Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 20 August 2025

5. National Erebus Memorial
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1416123
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Duncan Sandeman, Manager Office of the Mayor and Civic Services
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s agreement to offer a site on Council-owned land in Christchurch to Manatū Taonga, Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH), as a potential location for the National Erebus Memorial.

1.2 This report has been prepared in response to MCH’s ongoing efforts to secure a suitable site for the memorial. While Auckland remains the preferred location for many family members, prolonged delays in securing a viable site there have led to consideration of alternative locations. Ōtautahi-Christchurch, with its deep connections to Antarctic exploration and strong culture of remembrance, presents a respectful and practical alternative. Through the offer of a potential site, the Council now has an opportunity to support a nationally significant project that honours the memory of those lost in New Zealand’s worst civil disaster.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information contained in the National Erebus Memorial Report.

2. Agrees to offer Cracroft Reserve in Cashmere as a potential site for the National Erebus Memorial and authorises the Mayor to formally convey this offer to Manatū Taonga, Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

3. Authorises the Chief Executive to make decisions and/or sign any documentation required for the purpose of effecting the offer.

4. Notes that the offer of a site in Christchurch is made in recognition of the memorial’s national significance, and the Council’s commitment to supporting the Erebus families and members of Operation Overdue.

5. Notes that the offer will remain open for a 12-month period to enable further investigations, visits and engagement with family members.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report recommends offering Cracroft Reserve as the preferred site for the National Erebus Memorial. The site was identified following a robust investigation involving the Council, mana whenua, and Manatū Taonga, Ministry for Culture and Heritage, followed by independent site assessment undertaken by Barker & Associates.

3.2 A number of potential locations were considered across the city with two suitable sites identified, as well as a third potential site. The three sites have the attributes and qualities sought for the memorial, however one of these clearly stood out once visited and assessed.

3.3 Cracroft Reserve in Cashmere offers a peaceful, elevated setting with expansive views and strong cultural and experiential qualities. Upon visiting the site these special qualities are immediately evident, something which most Erebus families and members of Operation Overdue may not have had an opportunity to experience. This is reflected in recent survey feedback provided by MCH, which slightly favoured a site on the Ōtakaro-Avon riverbanks near the Scott statue.

3.4 Conversations commenced with local stakeholders have been supportive and welcoming of efforts to identify and offer a site, and of the potential for Cracroft Reserve to accommodate the memorial.

3.5 An offer which remains open for a period of 12 months provides the opportunity for further investigation and continued engagement.

3.6 The proposal aligns with Council’s strategic goals and has received broad support from elected members and community boards.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Erebus disaster occurred on 28 November 1979, when Air New Zealand Flight TE901, a sightseeing flight over Antarctica, tragically crashed into Mount Erebus, killing all 257 passengers and crew on board. It remains New Zealand’s worst civil disaster.

4.2 While the majority of passengers and all crew were from Auckland, the tragedy had a profound national impact. The flight included scientists, tourists, flight crew, guides and New Zealanders from across the country as well as from overseas. In communities throughout Aotearoa and overseas, families, friends, and colleagues grieved. The scale and suddenness of the loss left a deep emotional scar that endures more than four decades later. The disaster also deeply affected those involved in the investigation and recovery, many of whom were drawn from around the country as well as places like the United States.

4.3 The New Zealand Government’s journey to establish a National Erebus Memorial has been long and, at times, challenging. After decades of advocacy by the families, the Government formally committed in 2017 to creating a national memorial to honour the 257 lives lost in the disaster. Led by MCH, the project aims to create a dedicated space for remembrance, reflection, and education. Of the 257 passengers and crew on board, 60 were from overseas, 106 came from Auckland, and 77 were from other North Island towns/cities and 14 from the South Island.

4.4 The Ministry’s initial plans focused on Auckland, with consideration of approximately 50 sites, including a detailed proposal for Dove-Myer Robinson Park in Parnell. However, significant public opposition and damage caused during Cyclone Gabrielle resulted in that location being set aside in early 2023. Subsequent efforts to secure an alternative site in Auckland face prolonged delays due to land access issues and stakeholder concerns. As a result, other cities, including Christchurch, were considered as potential hosts for the memorial.

4.5 Christchurch was informally approached in September 2024, via the Christchurch Antarctic Office, to explore whether it could host the memorial. In response, the Christchurch City Council established a small internal project team and undertook briefings with the Executive Leadership Team and elected members to assess interest. Councillors expressed unanimous support for the Mayor to formally invite MCH to consider Christchurch as a home for the memorial, and a letter of invitation was subsequently sent to the Secretary for Culture and Heritage.

4.6 Christchurch offers a compelling and respectful alternative for the memorial. As New Zealand’s gateway to Antarctica, the city has a rich association with polar exploration and aviation history. Historic expeditions (including those of Scott and Shackleton) launched from Christchurch, and TE901 was scheduled to return here for refuelling and a crew change. When news broke that the flight was overdue, lights across the South Island were turned on in hope that the aircraft might still find its way home.

4.7 More recently, Ōtautahi Christchurch has become known for the strength of its response to tragedy, and for the expression of manaakitanga shown to those who have experienced profound loss. From the Canterbury earthquakes to the March 15 attacks, the city has learned the importance of remembrance and of caring for those affected. This legacy gives Christchurch a special understanding of the role a national memorial can play in honouring the past and supporting healing.

4.8 A collaborative relationship developed between MCH and Council staff. A multi-agency team was established to identify potential sites. The team included representatives from the Council, MCH, mana whenua (Whitiora), convened by memorials expert Professor Jacky Bowring. After a robust assessment process, two Council-owned sites were shortlisted (Avon Riverbank in the Central city and Cracroft Reserve in Cashmere), and a third non-Council owned option which would require further exploration (St James’ Church grounds, Harewood).

4.9 In June and early July, elected members of the Council, along with the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote and Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Boards, were briefed on the site selection process. These sessions were intended to confirm ongoing support for the project and to help identify individuals and groups who could be engaged to understand community sentiment toward the memorial. In mid-July, the shortlisted sites were presented by MCH to family members and Operation Overdue, through a series of online workshops.

4.10 Following the workshops a survey was sent to families and members of Operation Overdue seeking their feedback on the three sites identified. MCH received 109 responses of which 71 (65%) were supportive of one or more sites in Christchurch. Ten (9%) were conditionally supportive and 28 (26%) did not want the memorial to be located in Christchurch.

4.11 Of those who supported Christchurch as a potential location; 61 supported the Avon site, 54 Cracroft Reserve, and 25 St James. Comments and questions for each site touched on accessibility, location within the city, potential traffic noise, and constraints on the space.

4.12 For any site selected, the memorial design would be adapted from that previously developed for Auckland’s Dove-Myer Robinson Park, with aspects drawn through and a process undertaken to adapt the design and scale specific to the site.

4.13 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting. These briefings were not open to the public due to the commitment that families and members of Operation Overdue were to receive information ahead of any public release.

Date	Subject
4 Dec 24	Erebus memorial briefing to Councillors.
10 Jun 25	Erebus memorial project briefing to Councillors.
26 Jun 25	Erebus memorial project briefing to Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.
3 Jul 25	Erebus memorial project briefing to Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Deputy Chair.
10 Jul 25	Erebus memorial project briefing to Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.14.1 Offering a single site. Offering a single, carefully selected site for the National Erebus Memorial demonstrates a clear and proactive commitment by the Council to support this nationally significant initiative. This approach provides clarity and focus for both MCH, the families and the community, streamlining the planning and engagement process. The proposed site has been identified based on the elevated city and mountain views, tranquillity, accessibility, and its potential to respectfully accommodate the memorial. This option reflects the Council’s desire to honour the Erebus tragedy in a meaningful way, while ensuring the memorial is integrated thoughtfully into the city’s landscape.

4.14.2 Offering two sites. The option of offering two potential sites was considered as a way to provide flexibility and support a collaborative decision-making process with the Ministry. Presenting two viable locations allows for further investigations and comparative evaluation based on technical, cultural, and community factors. While this option remains available, it introduces additional complexity and may delay progress. Nonetheless, it reflects the Council’s openness to dialogue and its willingness to accommodate different perspectives and offer flexibility in identifying the most appropriate site for the memorial.

4.15 The following option was considered but ruled out:

4.15.1 Not offering a site. The option of not offering any sites has been considered and ruled out. While the Council acknowledges that many Erebus family members have expressed a preference for the memorial to be located in Auckland, we believe Christchurch can offer a meaningful and respectful alternative and suitable sites have been identified. The city would warmly welcome the memorial and the families, and by making an offer, we provide a clear and constructive path forward for the memorial to be delivered. Declining to offer a site would not reflect the Council’s values of remembrance, partnership, and civic responsibility, nor would it support the national significance of commemorating the Erebus tragedy. As such, this option is not considered reasonable in the current context.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Preferred Option: Single Site - Cracroft Reserve.

4.16.1 Site Description: Set adjacent to the renowned Sign of the Takahe (a recognised and protected heritage building ) in Cashmere, Cracroft Reserve offers expansive views across Christchurch and out to the Southern Alps, stretching from the north to the south-west. The site is quiet and green, with ample space for walking, reflection, and both private contemplation and group gatherings. Its peaceful, spacious character is complemented by practical amenities, including public toilets and a café at the Sign of the Takahe. It is easily accessible by car or bus (approx. 15 minutes from the central city).

4.16.2 Site Advantages

· Peaceful and Reflective Setting. Cracroft Reserve offers a tranquil, landscaped environment with mature native vegetation and elevated views. Its natural serenity supports the memorial’s purpose of quiet contemplation and remembrance.

· Experiential Qualities. The site’s topography and pathways allow for a sense of journey and arrival, aligning well with the design intention of the Erebus Memorial. It supports both individual reflection and group gatherings.

· High Amenity and Visual Appeal. The reserve provides expansive views over Christchurch and toward the Southern Alps, enhancing the memorial’s connection to the sky and landscape. The mature trees and natural features contribute to a high-quality setting.

· Cultural Sensitivity and Support. The site sits within a cultural landscape. Mana whenua, through Whitiora, have expressed support for the site, and no cultural sensitivities have been identified that would prevent a memorial being established.

· Flexibility for Events. Cracroft Reserve includes several large open spaces suitable for both formal commemorations and informal visits. The site can accommodate a range of memorial activities without compromising its natural character.

· Existing Facilities. The Sign of the Takahe venue and cafe on the corner of Cracroft Reserve is an easy to locate landmark. The public amenities block in the reserve also supports the needs of visitors.

· Planning Certainty. The site is zoned Open Space Community Parks, where a public memorial is a permitted activity. While some infrastructure considerations exist, these do not present significant barriers.

· Potential for Unique Identity. The reserve is of a scale and character that allows the memorial to develop its own distinct meaning and presence within the landscape, without competing with existing values or uses.

· Safety and Security. The site is not subject to significant natural hazards and benefits from passive surveillance as a visitor destination and through proximity to the Sign of the Takahe and local recreation areas.

4.16.3 Site Disadvantages

· Topographical Constraints. The sloping terrain at Cracroft Reserve will need to be addressed through design and construction, and pathways improved to ensure good accessibility. The required works will need to be considered relative to the MCH budget.

· Infrastructure Considerations. The presence of three-waters infrastructure within the reserve requires careful coordination during design and construction.

· Location. Although just 15 minutes from the central city, the site may be less visible and accessible to casual visitors or tourists, potentially reducing spontaneous engagement with the memorial compared to a more central location.

· Potential Vandalism Risks. While the site benefits from some passive surveillance and does not raise particular CPTED concerns, this will be a factor to consider during the design stage.

4.17 Site Two: Ōtākaro Avon River.

4.17.1 Site Description: Located along the Avon River, the Ōtākaro Avon River site winds through the heart of Christchurch’s vibrant central city and offers a peaceful, green setting within an urban landscape. Positioned near the Scott Statue and not far from Oi Manawa Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial, it provides a meaningful connection to existing places of remembrance. The area is flat and open, with well-lit paths and lawns that support both quiet reflection and large gatherings. It is easily accessible, with nearby parking, cafés, and sheltered spaces, making it a practical and welcoming location for visitors. Either side of the riverbank is a potential location.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Central Location. Situated in the heart of Christchurch’s central city, the site is highly visible and easily accessible to residents, visitors, and tourists.

· Strong Contextual Connections. The site is near existing memorials, including the Scott Statue and Oi Manawa Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial, creating a meaningful landscape of remembrance.

· Flat and Open Terrain. The area is flat and open, making it relatively easy and cost-effective to construct the memorial.

· Accessible and Well-Serviced. The site is pedestrian-friendly, with nearby public transport, car parking, cafés, and sheltered areas, supporting both casual visits and formal events.

· Flexible Use. The open lawns and pathways allow for quiet reflection and for larger gatherings both sides of the river could be utilised.

· Safe and Well-lit. The site benefits from good lighting, visibility, and natural surveillance due to its central location and regular public use.

· Amenity and Aesthetic Appeal. The river setting, mature trees, and flowing water contribute to a peaceful and attractive environment that enhances the memorial experience.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Heritage Values. The site contains several heritage items and settings, including the Scott Statue and Mill Island. Any development will require careful design to avoid compromising existing heritage values, which will be a consideration within approvals processes.

· Planning Complexity. The site is within 30 metres of the Avon River, a Ngāi Tahu site of cultural significance and a flood management area. This will likely require resource consent, iwi consultation, and an archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand.

· Urban Noise and Activity. While centrally located, the site is surrounded by traffic and urban activity, which may detract from the quiet, contemplative atmosphere intended for the memorial.

· Potential for Adjacent Future Development. Development of currently vacant land surrounding the site can be anticipated, potentially altering the context and qualities.

· Flood Risk. The site is subject to occasional flooding from the Avon River, which may require additional design considerations and mitigation measures to ensure the memorial’s resilience and safety, particularly if flooding events become more frequent over time.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.18 The assessment of potential sites for the National Erebus Memorial was guided by a structured set of criteria developed by MCH, in consultation with Erebus families and Operation Overdue, and previously applied to the selection of sites. These criteria were grouped into three overarching categories:

Functionality
Accessible:	A location/site that is accessible so people can easily get to it (public transport/vehicular access) and that can be designed to have universal access.
Flexible:	A flexible space allowing for formal and informal events, accommodating significant numbers as well as creating a more private, intimate experience.
Safe:	Avoidance of threats and perceived threats from adjacent structures or landforms, with particular attention paid to geotechnical stability.
Context
Co-location:	The extent to which larger gatherings can utilise adjacent spaces particularly if the site itself is restricted. Co-location can mean a smaller memorial site could be workable/appropriate.
Adjacencies:	Compatibility with existing and potential future adjacent development/activities.
Relevance:	A site that is located somewhere that is conceptually connected to the function or purpose of the memorial.
Certainty:	A site that has sufficient certainty in relation to security of tenure, iwi/hapu support, and authorising environment, to ensure and enduring context for the memorial.
Meaning
Sensitivity:	A site where the memorial will not affect/compromise existing cultural or social sensitivities.
Own meaning:	A site that can develop its own meaning and significance over time, rather than a site which already has a fixed meaning/symbolism or known significance.
Designer’s intention:	A site which can support the core concepts of the selected design.
Amenity:	Whether the site has connection to features that enhance the setting m(views, water, trees, shelter, aspect, with particular attention to the site qualities expressed in the selected design in relation to views and connections to the sea and sky.

4.19 Each criterion was weighted to reflect its relative importance, and sites were scored accordingly to support a comparative evaluation. This framework ensured a balanced consideration of both technical feasibility and symbolic resonance in identifying the preferred location. The detailed assessment report can be found on the MCH website: National Erebus Memorial Christchurch Site Assessments.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Government funding has been secured through MCH for the delivery of the National Erebus Memorial, including its construction and ongoing maintenance. Council staff will continue to provide operational support to MCH as needed. Additionally, there may be an opportunity for the Parks Unit to reallocate existing budget to undertake complementary works around the memorial site, if deemed appropriate.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Perception of disregarding Erebus families’ preference for Auckland. Many Erebus families have expressed a strong desire for the memorial to be located in Auckland, where the original commitment was made. Offering a site in Christchurch may be perceived as undermining that preference. Providing MCH a window where our offer is open for up to 12 months will allow them to continue transparent communication with families, emphasising that Christchurch is being considered due to delays in Auckland and that the offer is made respectfully.

6.2 Approvals process for a selected site. The Avon Riverbank site is located within an area that includes scheduled heritage items and cultural sites. Construction of a memorial is likely to trigger resource consent, iwi consultation, and archaeological authority requirements. Cracroft Reserve offers fewer constraints in relation to approvals, although siting of the memorial would need to work alongside existing three waters infrastructure. Prioritising Cracroft Reserve as the preferred site provides a degree of mitigation. If the Avon Riverbank is reconsidered, early engagement will be needed with mana whenua, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and Council’s planning and heritage teams to ensure compliance and a sensitive design.

6.3 Community resistance to the memorial’s location. Some residents may oppose the establishment of a national memorial in their neighbourhood due to concerns about increased visitor numbers, changes to the character of the area, or perceived lack of consultation. This could lead to public opposition, negative media scrutiny, or delays in the consenting process. To mitigate this we will continue to proactively engage with local residents and community groups to share information, listen to concerns, and build understanding of the memorial’s purpose and design. Messaging will emphasise the respectful nature of the memorial and its alignment with the area’s values. We will use targeted communications, in-person meetings and events, and adaptive feedback channels to ensure transparency and responsiveness.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Preliminary legal advice has been obtained and is outlined below. Should the Council resolve to make the offer, further legal advice will be sought to confirm compliance.

6.5 The legal considerations are as follows:

6.5.1 Cracroft Reserve (Record of Title CB385/51).

· Ownership & Purpose: The land in ROT CB385/51 is owned by Christchurch City Council and is designated for the “health, amusement and instruction of the public” under an old law (Municipal Corporations Act 1933). This is considered a public purpose.

· Reserve Status: Although not explicitly labelled a reserve under the current Reserves Act 1977, the land’s purpose strongly suggests it qualifies as a recreation reserve. This is supported by its historical use and alignment with the definitions in both the 1953 and 1977 reserve legislation.

· Leasing for Memorial: Under the Reserves Act 1977, the Council can lease recreation reserve land for facilities that support public recreation or enjoyment, which could reasonably include a memorial.

· Requirements:

Ministerial Consent: The lease would need approval from the Minister for Conservation unless the memorial is already included in the reserve’s management plan.

Public Consultation: The public must be consulted before any lease is granted.

Lease Term: Any lease would be limited to a maximum of 33 years.

· If Not a Reserve: If the land is later found not to be reserve land, leasing it would be treated as a disposal of park land under the Local Government Act 2002, which also requires public consultation.

6.5.2 Ōtākaro-Avon River.

· Ownership and Status:

These parcels were vested in Christchurch City Council under the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1971.

They are considered reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, with the designated purpose of “lawns, ornamental gardens, and ornamental buildings.”

The parcels do not have individual titles and have not been formally classified under the Reserves Act.

· Leasing Options:

Because of their purpose, the land most closely aligns with a local purpose reserve. Under section 61 of the Reserves Act, the Council can lease such land for things like community buildings, which could reasonably include a memorial.

Alternatively, the land could be treated as a recreation reserve under section 17, which also allows leasing under section 54(1)(a). However, this option requires public consultation before a lease is granted.

· The Council can lease or license the land to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage for the memorial.

· If the Council treats the land as a local purpose reserve, public consultation is not required.

· If the Council opts to treat it as a recreation reserve, public consultation will be necessary, but could be covered by broader consultation on the proposal if the site is clearly identified.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

6.6.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Offering a site in Christchurch for the National Erebus Memorial aligns with the Council’s Strategic Framework by contributing to a cultural powerhouse city that honours its past while shaping a compassionate and connected future. The proposal also reinforces our role as a gateway to Antarctica and champions Ōtautahi Christchurch’s capacity to support national heritage initiatives in ways that enhance civic pride, cultural expression, and community wellbeing.

6.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the potential impact of the decision on affected families and the level of national interest in the issue, weighed against the minimal effect on Council service levels, financial cost, and associated risk.

6.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Aligns with Our Heritage, Our Taonga Christchurch Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 vision, outcomes and goals. In particular, Goal 3, Action 3. 'Acknowledge the importance of anniversaries, traditional commemorations and events, and support communities to celebrate them'.

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

6.8 While the proposal to host the National Erebus Memorial in Christchurch does not align directly with the current Long Term Plan, given that it was not anticipated or budgeted for within the Council’s planned capital programme, this misalignment is largely immaterial. The project will be fully funded by Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage, meaning there is no financial impact on Council budgets. As such, the opportunity can be considered on its strategic and civic merits without requiring amendment to the Long Term Plan.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Key stakeholders for Cracroft Reserve have been approached, including the Friends of Cracroft reserve and the Sign of the Takahe operator and the local Scouts group which operates out of the reserve. Initial discussions have been positive, and information has been shared more widely within local networks. Staff attended a community planting day in the reserve and conversations with local residents focussed on the memorial process and design, and to a lesser extent on the impact the memorial could have on the site.

6.10 As a Central City location on public land there are no clear community stakeholders for the Avon site. Should the site be offered to the MCH business and development groups will be engaged. The shortlisting of the site has been widely covered by the media and no groups or individuals have expressed their interest to date.

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

6.11.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board, Cashmere Ward.

6.11.2 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.12 Briefings were held with the two relevant Community Boards to provide an overview of the memorial journey, outline why Christchurch is being considered as a potential home for the National Erebus Memorial, and present the specific sites identified within each Board’s area. Staff sought feedback on likely community views and asked for guidance on who should be engaged as part of the process. Both Boards were broadly supportive of the proposal and recognised the significance of hosting a national memorial. However, some concern was expressed regarding the views of Erebus family members, particularly the perception that their preference for the memorial to remain in Auckland may be overlooked in the decision to locate it in Christchurch.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.15 Mana whenua were involved in the site selection process (through Whitiora) and provided valuable advice to inform consideration of sites.

Heritage Considerations

6.16 While Cracroft Reserve is not itself a scheduled heritage place, its adjacency to the Sign of the Takahe introduces important design and planning sensitivities. These require careful attention to ensure compliance alignment with heritage conservation principles and to retain the heritage values of the adjacent scheduled heritage item and setting.

6.17 The Avon River site is highly sensitive from a heritage perspective, with multiple scheduled heritage items and settings requiring careful design integration and likely triggering resource consent. Mana whenua values are deeply embedded in the area, and any memorial would need to respect and reflect these narratives. While technically feasible, the Avon site presents greater planning complexity and heritage constraints than Cracroft Reserve, and would require a more intensive approvals and engagement process.

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 While the memorial itself will be designed with sustainability principles in mind (including low-impact materials, landscaping, and passive design features) the broader impact of the memorial includes increased travel by families and visitors, many of whom may come from across New Zealand or overseas. This travel, particularly by air, will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, these emissions are not directly attributable to the Council’s decision to offer a site and are instead a consequence of the memorial’s national significance and the desire of families to engage with it.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The Mayor will formally advise Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage of the Council’s decision to offer Cracroft Reserve as the preferred site.

7.2 Continue collaborative engagement with MCH, mana whenua (through Whitiora), and relevant stakeholders to support their ongoing site confirmation and concept development process.

7.3 Coordinate on MCH led community and family engagement, including updates to Erebus families and Operation Overdue personnel, to ensure transparent communication and respectful dialogue.

7.4 Support MCH in progressing any required planning and consenting processes, including provision of relevant Council information, reports, and staff input.

7.5 Provide regular updates to the Council and Community Boards as the memorial proposal progresses through concept design, consultation, and statutory processes.

7.6 Determine the appropriate mechanism for giving effect to the offer.

7.7 Prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or similar agreement with MCH to outline roles, responsibilities, and the terms of the site offer, should the site be confirmed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Erebus Memorial Project Briefing to Councillors	25/1422187	17
b ⇩	Erebus Memorial Project Briefing to Community Boards	25/1422188	26

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Ministry of Culture & Heritage National Erebus Memorial Website: www.mch.govt.nz/our-work/memorials-and-commemorations/national-erebus-memorial

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Duncan Sandeman - Manager Office of Mayor & Civic Services

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Tessa Zant - Manager Engagement

Approved By

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

6. Water Services Delivery Plan Adoption - Local Water Done Well
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1126909
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of the Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) and to approve its submission to the Secretary for Local Government (Secretary) for review and acceptance.

1.2 The report provides:

· A summary of the legislative context, including the requirements of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 to prepare and submit the WSDP by 3 September 2025.

· An overview of the WSDP.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Water Services Delivery Plan Adoption - Local Water Done Well Report.

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

3. Notes that prior to submission of the Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP), section 18 of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (Act) requires the Chief Executive to certify that:

a. the WSDP complies with the Act; and

b. the information contained in the WSDP is true and accurate.

4. Adopts the Water Services Delivery Plan, attached as Attachment A to this report.

5. Approves the submission of the Water Services Delivery Plan to the Secretary for Local Government.

6. Notes that the Water Services Delivery Plan must be submitted to Secretary for Local Government, for their consideration and acceptance if compliant with the Act, no later than 3September 2025.

7. Authorises the Chief Executive to make minor amendments and corrections to the Water Services Delivery Plan, as may be necessary to ensure accuracy and consistency, provided such changes are not material.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (the Act) requires the Council to develop a WSDP. This must detail the current state of water services and demonstrate publicly the Council’s commitment to deliver water services in a way that:

3.1.1 ensures it will meet relevant regulatory quality standards;

3.1.2 is financially sustainable by 30 June 2028;

3.1.3 ensures it will meet all drinking water quality standards; and

3.1.4 supports housing growth and urban development as specified in its long-term plan.

3.2 The content of a WSDP is prescribed in section 13 of the Act. A WSDP must contain information such as the current state of a council’s water services and infrastructure, its future investment needs, including projected capital and operational expenditure and how these costs will be financed. The WSDP must also demonstrate how water services will be financially sustainable, including ringfencing water services revenue and outline how a council will comply with current and anticipated regulatory standards set out under the LWDW reform.

3.3 The WSDP must also include detail on the Council’s proposed model for delivering water services. Christchurch City Council evaluated and consulted on three delivery models. These were an in-house delivery model, a water services Council-controlled organisation model for three waters (WSCCO), and a two-waters WSCCO model. In May 2025, Council approved delivery of waters services through the in-house delivery model.

3.4 Staff have developed a WSDP in accordance with the requirements of the Act and following the template and guidance provided by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), refer Attachment A for the proposed WSDP.

3.5 The WSDP has been created using information from the Long-Term Plan 2024 – 2034 (LTP), Activity and Asset Management Plans, the Financial Strategy, the Infrastructure Strategy, the Activity 10 Year Funding Impact Statements and the 10-year projected Statement of Financial Position in the LTP. Additionally, the financial information has been updated to reflect changes made in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

3.6 The Act requires the Council adopt’s its WSDP by resolution (section 17), and the Chief Executive must certify that the WSDP complies with the Act and the information contained in the plan is true and accurate (section 18). The Council is required to submit its WSDP to the Secretary no later than 3 September 2025.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

General overview of LWDW

4.1 The LWDW reform aims to ensure safe, reliable and financially sustainable water services across New Zealand, while retaining both local ownership of assets and decision-making. LWDW responds to several systemic issues identified in water services delivery across the country, including aging infrastructure, historic underinvestment, inconsistent services levels, and gaps in regulatory oversight. The framework establishes a structured pathway for councils to assess and adopt delivery models that meet more stringent standards for quality, financial sustainability and environmental performance.

4.2 The Government is implementing the LWDW framework in three legislative stages:

4.2.1 Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024 (repealed the previous water services legislation).

4.2.2 Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (the Act), enacted in September 2024, which requires councils to develop and submit a WSDP to the Secretary no later than 3 September 2025 (unless an exemption is granted).

4.2.3 The Local Government (Water Services) Bill establishes the enduring legislative framework for water service delivery. In summary, it outlines arrangements for a new delivery system, introduces an economic regulation and consumer protection regime, and updates the regulatory framework for water quality and the water services regulator. Council submitted feedback on the Bill, and the Finance and Expenditure Committee has recommended significant amendments. The Bill has passed its second reading and is currently in its final stages of progression^{^[1]}.

Selection of a Water Services Delivery Model

4.3 A key requirement of a WSDP is to identify the Council’s proposed or anticipated model for delivery water services.

4.4 In February 2025, the Council considered an indicative business case and an accompanying report which set out the rationale for consulting on three water services delivery options. The three service delivery options were an in-house option, a council-controlled organisation for three waters and thirdly a two waters council-controlled organisation. The Council opted to use the alternative consultation procedure provided under the Act for its decision-making, including for the purposes of public consultation. It resolved to consult on the three models and identified the in-house delivery model as its “proposal” for public consultation.

4.5 The public was consulted from 7 March 2025 to 6 April 2025. A total of 612 responses were received. Of these 80% of the responses indicated their preference for retaining water services in-house.

4.6 In May 2025, the Council resolved to adopt an in-house water services delivery model for its WSDP.

Key requirements of a WSDP

4.7 The WSDP is a one-off, transitional requirement under the Act. It enables councils to demonstrate their commitment to delivering water services that meet regulatory standards, support growth and urban development and are financially sustainable. The WSDPs also serve to inform the Commerce Commission in developing the long-term economic regulation framework for water services.

4.8 The WSDPs must cover a ten-year period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2034. Councils must give effect to the proposals or undertakings relating to the future delivery of water services that are included in the WSDP.

4.9 The Act requires that WSDPs are adopted by Council resolution. Pursuant to section 18 of the
Act, the WSDP that is submitted to the Secretary for acceptance must include a certification by the Chief Executive that:

4.9.1 the WSDP complies with the Act, and

4.9.2 the information contained in the WSDP is true and accurate.

4.10 The required content for a WSDP (that is not a joint WSDP) is prescribed in section 13 of the Act. Section 13 has extensive requirements, and a WSDP must include the following information:

4.10.1 an explanation of how the revenue from, and delivery of, water services will be separated from the Council’s other functions and activities (‘ringfenced’);

4.10.2 an explanation of what the Council proposes to do to ensure that the delivery of water services will be financially sustainable by 30 June 2028; the Act defines “financially sustainable” as:

· the revenue applied to the Council’s delivery of those water services is sufficient to ensure the authority’s long-term investment in delivering water services; and

· the Council is financially able to meet all regulatory standards and requirements for its delivery of those water services, noting that to assess whether its WSDP is financially sustainable, the Council is required to provide information about three components: revenue sufficiency, investment sufficiency and financing sufficiency.

4.10.3 information about the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services in a Council’s district.

4.10.4 an implementation plan that sets out the process for delivering the proposed model or arrangements in the plan.

4.11 The Council consulted on the proposed model for delivering water services in its WSDP. Councils are not required to consult on their draft or final WSDP.

4.12 Once the WSDP is submitted, the Secretary must consider it and then accept the WSDP if satisfied it complies with the Act.

4.13 A project team was established to support the development of the WSDP. The team used various source documents (as outlined in paragraph 3.5) and incorporated input from staff across multiple service units, including asset management, asset planning, quality and compliance, monitoring and research team, strategic policy and resilience, business improvement and finance. Internal reviews have been undertaken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the WSDP prior to its submission to the DIA.

Overview of the WSDP and how it was developed

4.14 The DIA provided a WSDP template that could be used ‘as-is’. The template was designed to support councils develop compliant WSDP. The template details the current state of Christchurch’s water infrastructure, identifies future investment needs, and outlines the financial and operational strategies required to comply with current and anticipated regulatory standards set out under the LWDW reforms.

4.15 The WSDP is divided into different parts (refer Attachment A: Part A to Part F).

4.16 Part A provides an overview of water services delivery, the proposed delivery model and an implementation plan for the proposed delivery model. As Council’s proposed delivery method is to remain in-house, this reduces the transition required. However, to enhance delivery and comply with current and future regulatory requirements, certain steps are required. These are detailed in the implementation plan (which is part of the WSDP).

4.17 Part B provides an overview of the Council’s network assets and level of investment required over the 10-year period. This section details information on current state, condition and expected lifespan on water services infrastructure assets and provides an overview of regulatory compliance.

4.18 Part C details revenue, charging, funding and financing arrangements. It set outs the Council’s revenue requirements and sources, affordability of projected water services charges, water services financing requirements, borrowing arrangements, debt allocation and insurance arrangements.

4.19 Part D includes an explanation on what the Council proposes to do to ensure that the delivery of water services will be financially sustainable by 30 June 2028.

4.20 Part E Provides financial projections for water services covering financial years 2024/25 to 2033/2034.

4.21 Part F details any additional information such as significant capital projects, risks and assumptions for water services that have been included in the WSDP.

Summary of key points in WSDP

4.22 The Council will continue to deliver water services solely in-house. Water supply, wastewater, stormwater as well as flood protection will be delivered by the Water Services Business Unit.

4.23 Adopting the in-house model does not preclude the Council from considering a WSCCO or other more significant structural changes in the future. Once the WSDP is in place and the regulatory environment has settled, the Council will be better positioned to assess alternative models with greater clarity. This approach avoids the risks of premature or unnecessary structural change, while preserving the ability to make considered, evidence-based decisions at the appropriate time.

4.24 While the in-house water services delivery model has a lower borrowing cap, set at 280% of revenue compared to 500% for a WSCCO, the Council’s proportionately higher revenue base means its borrowing capacity remains robust and above what it could borrow through a WSCCO, based on its current water revenues. Financial modelling confirms that the Council is currently in a strong financial position, with sufficient headroom to support the forecast investment programme.

4.25 The proposed level of investment is fully funded by projected revenues and access to financing, is sufficient to meet expected levels of service, regulatory requirements and provide for growth. Water services asset investment ratio remains positive in all years of the WSDP, demonstrating the capital investment each year in water services assets exceeds the incurred depreciation expense.

4.26 The Council will continue to derive the majority of its revenue from Council rates with additional contributions from development fees.

4.27 The Council can afford day to day operations with projected water services revenues exceeding operating costs. This achievement in the operating surplus ratio is largely due to the Council’s Long-Term Strategy to increase to 100% rating renewals expenditure by 2032.

4.28 Revenue generated from water services will be ringfenced from other Council revenue streams by using cost objects and hierarchies, ensuring it is separately identifiable within the Council’s cost and budget ledgers. Implementation will follow a staged approach. While water services are already reported separately through activity statements, the Council will enhance the separation to make it more accessible and visible to support governance and management oversight. This will ensure that all revenues, costs, overheads, and surpluses associated with water services are applied exclusively to that activity.

4.29 The Council will undertake a range of initiatives to strengthen its water service delivery processes, ensuring compliance with current and future regulatory requirements and achieve financial sustainability by 30 June 2028. The implementation plan consists of several key tasks, including:

· Development of three plans which will drive performance improvements. These are the capital delivery asset management plan, the operating cost improvement plan and the maintenance strategy.

· Checking and adjusting service level agreements.

· Monitoring the Water Services Business Unit financial sufficiency requirements.

· Completing the water services operating model.

· Ensuring financial separation of water services i.e. ringfencing.

· Reviewing and updating asset data base.

· Completing and adopting a water services strategy.

· Implementing any operational and governance changes required.

· Implementing any other changes required under the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

4.30 The development of the WSDP also included related information session/workshops that have been delivered for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
12.08.2025	Council Briefing on Water Services Delivery Plan Update

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.31.1 Council adopts the WSDP – this is the recommended option.

4.31.2 Council declines to adopt the WSDP.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.32 Preferred Option: Council adopts the WSDP

4.32.1 Option Description: Council approves the submission of the WSDP to the Secretary.

4.32.2 Option Advantages

· The Council will meet the statutory deadline for submission no later than 3 September 2025.

· On the assumption the WSDP is accepted, the Council can work towards giving effect to the WSDP.

4.32.3 Option Disadvantages

· None identified.

4.33 Alternative Option

4.33.1 Option Description: Council declines to adopt the WSDP.

4.33.2 Option Advantages

· None identified.

4.33.3 Option Disadvantages

· Council will fail to meet the statutory of no later than 3 September 2025 for submitting its WSDP. Failure to meet the deadline may result in the Minister (for Local Government) exercising powers in relation to WSDP such as appointing a Crown facilitator or Crown Water Services Specialist.

· The attached WSDP reflects Council’s decision in May 2025, following public consultation. Consultation feedback showed approximately 80% support for the in-house delivery model, and a departure from this approach without clear justification could be perceived as inconsistent with the weight of public feedback and may raise concerns about Council’s responsiveness to community input.

· The implementation steps and financial sustainability measures outlined in the WSDP are projected to be achieved by 30 June 2028, based on the financial forecasts in the LTP, as amended by the 2025/26 Annual Plan. If the WSDP is not adopted, the Council’s LTP will require amendment to reflect an alternative approach to water services delivery

· Staff have completed an internal review of content in the WSDP against the requirements of the Act and DIA’s template, and declining would be inconsistent with these requirements.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The decisions outlined in this report do not result in additional capital or operational expenditure requirements to the Council, water services financial sustainability is projected to be achieved by 30 June 2028 within the existing financial projections included in the LTP as varied by the Annual Plan 2025/26.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risks and mitigations that relate to the recommendation in this report:

Risk	Description	Mitigation Measures
Failing to address requirements in the Act in response to LWDW	If the Secretary is not satisfied the WSDP meets legislative requirements, they can request the Council to amend and resubmit or decide not to accept the plan which may lead to Ministerial assistance or intervention i.e. appoint a Crown Facilitator to oversee plan development.	Using template provided by the DIA covering including financial models. Internal review of content against DIA template and Act’s requirements. Engaged with DIA as appropriate.
Failing to submit plans no later than 3 Sept 2025	Non submission breaches the Act’s requirement for councils to submit their WSDP no later than 3 September 2025.	Clear timeline set and monitored with internal submissions, reviews and council decisions required.

Risk

Description

Mitigation Measures

Failing to address requirements in the Act in response to LWDW

If the Secretary is not satisfied the WSDP meets legislative requirements, they can request the Council to amend and resubmit or decide not to accept the plan which may lead to Ministerial assistance or intervention i.e. appoint a Crown Facilitator to oversee plan development.

Using template provided by the DIA covering including financial models.

Internal review of content against DIA template and Act’s requirements.

Engaged with DIA as appropriate.

Failing to submit plans no later than 3 Sept 2025

Non submission breaches the Act’s requirement for councils to submit their WSDP no later than 3 September 2025.

Clear timeline set and monitored with internal submissions, reviews and council decisions required.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements Act 2024:

6.3.1 The WSDP is required under section 8 of the Act. The WSDP has been prepared to contain the information required by section 13.

6.3.2 Section 17 sets out that Councils must adopt a WSDP by resolution. Section 18 requires each WSDP that is submitted, to include certification from the Chief Executive that the WSDP complies with the Act and the information contained in the WSDP is true and accurate.

6.3.3 Section 22, the Council must give effect to the proposals or undertakings relating to the future delivery of water services in the Council’s WSDP.

Local Government (Water Services) Bill:

6.3.4 The Bill sets out the key details relating to the water service delivery system, the economic regulation and consumer protection regime and changes to the water quality regulatory framework. The Bill is currently at the Committee of Whole House stage. The Bill is therefore still subject to change. Staff are monitoring amendments as the Bill progresses through the House.

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. In particular, the following Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes are relevant:

· Our residents have shown trust and confidence in the Council through their support of the preferred water services delivery model remaining in-house.

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

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the potential number of residents affected across the district, potential number of businesses affected, current level of community interest and potential impact of the outcome on health, social and economic wellbeing.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Current legislation is in development in the form of the Local government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. Both may have future policy and strategy implications for Council.

6.5 The ring-fencing and financial separation of water services is inconsistent with the Council’s 2024–2034 Long Term Plan Financial Strategy, which evaluates the Council’s financial approach in its entirety. The new legislative framework now mandates the separation and ring-fencing of water service delivery, from the delivery of other Council services.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.6 The decisions in this report do not impact community. The community has been consulted on the proposed model, and alternative models, and arrangements for delivering water services.

6.7 The WSDP meets the legislative requirement to demonstrate publicly Councils commitment to deliver water services, noting that when the plan is accepted, it must be made publicly available on the Council’s website.

6.8 Council consulted on the proposed model for delivering its water services. The Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 does not require a territorial authority to consult on a draft or final water services delivery plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 The decision in this report involves a matter of interest to mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.10 The WSDP has implications for mana whenua, whose deep and enduring relationship with wai (water) is grounded in cultural, spiritual, and environmental values. Mana whenua have consistently expressed concerns that current water reforms fail to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, particularly in relation to tino rangatiratanga and genuine partnership. This is exemplified by the Ngāi Tahu High Court case, which seeks co-management of South Island freshwater resources, a clear assertion of rangatiratanga and the right to participate meaningfully in decision-making. The outcome of this case remains pending.

6.11 The legislation introduces structural and procedural changes, including ringfencing water services revenue, governance reviews, and new asset and financial systems which are reflected in the WSDP. These may unintentionally impact on mātauranga Māori and mana whenua identity.

6.12 While some engagement has occurred, feedback from mana whenua indicates that consultation to date has not met their expectations. Mana whenua have emphasised the need for continuous involvement throughout the reform process, not just as stakeholders, but as Treaty partners.

6.13 Staff will prioritise ongoing engagement with mana whenua throughout the implementation of the WSDP to embed their perspectives and values in future strategic planning. Mana Whenua have indicated a desire for co-designing governance structure options, recognition of mātauranga Māori in water management practices and building enduring relationships that enhance outcomes for wai (water), ngā tangata (people), and takiwā (place).

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report to adopt and submit the WSDP to the Secretary for Local Government do not have any climate change implications.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If Council supports the officer recommendations, the following next steps will be taken.

Date	Activity/event
20 Aug -1 Sept 2025	· Chief executive to provide certification on behalf of Council that the WSDP complies with the Act, and the information contained is true and accurate
2 Sept 2025	· WSDP submission to the Secretary of Local Government
Sept – October 2025	· Working with DIA regarding any further information about the WSDP as required
October – Dec 2025	· Receive WSDP decision
Dec-2025 (or as soon as reasonably practicable)	· Publish WSDP on Council website

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Water Services Delivery Plan (Under Separate Cover)	25/1622224

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters

Parul Sharma - Project Manager

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Mitchell Shaw - Reporting Accountant

Approved By

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

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

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

7. Development Contributions Policy 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1426631
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025.

1.2 The Council has previously received the written and oral submissions on the draft policy and resulting staff advice.

1.3 The Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA’) requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or financial contributions and to review it every three years. As the Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is due for review.

1.4 An earlier version of this report was first presented at the 24 June 2025 Council meeting. At this meeting, the Council resolved[2] to defer a decision on the draft policy until development contribution rebate schemes could be considered.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 Report.

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

3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report).

4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 September 2025.

5. Delegates to staff to correct any typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy 2025.

6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment is reduced under the 2025 policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. Developers that benefit from growth are charged a development contribution to reflect the principle that growth should pay for growth. If the Council does not collect development contributions that reflect the cost of growth, then any shortfall is paid for by ratepayers.

3.2 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or financial contributions. The Development Contributions Policy (‘the policy’) must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. This includes the policy being reviewed at least once every three years.

3.3 The policy has been under review since mid-2023. On 19 February 2025, the Council resolved to commence public consultation on the draft policy[3]. Consultation ran from 25 February to 26 March 2025 and submitters were heard between 3 and 15 April 2025 as part of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 process.

3.4 A post-consultation workshop was held with the Council on Monday 19 May where submitter feedback and staff advice were discussed. The workshop focused on issues where submitters requested changes to the policy. Elected member feedback has informed the final draft policy that is presented for adoption.

Policy changes reflect principle of averages

3.5 Many of the key policy changes proposed are designed to ensure the development contribution assessment provisions are aligned with the overarching principle of averaging.

3.6 The LGA provides for averaging or grouping of different development types. The policy is built on the assumed average demand for a range of development types and for most developments this averaging will be sufficient to determine a development contribution requirement.

3.7 The policy should only look to adjust when actual demand is either half or double assumed demand. This threshold aligns with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland Council objection decision. In this decision, the Commissioner accepted that that a 50% threshold was appropriate for demonstrating a substantial reduction in demand.

3.8 The current (2021) policy, however, provides several discounts when this threshold has not been met. The policy does not do the same for developments where actual demand is slightly higher than the averages. This approach has caused revenue leakages because the Council is reducing the development contribution requirements within the averages built into the policy. This means ratepayers are currently subsidising the cost of growth.

Growth projections and charges reflect a return to ‘normal’

3.9 Another change between the current and draft policies is the per-Household Unit Equivalent (‘HUE’) development contributions charges. Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to deliver the growth component of an asset by the number of new or additional households.

3.10 Overall, the charges in the draft policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy, however the 2021 charges were unusually low primarily due to a high rate of growth projected due to post-earthquake population shifts and changes in the district. The growth modelling that underpins the draft policy reflects a ‘return to normal’ growth patterns in the district. Consequently, the draft charges reflect a return to more normal development contributions charges and are in line with the pre-2021 charges.

Clear split in opinions between developers and non-developers

3.11 Forty-four submissions were received on the policy, most from developers or those associated with the development sector. With respect to the policy changes, there is a clear split in views between those submitters who have (developers) and those who have not (non-developers) paid development contributions before. This reflects the choice that the Council must make in deciding whether or not ratepayers should subsidise growth development or growth should pay for growth.

Incorporation of feedback into the draft policy

3.12 Staff have made changes to the draft policy as a result of feedback received from submitters and elected members. The proposed post-consultation changes are outlined in section 10 of this report. A track changes version of the final draft policy is included as Attachment B.

4. Follow up to 24 June Council meeting

4.1 The draft policy was presented for approval at the 24 June 2025 Council meeting. At this meeting, the Council resolved[4] to defer a decision on the draft policy until development contribution rebate schemes could be considered.

4.2 Elected members have previously received staff advice that the 2021 policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 Long Term Plan (‘LTP’). As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

4.3 Development contributions rebate schemes are also ratepayer funded because a rebate is the Council agreeing to waive a development contributions requirement to incentivise a desirable development type. Staff therefore advise that this policy should be adopted if the Council is to agree to any new rebate schemes. Otherwise, the Council would be providing rebates on top of development contributions charges that are currently too low to cover the cost of providing growth infrastructure.

Impact of capital programme deferrals on development contributions

4.4 At the 24 June meeting, elected members discussed the impact on development contributions of an Annual Plan 2025/26 decision to defer $70m worth of capital expenditure. Staff note most of these projects are not growth and are not in the 2025 policy. Any change to development contributions would likely be a very minor because the Council will still collect development contributions for the project as long as it stays in the capital programme.

4.5 Development contributions charges are directly tied to the Council’s investment and projects in the LTP capital programme. The development contributions model factors in when the asset will be delivered as part of the calculation of the charges. The model is designed to ensure total development contributions collected for the growth component of an asset equals the Council’s total costs after accounting for interest and inflation.

4.6 If a project were pushed out into a later LTP year, there may be a minor change to the development contributions charge for that project. The development contributions charge would not necessarily go down if a project is pushed out because the model uses inflation-adjusted capital expenditure figures for future projects.

4.7 If growth projects remain in the capital programme, which these projects do as they have been deferred not removed, staff are obligated to include them in the policy.

4.8 The policy review is not the avenue to add or remove projects from the capital programme. Nor are decisions made in the policy review about what projects will or will not be delivered.

4.9 Further, going forward it is intended to review the schedule of assets in the policy on an annual basis. This will ensure the schedule of assets in the policy remain relatively current.

5. Background/Context Te Horopaki

5.1 Under the LGA the Council is required to have a policy on development contributions (s102(2)(d)) and to review it every three years (s106(6)). The current policy was adopted in July 2021 and a review of the policy is required.

5.2 Development contributions enable the Council to recover a fair share of the cost of providing infrastructure to service growth development from those who benefit from the provision of that investment.

5.3 Development contributions are a cost recovery tool for the growth component of projects agreed to in the capital programme. If the Council did not recover these costs from development contributions, the costs would be recovered from rates.

5.4 The policy details the methodology used to establish development contribution charges per HUE, the resulting cost of those charges, the methodology used to assess a development for the level of development contributions required and various process requirements associated with operating a fair and consistent development contributions process.

6. Policy review process

6.1 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. The revenue is used to pay down debt taken out to initially fund the investment in growth infrastructure.

6.2 The policy has many discrete inputs, all of which must be reviewed as part of any policy review process. These include residential growth model, business growth model, transport growth model, capital expenditure programmes related to growth, interest and inflation rate forecasts and reviews of the numerous methodologies used as the basis for the calculation and assessment of development contributions.

6.3 In addition, this review process has included reviewing the use of catchments to calculate and assess development contributions. This review has also been an opportunity to evaluate the content and structure of the policy to improve clarity and legibility.

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

Date	Subject
22 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy
13 February 2025	Development Contributions Policy review
3 March 2025	Going for Housing Growth Pillar 2 - Infrastructure Funding and Financing Tools
15 April 2025	Development Contributions Policy Review
23 April 2025	Development Contributions Financial Information
15 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebates
22 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy - follow up to workshop
17 June 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

6.5 Ten information sessions/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
18 July 2023	Development Contributions Policy Review
28 November 2023	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
30 April 2024	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
13 August 2024	Council's Growth Model: Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme, Parks Network Planning, and Development Contributions
29 October 2024	Development Contributions Policy
26 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy – Draft Charges
4 February 2025	Draft Development Contributions - Catchments
18 March 2025	Changes to infrastructure funding and financing tools
6 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebates
19 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy Review - Summary of Submissions

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 In June 2024, early conversations with the Halswell Residents Association were had at their Councillor’s request. This particularly concerned how catchments work and growth components within transport projects.

7.2 Later that month, staff presented to the Property Council New Zealand South Island Regional Committee on all main policy changes. This was to give them a chance to ask questions face-to-face prior to public consultation opening.

7.3 Staff presented on or discussed the draft policy at several Developers’ Forums (as well as sending emails about consultation delays) from mid-2024 until consultation opened. At these meetings there was clear concern about the increase in development contribution costs.

7.4 Public consultation started on 25 February and ran until 26 March 2025.

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

· An email sent to over 420 identified stakeholders, including residents’ associations, developers, interest-groups, and Kōrero mai subscribers who requested to be notified when projects like this opened for feedback. A follow-up email one week before consultation closed was also sent to these stakeholders.

· A Newsline story was published, receiving 469 views. This was shared to Council’s Facebook page, where 10,741 accounts were reached and 1,153 users interacted (commented, interacted, clicked etc.).

· Consultation documents were available at all libraries and service centres.

7.6 The Kōrero mai | Let’s talk page had 1, 504 views throughout the consultation period.

7.7 Staff hosted a webinar on the consultation that was attended by 10 people at the time and has been viewed 126 times since.

Hearing of submissions

7.8 Submissions on the draft policy were heard alongside submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 in April 2025.

7.9 Submissions were heard by the full Council, chaired by the Mayor. The hearing was open to the public and livestreamed on the Council’s website.

Overview of submissions

7.10 Submissions were made by 11 recognised organisations, 18 businesses and 15 individuals. All submissions will be available on the Kōrero mai webpage.

7.11 Of the 44 submitters, 24 (55%) have previously paid development contributions or anticipate paying them within the next three years. 20 (45%) haven’t paid them and don’t expect to.

7.12 Overall, when asked whether submitters supported the Development Contributions Policy Review, 23% (10) said yes, 20% (9) somewhat, 27% (12) said no, and the remaining 30% (13) didn’t know or didn’t answer this question.

A pie chart with text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7.13 Submitters who have never paid development contributions and don't anticipate doing so were nearly twice as likely to support the policy review. Specifically, 30% of these submitters (6 out of 20) expressed support, compared to 17% of those who have paid (4 out of 24).

7.14 A thematic analysis of submissions is available in section 8.

Council workshop on consultation feedback

7.15 A workshop was held on submissions and proposed post-consultation changes on Monday 19 May.

7.16 At the workshop, elected members were informed on matters related to consultation, feedback from submitters on the draft policy and resulting staff advice. Elected members had the opportunity to provide feedback to staff as to their preferred policy positions and to ask questions and seek clarification on the policy and associated issues.

8. Principles of Setting and Calculating Development Contributions

Background - principles of averaging

8.1 The LGA allows for the use of averaging by development types. This means developments within a development type category will be assessed as having the same level of demand, regardless of individual variations.

8.2 A HUE is the unit of demand used in the policy to calculate development contributions charges and determine the development contributions requirement for each development. A HUE represents the average demand a household places on Council infrastructure and it is assumed that all single households place this level of demand on Council infrastructure. This is an efficient method of assessing development contributions for residential development. Non-residential developments are assessed as a proportion of the HUE.

8.3 The policy assumes the average household contains 2.6 people, which is consistent with the growth modelling used in the LTP 2024-34.

8.4 The base unit measures for the HUE are outlined in clause 3.2.1 of the draft policy and are summarised below. The base units are updated as part of each policy review to ensure an accurate reflection of average household demand.

Activity	Demand per HUE
Water supply	644.30 litres per day
Wastewater	572 litres per day
Stormwater and Flood Protection	367 m²impervious surface area (ISA)
Transport	6.35 vehicle trips per day

Background - Special assessments

8.5 The policy is based on average demand for a range of development types. Development contributions required for non-residential development are calculated as a multiple of the HUE. For the transport, water supply and wastewater activities the development contribution requirement is calculated according to the average demand on infrastructure per square metre of gross floor area (‘GFA’) by business type. For stormwater and flood protection the development contribution is calculated according to the impervious surface area (‘ISA’) of the development. The non-residential HUE equivalences (also referred to as HUE multipliers) are detailed in Part 8 of the draft policy.

8.6 For most developments, the use of the HUE equivalences will be appropriate to determine a development contribution requirement. There will be some developments, however, where actual demand is significantly different to the demand assumptions built into the policy. In these instances, the Council will undertake a special assessment or an actual demand assessment.

8.7 The threshold for a special assessment is when actual demand is half or double what is built into the policy. This aligns with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland Council objection decision. In this decision, the Commissioner accepted that that a 50% threshold was appropriate for demonstrating a substantial reduction in demand.

8.8 The draft policy did not propose to remove the special assessment provision from the policy. Some submitters appeared to confuse special assessments and remissions, but these are quite different issues in the policy. Issues related to remissions are detailed below.

9. Submission feedback and workshop discussion

Residential unit adjustments

9.1 The Council assesses each residential unit at a base rate of 1 HUE. However, there will be circumstances where actual demand is half or double assumed demand and therefore it is appropriate to provide a residential unit adjustment.

9.2 Providing some kind of adjustment for small and/or large residential units is common across development contributions policies. Councils across New Zealand have taken a range of approaches to providing these adjustments.

9.3 The Council has used GFA to make small residential unit adjustments since 2007. However, there is no data that correlates the GFA of a residential unit with number of usual residents or with demand on infrastructure. In 2024, 45% of building consents were for homes less than 100m². This means the Council is providing a discount for close to half of all new homes, which is not what the policy is intended to do.

9.4 Census data shows that the greater the number of bedrooms in a residential unit the more people are likely living in it. The more usual residents in a residential unit, the greater level of demand on Council services.

Average number of usual residents per dwelling type as at Census 2023

Dwelling type	One bedroom	Two bedrooms	Three bedrooms	Four bedrooms	Five bedrooms	Six bedrooms	Seven bedrooms	Eight bedrooms
Average residents	1.36	1.82	2.56	3.19	3.83	4.80	5.07	5.10

9.5 The draft policy proposes to move to bedroom-based adjustments as a result.

Small residential unit adjustment

9.5.1 What was consulted on: The draft policy proposed moving to a residential unit adjustment based on bedrooms and keeping a small unit adjustment for one-bedroom residential units only. This will ensure that the Council only adjusts for developments that fall outside the assumptions built into the policy.

9.5.2 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on change to small unit adjustment. Five submitters supported the change, eight were opposed and three expressed mixed views. Several submitters also requested the Council introduce an adjustment for two-bedroom units. Two submitters asked that the small unit adjustment just be applied to developments in the central city.

9.5.3 Staff advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average one-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 1.36 usual residents living in it. As an average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put half the average demand on Council infrastructure.

9.5.4 With respect to a two-bedroom adjustment, 2023 Census data confirms that the average two-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 1.82 people, which does not meet the threshold for a special assessment under the policy. If a change were to be made, the large residential unit adjustment would need to come down, either to four or five bedrooms, to reflect that an adjustment has been made within the averages and ensure the Council continues to recover the cost of growth from new development. This would increase the administrative complexity of the policy and staff do not recommend making this change.

9.5.5 There is no data that would support having a one-bedroom adjustment just for central city developments.

9.5.6 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the small residential unit adjustment as proposed.

9.5.7 Recommendation for final policy: One-bedroom residential units will be assessed at 0.6 HUE for all activities.

Large residential unit adjustment

9.5.8 What was consulted on: The draft policy introduced a large residential unit adjustment for dwelling types of seven or more bedrooms assessed at 1.4 HUE. This was intended to ensure the development contribution charge better reflects the usually higher demand on infrastructure from larger homes.

9.5.9 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on the change to the large residential unit adjustment with two supporting, four opposed and three expressing mixed views. Some submitters questioned whether the threshold should be lower or whether the adjustment should increase with each additional bedroom.

9.5.10 Staff advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average seven-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 5.07 usual residents living in it. As an average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put double the average demand on Council infrastructure.

9.5.11 Some submitters also asked whether the adjustment could be for 0.4 per additional room. 0.4 HUE is effectively the equivalent of one person so the Council could add 0.4 per additional room for seven bedrooms and over. However, census data does not support this change; eight-bedroom homes have only a slightly higher number of residents compared to seven-bedroom homes. The overall impact of a change like this is likely to be minimal given the small number of dwellings of this size in the district. Therefore, staff did not recommend this change.

9.5.12 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the large residential unit adjustment as proposed.

9.5.13 Recommendation for final policy: Houses with seven or more bedrooms are charged an additional 0.4 HUE for all activities except for stormwater.

Stormwater discounts

9.6 The Council currently provides two reductions for stormwater activity. Both are out of alignment with the special assessment threshold in the policy and the draft proposed changes to bring the assessment of the stormwater activity back into line with the overall principle of averages as discussed in section 7.

Developer provided infrastructure

9.6.1 What was consulted on: The draft policy provides that stormwater reductions will only be provided in instances where developers provide on-site stormwater mitigation and the resulting demand on Council infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy. This would see relatively minor adjustments (such as for the installation of a rainwater tank) cease.

9.6.2 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on the proposal to bring stormwater adjustments for developer provided infrastructure into line with the special assessment provisions of the policy as outlined in paragraphs 7.5 – 7.7. Four submitters supported the change, six were opposed and two expressed mixed views

9.6.3 Staff advice in workshop: The change is intended to bring stormwater adjustments into line with the rest of the policy. The Council will still undertake a special assessment if the development exerts a level of demand on infrastructure that will be significantly different from the level of assumed demand in the policy for that type of development.

9.6.1 Staff follow a set methodology to determine degree to which demand on the Council's network has been mitigated by the developer provided infrastructure. Each relevant development is reviewed using this methodology.

9.6.2 Staff note that on occasion, developer-provided infrastructure is vested with the Council, but the assessment receives a stormwater discount of less than 50% due to the level of mitigation provided. Council may consider it fair to include a provision for these sites to still receive a stormwater adjustment due to the asset being vested.

9.6.3 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result of infill development. Staff discussed the strategies, standards and programmes in place to manage stormwater in infill areas.

9.6.4 Recommendation for final policy: In instances where developers provide stormwater infrastructure, a special assessment will be done only when the demand on Council stormwater infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy.

9.6.5 An additional provision is proposed to allow for a reduction in the stormwater development contributions assessment for developments where stormwater infrastructure is vested with the Council regardless of whether the mitigation provided has reached the threshold for a special assessment. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Stormwater discount for attached multi-unit developments

9.6.6 What was consulted on: The draft policy proposed the Council cease providing a stormwater discount for developments with at least two attached multi-units on this basis that the ISA averages built into the policy already takes into account smaller residential units and changing development patterns.

9.6.7 All base unit demand assumptions have been updated as part of this review. Average ISA per site (parcel) has been reduced from 427m² to 367m² as a result. This reflects the changing development patterns and increased intensification.

9.6.8 A special assessment would still be triggered if the threshold is met in line with the special assessment provisions of the policy.

9.6.9 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters commented on the proposal to remove the multi-unit adjustment for stormwater. Submitters presented mixed views - two supported the change, five opposed it and three expressed a mixed view.

9.6.10 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result of infill development and questioned whether there should be any discounts provided for multi-unit developments.

9.6.11 Staff advice in workshop: Staff noted that under the broader principles of the policy, the Council would still need to provide some kind of actual demand assessment for developments where actual ISA was less than half of the ISA assumptions built into the policy. Staff suggested a compromise would be to change the provision so that if the special assessment threshold is met, multi-unit developments will be assessed as though the entire site is impervious (as opposed to using the ISA stated on the plans).

9.6.12 Recommendation for final policy: The assessment for the stormwater activity will be undertaken using the HUE multipliers outlined in paragraph 7.4 of this report. If the assessment results in assumed demand (ISA) that is more than double the area of the development site, the development site will instead be assessed as though it is 100% impervious. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Remissions

9.7 What was consulted on: The current policy includes a clause that provides for the Council to remit some or all development contribution charges for a development in “unique and compelling circumstances”. The original intent of this clause was to allow for the Council to address a matter directly associated with the development contributions charge. The clause is being used more widely with developers appealing to the Council to remit development contributions charges for a range of reasons including that the organisation applying provides services to the community.

9.8 The remission provision was removed from the draft policy.

9.9 An alternative remission provision was also drafted and included in the consultation material. The alternative clause clarified that it is the development itself (not the developer or future occupier of the site) that must be unique, and that the development must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement does not create a new precedent.

9.10 Feedback from submitters: Thirteen submitters commented on the removal of the remissions provision. There were mixed views on removing remission clause with some submitters confusing remissions and special assessments, and some confusing remissions and rebates. Submitters did not express a preference for one remission clause over the other.

9.11 Staff advice in workshop: The term ‘remission’ is used differently by different councils in their development contributions policies. The Council's policy uses the term ‘remission’ to refer to the Council intervening on a development contributions assessment when there is something about the development that has not been considered in drafting the policy and therefore the Council considers it necessary to address an aspect of the assessment via a remission.

9.12 However, many councils use the term 'remission' to refer to an actual demand remission - where demand is materially different to the assumed demand built into the policy. The Council's policy refers to this as a special assessment.

9.13 There is no proposal to remove the ability for developers to seek a special assessment (or actual demand assessment) provided that the threshold is met (of actual demand being half assumed demand).

9.14 Noting the feedback received on remissions, more generally, staff proposed the Council adopt the inclusion of the alternative remission clause.

9.15 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the proposal to use the alternative remission clause.

9.16 Recommendation for final policy: The alternative remission clause be included in the policy. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Life of existing demand credits

9.17 What was consulted on: The Council position has been to limit the life of existing use credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired in the last four years on buildings and sites of former buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in the central city. This issue was reconsidered as part of this review and the policy retained the ten-year life of existing demand credits.

9.18 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters commented on the life of existing demand credits. Eight submitters asked that the life of credits clause be extended either to 20 years or indefinitely. Two submitters supported retention of the current provision.

9.19 Staff advice in workshop: There is no explicit requirement under the LGA to provide existing demand credits. The Department of Internal Affairs provides guidance[5] on developing development contributions policies. While the guidance does not provide direction of how to set existing demand credit policy provisions, it does contemplate that councils might limit the life of credits based on when previous demand was exerted on a site

“The DCP should specify conditions that must be met before historic credits will be granted. Commonly used criteria relate to:

· The land or building currently generating a demand for the relevant service, possibly setting limits on how far back in time the council will look to consider previous development and uses. The land or building currently generating a demand for the relevant service, possibly setting limits on how far back in time the council will look to consider previous development and uses”.

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

9.21 The Council provides credits to assess for net additional demand, promote equity and encourage timely redevelopment.

9.22 The LGA requires the Council to manage its infrastructure assets in a way that promotes prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of assets. Providing existing demand credits requires the Council to effectively “reserve” infrastructure capacity and guarantee infrastructure capacity (which developers would not be required to pay for) for the life of the credits. This creates increased risk for Council the longer the credit is in place but unused.

9.23 Managing that risk would require the Council to operate its infrastructure in such a way as to always carry capacity sufficient to honour the credits. This means infrastructure would need to have a high level of unused capacity sitting waiting for redevelopment to again take up capacity once used at some point in the past. This is not an efficient or prudent way to manage infrastructure and will result in other ratepayers carrying the cost of having that capacity available.

9.24 In terms of actual asset planning, the Council does not reserve capacity – capacity operates on a first-in-first-served basis. Once a site stops exerting demand on Council infrastructure, that capacity is diverted elsewhere. Therefore, the policy is more generous than asset planning. Existing demand credits are a concession the Council makes in a funding policy only.

9.25 The current policy setting, where existing demand credits expire after ten years strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely, being fair to ratepayers in that a liability to provide infrastructure to service these lots is not in place forever and being fair to developers in recognising that development has occurred on a site previously.

9.26 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, a question was asked about the rationale to limit the life of existing demand credits and what approaches were taken by other councils. Staff advised that other councils have taken a range of approaches from providing no existing demand credits through to providing for credits to have a perpetual life.

9.27 Staff also noted that walking back a change to existing demand credits would be very difficult and advised that a rebate scheme would be a sensible way to deal with central city sites. Work on a rebate for existing demand credits is being progressed separately.

9.28 Recommendation for final policy: Existing demand credits expire 10 years after a site last exerts demand on Council infrastructure.

Fee for development contributions assessments

9.29 What was consulted on: The draft policy included a provision for the Council to charge a fee for development contributions assessments.

9.30 Feedback from submitters: Submitters presented mixed views on the Council charging a fee for development contributions assessments. Seven submitters were opposed, although several submitters appear to be mistaking the fee for the Development Contributions Team to complete an assessment with development contributions charges. Six were supportive of the proposal.

9.31 Staff advice in workshop: The proposed fee for development contributions assessments is a one-off, flat fee charged at invoicing. It was included in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 fees and charges and is $100 including GST.

9.32 The fee remains the same regardless of how many times a developer or their agent contacts the Development Contributions Team or whether the assessment is amended or revised. The Development Contributions Team time is not charged for as part of a building and/or resource consent application; it is currently paid for by rates only.

9.33 It is fair that the cost of preparing a development contributions assessment is funded by the developer because they both benefit from the assessment of their development and cause the assessment to be required through submitting their development for consent.

9.34 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the fee for development contributions assessments as proposed.

9.35 Recommendation for final policy: At the time of invoicing, a fee to cover the cost for the Council to administer the development contribution assessment will be invoiced alongside the development contribution requirement. The development contribution assessment fee is set out in the Council’s schedule of fees and charges.

HUE equivalences/multipliers

9.36 What was consulted on: A range of changes have been made to the HUE equivalences or HUE multipliers, most notably the policy reverts to using a land or activity-based methodology for transport activities. The HUE equivalences cover a range of land-use types and are outlined in Part 8 of the policy (Tables 4, 6 and 8).

9.37 Feedback from submitters: Three submitters opposed the proposed HUE equivalences for residential units and care suites in retirement villages. One submitter opposed the changes to activity-based HUE multipliers. Another submitter requested all non-residential assessments be conducted as actual demand assessments.

9.38 Staff advice in workshop: The retirement village HUE equivalences are based on stated average occupancy of 1.3 in a unit in an objection to the Council in addition to the Ryman objection decision. Staff have previously completed a survey of all retirement villages and confirmed the average water use was accurate and are therefore comfortable with this HUE equivalence.

9.39 It was also noted the retirement village community facilities are not assessed for development contributions and these facilities are assessed as ancillary to the residential spaces.

9.40 Staff agreed with submitters that residential units in retirement villages could be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity.

9.41 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, staff were asked why industrial, and warehousing and logistics development types were separated in the policy. Staff advised the decision was made to separate the industrial and warehousing/logistics categories, recognising the growth in warehouse-based activities and the differing demands these sectors place on land use and Council services.

9.42 Recommendation for final policy: Residential units to be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity. Several clarifications are recommended for Table 4 of the policy; these are outlined in section 10 of the report. No other changes recommended for the HUE equivalence or land-use types.

Active Travel and Public Transport catchments

9.43 What was consulted on: No changes were proposed to the Active Travel and Public Transport catchments between the current and draft policies.

9.44 Feedback from submitters: One submitter requested the public transport catchment be amended to include Marshland Road. One submitter requested that Templeton be included in the active travel catchment.

9.45 One submitter felt that Lyttleton should be excluded from active travel.

9.46 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors asked why Marshlands Road was excluded from the Active Travel catchment and why Templeton was not part of the Public Transport catchment.

9.47 Recommendation for final policy: Staff have made small changes to the Active Travel and Public Transport catchments to reflect submitter and elected member feedback. The final catchment maps are included in Appendix 3 of the policy.

9.48 As active travel includes footpaths and cycleways, it is fair Lyttleton is included in this catchment.

Development contributions charges

9.49 Feedback from submitters: Some developers submitted that the increase in charges may impact the viability of developments and affordability of new homes.

9.50 Staff advice: Development contributions is a cost recovery tool for the growth component of projects that are in the Council’s capital programme. Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to the growth component of an asset by projected growth.

9.51 The overall capital programme increased from $5.78B in 2021 to $6.51B in 2024. The cost of the growth component of those projects also increased – from $730M in 2021 to $923M in 2024.

9.52 The 2024 growth forecast has a slower rate of growth in all aspects compared to 2021 (an average 0.52% per annum over 30 years compared to 2.06% in 2021). Growth projections that informed the 2021 policy were significantly higher than in the previous policies due to post-earthquake population shifts and changes in the district. Statistics New Zealand’s projections that have informed the 2025 policy reflect the ‘return to normal’ growth patterns in the district.

9.53 The increase in growth capital expenditure, combined with slower growth projections compared to the 2021 LTP, has resulted in development contributions charges that are higher than in the 2021 policy. These charges are, however, in line with pre-2021 charges.

9.54 While the charges in the 2025 policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy, the 2021 charges were unusually low. If Council were to set development contributions lower than what is contained in this policy this would require ratepayers across the district to meet the cost of the foregone revenue.

9.55 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no feedback on the development contributions charges.

9.56 Recommendation for final policy: Development contributions charges are outlined in Appendix 1 of the policy.

10. Submitter feedback on issues not discussed at workshop

Neighbourhood Parks and Road Network catchments

10.1 What was consulted on: The policy proposed to move the neighbourhood parks and road network catchments from a concentric configuration to localised catchments.

10.2 Feedback from submitters: There was overall support for the move to localised catchments, but some submitters requested that the catchments be made smaller.

10.3 Staff advice: Smaller catchments increase the complexity of developing and operating the policy and the range of per-HUE charges across those catchments also tends to increase, which may have unintended consequences for funding growth. Some small catchments may pay very high, targeted contributions, while others may pay very low contributions, depending on how the catchments are drawn.

10.4 Additionally, the risk of under-recovering the cost of growth infrastructure increases with smaller catchments especially if modelling has not allocated growth in the correct places. Overall, the smaller the catchments, the greater the risk of error in the policy. This risk is reflected in the number and size of the catchments for these activities.

10.5 Recommendation for final policy: No changes to Neighbourhood Parks and Road Network catchments

Three Waters catchments

10.6 What was consulted on: The policy proposed to move to fewer and larger catchments for the three waters activities.

10.7 Feedback from submitters: There was mixed support for these catchments, with two opposed, two supportive and one suggesting sub-catchments may be required.

10.8 Staff advice: Before 2021, water supply and wastewater activities were grouped into a district-wide catchment. The 2025 policy proposes to return to larger catchments for these activities to address several issues.

10.8.1 Nature of water infrastructure in the district: The Council has a unique integrated water network which isn’t necessarily reflected in our current catchments. The new catchments better reflect the Council’s integrated delivery of water services. Additionally, infrastructure within the urban catchment is interconnected within the city and three waters projects generally benefit the related wider infrastructure network.

10.8.2 Unpredictable growth and need to be responsive: The Council’s capital spending for growth-related three waters infrastructure will need to become more dynamic, reacting to patterns of intensification. Around two-thirds of all new residential development is occurring in infill areas, and it is likely this trend will continue. There is a lack of certainty with respect to where that growth is going to occur

10.8.3 Whilst three waters infrastructure plans consider growth for the next 50 years, LTP growth funding is allocated 10 years in advance with specific projects identified every three years. Development contributions based on smaller catchments may cause under collection for growth provision not yet ring-fenced in the LTP. Furthermore, because infrastructure plans are not fully aligned with the LTP funding period, there may be misalignment when LTP provision has not yet been made for development triggering upgrades. A grouped catchment will ensure that development contributions are collected from all new development on a fair and equitable basis.

10.9 Recommendation for final policy: No changes to Three Waters catchments

Pause review

10.10 Feedback from submitters: A number of submitters suggested the Council pause the review the of the Development Contributions Policy with some submitters stating development levies would be coming in in September 2025 and implying the draft policy, if adopted, would only be in effect for a few months. This is not correct. The Government has indicated legislation will be introduced in September 2025 and will be enacted by mid-2026. Levies will come into effect from mid-2027.

10.11 Staff advice: Until new legislation is enacted, councils have a legislative requirement to have a policy on development contributions and to review it every three years. The Council’s current Development Contributions Policy was adopted in July 2021, and it is due for review.

10.12 The current policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 LTP. As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

10.13 Recommendation for review: Staff do not recommend the policy review be paused.

Other comments made during hearing of submissions

Accuracy of technical inputs

10.14 During the hearing of submissions, some submitters questioned the accuracy of the cost allocations/capital programme.

Growth projections

10.14.1 The growth inputs for the policy are based on the Statistics New Zealand medium population and household growth scenarios. This is consistent with past development contributions policies. Christchurch has historically tracked very closely to the medium projections, and they remain a good indication of future growth.

10.14.2 The Council’s growth models are used to distribute future growth to a sub-city level. These models are all connected and talk to each other, to tell a consistent growth story. The growth models have been peer-reviewed by external agencies and have been found to be fit for purpose

10.14.3 The models consider both intensification and greenfield development. The capacity inputs into the model include a picture of both infill and greenfield capacity.

Cost allocations for capital projects

10.14.4 The cost allocation process, which identifies the growth component of each asset is outlined in Part 6 of the draft policy. Council staff review each capital project and determine the allocation of cost drivers: renewal, backlog, increase in current level of service or growth. Only the cost of infrastructure to service growth is funded from development contributions. The cost allocation methodology takes account of causation (the reason the asset is being provided), as well as who benefits from the project. The methodology to determine the exact allocation between the cost drivers varies between the activities.

10.14.5 The capital programme, and the projects to be delivered for which the Council collects development contributions, has been informed by the 2024 growth model. The cost allocations for projects not yet delivered, therefore, reflect projected growth. Projects that have already been delivered (that is, are noted as 'complete' in the Schedule of Assets) remain unchanged.

Trigger to assess for development contributions

10.15 One submitter commented that the Council has an incorrect trigger to assess for development contributions in the draft policy.

10.16 Section 198(2A) of the LGA requires councils assess for development contributions under the policy in force at the time the consent/authorisation application was submitted, accompanied by all required information. Section 4.1.3 confirms the Council will assess using the policy in force at the time the complete application for consent is received.

10.17 The developer will be formally notified of their development contribution requirement as part of the granting of the consent application.

11. Incorporation of feedback into the draft policy

11.1 The consultation and hearing process allowed submitters to share their insights, comments and suggestions with the Council about the policy proposals. As a result of these considerations, staff have incorporated the following items into the draft policy:

11.1.1 Clause 3.2.4 (4): “The development provides infrastructure to be vested with the Council, which reduces the impact of the development’s demand on Council stormwater infrastructure, prior to discharge into the Council network”.

11.1.2 Clause 3.2.5: “Residential units in retirement villages and care suites are assessed for development contributions as set out in Table 4”.

11.1.3 Clause 5.6: “The Council considers that there may be a development that is so unique it has not been anticipated by the policy, so much so that the Council considers the full development contribution assessment to be unfair and unable to be remedied under the provision of a special assessment.

The development, itself, must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement would not create a new precedent in terms of the Council’s current interpretation and application of the policy.

In these cases, the Council may, at its sole discretion, consider and grant a full or partial remission of development contributions in cases where it is satisfied this threshold has been met.

The developer must write to the Chief Executive seeking a remission and explaining how the development has met this threshold and why the Council should grant a full or partial remission in the interest of fairness. The explanation must be specific to the development (not the developer or intended future occupier) and the features of the development that make it unique”.

11.1.4 Table 4: Footnote: “Community facilities within a retirement village for the predominant use of residents and their guests are not subject to a development contribution requirement”.

11.1.5 Table 4: 0.1 HUE reserve assessment for retirement units.

11.1.6 Table 4: Care suites are not charged for the community infrastructure activity.

11.2 At the 19 May 2025 workshop, elected members expressed concern about providing discounts for attached multi-unit developments, citing the importance of stormwater infrastructure in managing the impact of increased intensification in infill areas. The following has been added to the draft policy:

11.2.1 3.2.2.5: “Developments of two or more attached residential units on a single lot will be assessed for the stormwater and flood protection based on the HUE rates outlined in section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. If assessed HUEs result in ISA that is more than double the area of the development site, the development site will instead be assessed as though it is 100% impervious”.

11.3 On review of the final draft policy, staff considered the wording of 3.2.4 could be amended to better reflect the description of the tables contained in Part 8 of the policy.

11.3.1 Clause 3.2.4: Where a development is not consistent with the land use or business type as detailed in Part 8 of the policy the Council may require a special assessment for development contributions for the activities considered to be outside the expected demand. Situations where this may be required include:

1. Where the type of development proposed is not adequately covered by Tables 4, 6 and 8.

2. Where the demand for an activity from the development is expected to be more than double the value identified as average for that type of development as set out in Tables 4, 6 and 8.

……

A developer may ask the Council to consider undertaking a special assessment if:

The development is expected to place less than half the assumed demand on infrastructure for the value identified as average for that type of development as set out in Tables 4, 6 and 8.

12. Transitional provision

12.1 Staff note the policy may result in lower development contributions charges for some Akaroa Harbour developments compared to the 2021 policy. Charges for Akaroa Harbour under the 2021 policy are $68,189.73 including GST compared to $44,083.25 including GST under the 2025 policy.

12.2 Section 198 (2A) of the LGA requires the Council to undertake its assessment of development contribution requirement under the development contributions policy in place at the time it receives a complete application for resource consent, building consent or authorisation to connect to Council infrastructure.

12.3 Given the difference in the development contributions requirements in Akaroa between the two policies, there is risk that developers may surrender consents and then reapply for consent to trigger a new development contribution assessment under the 2025 policy. This is an inefficient use of Council consenting resources.

12.4 Clause 4.1.5 of the policy provides for a remission of the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous policy and the 2025 policy where the charge is less under the 2025 policy. A remission is only available where the developer could lawfully surrender a resource consent or building consent and reapply for consent and thereby trigger a requirement for a new development contribution assessment under the 2025 policy.

12.5 The development would still be assessed under the provisions of the relevant policy in accordance with section 198(2A) of the LGA, it would just receive the benefit of the lower per-HUE charge.

13. Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

13.1.1 Adopt the draft policy.

13.1.2 Decline to adopt the policy.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

13.2 Preferred Option: Adopt the draft policy.

13.2.1 Option Description: The Council would resolve to adopt the draft policy.

13.2.2 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflect current capital costs required to service growth development. It also provides an opportunity to make updates to the policy provisions.

13.2.3 Option Disadvantages

· Charges would increase for most development types under the new charges. However, these new charges accurately reflect the cost to Council to service growth infrastructure.

13.3 Decline to adopt the policy.

13.3.1 Option Description: The Council would resolve to not adopt the draft policy and direct staff to continue working on the review.

13.3.2 Option Advantages

· This option would benefit developers who would continue to be assessed for development contributions under the 2021 policy, which contains significantly lower than average charges.

13.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· The 2021 development contributions charges do not accurately reflect the Council’s current costs to service growth development. This option therefore disadvantages ratepayers who would cover the difference between the Council’s actual costs to provide growth infrastructure and the charges developers are paying under the current policy.

· This does not comply with the legislative requirement to review the policy every three years.

14. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

14.1 Cost to Implement – The cost of reviewing the policy and undertaking community engagement is funded through existing operational budgets. This work has been undertaken over more than one year and is funded as a general cost of business rather than a discrete cost attributed to the project.

14.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Annual policy and administration costs vary depending on the policy work required and the level of development needing to be assessed.

14.3 Funding Source – The cost of preparing and administering the policy comes from the general rate. The policy proposes to charge an administration fee at invoicing stage to cover some of the costs associated with administering this policy. In the previous 12 months, 900 development contributions invoices were issued, so the anticipated revenue associated with this fee is around $90,000.

15. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

15.1 Development contributions can be a litigious area of local government activity often with significant financial implications for developers and councils. Because of this there is a significant body of case law regarding what can and cannot be done under the provisions of a development contributions policy.

15.2 As with any decision made by the Council, there is a risk of judicial review. The policy (or parts of it) could be quashed by the High Court if the policy is challenged and the Court finds the decisions made relating to the policy are unlawful or procedurally unfair. This is a risk of any decision made by Council, but one that can be minimised as much as possible by ensuring that the policy has been through a stringent review process and that the Council adheres to an appropriate and fair consultation process.

15.3 The Council’s Legal Services Team has provided advice throughout the policy development process including full review of the proposed policy to ensure the review and resulting policy reflect legislative requirements.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

15.4.1 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions.

15.4.2 The policy must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Council to review its development contributions policy at least once every three years.

15.5 Other Legal Implications:

15.5.1 This report and the policy have been reviewed and approved by the Council’s Legal Services Team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

15.6 The required decisions:

15.6.1 Do align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, particularly the strategic priorities to manage ratepayers' money wisely and actively balance the needs of today's residents with the needs of future generations.

15.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the requirement to pay development contributions.

15.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular the decisions support the Council’s approach to funding the provision of infrastructure to service growth development outlined in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

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

15.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

15.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

15.9 Consultation on the draft policy was undertaken in in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the LGA. Consultation and submitter feedback is outlined in section 6 of this report.

15.10 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

15.13 This is a funding policy. The Council had a development contributions rebate scheme for Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga developments, but the rebate scheme sits outside the scope of this policy.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

15.16 The policy details how the Council will fund infrastructure to service growth development. Climate change considerations are dealt with outside the scope of this policy.

16. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

16.1 If adopted by the Council, the policy will come into effect from 1 September 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	25/1145731
b ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)	25/1145732

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

8. Development Contributions Rebate Schemes
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1426931
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst Hannah Ballantyne, Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of the outcome of the engagement taken on development contributions rebate schemes for development in the central city, and for the Council to make a decision whether to adopt the schemes.

1.2 The first scheme provides a rebate for the expired existing demand credits on central city sites where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024. There is an option for the Council to extend this to all sites within the Four Avenues.

1.3 The second scheme provides a rebate for central city development, where the residential component comprises at least six storeys.

1.4 This work has been undertaken to respond to a request from elected members indicating an interest in considering rebate schemes alongside the review of the Development Contributions Policy. The schemes reflect the preferences indicated by elected members in workshops with staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

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

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

3. Agrees to adopt the existing demand credit rebate scheme (Attachment A of this report).

4. Agrees to adopt the central city high density residential rebate scheme (Attachment B of this report).

5. Delegates to the General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services authority to approve the final scheme criteria documents to reflect any changes requested.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

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

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

3.3 Elected members provided guidance to staff on their rebate preferences on Tuesday 6 May and Monday 19 May 2025. As a result, two draft rebates were prepared:

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

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

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

3.5 On Wednesday 18 June 2025, the Council resolved[6] to commence consultation on the draft schemes. Consultation ran from 23 June to 14 July 2025. Forty submissions were received on the proposed schemes.

3.6 The Council heard from submitters on Tuesday 5 August 2025. At this meeting, elected members also discussed the feedback and proposed schemes with staff. As there was no consensus with respect to elected member views, the proposed schemes are presented for consideration without amendment.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development Contributions Policy and rebate schemes

4.5 Rebates sit outside the policy and are only intended to encourage certain development types. They are not designed to ‘fix’ elements of the policy and their existence should not be perceived as such. While elected members have asked for rebates to be considered alongside the policy, staff advice is that the two are separate matters.

4.6 Elected members have previously received staff advice that the 2021 policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

4.7 As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

4.8 Staff do not recommend adopting development contributions rebates schemes without adopting the 2025 policy. To do so would mean the Council is undercutting its development contributions revenue twice – first by continuing with unusually low charges and then by waiving development contributions requirements on top of that.

4.9 If the policy is adopted with any amendments extending the expiry of existing demand credits, then the rebate scheme would become superfluous, and staff recommend that the rebate scheme for expired existing demand credits in the central city not be adopted.

5. Proposed rebate schemes

Rebate for expired existing demand credits in central city (Attachment A)

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

5.2 The Council has limited the life of existing demand credits since 2006. Initially existing demand credits had a life of five years and had to have been paid for. In 2007, the Council rewrote the policy with a working group of councillors and developers. The expiry of credits was then changed to ten years and the requirement removed for development contributions to have been paid for previously.

5.3 The policy does not require development contributions to have been paid in order for a site to receive the benefit of the credits and sites developed pre-2004 were not required to pay development contributions at the time of construction.

Consulted scheme criteria

5.4 The proposed scheme is for any development within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on the lot on or after 1 March 2024. Staff also consulted on extending the scheme to all sites with the Four Avenues.

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

5.6 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $5 million and for the scheme to expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated. This intended to align with the introduction of development levies and encourage timely uptake. Rebates schemes can be extended by Council resolution.

Rebate for six storey residential development in central city (Attachment B)

5.7 The Council has set an ambition to have 20,000 central city residents by 2028. The current estimated population is 9,160[7]. The Council has a range of Plans, Strategies and programmes of work intended to facilitate an increase in the number of central city residents.

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

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

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

Consulted scheme criteria

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

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

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

5.14 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $2 million. The scheme will expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated. This intended to align with the introduction of development levies. Rebates schemes can be extended by Council resolution.

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

Date	Subject
15 May 2025	Development Contribution Rebates
17 June 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

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

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

6. Options analysis

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

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

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

6.1.3 Do not introduce any rebate schemes.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

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

· Option Advantages

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

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

· Option Disadvantages

· Depending on the funding limit agreed by the Council, a rebate would result in between $5 million and $30 million loss of development contribution revenue or funding for the Council, which will be subsidised by ratepayers.

· This scheme excludes sites that have been demolished already, and some developers may consider that it unfairly penalises developers who cleared their sites while rewarding others that did not.

6.3 Option Two: Introduce a rebate for residential development with six or more storeys in the central city.

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

· Option Advantages

· Could encourage greater residential intensification of the central city.

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

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

· Option Disadvantages

· Depending on the funding limit agreed by the Council, a rebate would result in between $2 million and $10 million loss of development contribution revenue or funding for the Council, which will be subsidised by ratepayers.

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

6.4 Option Three: Do not adopt any new rebate schemes.

· Option Description: The Council could decide not to adopt any new rebate schemes.

· Option Advantages

· The Council would not forgo any development contributions revenue.

· Option Disadvantages

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

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

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

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

7.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The ongoing costs of the schemes relate to the foregoing of development contribution revenue. This revenue would have been used to reduce new borrowing required in the provision of infrastructure to service growth development. The cost incurred accumulates as the scheme funding is drawn on.

7.4 The estimated impact on rates has been based on the scheme limits as consulted on and is outlined in the table below.

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

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

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

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

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.4 The required decisions:

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

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

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

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

8.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

· Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 On 5 June 2025 a memo was sent to the Development Forum members regarding the proposed rebate schemes and consultation timelines.

8.8 Consultation started on 23 June and ran until 14 July 2025.

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

8.10 An email sent to 430 identified stakeholders, including followers of the Development Contributions Policy Review consultation, developers, residents’ associations, and subscribers to Kōrero mai who elected to be notified when consultations of this nature open.

8.11 A Newsline story published (receiving 853 views) and shared to Council’s Facebook page twice (receiving 35k views combined).

8.12 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 456 views throughout the consultation period.

8.13 Staff met with the Inner City West Neighbourhood Association to answer their questions prior to making a submission.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

8.14 Submissions were made by 17 recognised organisation and 23 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

8.15 17 submitters (42%) have paid Development Contributions before or anticipate paying them in the next two years.

8.16 Submitters were asked whether they support the proposed existing demand credits in the central city rebate scheme. Here, 13 submitters (33%) said yes, 11 (28%) said somewhat, and 14 (40%) said no.

8.17 What submitters liked about this scheme:

· It encourages development (14)

· It recognises that development had occurred on the site previously (9)

· It provides assistance to landowners who are still recovering from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (6)

· It encourages a vibrant central city (4)

· Development encourages a large rating-base for Council (4)

8.18 What submitters didn’t like about this scheme:

· Ratepayers providing handouts or subsidies to developers (7)

· The funding limit limiting the impact that this scheme could have (5)

· The 30 June 2027 expiry making it unfeasible for many, particularly for complex buildings (5)

· The potential exclusion of vacant sites from the scheme penalising landlords who proactively cleared their site(s) for to health and safety or aesthetic reasons (4)

8.19 A further nine submitters challenged the expiry of development contribution credits at all.

8.20 Submitters were asked if this scheme were to go ahead, whether it should be limited to buildings standing on 1 March 2024 or be extended to include vacant sites. Here, 9 submitters (31% of those who responded to this question) said that the scheme should be limited to buildings standing, while 20 (69%) thought that it should be extended.

8.21 Submitters were also asked, what funding limit they would support for the scheme, if any. Here, no one selected 2 million, five agreed with the proposed 5 million, while three supported 10 million, two 20 million, and ten 30 million.

8.22 Submitters were asked whether they support the six-story residential development in the central city rebate scheme. Here, eight submitters (20%) said yes, 10 said somewhat (25%), and 20 (50%) said no.

8.23 What submitters liked about this scheme:

· It encourages development (7)

· It encourages density in the right place (6)

8.24 What submitters didn’t like about the scheme:

· The height threshold (9) – many of these submitters suggested that 2 or 3 storeys would be more appropriate

· Ratepayers providing handouts or subsidies to developers (8)

· The financial benefit it provides to developers only and/or no evidence that developers will pass on savings (6)

· Council encouraging high-rise buildings (6)

· That factors other than development contributions are what make building six storey development unfeasible (5)

· The funding limit limiting the impact that this scheme could have (4)

· The 30 June 2027 scheme expiry (too soon) (4)

8.25 Submitters were also asked, if any, what funding limit they would support for the scheme. Here, one selected 1 million, three agreed with the proposed 2 million, while two supported 3 million, two 5 million, and seven supported 10 million.

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

8.26.1 Central ward

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

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

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Staff will make any required amendments to the schemes as agreed to by Council. The decision will be communicated to stakeholders as required.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Existing Demand Credits	25/886936	83
b ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Central City High Density Residential	25/885000	85

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

9. Plan Change 14 - Decision Making for Daresbury Heritage Listing
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1553868
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 On 2 December 2024 the Council resolved to reject the Plan Change 14 (PC14) Independent Hearing’s Panel (IHP) recommendation to retain the heritage listing for Daresbury (9 Daresbury Lane).

1.2 The Council decision making on PC14 must be confined to information that was in the IHP record. In the debate in the Council meeting a Councillor stated that it would cost $12 million to fix Daresbury. That figure was stated in error. It is not the cost of repair identified in the IHP record.

1.3 The report seeks that the 2 December 2024 Daresbury decision is rescinded and made again, ensuring that decision making considerations are limited to those in the IHP record.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 14 - Decision Making for Daresbury Heritage Listing 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. Receives the Independent Hearings Panel (the 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 IHP Webpage: https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/recommendations-report/.

Decision only on PC14 recommendations regarding Daresbury (9 Daresbury Lane, Fendalton)

4. Limits all decision making to 9 Daresbury Lane, Fendalton (legally described as Lots 2, 3 DP 49363).

5. Rescinds the following 2 December 2024 Council resolution to reject the Panel’s recommendation (CNCL/2024/00214) to retain the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602):

Daresbury House Heritage Listing

That the Council:

68. Regarding the heritage listing for Daresbury House [9 Daresbury Lane] and associated heritage setting:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 5 (section 10), specifically in relation to the recommendation to retain the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602).

ii. Recommend that the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602) are removed.

6. Notes that its reconsideration of the Panel’s recommendation regarding Daresbury (9 Daresbury Lane, Fendalton) is limited to considering information in the Panel’s records of PC14; and

7. Having confined the consideration of evidence to that presented to the Panel:

EITHER

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to:

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 5 (section 10) recommendation, specifically in relation to the retention of the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602).

ii. Recommend to the Minister that the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602) are removed.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to retain the Daresbury heritage listing and associated heritage setting.

Clerical delegations and approvals:

8. 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 the recommendations above.

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

10. Resolves to publicly notify its decisions on resolutions 5 and 7 NO LATER THAN 5 September 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 The Council’s decision making on IHP recommendations on PC14 “must not consider any submission or other evidence unless it was made available to IHP before the IHP made the recommendation”[8].

3.2 On 2 December 2024 the Council resolved to reject the Plan Change 14 (PC14) Independent Hearing’s Panel (IHP) recommendation to retain the heritage listing for Daresbury (9 Daresbury Lane). In the Council debate at that meeting, a Councillor stated that it would cost $12m “to fix” Daresbury[9]. That was incorrect, as the IHP record identifies a repair cost of between $6.8m and $8.1m.

3.3 Evidence presented to the IHP stated that the bare land value is $4.6m [10], so rather than $12m being a cost to “fix” Daresbury, the figure approximates the maximum in the range for costs of repair ($8.1m) plus how much the property would need to be sold for after repair if the owner sought to recover repair costs.

3.4 Making the decision again enables the Council to ensure that its decision making does not make that error.

3.5 The Minister’s 5 June 2025 decision on the Council’s 2 December 2024 recommendations deferred making a decision on Daresbury until after the Council made a zoning decision for the site. The Council made that zoning decision on 16 July 2025 but Council officers have asked the Minister to delay a decision on whether Daresbury remains listed in the heritage schedule until after the Council addresses this error.

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 Daresbury heritage listing and associated heritage setting were listed in the District Plan prior to PC14 and were valid considerations as a qualifying matter.

4.3 Evidence for and against scheduling Daresbury as a heritage item were presented by Council experts and Daresbury Limited, respectively. Evidence included the financial viability of repair.

4.4 This report does not express any opinion on the evidence as the Council decision making is limited to the information in the IHP record. That information was in the “evidence pack” circulated to the Mayor and Councillors before the 2 December 2024 meeting, as referenced in 4.6, below.

4.5 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

4.6 The following evidence summaries have been provided to Councillors and has been made available in the Big Tin Can:

Type	Subject
Qualifying matter	Daresbury heritage item qualifying matter
Qualifying matter	Heritage qualifying matters

4.7 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members:

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

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

4.8.1 Correcting the error in the 2 December 2024 decision making by making the decision again.

4.8.2 There are no other reasonably practical options to correct the error in the Council’s decision making.

4.9 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.9.1 Not correcting the error. Council staff have ruled this out as the Council has an opportunity to ensure that it follows a correct decision-making process.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Making the PC14 decision on the IHP scheduling recommendation for Daresbury again, by rescinding the 2 December 2024 decision and making a new decision.

4.10.1 Option Description: Making the decision again and ensuring that considerations are confined to information in the IHP record.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· It ensures that the decision making is confined to relevant considerations.

· It avoids risk of legal challenge about the decision-making having regard to irrelevant considerations.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 Appropriate ways for the Council to remedy an error in its decision making in circumstances in which the decision-making process is not complete and the Council has a reasonable opportunity to correct the error.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Within existing budget for Planning
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil
Funding Source	Within existing budget for Planning
Funding Availability	Funded in LTP
Impact on Rates	No additional impact beyond LTP

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no risks for the Council in correcting an error in its decision-making process.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council is able to rescind previous decisions and make them again.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The 2 December 2024 Daresbury decision could be vulnerable to legal challenge as the Council’s recording of the decision indicates that incorrect information was taken into account. Making the decision again, confining the decision making to relevant considerations, removes that risk.

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.

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 the broader public interest in PC14 and influence on the urban form outcomes of Ōtautahi Christchurch balanced with this decision being about one site and therefore limited in the number of persons affected.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.6 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - Providing Council an annual update on progress with plan changes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 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.

6.8 The decision affects the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board that Daresbury House (9 Daresbury Lane) is located in. The views of the Community Board are expressed in their submission and verbal presentation to the Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 Impact on mana whenua is relevant solely to the extent that it appears in the IHP record.

6.10 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 Climate change impact considerations are relevant solely to the extent that they appear in the IHP record.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the new Council decision is the same as in the 2 December 2024 Council meeting – being to reject the IHP recommendation and recommend descheduling to the Minister – then the Council will report that to the Minister and the Minister will make the PC14 decision on whether Daresbury remains in the heritage schedule.

7.2 If the Council decision is to accept the IHP recommendation to retain heritage scheduling for Daresbury that decision in PC14 will be final. There will no longer be a scheduling decision for the Minister to make. The operative District Plan will be that the land is zoned medium density (16 July 2025 Council decision accepting IHP recommendations) and that the Daresbury building and setting are in the heritage schedule.

7.3 Heritage scheduling of Daresbury has not yet been determined in the PC13 hearing process. If the Minister does not deschedule Daresbury in the PC14 process, the Council will be considering the same issue again when it receives Panel recommendations in the PC13 process. Staff expect that to be in a report in early September 2025.

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. Hagley Golf Course Tree Removal and Planting
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1345207
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Brittany Walker – Arborist Central City, Toby Chapman - Urban Forest Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the removal of three (3) trees and to undertake tree planting of approximately thirty (30) trees to facilitate changes to the layout of the Hagley Golf Course in North Hagley Park.

1.2 The changes proposed by the Hagley Golf Course are aimed at improving the safety of park visitors currently using pathways that go through and border the course.

1.3 The report was prepared in response to a request from the Hagley Golf Club Committee.

1.4 As the trees proposed for removal are healthy and structurally sound, the decision falls outside of staff delegation and the decision to remove them ultimately sits with Council.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Hagley Golf Course Tree Removal and Planting Report.

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

3. Approves the removal of the three trees in North Hagley Park as detailed in Attachment A of this report, to facilitate proposed layout changes to the Hagley Golf Course to improve safety of park users.

4. Notes that there is a significant number of trees proposed for planting within the bounds of the golf course which will substantially exceed the requirements of the Tree Policy of 1:2 replacement planting for any trees removed.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Hagley Golf Club has proposed layout changes to several holes of the course located in North Hagley Park. The proposed changes would reduce the current health and safety risks to park users and improve the playability of the course. It is proposed to alter the angle of play and use new tree planting to minimize the risk to pedestrians that utilise high-traffic footpaths in the park.

3.2 Approximately 230 meters of new tree planting along the fairways will provide a physical barrier which will enhance safety for park users. The proposed changes also help to address seasonal flooding issues that render parts of the course unusable during wetter months.

3.3 The proposed adjustment would necessitate the removal of three (3) mature exotic trees: one silver birch and two blue atlas cedars.

3.4 The new plantings would consist of approximately 30 large tree species, selected in accordance with the Hagley Park Management Plan to preserve the park’s landscape values and character.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Hagley Golf Course is located within North Hagley Park and was established in the 1870’s. It is a par 72 course with 12 holes, with holes 1 to 6 being played twice, often from a different tee or green. There are formal competitions held twice weekly and an annual tournament.

4.2 The golf course is intersected by various high use footpaths. There is a pedestrian counter located at the southeastern end of the main North Hagley path that transects the golf course. The average number of footpath users recorded by the counter for 2025 is approximately 1,300 per day (recorded in both directions).

4.3 In the current golf course layout, balls are driven from number 10 tee that runs parallel with the alignment of the highly frequented main path. This angle of play provides no protection from stray golf balls for pedestrians as the section of path has no trees or other physical barrier between the fairway and the footpath. This also increases wait times for players waiting for the path to clear.

4.4 Number 10 green is also prone to flooding in wetter months, which results in this area being unusable for a portion of the year.

4.5 It is therefore proposed to move the tee for hole 10 which will direct the angle of play away from the path and substantially reduce the likelihood of path users being struck by golf balls. It is also proposed to add a significant number of new trees along number 10 fairway (approximately 200m) which will serve as a physical barrier that will continue to improve safety for footpath users as the trees mature.

4.6 The changes to hole 10 will reduce the length of this hole and therefore also reduce its difficulty from a par 5 to a par 4. To maintain the difficulty of the overall course, it is proposed that hole 6 is extended and therefore increasing its difficulty form a current par 4 to par 5.

4.7 To accommodate the change to number 10, 3 trees will need to be removed.

4.8 Details of the trees proposed for removal are outlined below.

Tree ID	Species	Tree Details
112,393	Silver birch	A mature specimen in good health and with typical branching habit and shape for the species. Located in the centre of the proposed extension to number 6 green/fairway.
112,430	Blue atlas cedar	In reasonable health but has poor branching structure and a history of limb failures.
112,432	Blue atlas cedar	In reasonable health but has poor branching structure.

A tree in a field

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

4.9 In addition to the proposed planting along number 10, additional tree planting is proposed to delineate hole 2 and proposed hole 3 as part of realignment to those greens to improve both playability and safety for park visitors.

4.10 Proposed tree planting would incorporate a mixture of large tree species in keeping with the guidelines of the Hagley Park Management Plan and the landscape values of North Hagley Park.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 Grant approvals for the removal of the 3 trees and new planting as proposed in this report.

4.11.2 Decline the tree removals.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: - Tree removals as proposed.

4.12.1 Option Description: Grant approvals for the removal of the 3 trees and undertake tree planting as proposed in this report.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Decreases risk to park users posed by current golf course layout.

· Substantial increase in canopy cover overtime in line with the aims of the Urban Forest Plan.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· Loss of three trees within Hagley Park.

· Short term loss of ecosystem benefits provided by the three trees.

4.13 Option 2: Decline tree removal

4.13.1 Option description: Decline the removal of the trees therefore also removing the ability for hole 10 to be changed to a par 5.

4.13.2 Option Advantages:

· The three trees would be retained.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages:

· The course would not be able to retain the same difficulty of the entire course.

· Hagley golf may choose not to implement the other alterations to the course which are seen as benefiting other users of the park.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 Impact on usability, safety and landscape character of the site.

4.15 Impact on budget.

4.16 Impact on community and stakeholder expectations.

4.17 Public perception.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 –No removals
Cost to Implement	$12000 (includes cost of planting and aftercare for 7 years)	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	Existing capex	N/A
Funding Availability	Funding available	N/A
Impact on Rates	None	None

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If the tree removals and tree planting are not undertaken and the course layout remains as it is currently, the ongoing risk of harm to members of the public using the park will remain.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Council has the authority to approve removals.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact this would have on the local community.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The proposed removals are considered against Section 4.7 of the Tree Policy.

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

6.6 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.6.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

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

· Level of Service: 6.8.2.3 Parks are managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional, and equitable manner (Asset Performance) - At least 90% of parks and associated public recreational assets are available for safe public use during opening hours

· Level of Service: 6.8.4.1 Customer satisfaction with the presentation of Hagley Park - >=90%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The proposed tree removals and plantings were presented to the Hagley Park Reference Group, with no concerns or objections raised during the consultation.

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

6.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 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.

6.10 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

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

6.12 The number of removals represent a small percentage of the trees within the park. Any impacts will be offset by the planting of a significant number of replacement trees.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approval is granted, staff will proceed with proposed removals and replacement planting.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Hagley Park Tree Removal Plan	25/1534822	101
b ⇩	Proposed golf course layout	25/1524321	102

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Brittany Walker - Arborist

Toby Chapman - Manager Urban Forest

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

11. Burwood Landfill Site C Operational Extension
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1408335
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Grant Gillard, Landfill Aftercare Supervisor Dr Alec McNeil, Manager Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to extend the operational life of the Burwood Landfill Site C to 30 June 2028.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Burwood Landfill Site C Operational Extension Report.

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

3. Approves the operational extension of the Burwood Landfill Site C to 30 June 2028, subject to obtaining the necessary resource consents.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Burwood Landfill Site C receives low-level contaminated soils from Council projects and the commercial market.

3.2 The operation of the site is subject to resource consent.

3.3 The current operations are scheduled to cease by 30 June 2026.

3.4 Staff analysis of the input tonnages to Burwood Landfill Site C has revealed the reliance that both the Council and the wider commercial market have on utilising the site.

3.5 This report sets out the rationale and associated planning workflow to extend the operational life of the site to 30 June 2028.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Burwood Landfill Site C currently receives low-level contaminated soils from Council and third-party projects. The soils are charged a gate fee which includes the Government waste disposal levy.

4.2 The Burwood Landfill Site C is scheduled to close on 30 June 2026, and this is reflected in current Resource Recovery budgets.

4.3 The closure of the landfill is not reflected in other Council department budgets where soil disposal is anticipated which could result in increased unbudgeted costs.

4.4 The landfill does have additional airspace that could be utilised without compromising future set down areas for disaster waste management.

4.5 The following figures show the overall Burwood landfill footprint (Fig 1), landfill Site C (Fig 2) and the disaster waste set down area (Fig 2 – white delineated area).

Figure 1 – Burwood Landfill Area

Figure 2 – Burwood Landfill Site C and disaster waste set down area (white)

4.6 Site C would be effectively raised in height to accommodate additional soil inputs.

4.7 The disaster waste set down area is currently under forest. This area will not be replanted when the forest is harvested. Harvesting is anticipated to be within a five-year period.

4.8 An extension to the operational life of the site would be based on the following assumptions/approach:

4.8.1 The annual tonnage input assumption for any extended period is 65,000 tonnes per annum, with the projected additional soil total over the extended 24-month operational period being 130,000 tonnes. This input assumption is conservative based on the decreasing number of projects that are expected to create large soil volumes. Average inputs over the past three years were 96,204 tonnes.

4.8.2 The future resource consent application would cover a five-year period to 30 June 2031.

4.8.3 The operational activity set out in the resource consent application would cover a 2-year period ending 30 June 2028.

4.8.4 The resource consent application would change the end date for site restoration by one year to 31 December 2032.

4.8.5 Projected additional income over the extended 24-month operational period is $15.9m based on current gate fees.

4.8.6 Projected additional surplus over the extended 24-month operational period is $6.8m.

4.9 Extending the closure date for the landfill would provide an opportunity for the Council to account for the closure and its impact on internal department budgets where soil disposal to Burwood is anticipated. Agreeing a standard budget impact for those departments that use the landfill could be an additional option.

4.10 The planning workflow required in support of the resource consent application is based on the following:

4.10.1 4 months wet weather hard stands for soils in winter (May -Aug).

4.10.2 Haul roads open in all-weather at assessable gradients.

4.10.3 Stormwater management.

4.10.4 Dust management.

4.10.5 Capping materials.

4.10.6 Final landform to be flat lying and grassed.

4.11 The planning workflow above would require inputs from engineering consultants that are familiar with the site, inputs from the current landfill operational Contractor and inputs from Council staff. The planning workflow cost estimate is in the region of $800k.

4.12 Workflow costs can be funded from budgeted expenses.

4.13 Workflow costs will be confirmed in detail with the relevant suppliers should extending the landfill be progressed.

4.14 Should the Council agree to extending the life of the landfill, and subject to the approval of the resource consents (Environment Canterbury and the Council), the extension will have additional implications that will be considered and managed via early engagement with:

· Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

· Community Liaison Group

· Iwi

4.15 The post-closure plan for the landfill would largely remain the same with minor adjustments to the land area being restored in response to any change in the landfill profile. The post-closure timeline would be reset based on new resource consents.

4.16 Extending Burwood landfill Site C will not impact on emergency set down areas that have been identified on site. These emergency areas are on undeveloped land within the site that is being preserved for future disaster waste management purposes.

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

Date	Subject
	Not applicable

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

Date	Subject
	Not applicable

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.19.1 Extend the operational life of the site (Preferred) – extend the life of the site until 30 June 2028, subject to obtaining the necessary resource consents.

4.19.2 Status quo (Not Recommended) – site closes on 30 June 2026 as currently planned and budgeted.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.20 Preferred Option: Extend the operational life of the site.

4.20.1 Option Description: the site closure date would be extended from 30 June 2026 to the 30 June 2028.

4.20.2 Option Advantages

· Provides additional landfill capacity to the commercial market and Council projects.

· Generates additional income and associated surplus.

4.20.3 Option Disadvantages

· Market continues to rely on the Burwood Landfill Site C as the disposal point for low-level contaminated soils.

4.21 Other Option: Status quo (Not Recommended).

4.21.1 Option Description: The site closes on 30 June 2026 as currently planned and budgeted.

4.21.2 Option Advantages

· Market will have to provide an alternative disposal site capable of handling up to 65,000 tonnes per annum.

4.21.3 Option Disadvantages

· Disposal costs for low-level contaminated soils are likely to increase.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.22 The Burwood Landfill Site C is scheduled to close on 30 June 2026. By comparing the available airspace against projected input tonnages, it has been determined that an additional 2-year minimum lifespan could be realised.

4.23 During 2024/25 Burwood Landfill Site C received 115,375 tonnes of low-level contaminated soils. Around 30% of the soil inputs were derived from Council projects and the balance from commercial operators.

4.24 Staff analysis of the input tonnages to Burwood Landfill Site C has revealed the reliance that both the Council and the wider commercial market have on utilising the site.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – extend site life	Option 2 – Close site
Cost to Implement	$0.8m (planning workflow)	$0.6m
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$6.0m	$0.2 p/a
Funding Source	Landfill Gate fees	Resource Recovery budgets
Funding Availability	$15.9m (gate fee income)	$1.0m
Impact on Rates	$0	$0

5.1 The following table summarises the controllable costs and revenue of the landfill over the past three years and sets out the projections for the next three years.

Description	2022/23 Actuals	2023/24 Actuals	2024/25 Actuals	2025/26 Annual Plan	2026/27	2027/28
Revenue	$7.4m	$7.0m	$11.9m	$6.8m	$7.8m	$8.1m
LEVY		$0.6m	$1.1m	$0.9m	$1.0m	$1.3m
Expense	$3.3m	$2.6m	$2.3m	**$3.8m	***$3.8m	$3.0m
Surplus	$4.1m	$3.8m	$8.5m	$2.1m	$3.0m	$3.8m

Tonnage	*107,447	65,790	115,375	65,000	65,000	65,000
Levy per tonne	$0	$10	$10	$15	$15	$20
Gate Fee per tonne (excl Levy)	$85	$100	$100	$110	$110	$110

* Includes Te Kaha site works, 19,000 tonnes.

** Includes close out and remediation costs.

*** Includes $0.8m of planning workflow costs.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The lifespan of the Burwood landfill Site C can be extended, subject to resource consent approval. Council has previously been successful in gaining resource consent for the site as recently as 2024.

6.2 Extending the life of the landfill may cause a crowding out effect in the wider market. To date several private organisations have expressed an interest in alternative soil processing technologies but none have progressed.

6.3 Establishing an alternative commercial landfill will be contingent on securing a site, obtaining resource consent, and determining the gate fee.

6.4 Competition in the landfill sector is limited, and the argument could be made that an extension at Burwood would be a considered a disincentive for any new site development.

6.5 To avoid any confusion in the marketplace it is appropriate that Council confirm the closing date for the site. Extending the life of the landfill will require appropriate and timely engagement with the affected parties including Iwi, local community, Council departments, and third-party users of the landfill.

6.6 There is a risk that the community associates Site C with the closed municipal landfill. Site C is a separate landfill to the original Municipal Solid Waste landfill which closed in 2005.

6.7 There is a risk that the community raises concerns about the proximity of the landfill to the sea and any exposure to coastal erosion. Site C operations are at closest 940m from the Pacific Ocean and unlikely to be affected by coastal erosion.

6.8 As part of the resource consenting process, Council will engage with Iwi and the community liaison group about the continuation of Site C works.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.9.1 Whilst the delegated financial authority sits at the Chief Executive level it has been determined by the Executive Leadership Team that any decision for this proposal should be via full Council.

6.10 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.11 The required decision:

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

6.11.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the number of residents affected by the proposal. The volume of traffic and site access and egress arrangements have low impact on the adjacent and surrounding community. The site has received no formal complaints related to the operation since the current consent was issued in 2024.

6.11.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.13 Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

6.13.1 Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

· Level of Service: 8.1.8 Consent compliance for operations at Burwood Resource Recovery Park (BRRP) - No major or persistent breaches of consents

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.14.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board.

6.15 Previous extensions to the Site C operating life have been subject to discussion with the local Board and a community liaison group. The last discussions took place in 2024 and had no objections or concerns raised.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.16 The site is an existing activity that will not have any additional impact as a result of this proposal.

6.17 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.

6.18 Previous successful resource consent applications for Site C have confirmed that any decision to extend the life of the site does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.19 Should the Council agree to extending the life of the landfill, and subject to the approval of the resource consents (Environment Canterbury and the Council), the extension will have additional implications that will be considered and managed via early engagement with Iwi.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.20 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. Whilst the height of the landfill will be raised to accommodate the additional tonnage the profile of the site is engineered to maintain slope stability in extreme weather events or natural disasters.

6.21 The waste inputs to Burwood Landfill Site C have a negligible possibility of generating landfill gas as they are soil based with low to nil organic content.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Obtain a decision from the Council.

7.2 If proposal is approved initiate the planning workflow in support of obtaining the appropriate resource consents.

7.3 Communicate the extension of the site closing date to Council departments and externally to the commercial users of the site.

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

Grant Gillard - Landfill Aftercare Supervisor

Alec McNeil - Manager Resource Recovery

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

12. Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/586954
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katharine Jones, Project Manager Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve detailed traffic resolutions on Truscotts Road following the post-construction safety audit, and recent consultation with St. Mary’s Anglican Church and residents of Truscotts Road.

1.2 The report is staff generated to support the implementation of proposed new parking and no stopping changes associated with the Heathcote Express Major Cycleway Route Section 2D - Valia Place to Martindales Road.

1.3 The recommended option is to install two new P10 restricted car parks and no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

1.4 The report also includes the missing attachment (Attachment B) from the approved traffic resolutions for Section 2D of the Heathcote Expressway.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions Report.

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

3. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any Bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls and parking and stopping restrictions described in resolution 4 below.

4. Make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

Truscotts Road (Deavoll Place to Martindales Road) – New Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a. Approves, pursuant to clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time

b. on the northeast side of Truscotts Road, commencing at a point 9 metres northwest of its intersection with Martindales Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 7 metres, as detailed on Attachment A TG151628, dated 01/08/2025.

c. on the northeast side of Truscotts Road, commencing at a point 28 metres northwest of its intersection with Martindales Road and extending in a north-westerly, then northerly direction following the kerbline for a distance of 120 metres, as detailed on Attachment A TG151628, dated 01/08/2025.

d. on the southwest side of Truscotts Road commencing at a point 6 metres northwest of its intersection with Martindales Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A TG151628, dated 01/08/2025.

e. on the southwest side of Truscotts Road, commencing at a point 18 metres northwest of its intersection with Deavoll Place and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 62 metres, as detailed on Attachment A TG151628, dated 01/08/2025.

f. Approves, pursuant to clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of ten minutes, on the northeast side of Truscotts Road, commencing at a point 16 metres northwest of its intersection with Martindales Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres, as detailed on Attachment A TG151628, dated 01/08/2025. This restriction is to apply at all times.

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

6. Notes that Attachment B of this report is applicable to the detailed traffic resolutions for Section 2D of the Heathcote Expressway as approved by the Urban Development and Transport Committee on the 21 November 2021.

7. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only, but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established between Martindales Road and Station Road, intersecting with Martindales Road at a point 17 metres west of Station Road, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment B sheet R101, dated 19/08/2022.

8. Approves, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a cycle path, for the use of bi-directional road users as defined by Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only, but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices from this group of road users, be established between Martindales Road and Station Road, intersecting with Station Road at a point 8 metres south of Martindales Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 7 metres, as detailed on Attachment B sheet R101, dated 19/08/2022.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 On 4 November 2021, a report recommending detailed traffic resolutions for the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route Section 2 – The Tannery to Martindales Road, was presented to the Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval. The Committee adopted the Officer recommendations with one minor amendment.

3.1.1 The detailed traffic resolutions report referred to an attachment that included the project limits for Section 2C only. Attachment B included in this report covers the approved resolutions for Section 2D.

3.2 In March 2021, May 2023 and June 2025, staff met with representatives of St. Mary’s Anglican Church to discuss the new no stopping on the west side of Truscotts Road, opposite the church, and the provision of two new carparks on the east side outside the church. The carparks would support church activities such as funerals and weddings.

3.3 In December 2023, a post-construction safety audit was conducted on the completed works. Recommendations made from the post-construction safety audit were provided to staff for consideration.

3.3.1 One recommendation included assessing the parking requirements along Truscotts Road and to install additional no stopping lines to improve safety and visibility for road users, particularly cyclists.

3.4 The recommended option is to install two new P10 restricted car parks and no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 On 23 March 2021 Council Officers met with a representative of St. Mary’s Anglican Church to discuss the upcoming cycleway works and associated no parking along Truscotts Road.

4.1.1 The Church expressed support for the proposed no stopping outside the Church along Truscotts Road. They also noted that the parking available is well utilised during Sunday services.

4.1.2 The meeting minutes recorded made no reference to any requests from the representative or other representatives of the church for additional parking.

4.2 On 4 November 2021, a report recommending detailed traffic resolutions for the Heathcote Express Major Cycleway Route Section 2 – The Tannery to Martindales Road was presented to the Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval.

4.2.1 The Committee adopted the Officer recommendations with one minor amendment. The approved recommendations were installed as part of the construction works for the cycleway in 2022 and 2023.

4.3 On 29 May 2023, Council Officers members met with representatives of the St. Mary’s Anglican Church to discuss public transport improvements on Martindales Road and the cycleway construction along Truscotts Road.

4.3.1 Council Officers briefed the church on the proposed/installed improvements and answered queries that were raised.

4.3.2 The church reiterated that parking along Truscotts Road continued to be well utilised, and a request for two new carparks outside the church on Truscotts Road was made. The church stated that the carparks would be in use during events such as funerals for hearses and weddings.

4.3.3 From June to September 2023, the project team evaluated different options for the carparks. It was discussed whether the carparks could be signed as “for church use only”, but that was determined to not be feasible or enforceable. The alternative proposal was to time restrict the parking, and there was consensus that P10 would be appropriate and in line with the intended use.

4.4 On 1 December 2023, a post-construction Safety Audit was conducted on Section 2D of the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route from Vaila Place to Martindales Road.

4.4.1 Recommendations from the Safety Audit included improving delineation, visibility and pathway stability at various locations within the project limits. Most of these recommendations were accepted and able to be installed/remedied without triggering additional requirements.

4.4.2 Included in the Safety Audit was an assessment of the parking requirements along Truscotts Road and to install a small amount of additional no stopping lines to improve safety and visibility for road users, particularly cyclists. This recommendation was accepted and has necessitated this report to obtain approval for the parking changes and additional no stopping.

4.5 In June 2025, consultation was undertaken on the additional no stopping and parking changes via a letter drop. An on-site meeting was also held with representatives of St. Mary’s Anglican Church to discuss the changes.

4.5.1 Details of this meeting and the consultation feedback are provided in Section 6 under heading “Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori.”

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.6.1 Option 1 (“Preferred Option”) – Install two new P10 restricted car parks on Truscotts Road and install no stopping changes recommended by the post-construction Safety Audit, in accordance with Attachment A.

4.6.2 Option 2 – Install no stopping changes recommended by the post-construction Safety Audit with no additional parking outside the church.

4.6.3 Option 3 – Do nothing.

4.7 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.7.1 Installation of an improved crossing on Martindales Road to facilitate parking on Station Road, rather than install additional parking on Truscotts Road

This was raised as alternative by residents during consultation but has been ruled out as it does not address the use cases raised by the church. The location already has a marked but uncontrolled crossing which was installed as part of the MCR project in late 2023, and further improvements are likely to have a cost beyond the available budget in the project.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Option 1 – Install two new P10 restricted car parks on Truscotts Road and install no stopping changes recommended by the post-construction Safety Audit, in accordance with Attachment A.

4.8.1 Option Description: This option provides two new P10 parking spaces outside St Mary’s Anglican Church and an additional small amount of no stopping.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· Will restrict parking near the intersection of Truscotts Road and Deavoll Place, providing clearer sightlines and visibility.

· Will provide St. Mary’s Anglican Church with two carparks for short term use during events.

· Considers the feedback received by residents regarding potential safety concerns around cars parking long-term near the intersection by allowing for short term parking only.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· May reduce visibility near the intersection of Truscotts Road and Martindales Road by allowing parking for short term use.

4.9 Option 2: Install no stopping changes recommended by the post-construction Safety Audit with no additional parking outside the church.

4.9.1 Option Description: This option provides a small amount of additional no stopping on Truscotts Road with no new carparks.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Restricts parking on Truscotts Road near its intersections with Martindales Road and Deavoll Place, improving sightlines and visibility at these intersections.

· In line with the consultation feedback received from all parties regarding the no stopping restrictions.

· Supports the consultation feedback received from the residents on Truscotts Road to not install two new carparks.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not support the request of St. Mary’s Anglican Church for two new carparks.

4.10 Option 3: Do nothing.

4.10.1 Option Description: This option retains the roadway markings from the previously approved traffic resolutions on Truscotts Road.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Will partially restrict parking near the intersection of Truscotts Road and Martindales Road, maintaining visibility at the intersection.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not support the request of St. Mary’s Anglican Church for two new carparks.

· Does not support feedback received regarding the additional no stopping.

· Will not improve visibility at the intersections of Truscotts Road with Martindales Road and Deavoll Place.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Preferred Option	Option 2	Option 3
Cost to Implement	$7,000	$7,000	$7,000
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	No change	No change	No change
Funding Source	Major Cycleway – Heathcote Expressway Route Section 2 (Tannery to Martindales) (23100)	Major Cycleway – Heathcote Expressway Route Section 2 (Tannery to Martindales) (23100)	Major Cycleway – Heathcote Expressway Route Section 2 (Tannery to Martindales) (23100)
Funding Availability	$294,111	$294,111	$294,111
Impact on Rates	As rated	As rated	As rated

5.1 Due to the small quantities of marking and removal noted in this recommendation report, costs for all options are similar and minor in nature.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 If these resolutions are not approved:

6.1.1 The legalities relating to the issues of the road space, including parking will not be able to be enforced.

6.1.2 There is the risk of potential safety implications through non-compliance with onsite traffic restrictions if they cannot be enforced.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provide Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions, designate an area to be a parking area and the restrictions that apply in that area by resolution.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Following engagement with St. Mary’s Anglican Church in 2021 and 2023, discussions were resumed in early June 2025. Staff met with church representatives and discussed two additional carparks directly outside the church on Truscotts Road being time restricted.

6.7.1 The church raised concerns that time-restricted carparks would not meet their needs, as people with limited mobility would not be able to use them to attend a church service. Based on this feedback, the consultation document was amended to include these two carparks as unrestricted.

6.8 Consultation ran from 11 June until 30 June 2025. Project information and consultation details were advertised via a letter drop to all residents on Truscotts Road between Deavoll Place and Martindales Road.

6.8.1 Feedback was received from five residents on Truscotts Road. All responses opposed having two carparks directly outside St. Mary’s Anglican Church. Their concerns included the following:

· Truscotts Road is too narrow at that point to safely accommodate parked cars, especially given how tight the turn is for vehicles turning off Martindales Road.

· Having cars parked in that location limits visibility of the stop sign.

· Although the space is only intended for two cars, more tend to park behind them leading to congestion and cars being parked on both sides of the road.

6.8.2 Respondents suggested parking for the church could be accommodated by installing features on Martindales Road (such as a pedestrian crossing) that would make it safer to park on Station Road, or by shifting the carparks further along Truscotts Road.

6.9 The recommendations contained within this report were developed following the post-construction Safety Audit, conversations with St. Mary’s Anglican Church and consultation feedback from residents on Truscotts Road and support the line marking already in place for the cycleway.

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

6.10.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.11 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.

6.12 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

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will arrange for the final changes and removal and/or installation of new paint marking, as required.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Truscotts Road Proposed Parking and No Stopping Improvements	25/1539846	119
b ⇨	MCR Heathcote Expressway Section 2 Curries Road to Martindales Road Signage and Linemarking Plans (Under Separate Cover)	25/1473622

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Katharine Jones - Project Manager

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

13. Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School - Detailed traffic resolutions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1191568
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Griffiths, Senior Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the detailed traffic resolutions for the Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School project on Harewood Road, and minor safety improvements nearby.

1.2 The resolutions in Section 2 of this report are required to ensure safe operation of the two sets of traffic signals.

1.3 This is a staff-generated report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information for the Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School - Detailed traffic resolutions in this 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. Revokes previous design decisions that conflict with the detailed traffic resolutions detailed below and as outlined in Attachment A of this report, which are only in relation to the implementation of the Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School sub-project.

4. Resolves the following which are required for the implementation of the Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School, including any traffic controls and /or Parking & Stopping Restrictions, relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974 and the Land Transport Rules- Traffic Control Devices Rule:2004 and the Road User Rule: 2004.

Whitchurch Place

5. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Whitchurch Place from its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in a south westerly direction to its south western roadway end, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits), Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 5-12 below.

6. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Whitchurch Place from its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in a south westerly direction to its south- western roadway end, as detailed on Attachment A.

7. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southern side of Whitchurch Place, commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in a south westerly direction to its south- western roadway end, as detailed on Attachment A be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

8. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that the Whitchurch Place approach at its intersection with Waimakariri Road, be controlled by a Give Way.

9. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Whitchurch Place commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

10. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Whitchurch Place commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

11. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Whitchurch Place commencing at a point 126 metres west of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending to its south-western roadway end.

12. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the northern side of Whitchurch Place commencing at a point 18 metres west of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Waimakariri Road. Note that this includes the grass verge.

13. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the northern side of Whitchurch Place commencing at a point 110 metres west of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending to its south-western roadway end.

Waimakariri Road

14. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Waimakariri Road from its intersection with Whitchurch Place, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, pertaining to Traffic Controls ( excluding speed limits), Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 14-20 below.

15. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, traffic island, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Waimakariri Road from its intersection with Whitchurch Place, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

16. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the western side of Waimakariri Road, commencing at its intersection with Whitchurch Place, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

17. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the eastern side of Waimakariri Road, commencing at a point 19 metres south of its intersection with Whitchurch Place, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, as detailed on Attachment A. be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

18. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that the Waimakariri Road approach at its intersection with Harewood Road, be controlled by a Give Way.

19. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the western side of Waimakariri Road commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Whitchurch Place.

20. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the eastern side of Waimakariri Road commencing at its intersection with Whitchurch Place and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

21. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the eastern side of Waimakariri Road commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

Harewood Road- Waimakariri Road to 23 metres east of Stanleys Road

22. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in an easterly direction to a point 23 metres east of Stanleys road ( excluding speed limits) pertaining to Traffic Controls ( excluding speed limits) , Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 22-32 below.

23. Approves the new and existing/remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, traffic islands, roadway alignment and road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in an easterly direction to a point 23 metres east of its intersection with Stanleys Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

24. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the northern side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

25. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 34 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point 23 metres east of its intersection with Stanleys Road, as detailed on Attachment A. be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road user only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

26. Approves that in accordance with Section 6 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 that a signalised roadway crossing be installed on Harewood Road, located at a point 37 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road, and as detailed on Attachment A. This signalised crossing is for the use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

27. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the northern side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 47 metres.

28. Approves that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of three minutes, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 15 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres. This restriction is to apply from 8:15am to 9:15am, and 2:30pm to 3:30pm, on school days only.

29. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 15 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 44 metres.

30. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 68 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres.

31. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 93 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

32. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 264 metres east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Stanleys Road.

33. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southern side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Stanleys Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.

Stanleys Road

34. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Stanleys Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres, pertaining to Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 34-35 below.

35. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the western side of Stanleys Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

36. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the eastern side of Stanleys Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

Breens Road /Gardiners Road /Harewood Road Intersection

37. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, at the Breens Road, Gardiners Road and Harewood Road Intersection, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits) , Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 37-40 below.

38. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, road crossing facilities and road surfaces, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, at the Breens Road, Gardiners Road and Harewood Road Intersection, as detailed on Attachment A.

39. Approves that in accordance with Section 6 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, all traffic movements at the Breens Road, Gardiners Road and Harewood Road intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals.

40. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(1) (b) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the Harewood road northwest approach U turn movement at its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, be prohibited.

41. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(1) (b) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the Harewood road southeast approach U turn movement at its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, be prohibited.

Breens Road- Harewood Road to Lochmore Street

42. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Breens Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 60 metres, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits) , Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 42-46 below.

43. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Breens Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 60 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

44. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of north-eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northwest side of Breens Road, commencing at a point 46 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north- easterly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

45. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of south-westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southeast side of Breens Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 37 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

46. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-western side of Breens Road, commencing at a point 46 metres southwest of its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road.

47. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-eastern side of Breens Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres.

Gardiners Road- Harewood Road to Goya Place

48. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Gardiners Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction to a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Kamahi Place, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits), Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 48-53 below.

49. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Gardiners Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Kamahi Place, as detailed on Attachment A.

50. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of north-eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northwest side of Gardiners Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north- easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

51. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of south-westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southeast side of Gardiners Road, commencing at a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Kamahi Place and extending in a south-westerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

52. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-western side of Gardiners Road, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres.

53. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-eastern side of Gardiners Road, commencing at a point 22 metres northeast of its intersection with Kamahi Place and extending in a south-westerly direction to its intersection with Kamahi Place.

54. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south-eastern side of Gardiners Road, commencing at its intersection with Kamahi Place and extending in a south-westerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road.

Kamahi Place

55. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Kamahi Place from its intersection with Gardiners Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, pertaining to Traffic Controls ( excluding speed limits) , Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 55-57 below.

56. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that the Kamahi Place approach at its intersection with Gardiners Road, be controlled by a Give Way.

57. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the south- western side of Kamahi Place, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south- easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

58. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north-eastern side of Kamahi Place, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south- easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

Harewood Road- Southeastern approach /departure at Breens /Gardiners

59. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 73 metres, pertaining to Traffic Controls ( excluding speed limits) , Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 59-64 below.

60. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 73 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

61. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of south-eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 43 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

62. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of north-westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Breens Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

63. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 51 metres.

64. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 51 metres southeast from its intersection with Gardiners Road, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres, be reserved for Large Passenger Service Vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers only, as part of a Bus Service as defined in the Land Transport Management Act 2003, Section 5, - Bus Service, (a) (i), only.

65. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Breens Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

Harewood Road- Northwestern approach /departure at Breens /Gardiners

66. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits), Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls, Parking and /or Stopping Restrictions described in recommendations 66-70 below.

67. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Harewood Road from its intersection with Breens Road and Gardiners Road, and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

68. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of south-eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 42 metres northwest of its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Gardiners Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

69. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of north-westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Breens Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 41 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

70. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 48 metres northwest of its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Gardiners Road.

71. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Breens Road and extending in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 53 metres.

Wooldridge Road

72. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked , in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Wooldridge Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 101 metres, pertaining to Traffic Controls (excluding speed limits) made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act, or any Land Transport Act or Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed in regard to the Traffic Controls described in recommendations 73 below.

73. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment, traffic island and any road surface changes, in accordance with Part 21, Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, on Wooldridge Road from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 101 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In the final FY26 Annual Plan the Council approved the installation of traffic signals at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and at Harewood School, and minor safety improvements nearby which are part of the wider Wheels to Wings Major Cycleway Route (MCR). This report seeks approval of the resolutions required for the two sets of traffic signals and improvements.

3.1.1 The Council also approved the construction of the section of the Wheels to Wings MCR that links the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s. The resolutions for this section will be presented in a future report to the Council.

3.1.2 All remaining sections of the MCR have been deferred to later years in the Long Term Plan (LTP).

3.2 The designs for the two sets of traffic signals were approved by the Council on 28 July 2022 to proceed to detailed design and construction, as part of the wider Wheels to Wings MCR scheme.

3.2.1 The Council also resolved that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the project be brought back to the Council or relevant Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

3.2.2 The previously approved designs needed to be amended to tie into the existing road layout, however the general road layout remains the same. Approval of the revised designs outlined in 4.15.1 are part of this report.

3.3 The links to all of the previous decision reports and minutes associated with the Wheels to Wings MCR, and the Annual Plan 2025/26 consultation document wording and submissions are included in Attachment B.

3.4 The exact scope for “associated improvements” at Harewood School as agreed by the Council during Annual Plan FY26 is ambiguous. Therefore, staff have provided two options:

· One that is narrowly focused on the crossing and widening the shared path on Harewood Road outside the school.

· Another that improves wider connectivity by: widening the shared path to Stanleys Road; improving crossing facilities at Stanleys Road and Wooldridge Road, and adding a non-controlled crossing on Waimakariri Road.

3.5 Staff are recommending the option including wider improvements, for the following reasons:

· Relatively low-cost (~$0.5m).

· Provide improved connection to the rest of the network via the underpass and Nunweek Park.

· Mostly supported by the school, and identified by students, during initial consultation.

· Does not materially impact on traffic lanes or parking.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Council Approval

4.1 As part of the FY26 Annual Plan the Council approved the following:

4.1.1 To stage the delivery of the Papanui ki Waiwhetū Wheels to Wings MCR, delaying some of the works to later years in the LTP, and continuing in FY26 with the delivery of:

· Linking the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern Line major cycle routes, which includes installing a signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street.

· Installing traffic lights at the Harewood Road, Gardiners Road and Breens Road intersection.

· Installing a signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road at Harewood School which includes a safe speed platform, and minor safety improvements nearby.

4.1.2 The detailed traffic resolutions in Section 2 of this report relate only to the delivery of the traffic signals at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and at Harewood School.

4.2 The scheme designs for the two sets of traffic signals were discussed between February and April 2022 when a Hearings Panel consisting of five Elected Members heard verbal submissions from 70 submitters. These included a mix of groups and organisations, local businesses and residents, individuals and the two affected Community Boards.

4.2.1 Following the hearing, the Council approved the designs for the two sets of signals in line with the Hearings Panel recommendation and resolved that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the project be brought back to the Council or relevant Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

4.3 To reflect the Council’s decisions relating to delivery of the cycleway during Annual Plan FY26, the scope and budget within each section of the cycleway has been amended:

4.3.1 #41663 Harewood Road Traffic Signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens Intersection: this includes the delivery of the traffic lights at the Harewood Road, Gardiners Road and Breens Road intersection, and the safe speed platform and signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road at Harewood School, as well as minor safety improvements nearby. This has funding in FY26 & FY27.

4.3.2 #26611 Major Cycleway - Wheels to Wings Route (Section 1) Linking Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCRs: this includes the link between cycleways along Matsons Ave and along Restell Street, including a crossing of Harewood Road. The resolutions relating to this section will be addressed in a future report to the Council. This has funding in FY26 & FY27.

4.3.3 #26612 and #26613 are for the remaining sections of the Major Cycle Route. These projects have available funding in FY29-31, so there is currently no further work underway.

Detailed design and required changes

4.4 As the installation of traffic signals at the intersection and the school crossing will now tie into existing road layouts, the following design changes have been made, as detailed in Attachment A:

Traffic lights at Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection

4.4.1 A through traffic lane, and a through and left lane will be provided in each direction on Harewood Road.

4.4.2 The painted cycle lanes at the intersection are approximately 50 metres in length on the Harewood Road and Breens Road approaches.

4.4.3 On Gardiners Road the painted cycle lanes are longer, because the location of driveways and the sideroad Kamahi Place means there is little opportunity for on-street parking in this section, so the length of the cycle lanes has been maximised.

4.4.4 U-turns on the Harewood Road approaches will not be allowed.

4.4.5 No stopping to be marked between the driveways of 120 and 122 Breens Road, as this space is not long enough for a car to park.

4.4.6 Three street trees are to be removed. The removal of these trees and replacement with six new trees is being delivered by a separate programme, which is Council’s Infill Planting Programme. The decision-making for the removal of the trees is not required in this report. Information regarding the consultation on this is included in Section 6 – Community Impacts and Views.

Harewood Road School and minor safety improvements

4.4.7 The path adjacent to 99 Stanleys Road will be widened to 2 metres - instead of 3 metres in the full MCR design - to reduce the stormwater impacts and will not have trees planted alongside.

4.4.8 The improvements to the intersection and path at the Stanleys Road intersection have been reduced and now include only replacing the kerb on the western side, incorporating minor road widening.

4.4.9 The pedestrian refuge island at the Wooldridge Road intersection will be widened by 0.7 metres to safely accommodate bikes, the intersection was to be signalised in the full MCR design.

4.4.10 The new pedestrian crossing on Waimakariri Road has been shifted approximately 20 metres north to reduce the impact on stormwater infrastructure.

4.4.11 The above minor safety improvements have been included in the design to make the existing shared path from Nunweek Park to Harewood School more appealing for cyclists to use and provides a safer route for pedestrians and cyclists to access the Johns Road underpass.

4.5 Information regarding the consultation on the above design changes is included in Section 6 – Community Impacts and Views.

Update on previous recommendations

4.6 When the Council approved the Wheels to Wings MCR scheme to proceed to detailed design and construction on 28 July 2022, they provided further recommendations and noting provisions, which they asked staff to investigate through the detailed design process.

4.7 Below are the specific recommendations relevant to the delivery of the Harewood Road traffic signals project, and how they have been addressed in the detailed design process:

4.7.1 That red markings will be investigated and a high friction surface will be included in the lead up to the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School.

High-friction surface has been included in the design. Red surfacing is generally only used on unsignalised crossings so has not been included in this design.

4.7.2 That the raised safety platform at the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School be built for a 50km/h speed limit.

This has been included in the design.

4.7.3 That ‘look right’ or similar markings will be applied at the signalised crossing opposite Harewood School.

These have been included in the design.

4.7.4 Approves extending an existing 40km/h school speed zone on Waimakariri Road and Whitchurch Place.

This has been included in a separate consultation carried out by Council’s Traffic Operations Team, in conjunction with other consultations for the Setting of Speed Limit Rule 2024. The rule now specifies the speed limit of 30km/h around schools, not 40km/h. The delivery of the speed limit change will be co-ordinated with the construction of this project.

4.7.5 Approves extending an existing 50km/h speed restriction further northeast along Waimakariri Road.

This has been included in a separate consultation carried out by Council’s Traffic Operations Team, and is currently out for consultation. Depending on the timing and scope of decisions, any speed limit change will be delivered as part of this project.

Other design considerations

4.8 In conjunction with the traffic signals at Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection there will be an upgrade to the stormwater infrastructure to resolve existing flooding issues.

4.9 The delivery of the project will co-ordinate with the renewal of the watermains in these locations, to reduce future disruption in the area.

4.10 The delivery timing for the section linking the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern Line major cycle routes, and the signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street is yet to be determined. The Council will be informed when this is confirmed.

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

Date	Subject
11 October 2024	Wheels to Wings MCR October 2024 Options Memo – Attachment C
5 June 2025	Waimakariri Road Speed Limit memo – Attachment D
3 July 2025	Targeted consultation memo - Attachment E
7 July 2025	Submitter update on Wheels to Wings MCR - Attachment F
9 July 2025	Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection stormwater upgrade plan - Attachment G

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.12.1 Option 1 (staff recommended option) - Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School and minor safety improvements

4.12.2 Option 2 - Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School

4.13 The following option was considered but ruled out:

4.13.1 Option 3 - Do nothing – The Council has resolved to continue with the installation of the traffic signals at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and at Harewood School so this option has not been pursued.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Staff recommended option: Option 1 - Harewood Road traffic signals – Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School and minor safety improvements

4.14.1 Option Description:

· Installation of traffic signals at the Harewood Road, Gardiners Road and Breens Road intersection, the safe speed platform and signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road at Harewood School.

· Widening the path at Harewood School to create a 4.5 metre shared path.

· Widening the path adjacent to 99 Stanleys Road to 2 metres.

· Replacing the kerb on the western side of the Stanleys Road intersection.

· Widening the pedestrian refuge island at the Wooldridge Road intersection by 0.7 metres to safely accommodate bikes.

· A new pedestrian crossing on Waimakariri Road.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Provides accessibility and safety improvements for all mode users.

· Delivers on the feedback from the local community to signalise the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection, to provide a signalised pedestrian crossing at Harewood School, and to improve the links to the school.

· The minor safety improvements make the existing shared path from Nunweek Park to Harewood School safer and more appealing for cyclists to use, and provides a safer route for pedestrians and cyclists to access the Johns Road underpass.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· The two sets of new signals will cause delays to some traffic along Harewood Road.

4.15 Option 2 - Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School

4.15.1 Option Description:

· Installation of traffic signals at the Harewood Road, Gardiners Road and Breens Road intersection, the safe speed platform and signalised pedestrian crossing on Harewood Road at Harewood School.

· Widening the path at Harewood School to create a 4.5 metre shared path.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Provides accessibility and safety improvements for all mode users.

· Delivers on the feedback from the local community to signalise the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and provide a signalised pedestrian crossing with a safe speed platform at Harewood School.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· The two sets of new signals will cause delays to some traffic on Harewood Road.

· Does not provide the minor safety improvements, so does not make the existing shared path from Nunweek Park to Harewood School safer and more appealing for cyclists to use, nor provide a safer route for pedestrians and cyclists to access the Johns Road underpass.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.16 The following criteria were used to assess the available options and determine the most appropriate course of action:

4.16.1 Option 1 - Harewood Road traffic signals delivers on the Council’s decision to install traffic signals at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and outside Harewood School, and there is approved funding in the FY26 Annual Plan to support this.

4.16.2 Option 1 delivers on the feedback from the local community to signalise the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and provide a signalised pedestrian crossing with safe speed platform at Harewood School.

4.16.3 Option 1 addresses other concerns raised by the school around the existing shared path from Nunweek Park to Harewood School, and provides a safer route for pedestrians and cyclists to access the Johns Road underpass.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 (Recommended) Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School, minor safety improvements	Option 2 Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/ Breens intersection and Harewood School
Cost to Implement	$4.4m	$3.9m
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	Covered by existing maintenance budgets	Covered by existing maintenance budgets
Funding Source	LTP: CPMS 41663 $4.2m and CPMS 26612 and 26613 (if required)	LTP: CPMS 41663
Funding Availability	$4.4m	$4.2m
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

5.1 The cost to implement Option 1 is based on the 85% detailed design.

5.1.1 Although the cost to implement is higher than the budget, the final contract price will be informed through the procurement process and completion of the detailed design process, which will include refinement of the remaining risks.

5.1.2 The construction contingency included in the cost to implement is 20%.

5.1.3 Should the estimate remain above the project budget at the point when a contract is to be awarded, further budget will be moved from Section 2 (26612) and Section 3 (26613) of Wheels to Wings. Noting this has $22.4m of budget, spread across years FY29-31.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The risk is that the construction will cause disruption to the surrounding businesses, schools and residents, and those travelling around the construction area.

6.1.1 The mitigation is that the importance of minimising disruption to the surrounding businesses and schools to accommodate their busy periods is included in the contractor tender information and is part of the tender evaluation.

6.1.2 There will be clear and timely information available across a variety of media platforms advising of the construction work, the likely disruption and detour information.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council has the delegated authority to approve the detailed traffic resolution in Section 2 of this report, as they are delivering sections of the Wheels to Wings MCR which has been assessed as having metropolitan significance.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework: Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes, in particular:

· Be an Inclusive and Equitable City

· Build Trust and Confidence in the Council - the public consultation undertaken throughout this project has shown the Council listening to and working with residents

· A Green, Liveable City – providing safe crossing points and facilities for people who walk and cycle will improve the accessibility and connectivity of our neighbourhoods and communities

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 the level of community interest in the signalisation of the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and at Harewood School, and in the cycleway.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <95 crashes per year

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 635 kilometres (total combined length)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 There were a small number of design changes identified through the detailed design for the Harewood Road signals standalone designs. A targeted consultation for these design changes took place between Friday 4 July and Sunday 20 July 2025.

6.8 The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board were advised of the targeted consultation in a memo prior to it starting, the memo is included as Attachment E.

6.9 The targeted consultations and submitter feedback are as follows:

6.9.1 Banning of U-Turns on the Harewood Road approaches of the Harewood-Gardiners-Breens intersection

· This is required to make the crossings safer for pedestrians and makes the intersection operate more efficiently for vehicles.

· Drivers who need to make U-turns to access their properties on Harewood Road would still be able to use the existing U-turn bays on Harewood Road near Copenhagen Bakery to the west and 375 Harewood Road to the east.

· There was no feedback received on this item.

6.9.2 No Stopping between driveways at 120 and 122 Breens Road

· This is required to ensure safety for cyclists and to prevent vehicles blocking driveways, the space between the driveways of 120 and 122 Breens Road is not large enough for a vehicle to park in.

· There was no feedback received on this item.

6.9.3 Bus Stop at 412 Harewood Road

· The bus stop outside 412 Harewood Road will remain in the current location.

· In the previous Wheels to Wings MCR consultation and approved design, the bus stop was moved closer to the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection to accommodate the proposed cycle lane on Harewood Road.

· One response was received, the resident at 410 Harewood Road was concerned about a loss of parking outside their property due to the bus stop remaining at 412 Harewood Road. Staff amended the design to include parking ticks outside 410 Harewood Road rather than no stopping restrictions. The resident was happy with this outcome.

6.9.4 Pedestrian crossing location on Waimakariri Road

· The location of the new pedestrian crossing on Waimakariri Road is moving approximately 20m north.

· In the previous Wheels to Wings MCR consultation and approved design, the pedestrian crossing was located approximately 20 metres closer to Harewood Road. This design tied-in with the cycleway design in this location and the associated stormwater drainage.

· Moving the crossing is required to reduce costs, as we no longer need to make changes to the stormwater infrastructure on Waimakariri Road. This will result in the loss of one additional parking space.

· There was no feedback received on this item from the owner of 125 Waimakariri Road.

· An email was sent to Harewood School, Harewood Playcentre and St James' Anglican Church.

· Harewood School said they were comfortable with the design.

6.9.5 Tree removal and replacement

· Three street trees at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breen intersection are needed to be removed to allow for clear sightlines of the new signal lanterns.

· Six new street trees will be planted on Whitchurch Place, as per the Council’s Tree Policy. The six new trees on Whitchurch Place were included in the Council approval of the cycleway in July 2022.

· St James' Anglican Church thanked staff for the update and asked if they could be involved in the selection of species for the new trees proposed to be planted on Whitchurch Place, as they had concerns around the trees potentially causing visibility issues and the loss of informal parking from the new trees. The Church were informed they would be contacted to discuss their suggestions and the placement of the trees, and that the trees would improve visibility for those exiting the Church carpark as cars will no longer be able to park next to the driveway.

· The removal of the three trees and replacement of six new trees will not be undertaken as part of the Harewood Road traffic signals project. It will be completed as part of the Infill Planting Programme carried out by Council’s Asset Protection Team.

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

6.10.1 Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

6.11 The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board did not provide feedback on the above design changes and targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 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.

6.13 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

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.15 The provision of controlled crossings along Harewood Road in the vicinity of Harewood School and Breens Intermediate is likely to increase the number of students walking or cycling to school.

6.16 Improvements to the drainage at the Harewood/Breens/Gardiners intersection is likely to reduce flooding during larger rain events.

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The construction tender will be evaluated and a contractor appointed. Construction is due to start in October 2025.

7.2 The detailed traffic resolutions for the section of the Wheels to Wings MCR that links the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s will be brought to Council in a future report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Plan for approval	25/1448328	140
b ⇨	Supporting information (Under Separate Cover)	25/1450130
c ⇨	Wheels to Wings MCR October 2024 options memo (Under Separate Cover)	24/1679264
d ⇨	Waimakariri Road Speed Limit consultation memo (Under Separate Cover)	25/1092540
e ⇨	Harewood Road traffic signals targeted consultation memo (Under Separate Cover)	25/1111379
f ⇨	Submitter update July 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	25/1352398
g ⇨	Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection stormwater upgrade plan (Under Separate Cover)	25/1372838

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Kelly Griffiths - Senior Project Manager

Approved By

Matt Goldring - Transport Team Leader Project Management

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

14. Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/995591
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mansour Johari, Passenger Transport Engineer Jann Kuhlmann - Team Leader Real Time Operations Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1 Consider the results of a trial that assessed the impact of removing the bus gates on Manchester Street, between Hereford Street and Gloucester Street.

1.1.2 Make a decision on the preferred option to proceed.

1.2 This report presents the outcome of this trial and proposes options to improve the bus gates to provide better operation for buses and general traffic.

1.3 The report originates from a request for a trial to temporarily switch off the bus gates located adjacent to the super stops on Manchester Street, to understand their impact on bus movements and general traffic on this corridor.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial 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 the consultant’s findings that the gates provide small travel‑time and reliability benefits for northbound buses during morning peak periods, with only minor negative effects on private vehicle travel times.

4. Notes that Manchester Street is a pivotal part of Christchurch’s public transport network and is identified as a key public transport route in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

5. Approves the installation of detectors at the bus stops on Manchester Street to ensure the bus gates operate only when a bus is present, and report back to Council on the impact of adding detectors.

6. Requests staff carry out a corridor investigation of Manchester Street (between Bealey Avenue and Moorhouse Avenue) to assess public transport performance, including identifying potential priority measures, and report back to the Council.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Manchester Street is the main north–south public transport corridor in the central city. It is designed primarily to ensure north–south bus movements are prioritised so they can provide a reliable and efficient service to and from the Bus Interchange (located south of Lichfield Street) for customers.

3.2 This project was initiated in response to requests from central city businesses on the operation of the super stops and traffic flows on Manchester Street. The bus gates are a set of traffic signals that require general traffic to stop on a red signal, so that the buses can exit the super stops without delay from queued traffic from the Manchester Street and Worcester Street intersection.

3.3 Abley, an external transport consultancy, were commissioned to undertake an independent analysis of the trial. In summary, the report by Abley (Attachment A) demonstrates:

3.3.1 Bus benefits and sensitivity to traffic volumes: Bus gates currently deliver small travel time and reliability improvements for northbound buses during the morning peak periods. This is likely due in part to driver courtesy in yielding to buses regardless of bus gate presence (potentially soon a legal requirement) and the lack of complementary priority interventions, such as detectors at bus stops to activate bus gates or extend signal green time at adjacent intersections.

3.3.2 Minimal impact on general traffic: The gates had a small negative effect on private vehicle travel times. Evidence from the trial indicates that turning off the bus gates shifts queueing downstream somewhat, but overall throughput and travel time is largely governed by signal phasing at key intersections with Hereford and Gloucester streets.

3.3.3 Trial duration limits insight: The short duration of the trial and post-trial periods limited the ability to assess long-term changes for the corridor or impacts on cross-street traffic, such as Gloucester Street and Hereford Street.

3.4 Following this trial, staff recommend Option B proceed, with installing detectors as this provides a short-term solution, while staff investigate other measures along the corridor to support movement by public transport and for local access requirements.

3.5 Feedback has been sought from NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) as our funding partner and Environment Canterbury (ECan) as public transport operation. Both organisations expressed their support for bus priority measures on Manchester Street that improve bus travel time and travel time reliability.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Improving the quality of alternative low-emission transport options in Christchurch is a priority for the Council. The Council has a Level of Service to improve customer satisfaction with public transport facilities including the quality of bus stops and bus priority measures (>=73%). This is also a goal in the Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport 2024-54, to address the quality of bus infrastructure, and to deliver the Public Transport Futures programme.

4.2 Significantly improving our public transport system is key to ensure that public transport in Christchurch is efficient and competitive when compared with other ways of travelling. For public transport to be a genuine alternative it must be more appealing and convenient.

4.3 Manchester Street is undergoing a transformation aligned with the strategic objectives of the Central City Recovery Plan. The eastern edge of the street is emerging as a vibrant residential precinct, with apartments and townhouses currently under construction. This intensification supports the city's vision for a compact urban form, increased central city living, and sustainable growth. Future planned retail and hospitality developments through the East Frame close to Rauroa Park, and the proximity of One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha will continue to contribute to the revitalisation of the central core. This will further reinforce Manchester Street’s role in delivering a resilient, liveable, and well-connected urban environment, and a key contributor to Christchurch’s vibrant city core.

Existing function and layout of Manchester Street

4.4 Manchester Street is the main north–south public transport corridor in the central city. It is designed primarily to ensure north–south bus movements are prioritised and can therefore provide a reliable and efficient service to and from the Bus Interchange. Please see Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP) for more details.

Figure 1: Central city road use hierarchy (diagram shows Manchester Street prioritised for public transport), source: CCRP.

4.5 As a result, the scheme that was implemented through An Accessible City by Central Government delivered (further information can be found in the report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on 2 April 2015 (Item 6):

4.5.1 Bus only lanes and the use of traffic signal controls at a number of the intersections, including at the super stops to ensure northbound and southbound buses have priority.

4.5.2 A tree-lined boulevard, high quality public spaces, a wide shared pedestrian and cycle path on the eastern side of the street for local access needs, along with vehicle access to local properties.

4.5.3 Turning movements on Manchester Street were retained at the intersections with the local distributor streets of Gloucester, Hereford and Lichfield (west), but restricted at other intersections to prioritise public transport and make the most efficient use of the transport network.

4.5.4 The design was based on the road use hierarchy presented in An Accessible City, whereby general traffic from the Avenues and eastern side of the Central City uses the main distributor streets of Madras Street or Barbadoes Street, and the east-west distributors of Gloucester Street and Hereford Street, to access destinations in the City Centre.

4.6 Two bus gates (i.e. traffic signals) were installed adjacent to the Manchester Street super stops:

· Outbound (heading north): beside the super stop (ID 53061) on Manchester Street between Hereford Street and Worcester Street.

· Inbound (heading south): beside the super stop (ID 53074) on Manchester Street between Gloucester Street and Worcester Street.

4.7 The traffic signals require general traffic to stop on a red signal, so that the buses can exit the super stops without delay from queued traffic from the intersection of Manchester Street and Worcester Street. Feedback received from ECan suggests that this operation provides a good level of service to the buses.

4.8 The bus gates operate only during public transport operation hours (i.e. 5:30am to 12:30am). Outside these times, they display a green signal throughout the night to allow general traffic to flow without obstruction.

4.9 The current signal configuration activates the red signal at the bus gate six seconds before the Manchester Street approach to the Worcester Street intersection changes to red. This timing allows buses to have sufficient space to exit the super stops.

4.10 Due to the lack of bus and queue detection measures, the current bus gate signal operates continuously. It activates regardless of whether a bus is present at the indented super stop, or a queue exists on the Manchester Street approaches to the intersection with Worcester Street.

Long-term plan for Manchester Street

4.11 The recently adopted Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport strategy includes a goal to significantly improve public transport provision as our city grows. This includes, continued investment through the Public Transport Futures programme in the near to medium term and progressing the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project over the longer term.

4.12 In May 2023, the Whakawhanake Kāinga Committee of the Greater Christchurch Partnership endorsed the Mass Rapid Transit Indicative Business Case (IBC). The Indicative Business Case was approved by partner councils and the NZTA Waka Kotahi Board in July 2023. As per the map below, Manchester Street is a key component of the preferred MRT corridor through the central city, as identified in the IBC.

Figure 2: Preferred Mass Rapid Transit Corridor source: MRT Indicative Business Case.

4.13 This project has now moved into the ‘route protection’ phase, which is being led by Council. In line with the endorsed IBC, this work will build on assumptions that Manchester Street will continue to primarily function as a public transport corridor over the longer-term.

Trial and trial outcomes

4.14 Staff initiated a trial removal of these bus gates (by covering the traffic signal lanterns), followed by a before-and-after investigation into the movements of both buses and general traffic. The trial lasted for four weeks, commencing on Monday 12 May 2025. The signals became operational again (by removing the covers) prior to a decision report being presented to the Council.

4.15 Staff commissioned Abley to conduct a before-and-after analysis of bus movements and general traffic to better understand the performance of the bus gates. The report is presented in Attachment A.

4.16 On-site observations, vehicle counts, intersection counts, public transport real time information (RTI), and connected vehicle probe data sources were used to conduct the analysis. The following provides a summary of the key findings of the analysis:

4.16.1 The north bound bus gate reduces average bus travel times (covering 90% of trips) between the Bus Interchange and Kilmore Street by 12 seconds in the morning peak and 6 seconds in the interpeak, with no impact on evening peak travel times.

4.16.2 The south bound bus gates reduce average bus travel times (covering 90% of trips) between the Kilmore Street and Bus Interchange by 6 seconds in the evening peak, with no impact on morning peak and interpeak travel times.

4.16.3 These results suggest that bus gates have a small positive impact on bus travel efficiency.

4.16.4 Travel time variability was lower in the post-trial period compared to the trial, indicating greater reliability when the bus gates were operating for northbound buses during peak periods, based on the consultant’s report.

4.16.5 Evidence from the pre-trial period – where Manchester Street had ≈10% (approximately equal to 10%) higher southbound traffic than typical (due to diversions to avoid temporary traffic management associated with nearby stadium construction) – indicates that travel time and reliability for buses would be significantly degraded by a sustained increase in general traffic. These findings show that bus performance is highly sensitive to traffic volumes, and removal of the gates could reduce reliability over time for public transport customers.

4.16.6 The Bus Interchange north bound bus gate increases average travel times for general traffic between the and Kilmore Street by 6 seconds in the morning peak and interpeak, with no impact on evening peak travel times. The south bound bus gate reduces average travel times for general traffic between the Kilmore Street and Lichfield Street by 6 seconds in the morning peak, with no impact on evening peak and interpeak travel times.

4.16.7 In both directions, disabling the bus gates decreased vehicle travel times upstream of the gates, but this was offset by increased delays downstream, particularly at intersections. This therefore shifted queues downstream, particularly toward intersections of Hereford Street and Gloucester Street, without significantly improving overall travel times. Overall throughput and corridor efficiency is largely governed by signal phasing at these intersections, not by the presence or absence of bus gates.

4.16.8 Importantly, this analysis does not capture impacts to cross-traffic, such as delays or blockages on Gloucester and Hereford Streets, which may worsen when queues are shifted.

4.16.9 The trial (four weeks) and post-trial (two weeks) were short durations. These timeframes were not long enough to observe how travel behaviour might shift over time. However, the data gathered can be considered a good representation of the current operations on Manchester Street.

4.16.10 Given the significant changes in traffic patterns within the Four Avenues (particularly around Manchester Street) following the removal of traffic management for the Te Kaha surrounding streets projects, the above results are based on a short trial period compared with a two-week post-trial period used as the baseline. A longer trial period (e.g., six months) would support more robust, evidence-based decision-making by allowing all potential benefits and limitations of the bus gates to be fully observed.

4.17 Feedback has been received from NZTA, ECan and the bus operators (see report in Attachement A) on the trial. The responses are provided below:

4.17.1 NZTA stated:

The business cases jointly undertaken on public transport through Greater Christchurch outline the importance of bus priority measures to give buses the edge, beating general traffic and ensuring more reliable bus travel times. Manchester Street is a key public transport corridor and should provide an efficient level of service for buses as they access the interchange. NZTA Waka Kotahi are therefore supportive of bus priority measures on core routes such as Manchester Street that improve bus travel time and travel time reliability.

4.17.2 ECan stated:

Canterbury Regional Council would like to stress the importance of Manchester Street as a PT priority corridor which caters for the majority of the services on our network and provides a key link to and from the bus interchange. We support option B which retains and improves the performance of the existing infrastructure. While we did not support the trial to turn the gates off, and felt that similar outcomes could have been achieved in a more collaborative manner which would have mitigated disruption to our passengers, we believe that the assessment of the trial was an excellent example of CRC and CCC working in partnership to achieve common goals.

4.17.3 Bus operators stated:

The block between Hereford and Worcester Streets should hold 8-10 cars northbound but in practice has much less capacity due to restrictive signal phasing (at both the bus gate and Manchester / Worcester intersection), which creates congestion sometimes extending to St Asaph Street. Similar capacity issues exist between Gloucester and Worcester Street, exacerbated by the bus. gate signals. As a result, traffic overflows into Gloucester Street intersection, preventing entry to the bus lane from Gloucester Street or Manchester Street. The bus gates restrict buses' ability to overtake when at the bottom stop.Right turns from Hereford onto Manchester are severely limited (often only one vehicle per phase). Left-turning traffic from Gloucester onto Manchester frequently blocks bus lane access. General traffic commonly misuses the northbound bus lane at the Hereford intersection for right turns and fail to clear the lane when the B light activates Traffic waiting to turn right to Cashel Street can interrupt bus priority.

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

Date	Subject
07/05/2025	Memo – Manchester Street bus gates trial (Attachment B)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.19 To address the issues raised through the trial, three options have been identified as being reasonably practicable:

4.19.1 Option A: Do nothing and continue to monitor the operation of the corridor.

4.19.2 Option B (preferred): Install detectors at bus stops to ensure bus gates operate only when a bus is present. The bus gate signals would then only go to red for general traffic if a bus is present in any of the bus stops.

4.19.3 Option C: Remove the bus gates. The low-cost option is to disconnect the signals and cover the lanterns with bags and retain the poles in situ. A higher cost option would be to also remove the poles and signal infrastructure. This could be done as a further trial, over a longer period prior to staff reporting back on the outcome of the wider investigation.

4.20 As discussed in the Assessment Criteria section below, Option B will provide the greatest alignment with the objectives of the corridor and is in line with the Council’s objective of improving public transport for customers. This option would:

4.20.1 Make the corridor more efficient for public transport by retaining the bus gates for priority, but without unduly impeding local vehicle access.

4.20.2 Be undertaken quickly and efficiently.

4.20.3 Allow staff to undertake further investigations along the corridor to address issues identified in the independent trial outcomes report.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.21 The analysis criteria is provided below in the following table:

	Option A	Option B	Option C
	Bus gates are retained with no improvements	Bus gates are retained and improved through implementation of detectors	Signals at bus gates are disconnected/removed
Alignment with An Accessible City (Recovery Plan)	Partially	Partially	No
Alignment with Endorsed Greater Christchurch Public Transport Investment Cases	Partially	Partially	No
Community views and preferences	No change	No change	Staff would need to report back on the community views of this option and its impacts. Unless done as a further trial.
Impact on Public Transport Efficiency	No change	No change	Small increase in PT journey times for north bound buses during the peak periods.
General Traffic Impacts	No change	Small Improvements to corridor efficiency	Small decrease in private vehicle journey times through this block.
Ease and cost of implementation	No capex cost required	Low-cost measures	Low cost to disconnect and bag the signals (retain poles and lanterns in-situ). Higher capital costs to remove poles and signal infrastructure.

4.22 Several issues have been raised through the independent report by Abley that could further improve the corridor. Therefore, staff recommend undertaking further investigations along the corridor to improve efficiency, including (but not limited to):

4.22.1 Modifying traffic signal activation and phasing based on detector input from the bus stops.

4.22.2 Physical changes to intersections to remove pinch points and allow bus lanes to proceed all the way through to intersections such as Manchester Street / Worcester Street, such as that shown in Attachment C.

4.23 The following options were also considered but were not assessed as being reasonably practicable for this report, for the reasons outlined below:

4.23.1 Alternative options for the layout of Manchester Street: Any significant changes to the design of Manchester Street would require extensive consultation and funding. This could be considered during the investigations that staff recommend for the review of the whole corridor.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The estimated costs for different options are provided in the table below.

5.2 The cost are high-level estimates and are not tendered prices.

	Option A	Option B	Option C
Cost to Implement	Nil	Up to $10k to implement detection	Up to $3k for disconnection and covering lanterns. Up to $10k for removal of signal poles and lanterns
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	$500 per year	Nil
Funding Source	Nil	Real Time Operations	Real Time Operations
Funding Availability	Nil	Yes	Yes
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a reputational risk to the Council should it choose to remove public transport infrastructure that provides priority for buses. However, in this case the amount of priority provided is negligible. This would be in direct conflict with the direction set through jointly endorsed business cases, namely the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Futures Business Case and the Mass Rapid Transit Indicative Business Case. Both business cases emphasise the need for enhanced public transport priority to support long-term mode shift, network efficiency, and sustainable urban growth.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 The intersection is located within the Central City Area marked on the Plan A area. If staff have to report back on Community Views and Preferences for Option C, it is recommended that this be presented directly back to the Council.

6.3 Staff would need to report back on the community views of this option and its impacts.

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision in this report.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.4.1 More people are choosing to travel by public transport - >=14 million trips per year

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 635 kilometres (total combined length)

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 As staff were solely trialling the impact of the existing bus gates, no public consultation or communications/marketing campaign was undertaken.

6.9 Staff had communicated the details of this trial with ECan and continued to work with ECan to understand any impact on the bus services from them.

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

6.10.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 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

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

6.14 However, providing priority for buses will enhance public transport reliability, bus user satisfaction, and encourage more people to use public transport.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If this report and the staff recommendation is approved, staff will proceed with implementation of the detectors and the corridor analysis and review.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial Analysis report by Abley (Under Separate Cover)	25/1551499
b ⇩	Memo – Manchester Street bus gates trial	25/1551500	156
c ⇩	Manchester Worcester concept	25/1622463	159

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mansour Johari - Passenger Transport Engineer

Jann Kuhlmann - Team Leader Real Time Operations

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

[1] The Government intends to divide the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. Parts 1 to 4, Part 6, and Schedules 1 to 4 would continue as the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. Part 5 and Schedules 5 to 12 would become the Local Government (Water Services Repeals and Amendments) Bill (or a similar name).

[8] Clause 101(4) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

[10] Evidence of Mark Shalders, Daresbury Limited, 20 September 2023, as cited in IHP Recommendation Report (Part 5 at [192], 29 July 2024).