Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 16 July 2025

Karakia Tīmatanga: The Mayor and all Councillors

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Decision

There were no apologies received for Tuesday 24 and 26 June 2025.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor Peters declared an interest in the proposal to grant $5 million to the Air Force Museum.

Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest in Amendment A42. Banks Peninsula/Akaroa Information Centre and A36. Akaroa Visitor Economy.

Councillor Coker left the meeting at 9.54 am and returned at 9.57am during consideration of Item 3.

The meeting adjourned at 10.03 am and reconvened at 10.20 am during the consideration of Item 3.

3. Development Contributions Policy 2025
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Ellen Cavanagh and Hannah Ballantyne joined the table to present the report. 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter (the Motion). 3. Councillor McDonald Moved, Seconded by Councillor Gough, a Foreshadowed Motion to defer the adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2025 until the Council considers the draft development contributions rebate scheme which is due to be reported back to the Council from late August 2025. 4. When put to the vote, the Motion (Officer Recommendations) were lost by way of division. 5. When put to the vote, the Foreshadowed Motion was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report). 4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 July 2025. 5. Delegates to staff to correct any typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy 2025. 6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment is reduced under the 2025 policy.
	Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report). 4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 July 2025. 5. Delegates to staff to correct any typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy 2025. 6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment is reduced under the 2025 policy. Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded
	Council Decision That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report). 4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 July 2025. 5. Delegates to staff to correct any typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy 2025. 6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment is reduced under the 2025 policy. The division was declared lost* by 8 votes to 9 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett Mayor/Deputy Mayor Lost
	Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00025 That the Council: 1. Defers the adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2025 until the Council considers the draft development contributions rebate scheme which is due to be reported back to the Council from late August 2025. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Gough Carried Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

The meeting adjourned at 10.59 am and reconvened at 11.17 am.

Secretarial Notes: Overview of the 2025/26 Annual Plan adoption meeting process
	1. The purpose of the Secretarial Notes below are to provide an overview of the process undertaken during the meeting. 2. The following key documents are available for ease of reading: · Minutes Attachment A – The final carried resolutions (including any carried amendments) relating to the adoption of the 2025/26 Annual Plan. · Minutes Attachment B - Councillors’ proposed amendments and staff advice. 3. The Council considered and dealt with the following matters and recommendations: Recommendations 1 to 7 - Noting provisions and financial prudence 4. Bruce Robertson, Chair of the Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) provided a verbal update regarding the ARMC recommendations from its meeting held on 13 June 2025. 5. Chief Financial Officer Bede Carran, Acting Head of Finance Bruce Moher and Head of Corporate Planning and Performance Management Peter Ryan presented the Officers’ Report. 6. The Council resolved Recommendations 1 to 7. Recommendations 8 and 9 – Climate Resilience Fund Policy 7. The Council resolved Recommendations 8 and 9 to adopt the Climate Resilience Fund Policy, which was consulted on as part of the draft Annual Plan. Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders 8. The Council temporarily suspended Standing Orders 4.2, 17.5, 18.1, 18.8 and 18.9. Consideration of the 2025/26 Annual Plan (Recommendations 10 to 26 – Moved and Seconded) 9. The Council put the 2025/26 Annual Plan on the table to enable the consideration of Councillors’ proposed amendments and debate. Councillor Proposed Amendments to the 2025/26 Annual Plan (Moved and Seconded) 10. Councillors put forward their proposed amendments and confirmed their Seconders. 11. The meeting adjourned to allow Officers to prepare advice on the proposed amendments. 12. When the meeting reconvened, Councillors considered the Council Officers advice provided on each proposed amendment. 13. The meeting adjourned and reconvened to Thursday 26 June 2025. 14. The Movers and Seconders of the amendments confirmed the finalised wording of each amendment. Debate 15. The Council held one debate for all amendments and the adoption of the 2025/26 Annual Plan. Councillor Proposed Amendments to the 2025/26 Annual Plan (Vote) 16. The Council considered and voted on Councillors’ proposed amendments to the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan in the following category order: · Noting provisions and requests for advice. · Recreation and Sport and Property. · Parks. · Community. · Transport. · Remaining amendments. Council Officer Update 17. Council Officers provided the rates update based on the carried amendments. Adoption of 2025/26 Annual Plan Attachments and Property Disposal (Recommendations 10 to 19) 18. The Council adopted the 2025/26 Annual Plan Attachments and resolved the Property Disposal Recommendations. Adoption of 2025/26 Annual Plan (Recommendation 20) 19. The Council adopted the 2025/26 Annual Plan. Authorisations and setting the rates (Recommendations 21 to 26) 20. The Council agreed to the relevant authorisations and setting of the rates. Resumption of Standing Orders 21. The Council resumed the temporarily suspended Standing Orders.

	Attachments a Final carried resolutions for the 2025/26 Annual Plan b Councillors’ proposed amendments and staff advice

Tuesday 24 June 2025

Councillor Coker left the meeting at 11.55 am and returned at 11.57 am during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12.19 pm and returned at 12.25 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 12.24 pm and returned at 12.26 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

The meeting adjourned at 12.36 pm and reconvened at 3.05 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 4.05 pm and returned at 4.09 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 4.13 pm and returned at 4.18 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 4.29 pm and returned at 4.33 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 4.30 pm and returned at 4.34 pm during consideration of Item 4.5.

The meeting adjourned at 5.25 pm and reconvened at 5.42 pm.

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

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 5.57 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 and did not return.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 6.36 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 and did not return.

The meeting adjourned at 6.39 pm to 11.30 am, Thursday 26 June 2025, Fendalton Service Centre.

Thursday 26 June 2025

The meeting reconvened at 11.33 am. Councillor Johanson was not present at this time.

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 11.35 am.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 11.54 am and returned at 11.55 am during consideration of Item 4.5 Continued.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12.25 pm and returned at 12.30 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 Continued.

The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm and reconvened at 1.11 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 Continued.

The meeting adjourned at 1.15 pm and reconvened at 1.24 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 Continued.

The meeting adjourned at 2.29 pm and reconvened at 3.10 pm during consideration of Item 4.5 Continued.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 2.29 pm and did not return.

4. Annual Plan 2025/26

4.1 Noting provisions and financial prudence (Recommendations 1 to 7)

Council Comment

1. Bruce Robertson, Chair of the Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) provided a verbal update regarding the ARMC recommendations from its meeting held on 13 June 2025.

2. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification regarding the ARMC Recommendations.

3. Chief Financial Officer Bede Carran, Acting Head of Finance Bruce Moher and Head of Corporate Planning and Performance Management Peter Ryan presented the Officers’ Report.

4. Councillors were provided an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of staff relating to the Annual Plan.

5. Officer Recommendations 1 to 7 were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter, and when put to the vote were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00026

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Annual Plan 2025/26 Report and the attachments to this report.

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

3. Notes the recommendations of the Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee at its meeting held on 13 June 2025, as set out in Attachment A of this report.

4. Notes the Thematic Analysis of the Annual Plan 2025/26 Submissions, set out in Attachment B of this report.

5. Notes the Annual Plan 2025/26 - Management Sign-off for Process set out in Attachment C of this report; and

6. Notes the Annual Plan 2025/26 - Management Sign-off for Significant Forecasting Assumptions set out in Attachment D of this report.

7. Resolves that in accordance with section 100(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, it is financially prudent not to set the Council’s projected operating revenues at a level sufficient to meet the projected operating expenses in the 2025-26 financial year, having regard to:

a. The ratio, which is forecast to be 96% in the 2025-26 year; and

b. The estimated expenses of achieving and maintaining the predicted levels of service provision set out in the long-term plan, including the estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of the Council’s assets; and

c. The projected revenue available to fund the estimated expenses associated with maintaining the service capacity and integrity of the Council’s assets throughout their useful life; and

d. The equitable allocation of responsibility for funding the provision and maintenance of the Council’s assets and facilities; and

e. The Council's funding and financial policies.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

4.2 Climate Resilience Fund Policy

Council Comment

1. Recommendations 8 and 9 to adopt the Climate Resilience Fund Policy were Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by Councillor Donovan, and when put to the vote were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00027

That the Council:

8. Adopts the Climate Resilience Fund Policy as set out in Attachment K of this report.

9. Resolves to hold the Climate Resilience Fund in accordance with the Investment Policy adopted by the Council with the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Donovan Carried

4.3 Suspension of standing orders

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00028

That pursuant to Standing Order 3.5 (Temporary Suspension of Standing Orders), the following Standing Orders be suspended to enable a more informal discussion:

4.2 length of meeting

17.5 members may speak only once.

18.1 general procedure for speaking and moving motions.

18.8 foreshadowed amendments.

18.9 lost amendments.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

4.4 Recommendations 10 to 26 Moved and Seconded

Council Comment

1. Recommendations 10 to 26 were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter to enable the 2025/26 Annual Plan to be put on the table and to enable the consideration of Councillors’ proposed amendments and debate.

Moved and Seconded

That the Council:

Draft Annual Plan – Adoption of Attachments

10. Adopts the summary of the financial, rates, and benchmark impacts including proposed operational changes for 2025/26 set out in Attachment E of this report.

11. Adopts the changes to the Council’s capital programme for 2025/26 set out in Attachment F of this report.

12. Adopts the proposed Funding Impact Statement – Rating Information set out in Attachment G of this report.

13. Adopts a minor change to a level of service identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set out in Attachment H of this report.

14. Adopts minor changes to the Fees and Charges schedule identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set out in Attachment I of this report.

Disposal of Council-owned properties

15. Notes the following in respect of the disposal of Council-owned properties consulted on as part of the 25/26 draft Annual Plan process:

a. Separate advertising was undertaken to satisfy the requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act and section 24 of the Reserves Act in respect of the following properties:

· 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title/street number) reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

· 8 Penn Place and 38 Bexley Road considered to be a ‘Park’ pursuant to section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.

· 8 Martindales Road, 191r Worsleys Road and 193r Worsleys Road reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and are also considered a ‘Park’ pursuant to section 138 Local Government Act 2002 for disposal purposes.

b. Advertising comprised public notices in the Press on 8and 15March 2025 for each property and publication on the council main public notice page. Any resulting submissions have been incorporated into the overall draft 2025/26 Annual Plan submissions (refer Attachment B of this report, Thematic Analysis of Submissions) to inform the Council’s decision.

c. Fair and reasonable consideration has been given to all submissions/objections and all information in accordance with section 78 and 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 to inform the Council’s decision.

16. Resolves that all of the properties on the list in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, except 48 Balmoral Lane, as set out in Attachment J of this report, do not meet the Council’s retention criteria and are therefore declared surplus and to be disposed of.

17. Resolves that 48 Balmoral Lane shall be retained due to its ecological restoration potential.

18. Authorises that the reserve revocation process for the following listed properties is commenced in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977:

a. 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title).

b. 8 Martindales Road.

c. 191r Worsleys Road.

d. 193r Worsleys Road.

19. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to implement resolutions 15-18 above and in doing so make any reasonable decisions necessary at their sole discretion to effect the sale of these properties in accordance with Council normal practises and Policies and subject to applicable legislation.

Draft Annual Plan - Adoption

20. Adopts the Annual Plan 2025/26 comprising the information and underlying documents adopted by the Council at the meeting dated 12 February 2025 (the draft Annual Plan 2025/26), as amended by resolutions 10 to 19 above and Attachments E-I and K of this report and including any carried amendments made at this meeting.

Draft Annual Plan – Authorisations and setting the rates

21. Authorises the General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance/Chief Financial Officer to make the amendments required to ensure the published 2025/26 Annual Plan aligns with the Council’s resolutions of 24 June 2025 and to make any other minor changes that may be required.

22. Authorises the Chief Executive to borrow, in accordance with the Liability Management Policy, sufficient funds to enable the Council to meet its funding requirements as set out in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

23. Having set out rates information in the Funding Impact Statement – Rating Information contained in the Annual Plan 2025/26 (adopted as Attachment G by the above resolutions), resolves to set the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the 2025/26 financial year, commencing on 1 July 2025 and ending on 30 June 2026 (all statutory references are to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002).

a. A uniform annual general charge under section 15(1)(b) of $193.00 (incl. GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit;

b. a general rate under sections 13(2)(b) and 13(3)(a)(ii) set differentially based on property type, and capital value as follows:

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)* (cents/$ of capital value)
Standard	Capital Value	0.256336
Business	Capital Value	0.569065
City Vacant	Capital Value	1.159406
Remote Rural	Capital Value	0.192252

c. a sewerage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.088232 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

d. a land drainage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.045166 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

e. a water supply targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a property is connected or capable of connection to the on-demand water reticulation system, as follows:

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)* (cents/$ of capital value)
Connected (full charge)	Capital Value	0.073750
Serviceable (half charge)	Capital Value	0.036875

f. a restricted water supply targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units with one or more connections to restricted water supply systems of $406.00 (incl. GST) for each standard level of service received by a rating unit;

g. a water supply fire connection targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units receiving the benefit of a water supply fire connection of $135.00 (incl. GST) per connection;

h. an excess water supply commercial targeted rate under section 19(2)(a) set for all rating units which receive a commercial water supply as defined in the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2022 plus boarding houses, motels, and rest homes, of $1.47 (incl. GST) per m³ or any part of a m³ for consumption in excess of the rating unit’s water supply targeted rate daily allowance:

· where the rating unit’s water supply targeted rate daily allowance is an amount of cubic meters per day, calculated as the total amount payable under the water supply targeted rate (above), divided by the cubic meter cost ($1.47), divided by 365;

· provided that all properties will be entitled to a minimum consumption of 0.6986 cubic metres per day.

i. an excess water supply residential targeted rate under section 19(2)(a) set for the following:

· all metered residential rating units where the meter records usage for a single rating unit;

· a rating unit where the meter records usage for multiple rating units where there is a special agreement in force specifying which rating unit / ratepayer is responsible for payment,

of $1.47 (incl. GST) per m³ or any part of a m³ for consumption in excess of 900 litres per day, per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit;

j. a waste minimisation targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a full or partial service is provided, as follows:

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)*
Full service	Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit	$176.49
Partial service	Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit	$132.36

k. an active travel targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of $20.00 (incl. GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit;

l. a special heritage (Arts Centre) targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of 0.000277 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

m. a Central City Business Association targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of $545.69 (incl. GST) per business rating unit in the Central City Business Association Area, where the land value of the rating unit is greater than or equal to $90,000;

24. Resolves that all rates except the excess water supply commercial targeted rate and the excess water supply residential targeted rate are due in four instalments, and to set the following due dates for payment:

*Instalment*	1	2	3	4
Area 1	15 August 2025	15 November 2025	15 February 2026	15 May 2026
Area 2	15 September 2025	15 December 2025	15 March 2026	15 June 2026
Area 3	31 August 2025	30 November 2025	28 February 2026	31 May 2026

Where the Instalment Areas are defined geographically as follows:

A group of triangles with text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

*Area 1*	*Area 2*	*Area 3*
Includes generally the Central City and the suburbs of St Albans, Merivale, Mairehau, Papanui, Riccarton, Addington, Spreydon, Sydenham, Beckenham, Opawa and Banks Peninsula.	Includes generally the suburbs of Shirley, New Brighton, Linwood, Woolston, Mt Pleasant, Sumner, Cashmere and Heathcote.	Includes generally the suburbs of Belfast, Redwood, Parklands, Harewood, Avonhead, Bishopdale, Ilam, Fendalton, Hornby, Templeton and Halswell.

25. Resolves that the excess water supply commercial targeted rate and the excess water supply residential targeted rate (together, “excess water charges”) have Due Dates and Penalty Dates based on the week in which amounts are invoiced, according to the following table:

26. Resolves to add the following penalties to unpaid rates pursuant to sections 57 and 58:

a. A penalty of 10 per cent will be added to any portion of an instalment (for rates other than excess water charges) not paid on or by the due dates set out in paragraph 24 above, to be added on the following penalty dates:

*Instalment*	1	2	3	4
Area 1	20 August 2025	20 November 2025	19 February 2026	20 May 2026
Area 2	18 September 2025	18 December 2025	19 March 2026	18 June 2026
Area 3	04 September 2025	04 December 2025	05 March 2026	05 June 2026

b. A penalty of 10 per cent will be added to any portion of excess water supply commercial targeted rates and excess water supply residential targeted rates not paid on or by the due dates set out in paragraph 25 above, to be added on the Penalty Dates set out for these targeted rates in paragraph 25.

c. For all rates, an additional penalty of 10 per cent will be added on 01 October 2025 to all rates assessed (including penalties) before 01 July 2025 which remain unpaid on 01 October 2025.

d. For all rates assessed before 01 July 2025 which remain unpaid on 01 October 2025 (including penalties), and which remain unpaid on 01 April 2026, a further penalty of 10 per cent will be added on 01 April 2026.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Moved/Seconded

4.5 Councillor proposed amendments

Council Comment

1. Councillors put forward their proposed amendments and confirmed their Seconders.

2. The meeting adjourned to enable Council Officers to prepare advice.

3. Upon reconvening, Council Officers provided advice relating to Amendment A61, which was for the Council to not consider any Councillor proposed amendments to the 2025/2026 Annual Plan that increased the rates.

4. Councillor MacDonald as the Mover and Councillor Keown as the Seconder confirmed the wording of Amendment A61.

5. The Council debated and voted on Amendment A61 which was declared lost by way of division.

6. The Council then considered the Council Officer advice and revised wording, where applicable, for each amendment. Following the Council Officer advice the Movers and Seconders for amendments provided further clarity on their proposed amendments.

7. During discussions the following amendments were withdrawn either for lack of a Seconder, because they were no longer required or as there was insufficient information to put the amendment to the vote.

a. A18 – Property – 48 Balmoral Lane

b. A35 – Finance – Rates

c. A40 – Capital Programme Reduction

d. A47 – Property – Residentially Zoned

e. A52 – Transport – Engagement Te Ara Tai Cycleway

f. A57 – Parks – Parkland/Queenspark Youth Play Space

8. The meeting adjourned to Thursday 26 June 2025.

Council Decision

A61. Overall rate impact

That the Council:

A61. Does not consider any Councillor proposed amendments to the 2025/2026 Annual Plan that increases the rates.

The division was declared lost by 7 votes to 10 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Peters

Against: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Lost

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00029

Adjournment of meeting

That the Council:
1. Adjourns the meeting at 6.39 pm to 11.30 am, 26 June 2025 in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Fendalton.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

4.5 Continued – Councillor proposed amendments

Council Comment

1. Upon reconvening Council Officers tabled a document containing revised wording for the proposed amendments as previously discussed (refer to Minutes Attachment B).

2. The Movers and Seconders confirmed their proposed amendment for proceeding.

3. The meeting adjourned to enable Council Officers and Movers and Seconders of amendments to finalise wording for amendments: A12, A58, A23, A36, A59 and A53.

4. Upon reconvening the Movers and Seconders for amendments A12, A58, A23, A36, A59 and A53 confirmed the finalised wording.

5. A new Amendment A62 was Moved by Councillor Fields and Seconded by Councillor Henstock.

6. The meeting held one debate for all proposed amendments and the adoption of the Annual Plan.

7. The Mayor Moved, Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter, a Motion to put all noting provision/advice request amendments to the vote as a block, and when put to the vote, those amendments were declared carried.

8. The Council then voted on the remaining proposed amendments individually.

Noting and Advice Request Amendments

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00030

Procedural Motion

The Council block resolves all noting provision and advice requests amendments.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00031

A4. Community – Report regarding sPACIFICally Pacific Canterbury (SPACPC)multi-year funding

A4. That the Council:

1. Requests staff to prepare a report on partnership funding options with SpacpaC and report back to the Council before the end of August 2025.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Barber Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00032

A11. Transport – Lower Styx Road Cycleway

A11. That the Council:

1. Requests staff investigate and report back on the implementation requirements for a low cost, low impact, gravel cycle path beside Lower Styx Road between Spencerville and Brooklands.

2. Requests staff advice on possible funding budgets for this work.

3. Notes that, while much of the Lower Styx cycleway route is already fit for purpose, this small but important section once completed will largely complete a potentially very popular tourist route.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Donovan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00033

A12. Parks - Plant Species Management Plan Implementation

A12. That the Council:

1. Requests staff report back to update the Council on a coordinated strategy regarding the Plant Species Management Plan by 30 September 2025.

Councillor Donovan/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00034

A13. Democracy Services – Transparency Tool

A13. That the Council:

1. Notes that staff will report to the Council by the end of September 2025 on options for a decision-making management system.

2. Notes it is anticipated that the first year of funding for a decision-making management system could be funded via prioritisation within the digital programme.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00035

A14. Parks – Elmwood Park Playground

A14. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff work with the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board to prioritise the renewal of Elmwood Park Playground.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Johanson Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00036

A17. Transport – Green turning arrow workshop

A17. That the Council:

1. Holds an Information Session on traffic signal function and the operation of green-turning arrows across the city, and the impact that changes have on the wider network.

2. Notes that feedback will inform the work programme that is developed in conjunction with Community Boards to inform the 2026/27 draft Annual Plan.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Johanson Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00037

A19. Property – Leslie Street

A19. That the Council:

1. Requests that investigate whether or not the Council should retain properties at 11, 13, 19 and 21 Leslie Street, Upper Riccarton, as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan “Properties for Review” process.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00038

A20. Planning and Consents – City Vacant Differential

A20. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff report to the Council on the options for, and implications of, extending the city vacant differential rating area within the Four Avenues, noting that consultation will be required.

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00039

A22. Parks – 367 Hereford Street

A22. That the Council:

1. Requests staff undertake investigation regarding option for a small, low-cost neighbourhood park at 367 Hereford Street, noting that there would be funding available in the programme budget if approved.

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00040

A25. Digital - AI Policy

A25. That the Council:

1. Notes that staff have an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy in place to guide the ethical, secure and responsible use of AI within council operations.

2. Notes staff already provide commentary around AI-related risks and safeguards relating to data security, privacy and public trust within the Cyber Security report to the Audit and Risk Committee.

3. Requests a report to the Council in FY2026/27 outlining the:

a. Organisational strategy and work programme related to AI opportunities.

b. Governance and training requirements in place to manage for safe and effective AI adoption.

c. Insights and practical applications of AI in local government.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00041

A26. Finance – capitalisation staff time

A26. That the Council notes:

1. Staff are currently conducting a review of the capitalisation of staff costs and will report on this work as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

2. The capitalisation of staff time is subject to accounting standards.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00042

A27. Finance – Further income streams

A27. That the Council:

1. Requests staff arrange a Council workshop to discuss and identify opportunities to generate additional revenue from Council owned land and buildings.

2. Requests that following the workshop, staff to formally report on options to generate additional revenue from Council owned land and buildings in time to consult on these options as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00043

A28. Community Services & Property – Bus Exchange

A28. That the Council:

1. Requests staff investigate and report on public safety matters and user experience at the Bus Interchange and surrounding area.

2. Notes that the report should assess current issues, explore design and safety enhancements, consider youth engagement options, identify placemaking opportunities, gather user feedback, align with Environment Canterbury’s responsibilities, and outline potential budget implications.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00044

A29. Transport – Ilam Road pedestrian crossing

A29. That the Council:

1. Notes the current work underway between staff and the University of Canterbury to develop a new pedestrian crossing point on Ilam Road near Homestead Lane, in response to increased pedestrian demand in the area.

2. Notes the Ilam Road pedestrian crossing project is currently prioritised for delivery in FY27 under the Minor Road Safety Programme, subject to community engagement and a Community Board decision before construction can begin.

3. Notes staff will continue regular engagement with the University of Canterbury and provide updates to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and relevant ward councillors as the project progresses.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00045

A32. Community - Te Ūaka Lyttelton Museum – Long Term Funding Commitment

A32. That the Council:

1. Considers and consults on a capital grant for Te Ūaka Lyttelton Museum as part of the upcoming 2026/27 Annual Plan process.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00046

A33. Community - Te Ūaka Lyttelton Museum – FY25/26 funding

A33. That the Council:

2. Invites the Te Ūaka Lyttleton Museum to make an application to the Strengthening Communities Fund or other grant funding programmes.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00047

A34. Community Facilities - Multicultural / Youth engagement in Akaroa

A34. That the Council:

1. Notes that staff have identified the need to improve access to the Council’s community facilities in Akaroa, and will continue working collaboratively to support multicultural, youth, and general community use.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00048

A37. Property - Kukupa Hostel Akaroa

A37. That the Council:

1. Notes that community consultation on the future of the Kukupa Hostel in Akaroa is planned for early 2026, with feedback to be reported to the Banks Peninsula Community Board in early 2026.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00049

A39. Community Facilities – Gaiety Hall internet

A39. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff install internet capability at the Gaiety Hall within existing budgets.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00050

A41. Property – Steadfast reserve “garage”

A41. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff continue discussions with the Cass Bay Residents Association regarding the feasibility and location of the proposed community facility.

2. Requests that staff keep the Community Board informed of progress on a quarterly basis via memo.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00051

A42. Banks Peninsula / Akaroa Information Centre

A42. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff provide advice on the operational funding for three information centres on Banks Peninsula.

2. Requests that ChristchurchNZ provide advice regarding the availability of funding for i-sites on banks peninsula.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest and took no part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00052

A43. Three Waters – Akaroa Wastewater

A43. That the Council:

1. Notes that the Council is waiting for the outcome of the wastewater discharge consent process and exploration of alternative disposal options.

2. Requests that staff update the Council on the overall project progress and consent application of the Akaroa Wastewater, including the environmental management plan for the site.

3. Notes that no work beyond basic site maintenance is planned after September 2025.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00053

A44. Transport – Springfield Road pedestrian crossing

A44. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff report back to the Council and Community Board urgently on options to address a safe pedestrian refuge or crossing option at the Springfield Road / Edgeware Road intersection.

2. Notes that the Springfield Road / Edgeware Road intersection is part of the downstream effects monitoring area for the Northern Corridor.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Templeton Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00054

A45. Parks – McFarlane Park Toilet Block

A45. That the Council:

1. Notes that staff are working closely with local sporting community groups (users) to scope the renewal of these facilities.

2. Notes that funding is currently allocated FY27-29 and that once the scoping is complete the timing of early construction can be considered.

3. Notes that staff will provide an update on the project to the Community Board at the end of the calendar year.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00055

A48. Community facilities – Homelessness and youth emergency housing

A48. That the Council:

1. Notes that a report on options to address housing and homelessness matters is due to be presented at a Council meeting in September 2025, with decisions on consultation and funding to be made following that report.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00056

A49. Transport – Scruttons Roads

A49. That the Council:

1. Requests staff advice on the implications and process for reducing the budget for the Scruttons Road rail crossing.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Moore Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00057

A53. Planning and Consents – Linwood Regeneration Project

A53. That the Council:

1. Notes that a briefing will be held in July 2025 on the Linwood Regeneration Framework, which will include potential prioritisations, noting that any additional projects requiring funding would need to be considered as part of a future annual plan process.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00058

A54. Parks – Cutler Park Renewal

A54. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff work with the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to consider the priority of the Culter Park Renewal project.

2. Notes that staff will report back to the Community Board on the reprioritised programme.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00059

A55. Parks – Aranui Playground Renewal

A55. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff work with the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to consider the priority of the Aranui Playground Renewal project.

2. Notes that staff will report back to the Community Board on the reprioritised programme.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00060

A58. Parks – Parklands toilet

A58. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff undertake investigations and confirm scope and estimated cost of the Parklands Toilet refurbishment and, once complete, provide a report to the Community Board outlining how the project can be funded within the Parks FY 2026/27 programme.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Johanson Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00061

A62. Capital Programme

A62. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff report back, in time to inform the 2026/27 draft Annual Plan, on the deliverability of the proposed capital programme for 2026/27 which will include acknowledging and accounting for constraints in the delivery of the programme.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Henstock Carried

Recreation, Sport and Events and Property

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00062

A23. Rec, Sports and Events – Tertiary student rate

A23. That the Council:

1. Agrees to introduce a casual entry rate of $4.90 for tertiary students at Christchurch City Council pool facilities, effective from 1 July 2026.

2. Agrees that the tertiary student casual entry rate will apply upon presentation of a valid tertiary student ID from a New Zealand tertiary education provider (including universities, polytechnics, and wānanga).

3. Requests that staff:

a. Incorporate the $4.90 tertiary swim concession into the 2026/27 fees and charges schedule.

b. Promotes the new rate in collaboration with tertiary institutions and student associations (e.g., UCSA, ARA & Te Wānanga).

4. Notes that the student rate is in line with associated community services card, Hāpai card and Gold Card.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Moore Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00063

A46. Property – 4 Canon Hill Crescent

A46. That the Council:

1. Agrees that the property at 4 Cannon Hill Crescent be withdrawn from the list of properties for disposal, pending further advice on ecological values.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Templeton Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00064

A56. Property – Investigate Roy Stokes Hall parking

A56. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff investigate the acquisition and development of land in New Brighton, adjacent to Roy Stokes Hall for car parking.

Councillor Donovan/Councillor Barber Carried

Parks

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00065

A21. Parks – Bangor Pump Station

A21. That the Council:

1. Requests staff to commence restoration works on the Bangor Pump Station to prevent further deterioration of the structure, acknowledging its heritage status.

2. Agrees that funding be reallocated from future years within the existing Long Term Plan budget (61692 – Heritage Buildings, Structures and Furnishings Renewals) to enable the project commencement in FY 2025/26.

Councillor McLellan/Deputy Mayor Carried

Community

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00066

A15. Grants and Funding – Accessibility Fund

A15. That the Council:

1. Agrees to increase the Accessibility Improvements Fund by $50,000 per annum to improve accessibility for residents, noting that staff will report to the Council on the terms of reference and allocation process.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Donovan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00067

A24. Grants and Funding – Culture Galore

A24. That the Council:

1. Agrees to allocate $25,000 in the FY26/27 Discretionary Response Fund to support the continued delivery of Culture Galore, Christchurch’s flagship multicultural community event.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00068

A38 – Akaroa Bays Emergency Response

A38. That the Council:

1. Utilises contestable funding to support Akaroa Bays Emergency Response in 2025/26 and allocate funding from this funding to Akaroa and the Bays’ emergency response.

2. Requests that staff report back in time for the 2026/27 Annual Plan on whether additional or ongoing funding is required to sustain Akaroa Bays Emergency Response and similar community-led emergency response groups.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Transport

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00069

A1. Transport - Harewood School Crossing raised platform

A1. That the Council:

1. Agrees to install a raised platform at the pedestrian crossing outside Harewood School that is consistent with the original design approval for the MCR Wheels to Wings.

2. Notes that funding for this will be from the existing MCR Wheels to Wings programme budget (#26613).

The division was declared carried by 9 votes to 8 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Against: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters

Councillor Coker/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00070

A5. Transport - Lincoln Road PT Corridor

A5. That the Council:

1. Agrees to bring forward funding for Lincoln Road Bus Priority Stage 2B Curletts to Wrights to start in FY26.

2. Notes that the project will not be eligible for NZTA subsidy.

The division was declared carried by 12 votes to 5 votes the voting being as follows:

For: Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton

Against: Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock and Councillor MacDonald

Councillor Moore/Councillor Coker Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00071

A30. Transport – footpaths

A30. That the Council:

1. Requests staff ensure the following are considered as part of the development and prioritisation of the New Footpath Programme (#75051 and #81682):

a. Springs Road between Boston Ave and Halswell Junction Road

b. Main South Road Hornby

c. Sutherlands Road between Glendore and Muirhill

d. Cashmere Road between Sutherlands Road and Quarry Reserve

2. Notes that an information session on the prioritisation methodology and draft delivery programme for the New Footpath Programme is planned for 8 July 2025.

Councillor Moore/Councillor Peters Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00072

A50. Transport – Bromley Roads

A50. That the Council:

1. Agrees add funding for the Improving Bromley Roads project, allocating $1 million in 2025/26 and $4 million in 2026/27.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00073

A51. Transport – Woodhouse Street

A51. That the Council:

1. Agrees to include budget provision of $50,000 to green Woodhouse Street with street trees and to calm traffic.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

Remaining Amendments

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00074

A6. Water - Chlorine-free water stations

A6. That the Council:

1. Approves an increase to the Three Waters capital and operational budgets to support the installation and ongoing operation and maintenance of chlorine-free taps, as follows:

a. $15,000 operational funding for planning in FY26

b $300,000 capital funding for installations in FY27, FY28; and FY29

c. $75,000 operational funding per annum from FY27 onwards

2. Notes that the projected rate impact of the increased funding for the installation and ongoing operation cost of the additional chlorine-free taps is 2025/26: <0.01%, 2026/27: 0.01%, and <0.01% for the subsequent years.

3. Notes that staff will report to the Finance and Performance Committee on the proposed programme, once planning is complete and the updated Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules have been confirmed.

Councillor Templeton/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00075

A16. Three Waters – Water Meters

A16. That the Council:

1. Approves an increase of $3.5m to the Three Water capital programme budget for the installation water meters on unmetered connection in FY26 and a further $3.5m in FY27, noting that this will have a rate impact of 2025/26: 0.01%, 2026/27: 0.03% 2027/28: 0.02%.

2. Requests that staff report to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding the implementation programme in the first quarter of F26.

Councillor Templeton/Deputy Mayor Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00076

A31. Parks - Addington Park Toilet

A31. That the Council:

1. Requests that staff undertake investigations and confirm scope and estimated cost of the Addington Park Toilet refurbishment and, once complete, provide a report to the Community Board outlining how the project will be funded within the Parks FY 2025/26 programme.

Councillor Coker/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00077

A36. Akaroa Visitor Economy

A36. That the Council:

1. Request, through its letter of expectation in December 2025, that ChristchurchNZ continues to report separately on the destination and attraction initiatives for Banks Peninsula and progress on implementation of the Banks Peninsula Destination Management Plan.

2. Requests ChristchurchNZ provide advice on the financial implications regarding the implementation of the Banks Peninsula Destination Management Plan.

Councillor Fields/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest and took no part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00078

A59. Transport – Moorhouse / Stuart intersection lights

A59. That the Council:

1. Defers the line item of $300,000 for the Moorhouse / Stewart intersection improvements from the capital programme for reconsideration in the next Long Term Plan.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor McLellan Carried

4.6 Adoption of Annual Plan Attachments and Property Disposal

Council Comment

1. The meeting adjourned at 2.29 pm and reconvened at 3.10 pm to enable Council Officers to update the rates figures, including the rates figures contained in Recommendation 23. Councillor Keown left the meeting at 2.29 pm and did not return.

2. Upon reconvening Council Officers provided the updated rates figures based on the amendments that were declared carried.

3. The Council voted on Recommendations 10 to 19, which were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00079

That the Council:

Draft Annual Plan – Adoption of Attachments

10. Adopts the summary of the financial, rates, and benchmark impacts including proposed operational changes for 2025/26 set out in Attachment E of this report.

11. Adopts the changes to the Council’s capital programme for 2025/26 set out in Attachment F of this report.

12. Adopts the proposed Funding Impact Statement – Rating Information set out in Attachment G of this report.

13. Adopts a minor change to a level of service identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set out in Attachment H of this report.

14. Adopts minor changes to the Fees and Charges schedule identified since the publication of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26, set out in Attachment I of this report.

Disposal of Council-owned properties

15. Notes the following in respect of the disposal of Council-owned properties consulted on as part of the 25/26 draft Annual Plan process:

a. Separate advertising was undertaken to satisfy the requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act and section 24 of the Reserves Act in respect of the following properties:

· 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title/street number) reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

· 8 Penn Place and 38 Bexley Road considered to be a ‘Park’ pursuant to section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.

16. Resolves that all of the properties on the list in the draft 2025/26 Annual Plan, except 48 Balmoral Lane and 4 Cannon Hill Crescent, as set out in Attachment J of this report, do not meet the Council’s retention criteria and are therefore declared surplus and to be disposed of.

17. Resolves that 48 Balmoral Lane shall be retained due to its ecological restoration potential.

18. Authorises that the reserve revocation process for the following listed properties is commenced in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977:

a. 44 Canada Drive and Sir James Wattie Drive (no title).

b. 8 Martindales Road.

c. 191r Worsleys Road.

d. 193r Worsleys Road.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Gough requested that his votes against Resolutions 10 to 14 be recorded.

Councillor Johanson requested that his votes against Resolutions 10 to 16, 18 and 19 be recorded.

4.7 Adoption of the 2025/26 Annual Plan

Council Comment

1. The Council voted on Recommendation 20 to adopt the Annual Plan, which was declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00080

That the Council:

Draft Annual Plan - Adoption

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillors Gough and Johanson requested that their votes against Resolution 20 be recorded.

4.8 Authorisations and setting the rates

Council Comment

1. The Council voted on Recommendations 21 to 26 which were declared carried.

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00081

That the Council:

Draft Annual Plan – Authorisations and setting the rates

a. A uniform annual general charge under section 15(1)(b) of $193.00 (incl. GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit;

b. a general rate under sections 13(2)(b) and 13(3)(a)(ii) set differentially based on property type, and capital value as follows:

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)* (cents/$ of capital value)
Standard	Capital Value	0.255954
Business	Capital Value	0.568219
City Vacant	Capital Value	1.157681
Remote Rural	Capital Value	0.191966

c. a sewerage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.088055 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

d. a land drainage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.045076 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)* (cents/$ of capital value)
Connected (full charge)	Capital Value	0.073615
Serviceable (half charge)	Capital Value	0.036808

· provided that all properties will be entitled to a minimum consumption of 0.6986 cubic metres per day.

i. an excess water supply residential targeted rate under section 19(2)(a) set for the following:

· all metered residential rating units where the meter records usage for a single rating unit;

· a rating unit where the meter records usage for multiple rating units where there is a special agreement in force specifying which rating unit / ratepayer is responsible for payment,

of $1.47 (incl. GST) per m³ or any part of a m³ for consumption in excess of 900 litres per day, per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit;

j. a waste minimisation targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a full or partial service is provided, as follows:

*Differential Category*	*Basis for Liability*	*Rate Factor (incl. GST)*
Full service	Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit	$176.13
Partial service	Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit	$132.10

k. an active travel targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of $20.00 (incl. GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit;

l. a special heritage (Arts Centre) targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of 0.000277 cents per dollar of capital value (incl. GST);

m. a Central City Business Association targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of $575.00 (incl. GST) per business rating unit in the Central City Business Association Area, where the land value of the rating unit is greater than or equal to $90,000;

*Instalment*	1	2	3	4
Area 1	15 August 2025	15 November 2025	15 February 2026	15 May 2026
Area 2	15 September 2025	15 December 2025	15 March 2026	15 June 2026
Area 3	31 August 2025	30 November 2025	28 February 2026	31 May 2026

Where the Instalment Areas are defined geographically as follows:

A group of triangles with text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

*Area 1*	*Area 2*	*Area 3*
Includes generally the Central City and the suburbs of St Albans, Merivale, Mairehau, Papanui, Riccarton, Addington, Spreydon, Sydenham, Beckenham, Opawa and Banks Peninsula.	Includes generally the suburbs of Shirley, New Brighton, Linwood, Woolston, Mt Pleasant, Sumner, Cashmere and Heathcote.	Includes generally the suburbs of Belfast, Redwood, Parklands, Harewood, Avonhead, Bishopdale, Ilam, Fendalton, Hornby, Templeton and Halswell.

26. Resolves to add the following penalties to unpaid rates pursuant to sections 57 and 58:

*Instalment*	1	2	3	4
Area 1	20 August 2025	20 November 2025	19 February 2026	20 May 2026
Area 2	18 September 2025	18 December 2025	19 March 2026	18 June 2026
Area 3	04 September 2025	04 December 2025	05 March 2026	05 June 2026

c. For all rates, an additional penalty of 10 per cent will be added on 01 October 2025 to all rates assessed (including penalties) before 01 July 2025 which remain unpaid on 01 October 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Gough requested that his vote against Resolution 23 be recorded.

4.9 Resumption of Standing Orders

Council Resolved CAPL/2025/00082

That the Standing Orders set aside above be resumed.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga: The Mayor and all Councillors

Meeting concluded at 3.13 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/826358
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Paul Dickson, Drainage Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū-Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is presented for adoption ahead of its submission to Canterbury Regional Council by the deadline of 31 July 2025.

1.2 The stormwater management plan is required by the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC) CRC252424 Condition 4 that requires the Council to develop SMPs for those parts of the District where there are stormwater networks.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the requirements under the comprehensive consent, the significance of stormwater management to mana whenua, the degree of expressed public interest in stormwater management, previous Councillor interest, and the quantum of funding available from the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP) during the term of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends to the Council to:

1. Receive the information in the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan Report.

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

3. Adopt the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment B to this report).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council develops stormwater management plans (SMPs) for its seven major catchments to comply with conditions of the Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC). Stormwater management plans demonstrate the means by which urban stormwater discharges will be managed to improve the quality and quantity of stormwater discharges towards receiving environment objectives.

3.2 SMPs are among several responses by the Council (including environmental strategies) to an environment that is degraded by contaminants and can experience water quantity effects. This SMP is developed to enable the Council to plan and fund works, develop targets and construct facilities that will trap contaminants and mitigate water quality and quantity. Contaminant discharges could also be addressed by regulating to eliminate contaminant sources, and by educating or regulating to encourage gains to be made by others. Controls at source or by others is thought to be a more effective strategy in the long term; however, there is significant uncertainty about how to bring such controls into effect. The CSNDC requires ongoing work by the Council on those other methods (condition 40) and the Council is pursuing them.

3.3 The SMP is developed to meet consent deadlines, giving effect to programmes of work in the 2024-34 LTP. Its major activities are construction of treatment devices (filters) and stream improvements. The SMP complies with conditions of the CSNDC within the scope of the 2024-34 LTP funding provision.

3.4 The SMP supports the Community Outcome Healthy Environment and is one of many equally important activities toward obtaining a healthier environment.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The CSNDC requires the Council to develop stormwater management plans (SMPs) to demonstrate how the quality and quantity of stormwater discharges will be progressively improved towards meeting receiving environment objectives. The rate of quality improvement is indicated by environmental indicators and contaminant load reduction targets set by the Council in the SMP. Stormwater contaminants can be captured in filter devices. Proposed environmental improvements include riparian planting for shading and bank stabilisation and dredging of contaminated sediments. Controls at source (e.g. choosing non-contaminating building materials) are recognised as effective but would require technology or law changes that are beyond the Council’s control. Treatment basins and wetlands are moderately effective but not suited to the Banks Peninsula topography and the scale of settlements. Stormwater filters are effective but individually treat quite small areas and can be difficult to install. Street sweeping is an uncomplicated intervention but is considered less effective than others. All methods were considered in the context of effectiveness and practicability in the development of the SMP.

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

Date	Subject
16/4/2025	A memo to the Board at the start of public consultation for the SMP

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

Date	Subject
15/11/2021	Powerpoint presentation to the Board and discussion about the proposed stormwater management plan
22/7/2024	Powerpoint presentation to the Board and discussion about the proposed stormwater management plan and consultation process.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.4.1 Option A: environmental improvement plus treating priority waterways.

4.4.2 Option B: install stormwater filters to the extent permitted by the LTP budget.

4.5 The following options were considered but ruled out:

Carry out instream environmental improvement only. This option would not allow the Council to meet a consent condition requiring some contaminant capture.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.6 Preferred Option: Option A: environmental improvement plus treating priority waterways.

· Option Description: Install stormwater filters on the worst practicably accessible sites and carry out some instream environmental improvement. Option A is an amalgam of the Options 1 and 2 released for public consultation.

· Option Advantages

· Addresses urban-related degradation in selected streams.

· Compliant with Consent Condition 6b. (setting contaminant load reduction targets).

· It also complies with all relevant conditions of the CSNDC consent, as follows:

· Conditions 4, 8 and 13 and require consultation with specified parties including Rūnanga and Community Boards when preparing the SMP and providing them with a draft for consideration. The parties were consulted with and provided with the draft SMP.

· Conditions 14-18 require the Council to set up a Technical Peer Review Panel and invite their comments on a draft of the SMP. The Panel was set up and provided its views most of which have been included in the SMP.

· Condition 6 sets out the purpose of SMPs as:

§ Improving the annual load of contaminants toward achieving targeted reductions in contaminants and improvements in environmental indicators over time. The SMP does that to the extent that Council’s draft 2024-34 LTP budget allows.

§ Discharge to land infiltration systems where practicable – there is no opportunity to do that in this catchment.

· Condition 6 requires the setting of contaminant load reduction targets and these have been set in the SMP.

· Condition 7 lists matters that must be included in SMPs. SMP Table 15, Appendix A sets out how this SMP provides that information.

· Condition 23 requires use of best practical options to mitigate the effects of discharges. The SMP shows and describes how the Council is meeting that requirement.

· Condition 25 requires that facilities treat existing catchments where practicable. All proposed treatment targets existing catchments.

· Condition 28 requires that the SMP consider and include guidelines for basin design to minimise the risk of bird strike. However, bird strike is not relevant due to the distance from the airport.

· Option Disadvantages

· Very small contaminant reduction as a proportion of overall urban contaminant loads.

4.7 Option B: maximise stormwater contaminant removal.

· Option Description: Install approximately 22 stormwater filters on the most practicable sites.

· Option Advantages

· Achieves the most stormwater filtration treatment with available funding.

· Compliant with Consent Condition 6b. (setting contaminant load reduction targets). More contaminant removal than Option A.

· Option Disadvantages

· Contaminant load reduction still small. Little contribution to environmental improvement.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.8 A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) preferred Option A for its greater contribution to environmental improvement. The MCA scored the options on:

· Degree of compliance with CSNDC Condition 6b on a contaminant target,

· Amount of zinc removed by treatment,

· Contribution toward the Cultural Health Index target,

· Contribution toward a QMCI/RHA targets. (QMCI means Quantitative Macroinvertebrate Community Index which is an indicator of stream ecological health. RHA means Rapid Habitat Assessment and provides a 'habitat quality score' for a river reach.)

4.9 Rūnanga were consulted and prefer an option with environmental components. Public responses indicate the same.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option B – Maximise stormwater contaminant removal
Cost to Implement	$8,600,000	$8,600,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$4-20,000 p.a. estd.	$43,000 p.a. estd.
Capital Funding Source	LTP Programme 42000	LTP Programme 42000
Funding Availability	2028/29 – 2033/34	2028/29 – 2033/34
Impact on Rates	Inconsequential	Inconsequential

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The Canterbury Regional Council may question aspects of the stormwater management plan including this Council’s preference for environmental targets over contaminant load targets. There is opportunity during the approval process for the two organisations to discuss how targets could be revised. This could also happen at any stage after the plan has been submitted within its ten year term if more effective treatment/mitigation options become available.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

· The Local Government Act 2002 provides the statutory power for the Council to make this decision.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

· The stormwater management plan is produced to enable the Council to comply with a resource consent issued under the Resource Management Act. This report sets out the relevant conditions of the stormwater discharge resource consent regarding development of the SMP (at section 4.6.3) and describes how the SMP meets those requirements.

· This report has been reviewed and approved by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework to manage funds wisely and actively balance the needs of today’s residents.

6.4.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the requirements under the comprehensive consent, the significance of stormwater management to mana whenua, the degree of expressed public interest in stormwater management and the quantum of funding during the term of the Stormwater Management Plan.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Integrated Water Strategy.

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

6.6 Stormwater Drainage

· Activity: Stormwater Drainage

· Level of Service: 14.1.7.1 Annual rolling average reduction in the discharge of zinc/copper/Total Suspended Solids (TSS) to be equal or greater than that required to meet the reduction set in the 14.1.7.1Comprehensive Stormwater Network Discharge Consent (CSNDC) for 2023 and 2028, derived through contaminant load reduction modelling of the stormwater treatment facilities which have been installed - Pass

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.7.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū – Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.8 Early engagement with Wairewa, Ngāti Wheke, Koukourarata and Ōnuku started in March 2025. Staff attended hui with kaitiaki from each of the four Papatipu Rūnanga in the catchment area.

6.9 Position statements were collated by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd on behalf of each of the rūnanga. Information on the feedback provided through the position statements can be found in the Impacts on Mana Whenua section of this report.

6.10 Public consultation started on 17 April and ran until 17 June 2025.

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

· An initial email to 326 stakeholders, including Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust, community groups, and stream and harbour restoration groups.

· A reminder email to Residents’ Associations and Reserve Committees from across Banks Peninsula.

· Posts in seven local community group social media pages.

· Consultation documents delivered to Akaroa Library, Akaroa Service Centre, Diamond Harbour Library, Little River Service Centre, Lyttelton Service Centre, and Tūranga.

6.12 Staff attended Akaroa and Lyttelton markets in April and May with token voting boxes to collect feedback on sentiment for the options, and to provide project information.

6.13 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 619 views throughout the consultation period. The summary document was downloaded 75 times and the full Stormwater Management Plan was downloaded 100 times.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.14 Submissions were made by five organisations and eight individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

6.15 In terms of preferred options:

· 4 submitters were in favour of Option 1

· 6 were in favour of Option 2

· 1 was in favour of Option 1 or 2,

· And 2 were in favour of none of the options.

6.16 The specific issues raised in submissions were unique with no overarching themes able to be drawn from them. It is advised that elected members read submissions in their entirety.

6.17 Key issues raised by submitters are addressed by staff in Attachment B.

Supplementary information

6.18 A quick poll was conducted on the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage to reduce barriers to participate. Of the people who responded:

· 26 people liked Option 1

· 11 liked Option 2,

· 5 liked Option 3,

· And 3 selected ‘None of these’.

6.19 A total of 64 tokens were received in the token voting box for the plans at the Akaroa and Lyttelton markets.

· 25 people liked Option 1

· 32 liked Option 2,

· And 7 liked Option 3.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.22 The decision is to adopt a plan dealing with the interception and removal of a small part of the district’s urban contaminant load. The plan also proposes improvements to selected waterways. Mana Whenua were consulted about the options and preferred a mixture of enhancement and treatment. Rūnanga delivered Position Statements on the SMP at the conclusion of consultation. According to Position Statements the SMP only meets the aspirations of rūnanga on environmental matters in a small way. Major expectations by rūnanga include avoiding discharges of contaminants into streams and harbours, restoration of mahinga kai, catchment planning toward planting and stabilising stream corridors and unstable hillsides and more direct involvement of rūnanga in environmental stewardship.

6.23 Position Statements from the four Papatipu Rūnanga are attached.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.24 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.24.1 Contribute neutrally to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.24.2 Contribute some emissions from filter installations.

6.25 The activity described in the report will create some carbon dioxide emissions from the use of concrete components in stormwater filters.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the staff recommendation is accepted the SMP will be submitted to the Council for adoption and then to Environment Canterbury by 31 July 2025 for approval.

7.2 Capital work is funded in the LTP from the 2029/30 to 2033/34 financial years.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Banks Peninsula Stormwater Management Plan - Consultation opening 30 April 2025 Report	25/740773
b	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Stormwater Management Plan - Submissions Table Attachments	25/1313537
c	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan final to Board 2 July 2025	25/1311171
d	Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP	25/1196042
e	Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP	25/1196063
f	Wairewa Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP	25/1196049
g	Ōnuku Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP	25/1196025

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Paul Dickson - Drainage Engineer

Amy Rice - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kevin McDonnell - Team Leader Asset Planning

Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters

7. Decision in-part on Plan Change 14 - Only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1269856
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor Planning, Brent Pizzey, Senior Legal Counsel
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 accept or reject zoning recommendations of the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) on Plan Change 14 (PC14) for Antonio Hall and Daresbury.

1.2 In December 2025 the Council recommended to Hon Chis Bishop, Minister Responsible for Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform, that those properties not be scheduled as heritage items and settings. The Minister’s response on 5 June 2025 was that he defers that decision until the Council makes a decision on the underlying zoning. This report enables the Council to decide on the IHP recommendations for zoning of those two sites, which then enables the Minister to make a decision on the scheduling of the two heritage items and associated settings in the District Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Decision in-part on Plan Change 14 - Only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane – as detailed in the Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations.

2. Receives the Independent Hearings Panel – Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice recommendation reports, including recommendations on submissions, further report addendums to the recommendations report, and further minutes that modify the recommendations report, as provided on the PC14 Webpage: https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/recommendations-report

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

Decision on only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane

4. Limits decision making on recommendations of the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) on Plan Change 14 (PC14) to only the following sites:

a. 265 Riccarton Road, Upper Riccarton (legally described as Pt Lot 1 DP 52478); and

b. 9 Daresbury Lane, Fendalton (legally described as Lots 2, 3 DP 49363).

5. Having limited the decision making on recommendations of the Independent Hearing Panel on Plan Change 14 to only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane, where relevant:

a. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations for Medium Density Residential Zoning.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Significant and Other Trees qualifying matter.

c. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation on Waterbody setbacks qualifying matter.

d. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation on Sunlight Access qualifying matter.

Clerical delegations and approvals:

6. Delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Consents to make changes of minor effect or to correct minor errors in the accepted Panel’s recommendations before publicly notifying its decisions on these recommendations.

7. Delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Consents to contact the Minister regarding the referred recommendations for 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane and any associated administration needed for the Minister to complete decision making.

8. Resolves to publicly notify its decisions on resolutions 4 to 8 NO LATER THAN 1 August 2025 and to serve that public notice on every person who made a submission on Plan Change 14.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In December 2024 the Council rejected the IHP PC14 recommendations for Antonio Hall and Daresbury and recommended to the Minister that they not be scheduled in the District Plan as heritage items and settings.

3.2 The Minister’s reply was that he deferred that decision on the scheduling recommendations until after the Council makes a decision on the IHP’s zoning recommendations for those sites.

3.3 In Plan Change 13 (heritage), the Council position is in support of submitters seeking the de-scheduling of those sites. One option for the Council is to await a recommendation from the PC13 hearing panel and then make a decision on those recommendations. However, there could be appeals on those decisions and that make take over a year to resolve. There might be a resolution of the heritage scheduling issues sooner if the Council makes the PC14 zoning decisions now, enabling the Minister to decide on the recommendations about whether these buildings and settings stay in the heritage schedule.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Plan Change 14 is the Council’s response to national direction in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RM Amendment Act), by enabling intensification in and around commercial areas and permitting development in accordance with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in the District Plan except where a qualifying matter necessitates limiting that development.

4.2 The Council made its first decision on recommendations of the IHP on 18 September 2024, when it accepted the recommendations in respect of part of the City Centre zone, related qualifying matters and the delisting of six (6) heritage items. The relevant provisions were made operative on 3 October 2024.

4.3 The Council made its second decision on recommendations of the IHP on 2 December 2024, making decisions on all National Policy Statement for Urban Development Policy 3 areas – being those within and around commercial centres - as well as select other zoning and decisions on financial contributions. Council rejected 20 recommendations from the IHP, referring them to the Minister on 24 February 2025.

4.4 On 5 June 2025, Hon Chris Bishop, issued his decision in-part on referred recommendations^{^[1]}, deferring his decision for select qualifying matters where Council had not yet made a decision on the underlying zoning. This affects three areas, being: 265 Riccarton Road (removal of Heritage Item and associated setting); 9 Daresbury Lane (removal of Heritage Item and associated setting); and the Piko Character Area (removal of operative Character Area). The Minister stated that the Council could refer these decisions back to the Minister either when the zoning is decided for affected sites, or when the balance of PC14 is decided.

4.5 If a decision has been made to accept the IHP recommendations on the zoning of the two sites, the Minister will be notified and he will be enabled to make a decision on the alternative recommendation to remove the heritage listings and their associated settings. However, if the Council rejects the IHP recommendation for Medium Density Residential zoning for the site(s), an additional report and referred recommendations will need to be submitted to the Minister for consideration. The zoning of the Piko Character Area is intended to be decided at a later date when the balance of PC14 is considered.

4.6 The Council is required to make a decision on all aspects relevant to the zoning of each site. While the Council has rejected qualifying matters associated with heritage controls for these two sites, the sites are also subject to other qualifying matters that must also be decided. These are detailed in recommendations 5b-5c of this report. Here, recommendation 5d states that the IHP recommendation on Sunlight Access qualifying matter is accepted, which is to remove the qualifying matter. The recommendation to accept its removal accords with the Minister’s decision on 5 June to accept the IHP recommendation that the qualifying matter should be rejected due to insufficient evidence and that applying MDRS is more consistent with the Resource Management Act. Given the Minister’s reasons, it appears unlikely that the Minister would make a different decision in this instance. However, the Act does not restrict the Council from making a decision to reject the IHP’s recommendation on the Sunlight Access qualifying matter. Such a decision would need to be re-considered by the Minister alongside the already referred heritage listing alternative recommendations.

4.7 Mapping of the full IHP Recommendation on PC14 is available on the Council’s Webpage at the following address: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/150f0f2837fb4214ac7f1e561c4ac932

Effect of MRZ zoning and descheduling

4.8 Both sites would be zoned Medium Density Residential zone and only be subject to qualifying matters for significant trees and, for Daresbury only, a 10m setback from Waimairi Stream. Both sites are of a significant size given their residential context and would provide opportunities for large residential redevelopment.

4.9 The site at 9 Daresbury Lane is about 6,800m² and the site at 265 Riccarton Road is about 15,000m². High level analysis of each site suggests that over 150 residential units could be enabled across both sites, approximately 50 units at 9 Daresbury Lane and over 100 units at 265 Riccarton Road.

4.10 In each case, Medium Density Residential (MRZ) zoning would apply instead of the operative zoning. This is currently Residential Medium Density for 265 Riccarton Road and Residential Suburban) for 9 Daresbury Lane. Residential Medium Density zoning is fairly comparable with MRZ, but the change from Residential Suburban to MRZ will deliver a very different housing form. For example, Residential Suburban contains a density restriction of one unit per 450m² and MRZ contains no such restriction. Building form is also greatly increased, permitting three storey units built at a recession plane taken at 4m and 60° (MDRS), rather than 2.3m and between 26-55°, and permitting a site coverage of 50%, rather than 35% under Residential Suburban.

4.11 The zoning outcome in each instance is illustrated below, showing RS and prospective MRZ for each sites. Nearby HRZ (High Density Residential zone) and RSDT (Residential Suburban Density Transition) is also showing.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 - Prospective MRZ (red label) for Daresbury overlaid on operative RS zoning (black label)

Figure 2 - Prospective MRZ (red label) for Antonio Hall overlaid on operative RS zoning (black label)

5. Considerations in making a decision

5.1 For the purposes of this report, the Council must either accept or reject IHP recommendations and may provide an alternative recommendation to the Minister for any IHP recommendations that the Council rejects. The Council must refer to the Minister each rejected recommendation and the reasons for the Council rejecting it. The Council may also provide its alternative recommendation to the Minister^{^[2]}. Should an alternative recommendation proceed, the Council should state the alternative it is recommending as this directs to the Minister that the decision is only between what the IHP recommended and what the Council is recommending.

5.2 The Council must make that decision in a manner that is consistent with any iwi participation agreement, Mana Whakahono a Rohe or joint management agreement^{^[3]}. None of those are relevant here.

5.3 In making its accept/reject decision the Council must not consider any submission or other evidence unless it was made available to the IHP before the IHP issued its recommendation report^{^[4]}. That is why Officers are not advising on the merits of the IHP recommendations. The Officer Recommendations contained in this report to accept some IHP recommendations are solely based on the Mayor and Councillors not having raised any concerns with these IHP recommendations.

5.4 If the Council accepts IHP recommendations, there are no appeal rights^{^[5]} and the provisions then become operative in the District Plan^{^[6]}.

5.5 If the Council rejects the IHP recommendations, the Minister’s decision on them is final. There are no appeal rights^{^[7]} and the provisions become operative in the District Plan after the Minister’s decision^{^[8]}.

5.6 MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards) apply as a baseline for all urban residential zones, subject to qualifying matters. Accepting the IHP recommendation for these sites means that MDRS would apply via the Medium Density Residential zone. The ability to develop the sites to the maximum provided for by MDRS will be dependent on the future decision of the Minister on relevant heritage qualifying matters.

6. Previously circulated materials and options assessment

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

Date	Subject
19 July 2024	Plan Change 14: preparing for decision making on panel recommendations
30 July 2024	Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations Report – Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choices
31 July 2024	Independent Hearings Panel recommendations on PC14
2 August 2024	Updated IHP recommendations on PC14
9 August 2024	Plan Change 14
22 August 2024	Plan Change 14 decisions possible on 4 September

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

Date	Subject
6 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
13 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
20 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
28 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
3 September 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
29 October 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
6 November 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
26 November 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
10 June 2025	Minister’s Decisions on Alternative Recommendations

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

6.3.1 Making decisions on 16 July 2025, as per Recommendations 4 to 8 of this report;

6.3.2 Deciding on the zoning of these two sites after a decision is finalised on PC13 (likely early September if there are no appeals, and in 2026 if there are appeals);

6.3.3 Deciding on the zoning of these two sites if or when the balance of PC14 is decided.

6.4 The following options were considered but ruled out:

6.4.1 Waiting on any future decision regarding opting out of the MDRS. The Council has already made a decision that it does not want to retain heritage scheduling for these two sites and opting out of the MDRS for these sites would preclude the Minister from a decision on the de-scheduling recommendation.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.5 Preferred Option: Making accept/reject decisions on IHP recommendations in accordance with Recommendations 4 to 5 of this report.

6.5.1 Option Description: This would seek that the IHP recommendation to apply Medium Density Residential zoning is accepted for 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane.

6.5.2 Option Advantages

· It accords with the requirement to decide on PC14 by 12 December 2025.

· Removes uncertainty about zoning outcomes and PC14 proposals for the two sites.

· Means that the Minster can determine the heritage listing and associated setting for the two sites.

· Could potentially simplify future decision making for Plan Change 13 – Heritage (PC13).

6.5.3 Option Disadvantages

· At this stage there is little certainty for how and where the balance of PC14 will be decided. The zoning decision for the two sites could be in contrast to surrounding areas, depending on where the Council may decide to zone as Medium Density Residential additional to its decisions to date, if at all i.e. the Council may later decide that medium density zoning for the areas surrounding the two sites is inappropriate and reject the IHP recommendations.

6.6 Decide on zoning of two sites after PC13 is decided.

6.6.1 Option Description: PC13 is considering all heritage-related controls throughout Christchurch, including the standards relating to the heritage item and associated setting for these two sites. In addition, submitters have requested for and against the retention of the heritage status of these two sites, amongst others. The Hearings Panel for PC13 will therefore also consider the heritage status of these sites.

6.6.2 Option Advantages

· Provides the opportunity to issue a decision that may be consistent with the decision on PC13.

· Provides a greater opportunity to be consistent with the decision making on the balance of PC14 e.g. consistency of zoning of the area surrounding the two sites

6.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· Would further delay zoning for respective sites.

· Removes the advantage of a PC14 decision being made before PC13 on the zoning and scheduling of the two sites, which would likely assist the decision making of PC13 e.g. If the Minister accepts the Council’s alternative recommendation for removal of the two sites from the schedule, there is nothing for the PC13 Panel to decide on for those sites.

· Potentially duplicates decision making process as the heritage status of sites will be considered under both PC13 and PC14.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

6.7 The option criteria considered above include making decisions on IHP recommendations at the earliest reasonable time, improving certainty for people, and avoiding avoidable delays.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – After PC13 decision
Cost to Implement	Same costs for both options.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Within existing budget for City Planning	Within existing budget for City Planning
Funding Availability	Funded in LTP	Funded in LTP
Impact on Rates	No additional impact beyond LTP	No additional impact beyond LTP

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 The predominant risk with the zoning decisions on the two sites is delay if the Council rejects the Panel recommendations for zoning. The Council must then prepare a report to the Minister and wait for the Minister’s decision on the IHP and the Council’s recommendations. That would delay decision making by the Minister on the heritage scheduling.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.2.1 The Minister for Resource Management Reform and Housing has directed that the Council is to decide on the balance of PC14 by December 2025.

The Council has referred alternative recommendations, to de-schedule these two sites, to the Minister under Clause 101(2) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act . The Minister requires that the Council must make a decision on IHP zoning recommendations for the two sites before he decides on the IHP and Council alternative recommendations regarding the heritage scheduling for the two sites.

8.3 Other Legal Implications:

8.3.1 Other legal implications are described throughout this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.4 The required decision:

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

8.4.2 Is assessed as moderate significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the broader public interest in PC14 and influence on the urban form outcomes of Ōtautahi Christchurch balanced with this decision being about 2 sites and therefore limited in the number of persons affected.

8.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

8.6 Regulatory and Compliance

8.6.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - In accordance with statutory processes and timeframes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 The decisions in this report are of significant interest to the communities affected. The effects of the plan change as recommended by the IHP on communities has been considered as part of recommendations on the submissions and evidence.

8.8 The decision affects the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board that Antonio Hall (265 Riccarton Road) is located in, and Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board that Daresbury House (9 Daresbury Lane) is located in. The views of the Community Boards are expressed in their submissions and verbal presentation to the Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

8.16 Intensification in this area would enable a more efficient use of a finite resource (land) and enable more people to live in an area strongly supported by public transport connections and other services, lessening private vehicle dependence.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 If approved, staff will engage directly with Ministry staff to inform them that decisions have been completed for the zoning of the two sites and the Minister is able to complete his decisions on the referred alternative recommendations regarding the heritage listings and associated settings of Antionio Hall (265 Riccarton Road) and Daresbury House (9 Daresbury Lane).

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ike Kleynbos - Principal Advisor Planning

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Unsolicited Proposal for sale of 1 Kinsey Terrace
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1104917
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nigel Collings, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present for consideration the Unsolicited Proposals received from the adjoining owners of 54 Clifton Terrace, Clifton, Christchurch and seek a decision to accept one of the two proposals or decline them. The proposal requests that Council deal unilaterally with them to purchase the Council-owned land situated at 1 Kinsey Terrace, Clifton, Christchurch, which was declared surplus through the Councils 2024 – 34 Long Term Plan.

1.2 This report is staff generated in response to unsolicited proposals submitted by Mr Stefan Huy and Ms Bruni Gebauer-Huy, the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace. The proposals seek to purchase either a portion of, or the entire, Council-owned site at 1 Kinsey Terrace, Clifton, Christchurch.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Unsolicited Proposal for sale of 1 Kinsey Terrace 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. Notes that 1 Kinsey Terrace has been declared surplus through the 2024-34 Long Term Plan.

4. Notes that the Council’s consideration of the unsolicited proposals would require a departure from its Disposal of Property Policy 2000, specifically the requirement that surplus property be sold by way of public tender. As there is no clear and reasonable justification to support a departure, staff do not recommend this option.

5. Declines both unsolicited proposals submitted by Mr Stefan Huy and Ms Bruni Gebauer-Huy, the adjoining owners of 54 Clifton Terrace to seek purchase either a portion of, or the entire Council-owned site at 1 Kinsey Terrace.

6. Resolves to sell the land at 1 Kinsey Terrace in accordance with the relevant Council policies as previously planned, i.e. on the open market in a fair and transparent manner.

7. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy, to undertake all actions, negotiate and conclude all the agreements necessary to facilitate the recommendations above made in general accordance with this report on terms and conditions acceptable to him at his sole discretion, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

8. Notes that public excluded attachments can be reviewed for public release after a sale concludes.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council declared 1 Kinsey Terrace, Clifton surplus through the 2024–2034 Long Term Plan (LTP). In the normal course of events, the property will be sold in accordance with the Council’s standard policies and procedures.

3.2 Following a submission to the Long-Term Plan process and discussions with Council staff, the owners of the adjacent property at 54 Clifton Terrace submitted a formal unsolicited proposal regarding 1 Kinsey Terrace.

3.3 This report provides background information, evaluates the proposal, and recommends declining it. As there is no clear or defensible rationale for a unilateral transaction, it is recommended that the property be sold on the open market in line with standard practice.

3.4 This report provides background information, evaluates the proposal, and recommends declining it. As there is no clear or defensible rationale for a unilateral transaction, it is recommended that the property be sold on the open market in line with standard practice.

3.5 This report provides background information and evaluates the proposal. Staff recommend declining the proposal as it would require a departure from the Council’s Disposal of Property Policy 2000 and there is no clear or defensible rationale for a unilateral transaction. It is recommended that the property be sold on the open market in line with standard practice.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Following the Canterbury Earthquakes, the property at 1 Kinsey Terrace was ‘red zoned’ and subsequently purchased by the Crown under a voluntary offer. The residential dwelling was demolished, and the site was grassed.

4.2 In 2021, 1 Kinsey Terrace was transferred to the Christchurch City Council as part of the Global Settlement with the Crown.

4.3 In 2024 the Christchurch City Council as part of its Long-Term Plan (LTP) resolved to sell 1 Kinsey Terrace.

4.4 1 Kinsey Terrace is a premium residential section in the desirable Clifton area. It is desired for its elevated position offering spectacular views toward Southshore, Sumner, and the Pacific Ocean. There has been much interest from members of the public in purchasing this section and with staff having fielded many enquiries from the public as to its availability.

4.5 Approximately 50% of the site at 1 Kinsey Terrace falls within the Mass Movement Area 2 (MMA2) District Plan hazard overlay. However, a geotechnical report commissioned by the Council indicates there is no significant difference in ground stability between the land within the hazard overlay and the land outside of the hazard overlay. Additionally, the report suggests that the site is suitable for residential construction.

4.6 54 Clifton Terrace is situated to the south of 1 Kinsey Terrace and occupies an elevated position. The property does not have drive-on access and is accessible only by foot via a steep staircase from the roadway.

4.7 Since the demolition of the dwelling at 1 Kinsey Terrace, the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace have expressed a longstanding desire to obtain driveway access through the 1 Kinsey Terrace site. They have actively lobbied the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), and more recently, the Christchurch City Council in support of this objective.

4.8 As part of the Long-Term Plan 2024–2034 consultation, the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace submitted a request to purchase 1 Kinsey Terrace.

4.9 Following the decision to declare the property surplus, the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace have contacted Council, via their ward Councillor. In response, staff suggested that the best process to have the Council consider a unilateral dealing was via a formal unsolicited bid.

4.10 That formal bid including purchasing proposals and their justification for the Council to sell unilaterally is attached as publicly excluded Attachment A.

4.11 The purchase proposals are:

4.11.1 To purchase the entire 1 Kinsey Terrace site, or;

4.11.2 To purchase an accessway over part of 1 Kinsey Terrace (shown in Attachment C as “Sec 1” and “Lot 2 DP 43517”). Leaving the Council with the balance of the site to sell. They would meet all subdivision costs and grant the Council a Right of Way over the driveway portion (Sec 1) that they purchase.

4.12 To evaluate the options the Council has obtained independent registered valuations of:

4.11.1 The entire site at 1 Kinsey Terrace and this is attached as publicly excluded Attachment E. The proposed driveway area publicly excluded Attachment F, and the balance parcel at 1 Kinsey publicly excluded Attachment G. These valuations are summarised in publicly excluded Attachment D.

4.13 The applicants justify their request for a unilateral purchase of 1 Kinsey Terrace on the grounds of being long-standing adjoining owners who have endured 14 years of earthquake-related disruption. They argue that securing access to their damaged home at 54 Clifton Terrace is essential for their future endeavours, and that their offer provides fair value to ratepayers. They contend that their circumstances are unique, that their proposal presents a "win/win" outcome, and that accepting it would reflect a compassionate and reasonable departure from standard process.

4.14 However, while their personal situation evokes sympathy, the proposal does not meet the Council’s policy thresholds for a justified unilateral dealing, as the property has independent development potential, no operational or strategic imperative applies, and the public interest is best served through an open market process as this maximises return. The applicants would be able to fully participate in an open market process.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.15.1 Option 1: Decline both proposals from the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace and approve the sale of 1 Kinsey Terrace on the open market in accordance with the Council’s policy.

4.15.2 Option 2: Accept the unsolicited proposal to sell the entire site at 1 Kinsey Terrace held in Record of Title CB22K/782 to the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace.

4.15.3 Option 3: Accept the unsolicited proposal to sell an accessway over part of 1 Kinsey Terrace (shown in Attachment C as “Sec 1” and “Lot 2 DP 43517”). Leaving the Council with the balance of the site to sell.

4.16 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.17.1 Sell the property to the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace, subject to a registered covenant prohibiting the resale of the property within a specified period, to be agreed upon as part of the sale terms. However, it was considered that this offer does not align with the Council's Disposal Policy and would also result in a reduction in value.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.17 Preferred Option: Option 1 Decline both proposals from the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace and sell the land.

4.17.1 Option Description: Sale of the land at 1 Kinsey Terrace, held in Record of Title CB22k/782, on the open market, in accordance with the relevant Council policies and practices.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Transparency and public confidence.

· Fair market transaction ‘willing buyer, willing seller’.

· Value determined by the market.

· Adjoining property owners can purchase in a transparent manner.

· Discharges responsibilities to ratepayers.

· Avoids the risk of the sale being contested in both process and value.

· The owners of 54 Clifton Terrace still could purchase.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Risk of not achieving the same net proceeds as offered in the unsolicited proposal.

4.18 Option 2: Accept the unsolicited proposal to sell the entire site at 1 Kinsey Terrace held in Record of Title CB22K/782 to the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace. – Not Recommended

4.18.1 Option Description: To depart from policy and sell the entire site at 1 Kinsey Terrace to the adjoining owners of 54 Clifton Terrace through a unilateral dealing as set out in their unsolicited proposal. This is essentially an unconditional offer at the values set out in the public excluded Attachment A.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

· Guaranteed proceeds of sale.

· Higher return than the Registered Valuation received by the Council.

· Avoids auctions risks and real estate fees.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· A unilateral sale may raise concerns about transparency and equity, potentially creating perceptions of preferential treatment and undermining public trust in the Council’s decision-making.

· Significant public interest suggests competitive bidding could maximize sale revenue, which may not be achieved through a unilateral deal.

· While allowable, this does not meet the responsibility to rate payers under the Local Government Act or council’s policies and practices as well as an open market process.

· There are insufficient justifications for unilateral dealing.

4.19 Option 3: To depart from policy and sell an accessway over part of 1 Kinsey Terrace (shown in Attachment C as “Sec 1” and “Lot 2 DP 43517”). Not Recommended

4.19.1 Option Description: To depart from policy and sell an accessway strip along the western boundary over part of 1 Kinsey Terrace (shown in Attachment C as “Sec 1” and “Lot 2 DP 43517”) to the adjoining owners of 54 Clifton Terrace through a unilateral dealing as set out in their unsolicited proposal. This is essentially an unconditional offer at the values set out in the public excluded Attachment A and Attachment D. Leaving council with the balance of the site to sell. Option Advantages

· Offers a practical solution to a long-standing problem for the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace.

· Leaves the balance lot to be sold in accordance with Council Policy and practices.

4.19.2 Option Disadvantages

· Removing the access strip would decrease the portion of 1 Kinsey Terrace that lies outside the Mass Movement Management Area 2 overlay—from approximately 580 square metres to 380 square metres—potentially affecting the site's appeal and marketability.

· The registered valuations indicate that this option is likely to result in lower sale proceeds for the Council compared to the preferred option, suggesting a reduced financial return.

· Negative impact on access to the balance of 1 Kinsey due to the narrow entrance way.

· Subdividing the site would reduce its appeal and value, as the current section size is ideal for buyers seeking large homes with ample garaging and space for a pool.

· There are insufficient justifications for unilateral dealing.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.20 These proposals were assessed against the Councils Guidelines for Submission and Assessment of Unsolicited Proposals and Disposal of Property Policy and the Local Government Act Principles.

4.21 The Unsolicited Proposals Guidelines for Submission and Assessment provide a clear framework that supports the preference for open market processes over unsolicited proposals, except in exceptional circumstances. Attached as Attachment B, Key sections include:

4.21.1 Section 2.1 states that unsolicited proposals are only to be considered in exceptional cases and must demonstrate uniqueness, strategic alignment, and value for money. Open market sales avoid the need to justify such exceptions, reducing administrative and reputational risk.

4.21.2 Section 2.4 defines Maximizing Value for Money as achieving the best value over the asset’s life, including financial and non-financial benefits. Open market sales test the market, often resulting in higher prices and better outcomes.

4.21.3 Section 3.2 stresses the importance of managing actual or perceived conflicts. Public sales reduce the risk of perceived favouritism, particularly when dealing with adjacent landowners.

4.21.4 Section 5 highlights the need for transparency and compliance with LGOIMA. Open market processes are more transparent and less susceptible to public or media challenge.

4.21.5 Section 6.2 affirms the Council’s right to reject unsolicited proposals and opt for open market sales, supporting risk management and alignment with strategic goals.

4.21.6 Local Government Act 2002 Principles:

· Section 14(1)(a)(i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;

· Section 14 (1)(f) a local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices.

4.22 The offer amounts were assessed against an independent Registered Valuations obtained by the Council. These Valuations are attached as; Attachment E (Valuation of 1 Kinsey), Attachment F (Valuation of Driveway) Attachment G (Valuation of 1 Kinsey after driveway removed). These offers and valuations are summarised in Attachment D.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2	Option 3
Cost to Implement	Internal staff costs	Internal staff costs	Internal staff costs Real estate fees
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	N/A	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	N/A	N/A	N/A
Funding Availability	N/A	N/A	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A	N/A

5.1 The decision of this report does not have a direct financial implication but rather considers the options of disposal of the land.

5.2 As noted in the disadvantages for option 1 in paragraph 4.17.3 above, there is a risk of not achieving the same net proceeds as offered in the unsolicited proposal.

5.3 As noted in the disadvantages for option 2 in paragraph 14.8.3 above, significant public interest suggests competitive bidding could maximize sale revenue, which may not be achieved through a unilateral deal.

5.4 As noted in the disadvantages for option 3 in paragraph 4.19.2 above, the registered valuations indicate that this option is likely to result in lower sale proceeds for the Council compared to the preferred option, suggesting a reduced financial return.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The property in question has already been declared surplus and generally well received by the community.

6.2 However, deviating from policy can damage the organisation’s reputation, especially when the property would be sought after by many.

6.3 Dealing unilaterally (i.e. negotiating directly with a specific party rather than going to a public sale process) is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is a clear and justifiable reason. These justifications typically include the following:

6.3.1 Adjoining Landowner: When the property logically or practically has value only to an adjacent landowner (e.g. sliver of land, access way).

6.3.2 Strategic Purpose: When the property contributes to an identified Council or partner project (e.g. regeneration, housing, or infrastructure initiative) or sale may be part of a wider agreement or MOU.

6.3.3 Public Benefit or Community Outcome: Disposal to a community organisation or government entity for a specific non-commercial use with wider social or environmental value. This can include use for parks, health facilities, social housing, etc.

6.3.4 Heritage, Cultural or Treaty Considerations: For transfer to iwi or hapū as part of Treaty settlements or ongoing partnership obligations, or if there is significant cultural/heritage value tied to a specific party.

6.3.5 Operational Efficiency or Cost Avoidance: When holding the land would incur ongoing costs with no benefit, and the buyer is uniquely placed to assume those costs (e.g. liability or maintenance burdens), or when timing and market factors necessitate a fast and practical disposal.

6.4 While the applicant’s circumstances may generate sympathy there remains insufficient policy or strategic justification to support a unilateral dealing in this case. Council’s standard processes exist to ensure fairness, transparency, and defensibility, and should not be set aside in the absence of a clear, objective rationale. In addition, if the property is placed on the open market, the applicant will have the same opportunity as any other interested party to purchase it through a fair and competitive process.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.5 When selling land, officers follow the requirements of legislation and the Council’s “Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000”. This Policy states that:

· Council's policy of publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise be confirmed as applying to all areas of the City.

6.6 Normal practice is to treat the statement “clear reason for doing otherwise” as a policy inconsistency under Clause 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. This clause requires the Local Authority to clearly identify any significant inconsistencies with the policy including the reasons for the inconsistency. The specific clause is:

A close-up of a document

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.7 In this case the inconsistency is to not publicly tender the sale of the property.

6.8 The unsolicited proposals are inconsistent with the policy.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.9 The required decision:

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

6.9.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of impact was determined by assessing the value of the land against the overall value of the land resolved for disposal in the Long-Term Plan.

6.9.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Property Policy 2000.

6.10 This report and recommendations does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 As this property has already been declared surplus through the Long-Term Plan Community Board engagement is not required. In addition, the substantive matter under consideration is to depart from policy which is a Council decision.

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

6.12.1 Heathcote Ward.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 The enabling of vehicular access and potential rebuilding at 54 Clifton Terrace, would have no significant impact on climate change adaptation or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Should the Council adopt the recommended Option 1 as per 4.18, staff will proceed with the disposal of 1 Kinsey Terrace via an open market process in accordance with the Council’s Disposal of Property Policy 2000 and the Council’s standard sale terms and procedures.

7.2 Should the Council adopt Option 2 as detailed in 4.19, staff will proceed to enter into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace (Mr Stefan Huy and Ms Bruni Gebauer-Huy) for the full acquisition of 1 Kinsey Terrace. The agreement will reflect the Council’s standard terms and the proposed purchase price as per their proposal.

7.3 Should the Council adopt Option 3 as detailed in 4.20, staff will proceed to enter into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the owners of 54 Clifton Terrace (Mr Stefan Huy and Ms Bruni Gebauer-Huy for the partial acquisition of 1 Kinsey Terrace. The agreement will reflect the Council’s standard terms, with all subdivision costs to be met by the purchasers and purchase price as per their proposal.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Unsolicited Proposal (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1286077
b ⇩	Unsolicited Proposal Guidelines for Submission and Assessment	25/1205363	86
c ⇩	Proposed subidvision 1 Kinsey	25/1205358	103
d	Offer and Valuation Summary (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1257734
e	Valuation 1 Kinsey (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1205362
f	Driveway Market Valuation - Confidential	25/1254741
g	Valuation 1 Kinsey Balance Parcel (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1254747
h ⇩	Aerial Images	25/1287988	104

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

The original LTP submission is at pages 79 to 91 of Agenda of Council - Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034 - Friday, 3 May 2024

Below is a link to the LTP Hearings Agenda when submitters spoke:

03.05.24 - Stefan and Brune Huy-Gebauer - Christchurch City Council Meetings

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Nigel Collings - Property Consultant

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

[9] Section 80(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

[10] Section 80(2) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

[11] Regulation 17 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013

[12] Section 81(a) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol act 2012

[13] Section 81(b) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol act 2012

[14] Section 90(1)1 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol act 2012

[15] Section 91(2) and (6) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol act 2012

5. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 24 June 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1301600
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services (Samantha.Kelly@ccc.govt.nz), Cathy Harlow, Democratic Services Advisor (Cathy.Harlow@ccc.govt.nz)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Banks Peninsula Stormwater Management Plan - Consultation opening 30 April 2025 Report (Under Separate Cover)	25/740773
b ⇨	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Stormwater Management Plan - Submissions Table Attachments (Under Separate Cover)	25/1313537
c ⇨	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan - 2 July 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	25/1311171
d ⇨	Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP (Under Separate Cover)	25/1196042
e ⇨	Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP (Under Separate Cover)	25/1196063
f ⇨	Wairewa Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP (Under Separate Cover)	25/1196049
g ⇨	Ōnuku Rūnanga Position Statement - Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū SMP (Under Separate Cover)	25/1196025

8. Confirmation of Dates for Adoption of the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1311075
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ron Lemm, Manager, Public, Regulatory & Litigation, Legal and Democratic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

11. Notice of Motion - Feasibility of free overnight parking at Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1315301
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Mayor Phil Mauger
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

12. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/588745
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

6. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1361156
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Paul Dickson, Drainage Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga
	1. The Board took into consideration the deputation from Ms Philips, representing Sustainable Ōtautahi Christchurch.

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū - Banks Peninsula Settlements Stormwater Management Plan	25/826358	49

9. 66E Hills Rd - Sale of Land
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1111308
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Rees-Thomas, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Decline Sale
Cost to Implement	Nil – Costs borne by purchaser	Nil – No change from current
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil – Costs borne by purchaser	Minor to nil – Land occupied by Orion
Funding Source	Not applicable	Not applicable
Funding Availability	Not applicable	Not applicable
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
10.	Unsolicited Proposal for sale of 1 Kinsey Terrace
	Attachment a - Unsolicited Proposal	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The submission contains the applicant's valuation. Disclosure of this may prejudice them in an open market process which outweighs the public interest.	30 June 2026 Review after a property transmission occurs.
	Attachment d - Offer and Valuation Summary	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The release of information may impact on the Council’s ability to negotiate commercial outcomes beneficial to ratepayers which outweighs the public interest.	25 June 2026 To be released after a sale concludes.
	Attachment e - Valuation 1 Kinsey	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The release of information may impact on the Council’s ability to negotiate commercial outcomes beneficial to ratepayers which outweighs the public interest.	25 June 2026 or after sale of property concludes.
	Attachment f - Driveway Market Valuation	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The release of information may impact on the Council’s ability to negotiate commercial outcomes beneficial to ratepayers which outweighs the public interest.	25 June 2026 after a sale concludes
	Attachment g - Valuation 1 Kinsey Balance Parcel	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The release of information may impact on the Council’s ability to negotiate commercial outcomes beneficial to ratepayers which outweighs the public interest.	25 June 2026 after a sale concludes
14.	Property Matter	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities	This report contains commercially sensitive information about upcoming decisions relating to a property leasing or sale arrangement and if publicly available at this point in time could prejudice a commercial position.	27 May 2036 Review when the site is sold or leased and that information becomes public
15.	Ōtautahi Christchurch Organics Processing Facility Operating Cost	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(c)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Protection of Source of Information	The information in this report is commercially sensitive and subject to an obligation of confidence which outweighs the public interest.	30 June 2027 At completion of procurement process and on advice from the Head of Procurement and the General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services.