool Workshops, in partnership with the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, have built cultural capability across sectors and supported Pacific-informed decision-making in policy and planning, aligning with the strategy’s intent to build organisational responsiveness and representation.

Visibility of Pacific communities

13.4 The Liaison role also supported visibility and celebration of Pacific identity and language through cultural events such as Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Rotuman Language Weeks, all showcased in public spaces including the CCC Civic Offices. Collaborations with the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Christchurch Art Gallery offered integrated platforms to raise awareness about immigration rights and experiences, including the powerful exhibition "John Vea: Ini Mini Mani Mou". These events were intentionally inclusive, reaching older adults, rangatahi (youth), and migrant families while reinforcing a sense of belonging and civic participation.

13.5 Ongoing engagement with grassroots leaders, sports groups, educators, artists, and Pacific academics has also expanded conversations on climate resilience, housing, and food systems — all critical issues for our communities. Whether through organising the Polynesian Pages Arts Festival, supporting the SPACPAC Polyfest, or contributing to the Pacific Hub consultation, this work continues to weave together diverse Pacific voices into council-led planning and strategy, demonstrating the value of partnership and shared leadership.

14. Multiculturalism across the Metropolitan and Community Boards

14.1 Ethnic and cultural communities

Open in Power BI
Community Support Report - Multicultural
Data as of 1/05/25, 10:53 am
Filtered by Included (3) (2025 (Year), 2024 (Year) + November (Month), 2024 (Year) + December (Month)), Community Profile Cleaned (is migrant, former refugees and multicultural communities)

14.2 Pacific communities

Open in Power BI
Community Support Report _ Pacific
Data as of 1/05/25, 10:53 am
Filtered by Included (3) (2025 (Year), 2024 (Year) + November (Month), 2024 (Year) + December (Month)), Community Profile Cleaned (is Pacific)

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

[3] Te Rautaki Mātāwaka Rau | Christchurch Multicultural Strategy (2017-2022), Christchurch City Council, 2021, pg. 8.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Ara Taiohi Incorported	Involve Conference 2025	$62,600	$18,762

Total Budget 2024/25	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$484,802	$466,040	$18,762	$0.00

13. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/588737
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

9. Discretionary Response Fund Report - Ara Taiohi Incorporated
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1076265
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor Joshua Wharton – Team Leader Community Funding
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community