Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 3 September 2025

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00252

That the apology from Councillor McLellan for lateness and Councillors Coker and MacDonald for potential early departure be accepted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor Templeton declared an interest in Item 18 – Proposed Locky Dock cycle parking and charging station in Rauora Park, Lichfield St.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 9.50 am and returned at 9.52 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 9.50 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 9.59 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 10.09 am and returned at 10.11 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2025
	Council Comment 1. In response to matters raised during the Community Board presentations, the meeting requested further advice around safety and police restructuring (refer Resolution 2) and nighttime enforcement of noise control (refer Resolution 3).
	Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Bridget Williams, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Emma Norrish, Chairperson, and Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Helen Broughton, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, and Chris Turner-Bullock, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Callum Ward, Chairperson, and Jess Garrett, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2025 Report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00253 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2025 Report. 2. Requests that staff invite the Police to provide a briefing to the Council regarding safety and to discuss the proposed restructuring after hearing concerns raised by the Community Boards. 3. Requests that staff provide advice on options for improving nighttime enforcement of noise control and other such public disturbances. Mayor/Councillor Gough Carried
	Attachments a Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council d Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council e Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council f Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.22 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.20 am and returned at 10.23 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3.1.1

Drucilla Kingi-Patterson

Drucilla Kingi-Patterson spoke regarding a community and Council working party for rail, as well as one for a flood protection management centre, and the Bus Exchange toilets.

Attachments

a Drucilla Kingi-Patterson - Notes - Presentation to Council

Councillor McLellan returned to the meeting at 10.32 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

Councillor MacDonald returned to the meeting at 10.33 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.33 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2 East Christchurch Housing Trust

David Close and other trustees spoke on behalf of East Christchurch Housing Trust regarding a proposal for a small housing project in the Residential Red Zone area in New Brighton.

Secretarial Note: The meeting requested that staff provide advice back on the Trust’s proposal including whether other options might be available that support its request.

Attachments

a East Christchurch Housing Trust - Presentation to Council

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.38 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1 and did not return.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 10.39 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1

The Arts Centre

Daniel Stirland and Philip Aldridge spoke on behalf of the Arts Centre regarding Item 16 – Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre.

Attachments

a The Arts Centre - Presentation to Council

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Council Minutes - 2 July 2025

Council Comment

1. The meeting block resolved Open Minutes Items 5 through 9 and PX Minutes Items 25 through 28.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00254

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 July 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

6. Council Minutes - 11 June 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00255

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 11 June 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

7. Council Minutes - 16 July 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00256

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council meeting held 16 July 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

8. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 27 June 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00257

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 27 June 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

9. Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 14 July 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00258

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Civic Awards Committee meeting held 14 July 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

25. Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 27 June 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00259

That the Council receives the Public Excluded Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 27 June 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

26. Public Excluded Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 14 July 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00260

That the Council receives the Public Excluded Minutes from the Civic Awards Committee meeting held 14 July 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

27. Public Excluded Council Minutes - 11 June 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00261

That the Council confirms the Public Excluded minutes from the Council meeting held on 11 June 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

28. Public Excluded Council Minutes - 16 July 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00262

That the Council confirms the Public Excluded minutes from the Council meeting held on 16 July 2025.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 10 July 2025
11. Oaklands School Safety Improvements - Dunbars Road Signalised Crossing
	Council Comment 1. The meeting considered all Community Board reports, Items 11 through 15, together as each related to recommendations for transport-related safety improvements. The Mayor Moved and Councillor Scandrett Seconded the Community Board recommendations. 2. Council Officers Stephen Wright, Gemma Dioni, and Lynette Ellis joined the table to answer questions from elected members. 3. At the conclusion of questions, the meeting block resolved Items 11 through 15, accepting the recommendations without change.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00263 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendations accepted without change That the Council: 1. Approves in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 that a signalised roadway crossing be installed on Dunbars Road, located 53 metres northwest of its intersection with Balkwell Street, and as detailed on Plan TG1502s2 dated 25/05/2025 included in Attachment A. This signalised crossing is for use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004. 2. Approves in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of southeastbound road users be installed on the southeast side of Dunbars Road commencing at a point approximately 23 metres north of its intersection with Balkwell Street and extending in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 51 metres. 3. Approves in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of northwestbound road users be installed on the southwest side of Dunbars Road commencing at a point approximately 34 metres northwest of its intersection with Balkwell Street and extending in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 37 metres. Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 10 July 2025

12. Knights Stream School Safety Improvement - Signalised Crossing on Halswell Junction Road

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00264

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approves in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 that a signalised roadway crossing be installed on Halswell Junction Road, located 38 metres north of its intersection with Albert Wills Avenue, and as detailed on Plan TG1495s2 dated 20/05/2025 included in Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda. This signalised crossing is for use by the classes of road user as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 10 July 2025

13. Barrington/Frankleigh/Milton Intersection Improvements

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00265

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of northwestbound 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 Barrington Street commencing at its intersection with Frankleigh Street and extending in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

2. In accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of southeastbound 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 Barrington Street commencing at its intersection with Milton Street and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 10 July 2025

14. Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Selwyn Street pedestrian and cycle safety improvements

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00266

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approves in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 for Plan TG151619, dated 05/06/2025 as shown in Attachment C of the agenda report:

a. That a Special Vehicle Lane (cycle lane) be installed on the north-east side of Selwyn Street, commencing at its intersection with Milton Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

b. That a Special Vehicle Lane (cycle lane) be installed on the south-west side of Selwyn Street, commencing at its intersection with Milton Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 10 July 2025

15. Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Lyttelton Street safety improvements

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00267

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004:

a. For the use of southbound road users, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the east side of Lyttelton Street, commencing at a point 11.5 metres south of its intersection with Frankleigh Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 556.5 metres.

b. For the use of northbound users, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the west side of Lyttelton Street, commencing at a point 11 metres south of its intersection with Sparks Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 571 metres.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.01 am and reconvened at 11.25 am.

16. Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre
	Council Comment 1. Council Officer Mark Stevenson joined the table to speak to this Item and answer questions from elected members. 2. Councillor Moore then Moved Option 2 from the report, to approve the Arts Centre’s Development Contributions application. This was Seconded by Councillor Harrison-Hunt. 3. Councillor Coker then Moved a foreshadowed Motion to decline the Arts Centre’s Development Contributions application, consistent with the Officer Recommendations. This was Seconded by Councillor Gough. 4. At the conclusion of debate, the meeting voted by division on the Motion as Moved by Councillor Moore and Seconded by Councillor Harrison-Hunt, which was declared lost. 5. The meeting then voted on the foreshadowed Motion as Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor Gough, which was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre Report. 2. Notes that the decision sought in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Declines the Development Contributions remission application from the Arts Centre for $17,019.70 in accordance with the Development Contributions Policy 2021 as it is considered that unique and compelling circumstances do not sufficiently exist to justify a remission of development contribution. 4. Notes that if the remission is declined, staff will discuss a payment plan with the Arts Centre to allow the payment of the $17,019.70 to occur over a 24-month timeframe.
	Council Decision That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre Report. 2. Notes that the decision sought in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Approves the Development Contributions remission application from the Arts Centre for $17,019.70 in accordance with the Development Contributions Policy 2021 as it is considered that unique and compelling circumstances sufficiently exist to justify a remission of development contribution. The division was declared lost* by 7 votes to 9 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Fields, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett Councillor Moore/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00268 That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre Report. 2. Notes that the decision sought in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Declines the Development Contributions remission application from the Arts Centre for $17,019.70 in accordance with the Development Contributions Policy 2021 as it is considered that unique and compelling circumstances do not sufficiently exist to justify a remission of development contribution. 4. Notes that if the remission is declined, staff will discuss a payment plan with the Arts Centre to allow the payment of the $17,019.70 to occur over a 24-month timeframe. Councillor Coker/Councillor Gough Carried Councillors Moore and Templeton requested that their votes against the resolution be recorded.

17. 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options

Council Comment

1. In accordance with Standing Order 6.8, this Item was withdrawn from the agenda and, at the request of the Chairperson, referred to the 27 August 2025 Finance and Performance Committee meeting to allow time for Council Officers to provide further information.

18. Proposed Locky Dock cycle parking and charging station in Rauora Park, Lichfield St

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00269

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Proposed Locky Dock cycle parking and charging station in Rauora Park, Lichfield St 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 site in Rauora Park (200R Cashel St) adjacent to 133 Lichfield St (shown in Attachment B of this report) to be added to the Licence to Occupy (public excluded Attachment C to this report) to enable the installation of a Locky Dock cycle parking and charging station, subject to the granting of a Resource Consent.

4. Subject to the approval of Recommendation 3:

a. Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the power to sign all required documentation to complete the Licence to Occupy.

5. Notes that Public Excluded Attachment C to this report, the Licence to Occupy signed with Locky Docks, will be released upon the review of Head of Transport.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

Councillor Templeton declared an interest in this Item, sat back from the table and took no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 11.55 am and returned at 12.01 pm during consideration of Items 19, 20 and 21.

19. Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Nor'West Arc Section 3 (University to Harewood Road)
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Jacob Bradbury and Lynette Ellis joined the table to speak to Items 19, 20, and 21 as each related to decisions required in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024. 2. Councillor Coker then Moved the alternative options outlined in each report, requesting that staff consult on reducing speed limits on the identified streets. This was Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 3. At the conclusion of questions, the meeting held a single debate on all three Items (19, 20, and 21). At the conclusion of debate, the meeting held a single vote by division on all Motions as Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Cotter. 4. All three Motions to proceed with consultation were carried.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Nor'West Arc Section 3 (University to Harewood Road) Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024: a. Revokes the 40km/h speed limits approved by the Urban Development and Transport Committee on 3 February 2022 for Nor’West Arc Section 3 [UDATC/2022/00005 resolution 2, see Attachment C] on streets where Detailed Traffic Resolutions were not approved before the Rule. This applies to the following streets: i. Aorangi Road (Ilam Road – Condell Ave). ii. Condell Ave (Aorangi Road – Matsons Ave). iii. Matsons Ave (Condell Ave – Matsons Ave). iv. Kemp Lane (full length). v. 14-14a Aorangi Road (full length). vi. Royal Elm Lane (full length). vii. 102 Aorangi Road (full length). b. Revokes the 40km/h speed limits approved by the Council on 25 August 2022 for Nor’West Arc Section 3A [CNCL/2022/00091 resolutions 61 a ii – ix, see Attachment D] on streets where the limits had not been installed before the Rule. This applies to the following streets: i. Moorpark Place (full length). ii. Joyce Crescent (full length). iii. Tuirau Place (full length). iv. Swanleigh Place (full length). v. Ryeland Ave (full length). vi. Braithwaite Street (full length). vii. Chateau Drive (full length). viii. Matisse Place (full length). 4. Approves the removal of all associated signage and road markings from the design, that are associated with the revocation of the 40km/h speed limit as outlined in Recommendation 3 above. 5. Approves that the existing 50km/h speed limit be retained for the streets set out in Recommendations 3(a)(i)-(vii) and 3(b)(i)-(viii) above.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00270 That the Council: 1. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, instructs staff to undertake consultation and provide a further report to the Council on reducing speed limits for the following locations: a. Aorangi Road (Ilam Road – Condell Ave) b. Condell Ave (Aorangi Road – Matsons Ave) c. Matsons Ave (Condell Ave – Harewood Road) 2. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024: a. Revokes the 40km/h speed limits approved by the Urban Development and Transport Committee on 3 February 2022 for Nor’West Arc Section 3 [UDATC/2022/00005 resolution 2, see Attachment C] on streets where Detailed Traffic Resolutions were not approved before the Rule. This applies to the following streets: i. Kemp Lane (full length). ii. 14-14a Aorangi Road (full length). iii. Royal Elm Lane (full length). iv. 102 Aorangi Road (full length). b. Revokes the 40km/h speed limits approved by the Council on 25 August 2022 for Nor’West Arc Section 3A [CNCL/2022/00091 resolutions 61 a ii – ix, see Attachment D] on streets where the limits had not been installed before the Rule. This applies to the following streets: i. Moorpark Place (full length). ii. Joyce Crescent (full length). iii. Tuirau Place (full length). iv. Swanleigh Place (full length). v. Ryeland Ave (full length). vi. Braithwaite Street (full length). vii. Chateau Drive (full length). viii. Matisse Place (full length). 3. Approves the removal of all associated signage and road markings from the design that are associated with the revocation of the 40km/h speed limit as outlined in Recommendation 4 above. 4. Approves that the existing 50km/h speed limit be retained for the streets set out in Recommendations 4(a)(i)-(iv) and 4(b)(i)-(viii) above. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters Councillor Coker/Deputy Mayor Carried

20. Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Worcester Street (Latimer Square to Fitzgerald Ave)
	Council Comment 1. Refer to the Council Comment in Item 19 above for details regarding the meeting’s consideration of this Item.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Worcester Street (Latimer Square to Fitzgerald Ave) 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. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024: a. Revokes the 30km/h speed limits established for Worcester Street between Latimer Square East and Fitzgerald Avenue (Council Meeting 12 May 2022 (CNCL/2022/00055), resolutions 23 – 28 as specified in Attachment C of this report); and b. Approves that the existing 50km/h speed limit be retained for Worcester Street (Latimer Square East to Fitzgerald Avenue). 4. Revokes the following resolutions related to layout and associated operational changes along Worcester Street made by the Council at its 12 May 2022 meeting (CNCL/2022/00055 and as specified in Attachment C of this report): a. General approval of layouts and stopping lines (resolution 5). b. Localised education around the use of sharrows (resolution 6). c. Road markings, kerb alignments and road surface changes west of Latimer Square (resolution 12). d. Road markings, kerb alignments, road surface changes and special vehicle lanes Latimer Square to Barbadoes Street (resolutions 14 and 15). e. Road markings, kerb alignments, and road surface changes at the Worcester Street - Barbadoes Street intersection (resolution 16). f. Road markings, kerb alignments, road surface changes, road hump, and parking and stopping restrictions Barbadoes Street to Fitzgerald Ave (resolutions 17 to 22). 5. Approves that Worcester Street (Manchester to Fitzgerald) is removed from the scope of #52228 Cycle Facilities & Connections Improvements.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00271 That the Council: 1. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, instructs staff to undertake consultation and provide a further report to the Council on reducing speed limits for the following locations: a. Worcester Street (Latimer Square East to Barbadoes) b. Worcester Street (Barbadoes Street to Fitzgerald Avenue) 2. Instructs staff not to install any physical changes to Worcester Street until a decision regarding the permanent speed limit has been made. 3. Noting the current budget shortfall, requests staff to obtain an updated estimate for the works and, if necessary, include options for funding the works in the report back to the Council. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters Councillor Coker/Deputy Mayor Carried

21. Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Antigua Street (Moorhouse to St Asaph)
	Council Comment 1. Refer to the Council Comment in Item 19 above for details regarding the meeting’s consideration of this Item.
	Officer Recommendations That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Antigua Street (Moorhouse to St Asaph) 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. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024: a. Revokes the following 30km/h speed limits established for the full length of Halkett Street and for Antigua Street between Moorhouse Ave and St Asaph Street (Council meeting 12 May 2022 (CNCL/2022/00055], resolutions 32 and 33: 32. Approves that the speed limit on Antigua Street from its intersection with Saint Asaph Street to its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue be set at 30 kilometres per hour. 33. Approves that the speed limit on Halkett Street, from its intersection with Antigua Street to its eastern road termination, be set at 30 kilometres per hour. b. Approves that the existing 50km/h speed limit be retained for: i. Halkett Street (Antigua Street to eastern road termination). ii. Antigua Street (Moorhouse Ave – St Asaph Street).
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00272 That the Council: 1. In accordance with the requirements set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, instructs staff to undertake consultation and provide a further report to the Council on reducing speed limits for the following locations: a. Halkett Street (Antigua Street to eastern road termination); b. Antigua Street (Moorhouse Ave – St Asaph Street). The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore and Councillor Peters Councillor Coker/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 12.16 pm during consideration of Item 22.

22. Extension of Time for Heritage Incentive Grant to 527 Colombo Street, New City Hotel

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00273

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Extension of Time for Heritage Incentive Grant to 527 Colombo Street, New City Hotel 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 an extension of time of eighteen months for the uptake of the $162,376.00 Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for the building at 527 Colombo Street.

4. Notes that the new completion date for the project will be 28 February 2027.

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Councillor Moore requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

Councillor Keown returned to the meeting at 12.21 pm during consideration of Item 23.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 12.31 pm and returned at 12.33 pm during consideration of Item 23.

23. Council submission on Going for Housing Growth proposals

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00274

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Council submission on Going for Housing Growth proposals Report.

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

3. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Going for Housing Growth proposals (Attachment A and Attachment B to this report) to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

4. Delegates to the Head of Planning and Consents any correction, or amendments of a minor nature arising from the Council meeting.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Mayor Carried

24. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00275

That at 12.33 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 377 to 388 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Henstock Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.42 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.42 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00276

That the apologies from Councillor Gough for absence, Councillor Johanson for lateness and Councillor Henstock for early departure be accepted.

Mayor/Councillor Peters Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

There were no public forum presentations.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

Councillor Templeton joined the meeting at 9.34 am during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1

St Mary's Anglican Church

Vicar Mark Sullivan spoke on behalf of St Mary's Anglican Church regarding Item 12 - Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions.

Attachments

a St Mary's Anglican Church Parking Recommendations - Presentation to Council

3.2.2 Reverend Dr Richard Waugh

Reverend Dr Richard Waugh spoke regarding Item 5 - National Erebus Memorial.

Councillor Donovan joined the meeting at 10.38 am during consideration of Item 5.

5. National Erebus Memorial
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Duncan Sandeman and Ceciel DelaRue and Jeff Gibson from the Ministry of Culture and Heritage joined the table to present the report. 2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett (Original Motion). 3. During discussion, a Foreshadowed Motion was Moved by Councillor Templeton and Seconded by Councillor Coker to offer two potential sites for the the National Erebus Memorial. 4. The Mover and Seconder of the Original Motion agreed to include the second potential site to the Motion, and when put to the vote the Motion was declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00277 That the Council: 1. Receives the information contained in the National Erebus Memorial Report. 2. Agrees to offer Cracroft Reserve in Cashmere and the Ōtākaro Avon River in the central city as two potential sites 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. Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried Councillor McLellan requested that his abstention from the vote be recorded.

The meeting adjourned at 10.31am and reconvened at 10.37 am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 10.55 am via audio/visual link during consideration of Item 7.

The meeting adjourned at 10.59 am and reconvened at 11.21 am during consideration of Item 7.

The meeting adjourned at 11.43 am and reconvened at 11.49 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Development Contributions Policy 2025
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers David Griffiths and Ellen Cavanagh joined the table to present the report. 2. The Originial Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor McLellan. 3. Amendments to the Policy (refer to 3a to 3e below) were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor Keown. The amendments included: · 3a to 3c – extending the life of the credits from 10 years to 20 years. · 3d - to provide a remission for developments assessed under a previous development contributions policy to receive the benefit of the 20-year life of existing demand credits provision (to apply only to developments where Code Compliance Certificate or Section 224c certificate has not been issued). · 3e – to cap the per-HUE development contributions charges for properties within the central catchment at 30% of the charges set out in Appendix 1 of the draft Development Contributions Policy. 4. A Procedural Motion was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett, to let both the Development Contributions Policy 2025 report and the Development Contributions Rebate Schemes report (Item 8 of the Agenda) lie on the table and be considered at the 27 August 2025 Finance and Performance meeting. This was to enable further information to be provided on amendment 3e. When put to the vote the Procedural Motion was declared carried by way of division.
	Original Officer Recommendations Moved and Seconded That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report). 4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 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. Councillor Coker/Councillor McLellan Moved/Seconded
	Amendment Moved and Seconded That the Council: 3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report) subject to the following amendments: a) 3.3.1 Life of existing demand credits Existing demand credits expire 20 years after the previous development on a site last exerted demand on infrastructure. The Council considers this a reasonable time within which a developer can redevelop a previously used site. If, over the preceding 20 year period, a lot has not been used for either residential or non-residential purposes, the land will be regarded as undeveloped and deemed to have 1 HUE existing demand credit. b) 3.3.4 Considerations when assessing existing demand credit for non-residential development Credits will be assessed based on the previous use of the site using the highest level of actual or otherwise verifiable demand from the past 20 years. c) 3.3.5 Other considerations when assessing existing demand credit for any development The Council may require a developer to provide supporting information relating to the demand a site previously exerted on Council infrastructure. The decision to accept the accuracy of the information provided by the developer is at the sole discretion of the Council. d) Agrees to provide a remission for developments assessed under a previous development contributions policy to receive the benefit of the 20-year life of existing demand credits provision, as adopted in Development Contributions Policy 2025. This applies only to developments where Code Compliance Certificate or Section 224c certificate has not been issued. e) Agrees to cap the per-HUE development contributions charges for properties within the central catchment at 30% of the charges set out in Appendix 1 of the draft Development Contributions Policy. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Moved/Seconded
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00278 The Council resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 20.2 that Items 7 and 8 lie on the table and will not be further discussed at this meeting but will be reconsidered at Finance and Performance Committee to be held on 27 August 2025. The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 6 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Johanson and Councillor McLellan Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

8. Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

Council Comment

1. During the consideration of Item 7 - Development Contributions Policy 2025 (the Policy) the Council resolved to let both the Policy report and the Development Contributions Rebate Schemes report lie on the table and be considered at the 27 August 2025 Finance and Performance meeting. Refer to Item 7 above for the decision.

Officer Recommendations

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.

6. Water Services Delivery Plan Adoption - Local Water Done Well

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00280

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

9. Plan Change 14 - Decision Making for Daresbury Heritage Listing
	Council Comment 1. The Original Officer Recommendations included an option to either accept the alternative recommendation in respect to Daresbury Heritage Listing (refer to 7a), or to accept the Panel’s recommendation to retain the Daresbury heritage listing and associated heritage setting (refer to 7b). 2. The option to accept the alternative recommendation in respect to Daresbury Heritage Listing (7a) and the remaining Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor Moore and when put to the vote were declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations 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. OR 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00281 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: 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. 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. Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Moore Carried Deputy Mayor Cotter requested that her vote against the resolutions be recorded.

10. Hagley Golf Course Tree Removal and Planting

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00282

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Peters Carried

11. Burwood Landfill Site C Operational Extension

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00283

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Barber/Deputy Mayor Carried

Councillor Moore left the meeting at 12.10 pm and returned at 12.12 pm during consideration of Item 12.

12. Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Lynette Ellis, Jacob Bradbury and Katharine Jones joined the table to present the report. 2. Following the deputation received from St Mary's Anglican Church Council Officers provided a set of updated Officer Recommendations. The updated Recommendations included: a. Removing the detailed traffic resolutions associated Truscotts Road as per Attachment A of the report and instead, instructing staff to investigate parking options on Truscotts Road (Deavoll Place to Martindales Road), and provide a report to the relevant Community Board for consideration of any further changes. b. Retaining the detailed traffic resolutions associated with Section 2D of the Heathcote Expressway as per Attachment B of the report. 3. The updated Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Keown and Seconded by Councillor Templeton and when put to the vote were declared carried.
	Original Officer Recommendations 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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00284 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. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Instructs staff to investigate parking options on Truscotts Road (Deavoll Place to Martindales Road), and provide a report to the relevant Community Board for consideration of any further changes: a. Noting the deputation from St Mary’s Church at the Council meeting of 20 August 2025. b. Noting the concerns of local residents that have been raised through the recent consultation. Councillor Keown/Councillor Templeton Carried

Councillor Henstock left the meeting at 12.05 pm during consideration of Item 13 and did not return.

13. Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School - Detailed traffic resolutions

Council Comment

1. Council Officers Lynette Ellis, Jacob Bradbury and Kelly Griffiths joined the table to present the report.

2. The Original Officer Recommendations (including minor corrections to referenced numbering of recommendations as underlined below) were Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor Harrison-Hunt, and when put to the vote were declared carried.

Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00285

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 6-13 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 15-21 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 23-33 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 35-36 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 38-41 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 43-47 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 49-54 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 56-58 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 60-65 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 67-71 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).

Councillor Coker/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 12.24 pm and returned at 12.26 pm during consideration of Item 14.

14. Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial
	Council Comment 1. Council Officers Stephen Wright and Johari Mansour joined the table to present the report. 2. The Mayor Moved, Seconded by Councillor Barber, Option C, to approve undertaking of a further six-month trial during which the bus gates will not be operated, and requesting 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. Councillor Harrison-Hunt Moved a Foreshadowed Motion, Seconded by Councillor Coker, for the Original Officer Recommendations (Option B), to install detectors at bus stops to ensure bus gates operate only when a bus is present and 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. 4. When out to the vote the Original Motion (Option C) was declared lost. 5. When put to the vote the Foreshadowed Motion (Option B) was declared carried.
	Council Decision 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 undertaking of a further six-month trial during which the bus gates will not be operated. a. Notes that should the recommendation for the trial be approved, staff will undertake public consultation before returning to the Council for a decision on the operation of the bus gates. b. 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. Mayor/Councillor Barber Lost
	Council Resolved CNCL/2025/00286 Officer Recommendations accepted without change 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. Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Coker Carried Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolutions be recorded.

15. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui

Council Recommendation

That at 12.48 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 160 to 161 of the agenda be adopted.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 1.17 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 1.17 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

13. Plan Change 14 Decision (in-part) and Proposed Withdrawal
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1603310
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ike Kleynbos, Principal Advisor Planning, Sarah Oliver, Team Leader City Planning, Brent Pizzey, Senior Legal Counsel
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The Minister’s direction under the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) requires the Council to complete decisions on Plan change 14 (PC14) in time to notify all decisions by 12 December 2025. A recent change to the Act allows Council to apply to the Minister to withdraw undecided parts of plan change 14 (PC14) if the operative District Plan meets the Act’s criteria for sufficient feasible housing capacity. The District Plan does not meet that criteria. The only way to meet that criteria in the operative District Plan by December is to accept PC14 IHP recommendations for more medium density areas.

1.2 This report recommends that the Council:

(i) Accept PC14 IHP recommendations for medium density zoning in the areas identified in this report, which will be sufficient for the Council to meet the feasible housing capacity prerequisite for withdrawing the balance of PC14;

(ii) Accept PC14 IHP recommendations for qualifying matters, overlays and general rules for those areas; and

(iii) Apply to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14.

2. Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Plan Change 14 Decision (in-part) and Proposed Withdrawal Report.

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

3. 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/.

4. Receives the PDF mapping of medium density areas included as Attachments A to K to this report and the online webmap ‘PC14 Proposed Opt Out – 3 September 2025’ (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/51fa6c542af34ed580eb06388eabe0fd).

Decision to limit the extent of Plan Change 14 decisions

5. Limits decision-making to the area within ‘Proposed 3 September 2025 zoning’ in the mapping detailed in Recommendation 4 of this report Attachments A to K and the webmap.

6. In addition to Recommendation 5, extends the decision-making to the following areas marked as ‘Prospective MRZ Additions’:

a. Princess Margaret Hospital as detailed in Attachment I [PC14 MRZ Council Opt-Out – Proposal: Map 9]

b. MRT corridor addition – Riccarton’ as detailed in Attachment E [PC14 MRZ Council Opt-Out – Proposal: Map 5]

c. MRT corridor addition – Sockburn’ as detailed in Attachment G [PC14 MRZ Council Opt-Out – Proposal: Map 7]

d. MRT corridor addition – Merivale’ as detailed in Attachment B [PC14 MRZ Council Opt-Out – Proposal: Map 2]

Decisions to Accept the Panel’s Recommendations on Plan Change 14

Zones and overlays

7. Accepts the Panel’s Recommendations within the approved areas in Recommendations 5 and 6 as follows:

a. Medium Density Residential Zone;

b. Specific Purpose (Hospital) Zone, only in relation to:

i. Princess Margaret Hospital [as per Recommendation 6.a.];

ii. Hillmorton Hospital, but only for the Lincoln / Annex Road site (legally described as Secs 3 and 4 SO 525420, Pt RS 159 Canterbury Dist) [as per Recommendation 5];

c. Specific Purpose (School) Zone;

d. Residential Visitor Accommodation Zone;

e. Enhanced Development Mechanism overlay [to retain];

f. Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism overlay [to retain only for the Residential Overlay];

g. Riccarton Wastewater Interceptor Catchment Overlay [to remove this];

h. The Residential Pathways.

i. Any other residential zone or overlay, only to the extent that they support or are consequential on this decision and only to the extent that they apply within the areas approved in Recommendations 5 and 6.

Qualifying matters

8. Accepts the Panel’s Recommendations within the approved areas in Recommendations 5 and 6 as follows:

a. Airport Noise Influence Area: 2023 Remodelled 50 dB Ldn Outer Envelope and 50 dB Ldn Air Noise Contour [to retain and expand];

b. Electricity Corridors and Structures [to retain];

c. Heritage Items & Settings [to retain and remove];

d. Heritage Items & Settings [to only retain and remove];

e. Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes [to retain];

f. Significant and Other Trees [to only retain and remove];

g. Railway Building Setbacks [to retain];

h. Residential Character Area [to only retain and remove];

i. Sites of Ecological Significance [to retain];

j. Waterbody setbacks [to retain];

k. Industrial Interface [to apply as new restriction];

l. Residential Heritage Area Interface [to reject the proposed restriction];

m. Sunlight Access [to reject the proposed restriction];

District Plan Chapters

9. Accepts the Panel’s Recommendations within the approved areas in Recommendations 5 and 6 as follows:

a. Chapter 2 – Definitions;

b. Chapter 5 – Natural Hazards;

c. Chapter 6 – General Rules and Procedures;

d. Chapter 7 – Transport;

e. Chapter 8 – Subdivision, Development and Earthworks;

f. Chapter 11 – Utilities and Energy;

g. Chapter 13 – Special Purpose Zones;

h. Chapter 14 – Residential (inclusive of 14A and 14B sub-parts).

Application to withdraw Plan Change 14

10. Agrees to apply to the Minister under Schedule 3C (Part 2) of the Resource Management Act for approval to withdraw the undecided remainder of Plan Change 14.

11. Subject to the approval of the Minister, resolves to withdraw the undecided balance of Plan Change 14 under Clause 8D of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act.

Clerical delegations and approvals:

12. 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.

13. Delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Consents to apply to the Minister to withdraw the undecided balance of Plan Change 14, as per Recommendation 10, and any associated administration needed for the Minister to complete decision making.

14. Resolves to publicly notify its above decisions on Panel recommendations NO LATER THAN 19 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 Minister has directed under the Act that the Council complete all decision making for the remainder of PC14 in time to notify decisions by 12 December 2025.

3.2 A recent change to the Act^{^[1]} allows the Council to apply to the Minister to withdraw undecided parts of PC14, subject to the Minister being satisfied that the “key requirement” is met. That “key requirement” is that the operative district plan has enough feasible (defined as meaning “commercially viable”) housing capacity to meet the latest 30-year high growth household demand projection from Statistics New Zealand plus a 20% contingency. This equates to a feasible housing capacity of 65,600 households. The operative District Plan does not yet meet that criteria. The only way to meet it in the time available is to accept IHP recommendations for medium density zoning for more areas.

3.3 Through a series of workshops (22 July, 5 August, 19 August), staff and Council considered options to provide more medium density. In reliance on feedback in those workshops, this report recommends additional Medium Density Residential zoning to ensure the Act’s feasible housing capacity criteria is met within the operative District Plan and to apply to the Minister for approval to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14.

3.4 The information in the IHP record is the sole relevant information for the decision on whether to accept or reject IHP recommendations on zoning and provisions including qualifying matters^{^[2]}. Staff are not providing advice to the Council on whether to accept IHP recommendations, other than identifying the IHP recommendations that are relevant to this decision.

3.5 Relevant considerations for the Council’s decision making on what geographical areas to rezone medium density are not constrained to those in the IHP records. For the selection of the areas to accept medium density zoning, assessment of options and relevant and irrelevant considerations are subject to the usual standards for Council decision making.

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 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.

Engagement on intensification

Pre-notification engagement on PC14

4.2 Pre-notification engagement on draft Plan Change 14 occurred over April and May 2022. This involved letters to affected properties, public advertising, flyers in all Christchurch City Council libraries and services centres, a consultation website, and direct engagement via interactive webinars and stakeholder engagement. Over 700 respondents provided over 2,100 comments. The majority of respondents were opposed to increased medium density residential development. Those in support of intensification commented on areas they considered appropriate for intensification. Those who supported greater intensification favoured areas surrounding the City Centre, Church Corner, University, Wigram, Spreydon, Sydenham, Linwood, Barrington, Woolston, Edgeware, Avonhead Mall, Sumner and New Brighton.

4.3 The proposal in this recommendation report would see all of these areas being intensified (or are already partially intensified following the 2 December 2024 Policy 3 decision), except those areas where qualifying matters apply, such as Sumner and New Brighton.

4.4 Attachment M to this report includes the summary report of the public engagement, which was published online in June 2022. Of note, were responses from the (then) CDHB which discussed the health benefits of people living close to services. Similarly, Environment Canterbury was supportive given the consistency with the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS), reinforcing the Central City, Key Activity Centres and neighbourhood centres as commercial focal points with supporting higher density development within walkable catchments reducing car dependence.

Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan

4.5 The Huihui Mai engagement process for the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan (GCSP) occurred during the PC14 consultation (February-April 2023). Over 7,000 people provided feedback which was summarised in the Community Engagement Report, Youth Engagement Report and Community Workshop Summary Report. The draft GCSP engagement asked a range of questions, including "Do you agree that the best way to accommodate future growth in population and business is through targeted intensification in centres and along public transport corridors?" Most people (86%) agreed that future population and business growth should be focused around key urban and town centres and along public transport routes. Approximately 65% of submitters (through 358 public submissions) agreed to "focus future development and investment around urban centres and transport corridors". This approach was cemented within the GCSP and adopted by Council in 2024.

Within the PC14 process

4.6 The Council engaged on PC14 with iwi authorities through Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (Mahaanui). The full draft proposal was discussed with Mahaanui in April 2022, with draft s32 evaluation reports and related reports in July 2022. Following the Council’s decision to reject the plan change for notification in September 2022, Mahaanui reviewed the alternative proposal in 2023.

4.7 When it notified the proposed PC14, Council doubled the minimum period for public submissions on the proposal, providing an 8-week period for public submissions. Council received approximately 1,000 submissions on the proposal. There were over 200 appearances by submitters and their experts during the hearing.

The IHP recommendations report

4.8 The IHP issued its recommendation reports on 29 July 2024. These contain the IHP’s reasons for the recommendations on medium density, qualifying matters and overlays, being subjects of this report.

Development of proposal for accepting IHP PC14 medium density recommendations

4.9 The amended Act allows Council to apply to the Minister for approval to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14 if the operative District Plan has enough feasible housing capacity to meet 30 years of expected demand, applying the most recent high-growth household growth projections for Christchurch City published by Statistics New Zealand^{^[3]}. This equates to a commercially viable requirement of 65,600 households.

4.10 The operative district plan does not currently meet that criteria. The shortfall is between 1,300 to 6,800 depending on the impact of qualifying matters and outcome of any required resource consent application. The only way to meet that criteria by December 2025 is to accept PC14 IHP recommendations for more medium density areas.

4.11 In workshops over July/August 2025 the Mayor and Councillors discussed those changes to the Act and options for the geographical areas in which the Council could accept IHP recommendations for medium density so that the balance of PC14 could be withdrawn. A depiction of potential withdrawal areas is partially illustrated within the mapping in Attachments A to K as “No further PC14 decision” and fully illustrated on the webmap.

4.12 The options workshopped were as follows:

Option 1 – Around all key transport routes

4.12.1 This was based on the Council Reply position presented to the IHP, utilising the Low Public Transport Accessibility qualifying matter approach and avoiding development in areas affected by coastal hazard qualifying matters. Medium density would be limited to areas within an 800m walking catchment (circa 10-minutes) from high frequency bus routes, whilst avoiding areas with insufficient water or wastewater capacity, as identified in the proposed Low Public Transport Accessibility approach. This option would far exceed the key requirement for withdrawal.

Option 2 – Around key Centres

4.12.2 This was based on the PC14 Council evidence on commercial centres and the IHP recommendation. It proposed all ten commercial centres that had High Density Residential Zone in their surrounds would have further medium density zones around them. In addition, Medium Density Residential zones would be located around Barrington, Bishopdale and Halswell, and Residential Suburban Density Transition (RSDT) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) zones in the operative Plan would also be rezoned MRZ. This option would potentially meet the key requirement for withdrawal.

Option 3 – Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan

4.12.3 This option applies the intensification direction of the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan (GCSP). Intensification areas were broadly illustrated in ‘Map 2’ of the Strategy, identifying ‘Significant urban centres’ and ‘Locally important urban centres and towns’ which should be further intensified alongside other growth areas around the City Centre, centres, and transport corridors. Those ‘Significant urban centres’ included the three Large Town Centre Zones PC14 evidence had identified (Riccarton, Hornby, Papanui). The ‘Locally important urban centres and towns’ were a selection of the other commercial centres PC14 had enabled High Density Residential in the surrounds of. The GSCP centres-based direction therefore had a strong alignment with Option 2. This option would meet or slightly exceed the key requirement for withdrawal.

Option 4 – Enhanced Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan

4.12.4 This option would expand on the ‘Map 2’ direction of the GCSP. The expansion was based on the principles of the GCSP to intensify around public transport corridors. It recognised that mapping provided in the GCSP did not reflect the newly-added Route 8 ‘Port-to-port’ bus, nor fully enabled intensification in the catchment of the Orbiter bus route. As a result, the option expanded further into Fendalton, Bryndwr, Burnside and Ilam to the north west, and further into St Martins, Beckenham, Cashmere, and Hoon Hay to the south. This option ‘moderately exceeded’ the minimum requirements of the Act.

4.13 Feedback in the Councillor workshops supported applying to the Minister to withdraw the undecided parts of PC14 and providing more medium density around the intensification areas PC14 had already enabled (i.e. Dec 2024 decision), and in alignment with the GCSP, to ensure that the “key requirement” for withdrawal is met. Some Elected Members stated their concern over the lack of future-proofing for protection along the preferred MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) route. Staff developed a proposal based on this feedback, presenting this in a workshop on 5 August 2025.

This report’s recommendation

4.14 The impact of qualifying matters on feasible housing calculations depends on the type of qualifying matter and the ease of obtaining resource consent for a breach of the qualifying matter. The qualifying matter may or may not adversely affect development feasibility, with the true financial cost only able to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Due to this uncertainty, staff have taken a conservative approach when calculating the feasible capacity yield by applying all qualifying matters to ensure the medium density zoning will safely exceed the 65,600 key requirement for withdrawal.

4.15 The estimated feasible housing capacity yield for the areas included in Recommendation 5 of this report, is at least 68,200. The full table of feasibility results for all examples and sources of results are included in Attachment L to this report.

Prospective Additions

4.16 Some councillors have requested additional areas of medium density rezoning be included in the recommendations. The following additions are to be considered separately under recommendation 6 and are detailed as follows:

4.16.1 Princess Margaret Hospital: accept IHP Recommendations to change the alternative zone of the Specific Purpose (Hospital) zone from Residential Suburban Density Transition to Medium Density Residential zone.

4.16.2 MRT Corridor – Riccarton: accept IHP Recommendations to zone the parcels fronting north of Riccarton Road (between Clyde Road and Puriri Street).

4.16.3 MRT Corridor – Merivale: accept IHP Recommendations between proposed medium density surrounding the Merivale commercial centre and Papanui commercial centre, along Papanui Road, within a 400m walking catchment either side of the road. Not zoning parcels that front Papanui Road to better protect the MRT Corridor.

4.16.4 MRT Corridor – Sockburn: accept the IHP Recommendations within a 400m walkable catchment either side of Main South Road, between Curletts Road and Epsom Street. Not zoning parcels that front Main South Road to better protect the MRT Corridor.

4.17 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
31 July 2025	Draft Plan Change 14 Opt Out Option & Commercial Feasibility

4.18 The following evidence summaries have been provided to Councillor and have been made available in the Big Tin Can:

Date	Subject
Qualifying matter	Airport noise influence area qualifying matter
Qualifying matter	Heritage qualifying matters
Qualifying matter	Industrial interface qualifying matter
MDRS/Policy 3 evidence	Social Impact Assessment, including housing affordability and Māori housing
Qualifying matter	Sunlight Access qualifying matter

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

Date	Subject
6 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
13 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
20 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
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
22 July 2025	Final decision on Plan Change 14 – Potential opting out
5 August 2025	PC14 opt out proposal and decision making
19 August 2025	Opting out of PC14

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.20 The options for identifying areas to rezone are described in paragraph 4.12 of this report.

4.21 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.21.1 Not seeking to withdraw the undecided parts of PC14. Council has previously resolved that it wishes to withdraw the balance of PC14 if the legislation allows it to do so;

4.21.2 Not accepting any IHP recommendations to rezone some areas as medium density. If Council does not rezone some areas, it does not meet the key requirement for withdrawing the undecided balance of PC14.

4.21.3 Deciding on all of the IHP recommendations rather than solely for the purposes of meeting the criteria for withdrawing the undecided balance of PC14. Council has previously resolved that it wishes to withdraw the balance of PC14 rather than resolve on medium density residential standards for all of Christchurch. If the Council was to reject the IHP recommendations for medium density for all of Christchurch, the Minister will then decide whether to accept or reject that decision for all of Christchurch. The outcome could require medium density across much of the residential area of Christchurch.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.22 Preferred Option: Accepting IHP recommendations for medium density zoning for the areas identified in the resolutions in this report, either with or without the additional areas in the resolutions proposed by some councillors.

4.22.1 Option Description: Accepting all IHP Recommendations within the specific geographic areas identified.

4.22.2 Option Advantages

· Further decision-making on IHP Recommendations is completed.

· Sufficient feasible housing capacity is enabled to allow Council to apply to the Minister for approval to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14.

· Additional areas highly accessible to amenities, services, commerce, public and active transport are zoned for greater intensification.

4.22.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not maximise opportunity for enabling medium density housing as a permitted activity across all residential areas.

4.23 The assessment of this option against other medium density locational options is summarised in the following table:

Option	*Option 1 – Around all key transport routes*	*Option 2 – Around key Centres*	*Option 3 – Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan (GCSP)*	*Option 4 – Enhanced Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan*
Description	Based on the Council’s Low Public Transport Accessibility qualifying matter intensifying within 800m of core bus routes.	Intensifies within walkable catchments 400m from commercial centres for High Density and beyond that within 200m for Medium Density. All equivalent operative medium density rezoned.	Applies the GCSP approach to intensification around major commercial centres along key transport corridors.	As for Option 3 but extended to include intensification along more transport corridors and fills in the Orbiter route catchment.
Advantages	High housing yield estimated 122,700 of feasible capacity, equates to 170% of the 30yr High Growth + 20% contingency.	Medium housing yield estimated 65,700 of feasible capacity, equates to 100% of the 30yr High Growth + 20% contingency. Aligns with current LTP planned infrastructure & investment, specifically within walkable catchments. Maximises agglomeration benefits. Provides minor increases in medium density around Linwood and Barrington, avoiding flood prone areas.	Medium housing yield estimated 72,000 of feasible capacity, equates to 110% of the 30yr High Growth + 20% contingency. Well serviced by infrastructure, connects centres, maximises enablement within walkable catchments, aligns with major public transport routes including MRT, reducing demands on road network.	Medium housing yield estimated 83,200 of feasible capacity, equates to 127% of the 30yr High Growth + 20% contingency. Largely as per Option 3 aligning with core public transport options
Disadvantages	Difficult to plan infrastructure for widespread medium density enablement. May increase surface flooding with increase in impervious surfaces and impacts on secondary flowpaths. Some areas have insufficient wastewater capacity and low levels of accessibility to public transport. Significant costs to upgrade network. Potential to dilute positive economic, social, and environmental benefits of intensification within and around commercial centres.	Reduces the opportunity to support investment in public transport.	Moderately well aligned with water servicing with some outer locations having limited wastewater capacity.	Further increased capital expenditure to service wider intensified area. Some low levels of wastewater capacity and accessibility to parks. Potential risk of oversupply and low take-up of Priority Development Areas.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.24 The criteria for analysis of the options has included:

4.24.1 Feasibly housing capacity yield;

4.24.2 Propensity to support the commercial viability of centres;

4.24.3 Accessibility to services, including public transport;

4.24.4 Infrastructure capacity to support new development; and

4.24.5 Alignment with the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

		Alternatives
	Recommended Option	Option 1 Around all key transport routes	Option 2 Around key centres	Option 3 Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan	Option 4 Enhanced Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan
Cost to Implement	Updates to District Plan within existing budget for Planning Some areas may require upgrades that have not been budgeted for	Updates to District Plan within existing budget for Planning Significant cost beyond existing budgets for infrastructure	Updates to District Plan within existing budget for Planning Some areas may require upgrades that have not been budgeted for
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Ongoing for infrastructure maintenance
Funding Source	Planning budget to implement decision in District Plan Asset Planning budget for infrastructure
Funding Availability	Partially funded in LTP
Impact on Rates	Additional impact beyond current LTP

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 First, the risk of delay. If there is delay in accepting IHP recommendations for further medium density areas, there is a high risk that the Council will not be able to comply with the Minister’s direction under the Act that the Council completes its PC14 actions by 12 December. The mitigation is to make the decisions now rather than after the local body elections.

6.2 Secondly, that the Council proposes removing and replacing any of the medium density areas in resolution 5 of this report at the meeting on 3 September 2025. If those changes are proposed, the meeting will need to adjourn to another date so that staff can assess whether the change still enables the Council to meet the Act’s key requirement for withdrawing the undecided balance of PC14.

6.3 Thirdly, that the Council rejects rather than accepts the IHP recommendations for rezonings, qualifying matters or overlays for any of the medium density rezonings proposed in Recommendations 7 through 9 of this report. If that happens, then the decision is not operative in the District Plan, and the Council does not comply with the key requirement allowing for an application for withdrawal of the undecided balance of PC14, until after the Minister has decided on the disputed recommendations. That could put at risk the Council’s ability to meet the withdrawal criteria by 12 December. The mitigation is to accept rather than reject those recommendations.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform and Housing has directed that the Council is to complete all decision making on PC14 by December 2025. The other legal considerations are described throughout this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions:

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

6.5.2 Are assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the nature of the decision, the high level of interest to stakeholders and the public and influence on the urban form outcomes for Ōtautahi Christchurch.

6.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.7.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Decisions on the IHP recommendations for zoning and overlays within selected areas

6.8 The decisions in this report are of significant interest to the communities affected. The effects on communities of the IHP’s PC14 recommendations have been considered throughout the PC14 submissions, evidence, hearing and IHP recommendations.

6.9 The decision affects all of the Community Board areas. The views of the Community Boards are expressed in their submissions and verbal presentations to the Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14.

6.10 The Act confines the Council’s considerations to the views that have been expressed within the IHP process. The Council must not consider any submission or other evidence unless it was made available to the IHP before the IHP made the PC14 recommendation to Council. ^{^[4]}

Decisions on the extent of the geographical areas for which to make those decisions

6.11 Paragraphs 4.2 – 4.7 above describe the sources of information about community views relevant to those decisions. These have been expressed in PC14 engagement, throughout the PC14 submissions and evidence process, and in the submissions on the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan. In summary:

(a) The Council carried out extensive engagement and consultation with the community about intensification of Christchurch, as part of the PC14 process;

(b) There was further relevant consultation and engagement on community preferences for intensification during the Huihui Mai engagement and GCSP process;

(c) The recent change to the Act was made to provide a process by which the Council can ask the Minister to approve withdrawing undecided parts of PC14;

(d) Those changes to the Act do not anticipate further consultation and engagement on PC14 decisions. The Act already specifically provided that the Council must not consider submissions or other evidence that was not made available to the IHP and those provisions were not changed to require further consultation before the Council decides to apply to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14; and

(e) It is highly unlikely that the Council would be able to carry out further consultation and make final decisions on PC14 by the 12 December 2025 deadline.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.14 The plan change identifies sites of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu, waterbodies, and heritage areas as qualifying matters where intensification is limited in order to maintain cultural values.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 The decision in this report is anticipated to contribute to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions in being a decision on intensification around centres and near public and active transport corridors. The benefits of this for emissions reduction are expressed in submissions and evidence to the IHP.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The Council will publicly notify the decisions accepting IHP recommendations. Those new medium density zones, with all relevant rules, will then be in the operative District Plan. Staff will draft District Plan material and mapping to ensure that the content is operative on or before 19 September. Staff will also ensure that appropriate communication materials and FAQs alike are available to answer public queries.

7.2 Council staff will exercise the delegated authority to apply to the Minister for approval to withdraw the undecided balance of PC14. That application will include detail to satisfy the Minister that the operative District Plan meets the key requirement of having enough feasible housing capacity to meet 30 years of adjusted demand.

7.3 If the Minister approves the Council withdrawing PC14, then staff will exercise the delegated authority given in this report to do that. Staff expect that this formal step will be in November 2025 and will mark the end of PC14.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Belfast Map 1	25/1720554	147
b ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Papanui Map 2	25/1720837	148
c ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal St Albans Map 3	25/1720861	149
d ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Broomfield Map 4	25/1720739	150
e ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Riccarton Map 5	25/1720852	151
f ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Linwood Map 6	25/1720770	152
g ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Hornby Map 7	25/1720755	153
h ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Addington Hillmorton Map 8	25/1722734	154
i ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Sydenham Map 9	25/1720874	155
j ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Oaklands Halswell Map 10	25/1720822	156
k ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Proposal Lyttelton Map 11	25/1720795	157
l ⇩	PC14 Opt Out - Attachment – Commercial Feasibility Overview of PC14 Opt Out Options	25/1720929	158
m ⇩	PC14 Opt Out Attachment - PC14 Pre-Engagement Synthesis Report - June 2022	25/1721038	159

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

Sarah Oliver - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

14. Amendment to the Cemeteries Handbook (ashes)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1331180
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rupert Bool, Head of Parks Jenna Marsden, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1 Consider the results of consultation on proposed amendments to the Cemeteries Handbook (the Handbook); and

1.1.2 To make a decision on whether to agree to amending the Handbook.

1.2 The report is staff generated to ensure the Council meets its obligations to bury the dead in its cemeteries under the Burial and Cremation Act 1964. The proposed amendments are a result of a new method of body disposal (water cremation) becoming available in Christchurch. The Council’s current regulatory framework does not anticipate, or provide for, interment of remains from alternate methods other than burials, or ashes from flame cremation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Amendment to the Cemeteries Handbook (ashes) 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. Agrees to amend the Cemeteries Handbook, as set out in Attachment A to this report.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A procedural amendment to the Cemeteries Handbook is proposed to meet the Council’s obligation to provide for the burial of the dead in its cemeteries.

3.2 The proposed amendment is a result of a new method of body disposal (water cremation) becoming available in Christchurch. The Council’s current regulatory framework does not anticipate, or provide for, interment of remains from alternate methods other than burials, or ashes from flame cremation.

3.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the small number of affected or interested people and low level of impact to them, with the proposed amendments being procedural.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 A local funeral home commenced offering water cremation services in Christchurch in June 2025. They are the first to provide this service in New Zealand.

4.2 Water cremation (also known as aquamation, resomation or alkaline hydrolysis) is a method of disposal of human remains and is an alternative to traditional flame cremation.

4.3 The Council’s role is limited to certain regulatory permissions. The Council granted a resource consent for the land use of the facility, and a conditional trade waste consent under its Trade Waste Bylaw for the discharge of the liquid waste from the process to the Council network.

4.4 Families of the deceased who have chosen water cremation for their loved ones may wish to inter the remains in a Council cemetery.

Regulatory framework

4.5 Water cremation is not provided for in the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 (the Act). The Act specifically defines cremation as “by burning”. The Act does not prevent other methods.

4.6 The Act requires cemeteries to be open for the interment of all deceased persons.

4.7 In addition to the Act, the Council’s Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 and its associated Cemeteries Handbook (2018) regulate activities in Council cemeteries.

4.8 The Handbook is restrictive as it specifically links ashes to flame cremation and therefore does not provide for the burial or interment of water cremation ‘ashes’. At the time the Handbook was last reviewed, this was a logical link to the definition of cremation in the Act [5], and Council did not envisage alternate methods of body disposal.

4.9 Despite the method being unregulated, the Council has an obligation to provide for burial of the dead under the Act. The Act does not prevent the Council from accepting remains for interment that have been through a water cremation process.

4.10 To date, there has been one request to inter remains following water cremation in a Council cemetery[6]. The Council, under staff delegation, accepted this interment using its discretion under clause 5(3) of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013. This discretion can be used in the interim; however, it is only a temporary approach.

Review of the Act

4.11 The Law Commission undertook a review of the Act from 2010-2015. In its final report[7], the Commission concluded that the Act is outdated and should be modernised and replaced.

4.12 A review of the Act was initiated by the Ministry of Health, with a consultation document released in 2019 which included discussion on alternative methods such as water cremation. Ministry staff advised that timeframes for the review of the Act are yet to be determined.

Proposed procedural amendment to the Handbook

4.13 As the Handbook does not provide for the interment of water cremation ashes in Council cemeteries, an amendment to the Handbook is proposed to provide for interment of this type of human remains. It is also an opportunity to future-proof the Handbook by providing for any other future method that produces ‘ash-like’ remains.

4.14 Staff are proposing to change the definition of “cremated remains or ashes” in the Handbook so that it is not restricted to flame cremation and will instead refer to ‘remains or ashes of the dead’. This will mean that references to ‘ashes’ throughout the Handbook also apply to ‘ashes’ from water cremation and any other future method that results in ‘ash-like’ remains.

4.15 Other proposed amendments to the Handbook include:

4.15.1 consequential changes to definitions:

· changing associated definitions that also refer to flame cremation (“burial or interment”, “funeral director” and “vault”); and

· removing the definition of “cremation”, as this would no longer be used in the document if the proposed changes are made, other than in reference to the Act.

4.15.2 A new definition for “standard sized urn”:

· Some methods of body disposal may produce a larger volume of “ashes” which could impact the number of interments that can be made into each plot. The proposed amendments clarify the number of interments permitted per plot is based on a standard sized urn, and specifies a standard urn is 270mm(h) x 170mm(w).

4.16 The proposed amendments are set out in Attachment B, and shown in the Handbook marked up in red text in Attachment A.

4.17 The scope of the proposed amendment to the Handbook is limited to widening the definition of ashes and some minor associated amendments to give effect to this change. As the Council has an obligation to provide for the burial of the dead under the Act, the proposed change to provide for the interment of ashes resulting from methods other than flame cremation fulfils that obligation.

4.18 While it is a procedural amendment, the proposal is changing the conditions relating to the burial or interment of “ash”. This changes the intent of what was adopted by the Council in 2018 regarding the type of remains that can be interred as “ashes”, and the impact on capacity limitations of ash plots.

Bylaw and Handbook Review

4.19 The Cemeteries Bylaw legislatively must be reviewed by 2028. Work on this is scheduled to begin in 2027-28. Staff will also be undertaking a comprehensive review of the Handbook at that time to ensure it is fit-for-purpose and aligns with the updated Bylaw. Both documents will be publicly consulted on to seek the views of the community.

4.20 The proposed amendments are in urgent response to a regulatory discrepancy that has arisen due to changing technology in the industry. A quick solution to this matter is required to enable the Council to continue to meet its legislative obligations.

4.21 The proposed amendment, if agreed, can be reviewed for effectiveness at the time of the next full Bylaw and Handbook. By that time, Council may also have more certainty on the direction of legislative reform, if the review of the Act progresses.

4.22 Staff acknowledge that there are other issues related to the Bylaw and Handbook which need further consideration, such as the adornment of graves. Such matters require more comprehensive review and accordingly will be included in the full review of the Bylaw, where full consultation with the community will be undertaken.

Related advice

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

Date	Subject
18 July 2025	Cemeteries Handbook Amendment – Water Cremation Ashes (Attachment C)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.24.1 Option 1: Amend the Cemeteries Handbook – provide for all ‘ash -like’ remains. (preferred option)

4.24.2 Option 2: Amend the Cemeteries Handbook – provide specifically for water cremation ashes.

4.24.3 Option 3: Consider whether to accept interment of other types of remains on a case-by-case basis using its discretionary powers under its Bylaws.

4.24.4 Option 4: Status quo - do not provide for the interment of remains from any other method.

4.25 The following options were considered, but ruled out:

4.25.1 Option 5: Wider review of the Handbook

· This option involves a full review of the Cemeteries Handbook, which could also include bringing forward the review of the Bylaw. This option would take approximately 18 months to complete and would require more comprehensive engagement.

· It was ruled out because:

· it would not provide a timely solution to the ashes issue.

· a full review is already scheduled in the near future.

· it would significantly disrupt the bylaw review schedule, which is already at capacity for next term, meaning that other bylaw reviews may not meet their legislative review dates.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.26 Preferred Option: Amend the Cemeteries Handbook – provide for all ‘ash-like’ remains (Option 1).

4.26.1 Option Description: Under this option the Council would provide for the interment of ashes from fire cremation and alternative methods, including water cremation, by amending the Handbook to broaden the definition of ashes so that it is not restricted to ashes from flame cremation. This will mean that references to ‘ashes’ throughout the Handbook also apply to ‘ashes’ produced from other methods. This option includes amendments to clarify the size of a standard-sized urn. This is the approach that has been consulted on.

4.26.2 Option Advantages

· provision is broad and provides a level of ‘future-proofing’ for other new methods that may be introduced and could make use of ash plots.

· aligned with the terminology of the Act and the Council’s obligations to provide for the burial of the dead in its cemeteries.

· provides a simple solution to address the immediate issue regarding the interment of water cremation ashes.

· responsive to community needs.

· provides clarity for cemeteries staff, funeral directors, and the public.

4.26.3 Option Disadvantages

· potentially less capacity of ash plots if the urn size is larger for ashes from alternate methods.

4.27 Amend the Cemeteries Handbook – provide specifically for water cremation ashes (Option 2).

4.27.1 Option Description: Under this option the Council would amend the Cemeteries Handbook to allow for the interment of remains from water cremation specifically in addition to burial and flame cremation. This option would include amendments to clarify the size of a standard-sized urn.

4.27.2 Option Advantages

· aligned with the Council’s obligations to provide for the burial of the dead in its cemeteries.

· provides a solution to address the immediate issue regarding the interment of water cremation ashes.

· responsive to current community needs.

4.27.3 Option Disadvantages

· limited to remains from water cremation and flame cremation only and not any other emerging methods that may become available.

· potentially more extensive amendments required throughout the Handbook.

4.28 Consider accepting interment of other types of remains on a case-by-case basis using its discretionary powers in its Bylaws (Option 3).

4.28.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council:

· could accept water cremation ashes (or any other remains outside of those categorised as burial or cremation) using the discretionary power under clause 5(3) of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the Council, including its employees or agents, may carry out any activity in a cemetery in accordance with the Act, whether or not the activity is provided for in the Cemeteries Handbook.”

Decision authority would sit with the Head of Parks.

· could issue (on application by any person) a dispensation from full compliance with the Cemeteries Handbook pursuant to clause 13 of the General Bylaw 2008. An application for dispensation would need to be considered by the full Council.

4.28.2 Option Advantages

· provides a solution to address the immediate issue regarding the interment of water cremation ashes without requiring an amendment to the Cemeteries Handbook.

· responsive to community needs.

· Allows time for the legislative reform to progress to help inform the approach determined through the full review of the Bylaw and Handbook in 2027/28.

4.28.3 Option Disadvantages

· only a temporary solution.

· does not provide certainty for the funeral industry or families of the deceased on whether their loved one’s remains can be interred into a Council cemetery.

· requires additional administrative work.

4.29 Status quo – do not provide for the interment of remains from any other method (Option 4).

4.29.1 Option Description: This is the “do nothing” approach. Under this option, the Council would continue to accept remains into its cemeteries that are burials or ashes resulting from flame cremation however, it would not accept remains from any other method.

4.29.2 Option Advantages

· aligns with the definition of ‘cremation’ in the Burial and Cremation Act.

4.29.3 Option Disadvantages

· does not align with the Council’s legislative obligation under the Act to provide for the burial of the dead in its cemeteries.

· reputational risk if families of the deceased are unable to inter their loved ones’ remains in a Council cemetery.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.30 Analysis criteria to assess the options included:

· legislative obligations;

· the operational ability to provide for such interments and impact on Council functions; and

· the needs of the community.

4.31 On the basis of this criterion and the results of consultation, staff have assessed the broad approach to enable the interment of all ashes is appropriate and outweighs the benefits of waiting for legislative change or the scheduled Handbook review. The preferred approach provides a level of ‘future-proofing’ for other new methods that may be introduced and could make use of ash plots.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The financial implications associated with the decision are minimal.

5.2 There are minor costs associated with staff time to consider and implement a change in approach (for example, undertaking targeted consultation, making the changes to the Handbook, updating cemeteries forms, updating information on the Council website).

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The primary risks associated with this decision are related to the regulatory framework, which is discussed in the background section above.

6.2 There is a reputational risk to the Council if it chooses to refuse to inter some types of remains in its cemeteries.

6.3 There is also a risk that this decision could have a very minor impact on cemetery capacity, as ash urns may vary in size depending on matters such as the method of disposal. This is being addressed generally through investigating more space efficient interment design and the provision of new cemetery space.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The Council has delegation to make, amend or revoke a Cemeteries Handbook by resolution, and in compliance with the consultation requirements of the Local Government Act 2002, under clause 4 of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The legal consideration is:

· The Council has an obligation to provide for the burial of the dead under section 6 of the Act, as discussed in the background section of this report.

· The Act does not prevent the Council from accepting ashes resulting from water cremation or any other method of disposal, for interment in its cemeteries.

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.

6.6.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the minimal impact of the proposed changes (both on Council carrying out its functions and the community), the low level of community interest, and the Council’s legal obligations to provide for the burial of the dead.

6.6.3 Are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.6.4 Work is scheduled to begin in 2027-28 to review and update the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013.

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

6.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.19.4 Bylaws and regulatory policies meet emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements - Carry out bylaw reviews in accordance with ten-year bylaw review schedule and statutory requirements.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The proposed amendments to the Handbook, although procedural and of low significance, change the intent of what was adopted by the Council in 2018 regarding the type of remains that can be interred as “ashes”, and the impact on capacity limitations of ash plots. Given this, staff recommended a short consultation period, with a focus on targeted stakeholders.

6.10 Consultation was undertaken to inform the Council of the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the matter, in accordance with sections 78 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6.11 Early engagement with the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) started in May 2025. The Ministry of Health administers the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and the Department of Internal Affairs (Births, Deaths and Marriages) registers and maintains New Zealand death records.

6.12 Council staff met with staff from the Ministry of Health on 29 May 2025 to discuss the interment in a Council cemetery of ‘ashes’ resulting from a water cremation process. The Ministry staff asked to be kept informed of the Council’s approach regarding its review of its processes to provide for such interments.

6.13 The Council provided the Ministry an update on 16 July and sent a link to the Kōrero mai – Let’s Talk page when consultation opened. The Ministry opted not to provide a submission or comments on the proposed amendments but acknowledged and confirmed they are comfortable with the proposed approach.

6.14 Council staff also met with DIA on 29 May 2025 to confirm there are no additional requirements for death registration documentation where methods other than burial or flame cremation are used. DIA were invited to provide formal feedback on the proposed amendment via the Kōrero mai – Let’s Talk webpage.

6.15 Consultation started on 29 July and ran until 12 August 2025. Engagement was targeted to those with specific interest, particularly the funeral industry.

6.16 Project details including links to the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage were advertised via:

· An email sent to 151 key stakeholders, including Funeral Operators, Monumental Masons, Marae Operations Managers and Residents Associations.

· The Council Facebook page, which reached over 40,711 people.

6.17 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 403 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.18 Submissions were made by two businesses and three individuals (noting one individual has connection to a funeral home). All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

6.19 Submitter views were mixed. Two submitters fully supported the proposed amendments, while one preferred that no amendment be made at this stage. Two submissions provided no clear preference either way.

Preference	Number	Reasons / Comment (where given)
Support	2	· Evolving nature of death industry and practices. · Option should be available for interment to give people the choice, noting environmental benefits of water cremation.
Oppose	1	· Review of Act should be completed first
Other	2	· Handbook is a useful resource, particularly for training new staff. · Question on impact of changes in relation to personal wishes, with particular regard to the size of urns.

6.20 Staff are not recommending any further changes based on feedback received.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.21 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.

6.22 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.

6.23 Papatipu rūnanga were sent an email with the link to the Korero Mai page. No feedback was provided.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the recommendations in this report are agreed by the Council, staff will update the Council webpage with the amended version of the Handbook.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Cemeteries Handbook - Proposed 2025 Amendment (full document with amendments marked up)	25/1520115	259
b ⇩	Proposed changes to the Cemeteries Handbook	25/1620796	309
c ⇩	Memo 18 July 2025	25/1612690	311

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Swantje Bubritzki - Senior Engagement Advisor

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

15. Capital Endowment Fund Applications - 2025/26
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1255224
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton - Community Funding Team Leader
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider six (6) applications to its Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) for the 2025/26 financial year.

1.2 This is a staff generated report as a result of applications to the CEF.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in Capital Endowment Fund Applications - 2025/26 Report.

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

3. Agrees to make the following grants from the Capital Endowment Fund:

a. $50,000 to Banks Peninsula Sports and Recreation Incorporated towards the Akaroa Multipurpose Court.

b. $150,000 to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke for Conference Facility and Area Extension.

c. $100,000 to Heathcote Valley Community Association for Ferrymead Park Community Pumptrack.

d. $75,333 to Te Whatu Manawa Maori-Tanga o Rehua Trust Board for Marae Upgrades.

e. $313,000 to Isaac Theatre Royal for Major Building Repair Work.

f. $400,000 to St John - Banks Peninsula Area Committee for Akaroa St John Ambulance Station Build.

4. Notes that all grants are subject to confirmation from each organisation that they have sufficient resources and a robust project plan in place to complete the project.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Capital Endowment Fund is administered through positive working relationships with community development, sport & recreation, and arts advisors. The projects recommended for funding have been assessed against the criteria and graded to ensure alignment with the fund objectives and broader Council strategic direction (Attachment A). This report deals with proposals in the Civic and Community category of the CEF.

3.2 This round of CEF recommends granting $1,088,333 to Civic and Community organisations, the projects being:

3.2.1 $50,000 to Banks Peninsula Sports and Recreation Incorporated for the Akaroa Multipurpose Court

3.2.2 $150,000 to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke for Conference Facility and Area Extension

3.2.3 $100,000 to Heathcote Valley Community Association for Ferrymead Park Community Pumptrack

3.2.4 $75,333 to Te Whatu Manawa Māori-Tanga o Rehua Trust Board for Marae Upgrades

3.2.5 $313,000 to Isaac Theatre Royal for Major Building Repair Work

3.2.6 $400,000 to St John - Banks Peninsula Area Committee for Akaroa St John Ambulance Station Build.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Capital Endowment Fund is administered through positive working relationships with community development, sport & recreation, and arts advisors. The projects recommended for funding have all undergone significant collaboration with these advisors to ensure alignment with the fund objectives and broader Council strategic direction, with detailed assessment matrices (included as Attachment A) examining the broader community benefit.

4.2 In addition to a recommended amount, all applications have been graded by assessors as Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4. The grading criteria used by staff is as follows:

4.2.1 Priority 1 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to funding outcomes and priorities. Highly recommended for funding.

4.2.2 Priority 2 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities. Recommended for funding.

4.2.3 Priority 3 - Meets eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications. If funding was available, then would likely support. Not recommended for funding.

4.2.4 Priority 4 - Has a low contribution to funding outcomes and priorities and/or insufficient information provided by applicant and/or other sources of funding are more appropriate. Not recommended for funding.

4.3 The allocations from the Fund are split 40% to ‘Civic and Community’, and 60% to ‘Innovation, Economic Development and Environment’. This split is to be reviewed three-yearly in line with the Long-Term Plan or if the Fund’s income changes significantly in between.

· The value of the application is greater than $50,000.

· The project is not otherwise provided for through rates revenue or other funding sources available to the Council.

· This discrete project has not received partial funding or has been refused under the SCF or Events and Festivals Fund.

· The project is not already underway but has run out of funding.

· The application is for something specific and new.

· There will not be ongoing Council operational investment required.

· The project is a one-off with no expectation of future Council funding.

· Benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

· Demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

4.4 Staff assessments first consider the criteria above; all the applications being considered in this report are deemed eligible for funding. The detailed staff assessments (Attachment A) look at the value-for-money of these projects for the residents of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula and make recommendations based on technical understanding of both the project and the communities that would be positively benefited.

4.5 The recommendations to award CEF allocations for the 2025/26 application round are summarised below. Further detail about the assessment is in Attachment A.

Organisation name	Project	Recommended amount	Rationale
Banks Peninsula Sports and Recreation Incorporated	Akaroa Multipurpose Court	$50,000	This is a highly visible space for both locals and visitors to the area. The multipurpose court is nestled amongst other key attractions in the Akaroa township, which means it will be well used. This is a positive example of community and Council working together to improve and activate under-utilised spaces. The project has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of residents of rural communities by providing a quality sport and recreation space.
Te Whatu Manawa Māori – Tanga o Rehua Marae	Marae Upgrades	$75,333	The fencing required will provide safety and security for staff and visitors to the site. Safe pathways will ensure the Marae is accessible to those with mobility issues. Securing aspects of the building means that staff will be protected if disruptive visitors come on site. This has been an issue in the past. The Marae is a key site within the city.
Isaac Theatre Royal	Major Building Repair Work	$313,000	The grant will ensure the Theatre remains open, safe, and accessible to residents and visitors. The addition of long-term cladding will minimise future repair work, as well as reduce the noise and visual impact on neighbouring businesses and residents.
St John - Banks Peninsula Area Committee	Akaroa St John Ambulance Station Build	$400,000	The services provided will support the southern bays of Banks Peninsula, a large geographic area. The Akaroa ambulance station build will provide a more central location for volunteers to improve the health and wellbeing of several remote communities, as well as visitors to the region. The ambulance station will service a significant area in Banks Peninsula, providing a safe space for volunteers to train, recharge after tough call outs & base themselves during overnight shifts. As volunteers come to participate in ambulance training and service delivery, the station will be a key facility for delivery, and to function as a base for overnight shifts.
Heathcote Valley Community Association	Ferrymead Park Community Pumptrack	$100,000	There is currently no facility of this kind in the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Ward. The Ferrymead Pump Track will provide a durable, low-maintenance space that promotes active lifestyles, inclusion, and social connection.
Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke	Conference Facility and Area Extension	$150,000	The upgraded conference/meeting facility will provide an enhanced visitor experience and more space for hosting community groups and other guests at the Marae.

4.6 The drawdown for all these projects is subject to confirmation from each organisation that they have sufficient resources and a robust project plan in place to complete the project.

· The following technical specialists have also been consulted, and are supportive of the proposed projects, with their comments included on the relevant applications: Building Consultants & Community Arts Team– Isaac Theatre Royal Building Repair Work

· Parks Recreation Planning – Akaroa Multipurpose Court

· Project Management - Akaroa Multipurpose Court

· Ambulance Emergency Preparedness – St John Ambulance Station Build

· CCC Civil Defence Emergency Management – St John Ambulance Station Build

· Te Tiriti Team & Events Team – Ngāti Wheke Conference & Area Extension

· Parks Unit – Ferrymead Park Community Pumptrack

· Te Tiriti Team & Building & Construction Specialists - Rehua Marae upgrades

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.7 The following reasonably practicable options are available to councillors considering this report:

4.7.1 Option 1 (preferred option): Agree to the recommendations for CEF grants to the organisations as discussed in the Background section and Attachment A of this report

· Recommendations reflect the results of the assessment of the application against the criteria of the CEF, the Council’s strategic goals and discussion/moderation with experts in the field.

4.7.2 Option 2: Change the amount allocated and/or decline some or all the recommendations in this report.

· Councillor scrutiny is an important element of the grant allocation process often providing a wide-angle community lens over recommendations and a city-wide perspective.

· Declining or changing the amount allocated either up or down can be used to better target grant funding.

4.7.3 Option 3: Requesting that an individual application is left on the table or withdrawn and re-presented.

· This allows Councillors to request further information and/or staff analysis to inform their decision making, avoiding the need to reject an application outright.

4.7.4 Option 4: A combination of the above three options.

· This flexible approach allows Councillors a number of options to ensure informed decision-making.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.8 Analysis criteria include but are not limited to an assessment of the application against the criteria of the CEF, the Council’s strategic goals and the availability of funds. There is often specialist or expert opinion sought, and the provisional recommendations are moderated. Analysis criteria are presented within the assessment of each application and attached to this report as Attachment A.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Banks Peninsula Sports and Recreation Incorporated	Akaroa Multipurpose Court	$50,000	$50,000
Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke	Conference Facility and Area Extension	$150,000	$150,000
Heathcote Valley Community Association	Ferrymead Park Community Pumptrack	$100,000	$100,000
Te Whatu Manawa Maori-Tanga o Rehua Trust Board	Marae Upgrades	$75,333	$75,333
Isaac Theatre Royal	Major Building Repair Work	$313,000	$313,000
St John - Banks Peninsula Area Committee	Akaroa St John Ambulance Station Build	$400,000	$400,000
Total		$1,088,333	$1,088,333

5.1 After accounting for all current commitments to the CEF, the unallocated portion for 2025/26 is $2,845,677. If the recommendations in this report are accepted, the remaining available balance for this financial year will be $1,757,344.

5.2 Anticipated applications to the CEF include St Albans Cricket Club & Te Tahi Youth.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 For the decisions in the report, there are the following risks and mitigations:

6.1.1 Project Delivery Delays

· This risk is mitigated by the fact that project plans have been reviewed by technical specialists; and that funding drawdowns may be delayed if projects are not prepared to begin works.

· Council staff keep regular communication with applicants to monitor project progress.

6.1.2 Cost Overruns

· The one-off nature of CEF grants limits any future financial liability to the Council.

· Applicants are expected to have contingency plans and secure co-funding for projects where appropriate.

· Many of these groups have access to additional fundraising opportunities, should a project scope expand between the time of applying for funds, and delivery of their project.

· The drawdown of approved funding is often conditional on the applicant confirming the funding targets have been reached and he production of a robust project plan demonstrating how the project will be delivered.

6.1.3 Underspend of Funding

· This risk is mitigated by the condition in the funding agreement that any unspent funds should be returned to the Council.

6.1.4 Reputational Risk

· Applications have been assessed transparently against Council-approved criteria, with detailed staff assessments available as Attachment A.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The authority to make decisions relating to the allocation of the CEF sits with the Council.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision:

6.3.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Particularly the Strategic Priority to manage ratepayers’ money wisely.

6.3.2 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 fact that the CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under both the community and economic focus of the CEF and has a strategic alignment.

6.3.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically, the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy and the strategic pillar of Place.

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

6.5 Citizens and communities

6.5.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide funding for projects and initiatives that build partnerships; resilient, engaged and stronger communities, empowered at a local or community of interest level - 100% of funding assessments detail rationale and demonstrate benefits aligned to Council's strategic priorities, and where appropriate, Community Board Plans

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.2 Build volunteer participation through the effective administration of the community grant schemes - Strengthening Communities Fund supports 2,185,000 volunteer hours annually, subject to eligible applications

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.6 The CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under the community focus of the CEF and has good strategic alignment.

6.7 For the applications from: Banks Peninsula Sports and Recreation Incorporated, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, the Heathcote Valley Community Association and St John - Banks Peninsula Area Committee, the Local Community Boards have been made aware of these projects by staff or the applicants directly (by way of past public participation) and are supportive of the projects to proceed.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 The recommendations in this report are expected to have a positive impact on Mana Whenua.

6.9 Specifically in relation to two of the proposed grant recipients which have been discussed with, and are supported by, Te Tiriti Team:

· Rehua Marae, and

· Ngāti Wheke.

6.10 These projects are ones that will strengthen cultural infrastructure, enhance safety and accessibility, and improve the capacity of marae to serve whānau and the wider community.

6.11 The investments will contribute to the wellbeing of tangata whenua and uphold the Council’s commitment to working in partnership with Mana Whenua, consistent with the principle of Partnership in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decisions in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 All applicants will be contacted shortly after the publishing of the minutes of the decisions in this report. With grant funding distributed thereafter as per the final allocations agreed by the Council.

7.2 Once the respective projects are completed, the community organisations will be required to complete an accountability report back to the Council on the success of the projects and how the granted funds were spent.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund Decision Matrices	25/1440097	321

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

16. Extension of Hagley Avenue Clearway Trial Period
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/752571
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Graham, Team Leader Traffic Operations Gautham Praburam, Traffic Engineer
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 request the Council’s approval to extend the trial period of the time-restricted clearway, which is currently in operation on the north side of Hagley Avenue (from 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM), for a further six months.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Extension of Hagley Avenue Clearway Trial Period Report.

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

3. Approves the extension of the trial period of the time-restricted clearway, which is currently in operation on the north side of Hagley Avenue, between its intersections with Riccarton Avenue and St Asaph Street (from 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM), for a further six months.

4. Notes that should the recommendation for the extension be approved, staff will undertake public consultation before returning to the Council for a decision as to permanence of the clearway.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Since November 2022, several Notices of Motion have called for reinstating on-street parking on the Hagley Park side at Hospital Corner.

3.2 In response, staff considered options to improve parking near Christchurch Hospital, including a late-2023 trial on Hagley and Riccarton Avenues to test removing a traffic lane for on-street parking.

3.3 Based on observations and stakeholder feedback, staff recommended retaining the existing road layout due to potential delays for all road users, particularly emergency services.

3.4 Staff also presented an alternative option to allow night-time parking in the kerbside lanes while retaining a daytime clearway. While this could provide additional parking options, it raised several operational challenges including safety and congestion risks due to non-compliant vehicles, ongoing enforcement requirements, and the need for new supporting infrastructure.

3.5 In December 2024, the Finance and Performance Committee approved a six-month trial of a time-restricted clearway on the north side of Hagley Avenue alone, operating 7:30 AM–7:30 PM, thereby allowing parking during the evening and overnight hours, for approximately 18 vehicles.

3.6 The trial commenced on 10^th March 2025 and is scheduled to end on 9^th September 2025. The key stakeholders were informed via email before the trial.

3.7 Initial utilisation was low, prompting Council staff to re-engage with the hospital’s operations manager to reinforce internal communication about the trial. Following this engagement and additional media coverage, occupancy peaked at 14 vehicles in late June before declining and stabilising at between 5 and 10 vehicles parking per night.

3.8 The nearby Parakiore Metro Sports Facility, scheduled to open in October 2025, is expected to increase traffic volumes in the area. A recent Notice of Motion has also requested that staff investigate the feasibility of using the facility’s parking for Christchurch Hospital night-shift staff.

3.9 Given the potential impact of Parakiore Metro Sports opening, staff recommend extending the current trial for another six months to continue monitoring usage, assess future demand, and evaluate the impacts of the new sports facility and any alternative parking options.

3.10 Staff will seek public feedback towards the end of the extended trial, should this extension be approved. Views from stakeholders around the intersection, as well as people who have made use of the free parking will be sought. This feedback will be compiled, analysed and reported to the Council for its decision.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Since November 2022, several Notices of Motion have requested the reinstatement of on-street parking on the Hagley Park side of the road at Hospital Corner as soon as practically possible.

4.2 In response, staff investigated a range of potential options to improve on-street parking opportunities near Christchurch Hospital, evaluating each option’s advantages and disadvantages.

4.3 In October and November 2023, a temporary lane closure trial was conducted on the kerbside lanes of both Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue. The purpose of the trial was to evaluate the potential impacts of permanently removing a traffic lane to enable on-street parking along these corridors.

4.4 Following the trial, and based on observations and feedback from key stakeholders, staff recommended maintaining the current road layout. This recommendation was primarily due to the potential for increased delays for all road users, particularly emergency services, if a traffic lane were removed at this location.

4.5 As an alternative, staff also presented an option that would permit night-time parking in the kerbside lanes of Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue, while maintaining a clearway during the day to ensure traffic efficiency.

4.6 While this type of clearway arrangement could provide additional parking opportunities, it also presented some operational challenges, including:

4.6.1 Increased congestion and safety risks during morning peak hours, resulting from non-compliant vehicles remaining in the clearway.

4.6.2 Ongoing operational costs associated with enforcing the clearway and removing non-compliant vehicles.

4.6.3 The requirement to construct a new footpath along the Hagley Park side of Riccarton Avenue to enable safe pedestrian access to existing signalised crossings at Hagley Avenue / Riccarton Avenue / Oxford Terrace / Tuam Street and the Hospital Entrance / Riccarton Avenue intersections. This would require additional funding.

4.7 Taking these challenges into account, staff maintained their recommendation to retain the status quo at that time.

4.8 At its meeting on 18 December 2024, the Council’s Finance and Performance Committee approved a six-month trial for a time-restricted clearway on the north side of Hagley Avenue alone, operating from 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM.

4.9 This arrangement allowed for approximately 18 new on-street parking spaces in close proximity to Christchurch Hospital during the evening and overnight hours (7:30 PM to 7:30 AM), without the need for significant additional infrastructure.

4.10 The purpose of the trial was to assess safety impacts on other road users and the broader operational impacts of permitting parked vehicles in this location.

4.11 The trial commenced on 10^th March 2025 and is scheduled to end on 9^th September 2025.

4.12 Clearway signage and markings were installed in accordance with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency guidelines and standard city-wide practice. Four clearway signs were added—one at each end and two repeater signs in between. Parking ticks were marked at the start and end to indicate the clearway extent. Existing yellow “no stopping” lines were temporarily covered (not removed) to preserve the road surface during the six-month trial. These can be permanently removed if the clearway is made permanent.

4.13 In the week prior to the trial, staff undertook the following communications and engagement actions to inform elected members, primary stakeholders, and members of the public about the trial:

4.13.1 A memo was sent to the Mayor, Councillors and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board (6 March 2025).

4.13.2 A stakeholder email was sent to seven primary stakeholder groups. This included pre-packaged messaging about the trial, to facilitate their own communication with their stakeholders (6 March 2025):

· Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora | Waitaha staff (operations, parking and communications)

· Hato Hone St John staff (both operations and communications)

· Canterbury Health Laboratories (operations)

· Fire and Emergency NZ (operations)

· New Zealand Police (operations)

· Hagley College (management and communications)

· Otago School of Medicine (operations/facilities)

4.13.3 A Newsline story was published (6 March 2025)

4.13.4 A post was shared on the Christchurch City Council Facebook page (6 March 2025)

4.13.5 A courtesy flyer was developed to remind people to vacate the lane by 7:30am daily (to be issued to overstaying vehicles during the first two weeks of the trial).

4.14 When compared to a typical introduction of parking restrictions, Council staff communicated this parking trial more extensively than would normally be done. This was due to the significant location of this clearway, and its proximity to Christchurch Hospital.

4.15 Utilisation of the clearway / parking area was monitored through traffic cameras. During the first two months of the trial, demand was low, with most nights recording no parked vehicles and only occasional use by one or two vehicles.

4.16 Upon observing the low patronage, Council staff met with a senior operations staff member at Te Whatu Ora to discuss ways to raise awareness of the clearway trial. As part of this meeting, the Te Whatu Ora staff member offered to reinforce the messaging through internal channels.

4.17 Following this engagement, and increased media coverage at that time, a noticeable increase in patronage was observed in the second half of June, with nightly occupancy reaching up to 14 vehicles.

4.18 Subsequently, demand slightly declined and stabilised, with most nights showing between five and ten vehicles parked along the clearway.

4.19 During the trial, one vehicle overstayed during the initial two-week grace period and departed shortly after 8:00 AM. A reminder notice was provided. Following this period, there were 16 instances of non-compliance, including two longer overstayers that required towing. The remaining vehicles vacated before 8:00 AM. Additionally, there were three instances of vehicles arriving before clearway hours, including one as early as 6:00 PM.

4.20 The Parakiore Metro Sports Facility, currently under construction approximately 300 metres from the clearway location, is scheduled to open in October 2025. Once operational, the facility is expected to generate additional traffic volumes into the surrounding road network.

4.21 Given the anticipated changes in traffic patterns, it is important to further assess how night-time parking along Hagley Avenue may affect overall network performance before determining the long-term suitability of any permanent arrangement.

4.22 Additionally, a recent Notice of Motion has requested that staff investigate the possibility of using parking facilities at the Parakiore Metro Sports Facility for Christchurch Hospital night-shift staff.

4.23 If this arrangement is found to be feasible, it may reduce demand for on-street parking along Hagley Avenue during the night-time period, particularly due to the existing time restrictions.

4.24 Taking these factors into account, staff consider it appropriate to continue monitoring usage of the night-time parking spaces. Extending the trial will allow time to evaluate future demand, consider the operational impact of the new sports facility, and assess the effect of any alternative parking arrangements.

4.25 Therefore, staff recommend extending the trial period of the current time-restricted clearway for an additional six months.

4.26 The following information regarding parking near Christchurch Hospital has been provided in the past to the Elected Members.

Date	Subject
18/07/2023	Memo - Options for increasing on-street parking around Christchurch Hospital
18/07/2023	Briefing – Options for increasing on street parking around Christchurch hospital
23/01/2024	Memo - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations
23/01/2024	Briefing - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations
06/03/2025	Memo - Parking near Christchurch Hospital - Clearway trial along Hagley Avenue (Attachment A)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.27.1 Extend the trial period of the current time-restricted clearway for an additional six months.

4.27.2 Stop the trial and reinstate the previous traffic lane arrangements.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.28 Preferred Option: Extend the trial period of the current time-restricted clearway for an additional six months.

4.28.1 Option Description: This option involves continuing the existing night-time parking trial on the north side of Hagley Avenue for another six months to allow further monitoring of usage patterns, assess impacts from the nearby Metro Sports Facility once it opens, and evaluate any alternative parking arrangements that may emerge.

4.28.2 Option Advantages

· On-street parking continues to be available along the kerb side lane along Hagley Avenue.

· Allows more time to gather data and observe changes in demand, ensuring that any long-term decision is based on a more complete understanding of network impacts and parking needs.

· No additional cost as no infrastructure changes are needed.

4.28.3 Option Disadvantages

· None.

4.29 Option 2: Stop the trial and reinstate the previous traffic lane arrangements.

4.29.1 Option Description: Cease the current clearway trial and revert to the previous road layout, removing any temporary night-time parking spaces along Hagley Avenue.

4.29.2 Option Advantages

· Restores full traffic capacity at all times, reducing risk of delays for general traffic and emergency vehicles.

· Eliminates the need for ongoing monitoring, enforcement, and communication related to the trial.

4.29.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reduces the number of available on-street parking spaces near the hospital during night-time hours.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2
Cost to Implement	$0	$5000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered by the existing maintenance contract	Covered by the existing maintenance contract
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Team traffic signs and markings budget	Traffic Operations Team traffic signs and markings budget

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 None identified.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Part 1, Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.

6.2.2 Any proposal that increases on-street car parking on Hagley Avenue (north of St Asaph Street) or on Riccarton Avenue is deemed to be of metropolitan significance as it is within the Part A area. So, the authority to make decisions on this matter rests with the Council.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.3.2 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by Legal Services. However, the report has been written using a general approach previously approved by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report. However, this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 Is of low significance, given the minimal cost implications for the Council and the relative ease with which the decision could be reversed if required.

6.5.3 As approved at the Council meeting on 2 August 2023, parking near the hospital is considered of metropolitan significance, and the decisions are to be exercised by the Council.

6.5.4 Are 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: 10.3.1 Provide an optimised balance of Council operated parking spaces in the central city - <=85% average occupancy

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.8.2 Any proposed changes that increase on-street car parking on Hagley Avenue (north of St Asaph Street) and Riccarton Avenue are considered to be of metropolitan significance. Decisions on these matters are therefore exercised by the Council. For this reason, the proposal is being brought to the Council for approval.

6.9 If the proposed extension is approved, staff will undertake public consultation towards the end of the extended trial. This will include seeking feedback from stakeholders in the vicinity of the intersection, as well as from people who have used the free parking spaces during the trial period. The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board will also be informed of this consultation process. The feedback received will be compiled and analysed, and the results will be presented to the Council to inform its decision.

6.10 Key stakeholders will be informed about the outcome of the decision whether the clearway trial will be further extended or concluded.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The results and feedback collected during the trial will be compiled and presented to the Council to determine the appropriate course of action.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Internal or External Memos Parking near Christchurch Hospital - Clearway trial along Hagley Avenue 28 February 2025 Report	25/115207	334

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gautham Praburam - Traffic Engineer

Kathy Graham - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

17. Wheels to Wings Section 1 - Harewood Road (Matsons Avenue to 27 Harewood Road)- Detailed Traffic Resolutions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1506025
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jennifer Rankin, 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 section of the Wheels to Wings Major Cycle Route, between Matsons Avenue and 27 Harewood Avenue.

1.2 The resolutions in Section 2 of this report are required to ensure legal operation of the traffic signals and associated cycleway.

1.3 This is a staff-generated report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Wheels to Wings Section 1 - Harewood Road (Matsons Avenue to 27 Harewood Road)- Detailed Traffic Resolutions 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. Makes the following Resolutions required for the implementation of the Wheels to Wings Section 1 project, 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.

Harewood Road

4. 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 27 metres northwest of its intersection with Chapel Street, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 284 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 5-26 below.

5. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes on Harewood Road from 27 metres northwest of its intersection with Chapel Street, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 284 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

6. 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 27 metres northwest of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

7. Approves that, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, that a uni-directional Cycle Path be established on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 175 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report. This Cycle Path is for use by road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, who can use the adjacent footpath.

8. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing 175 metres southeast of its intersection with Chapel Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 71 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report be resolved as a 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.

9. 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 284 metres southeast of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

10. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing 27 metres northwest of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction to its intersection with Chapel Street, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

11. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 192 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

12. 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 192 metres southeast from its intersection with Chapel Street, and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 15 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, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

13. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Harewood Road, commencing 207 metres southeast of its intersection with Chapel Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

14. 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 48 metres southeast of its intersection with Chapel Street, and as detailed on Attachment A to this report. 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.

15. 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 54 metres southeast of its intersection with Saint James Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

16. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing 54 metres southeast of its intersection with Saint James Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report, 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 Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, a uni-directional Cycle Path be established on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing 38 metres southeast of its intersection with Saint James Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 161 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report. This Cycle Path is for use by road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 only but excepting pedestrians and rides of mobility devices, who can use the adjacent footpath.

18. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the path on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing 10 metres southeast of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction to its intersection with Matsons Avenue, 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.

19. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the path on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 31 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.

20. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, a Special Vehicle Lane 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 31 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

21. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing 56 metres southeast of its intersection with Saint James Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction to its intersection with Saint James Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

22. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Saint James Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction to its intersection with Matsons Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

23. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 40 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

24. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the southwest side of Harewood Road, commencing at a point 40 metres northwest from its intersection with Matsons Avenue, and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 15 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, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

25. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes, on the south-western side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 69 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

26. 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 74 metres northwest of its intersection with Matsons Avenue and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

Chapel Street

27. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Chapel Street from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 9 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 28-29 below.

28. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes on Chapel Street from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

29. Approves that, in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices: 2004, the Chapel Street approach at its intersection with Harewood Road, be controlled by a Stop control, as detailed on Attachment A to this report.

Matsons Avenue

30. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Matsons Avenue from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 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 31-32 below.

31. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes on Matsons Avenue from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

32. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices: 2004, that the Matsons Avenue approach at its intersection with Harewood Road, be controlled by a Stop control, as detailed on Attachment A.

Saint James Avenue

33. Approves that any previously approved resolutions be revoked, in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on Matsons Avenue from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 8 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 34-35 below.

34. Approves the new and remaining road markings, kerb alignments, path alignments, roadway alignment and any road surface changes on Matsons Avenue from its intersection with Harewood Road, and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

Approves that, in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices: 2004, the Matsons Avenue approach at its intersection with Harewood Road, be controlled by a Stop control, as detailed on Attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In the final FY26 Annual Plan, the Council approved the construction of the section of the Wheels to Wings MCR that links the Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCR’s.

3.1.1 The Council also approved the installation of traffic signals at the Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and at Harewood School, plus minor safety improvements. The resolutions for these sections were presented to the Council in a separate report in August 2025.

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 this section had been approved by the Council on 28 July 2022, as part of the wider Wheels to Wings MCR scheme.

3.2.1 This also included resolutions 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.

3.3 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 This report is purely for the approval of the Detailed Traffic Resolutions to allow the operational and enforcement of the previously approved design. Therefore, only one option is provided.

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; and

· 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 linking of the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern Line major cycle routes along Harewood Road.

4.2 The scheme designs for the linking of the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern Line major cycle routes 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 design 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 #26611 Major Cycleway - Wheels to Wings Route (Section 1) Linking Nor’West Arc and Northern Line MCRs: this includes the link along Harewood Road between cycleways along Matsons Ave and Restell Street, including a signalised crossing of Harewood Road. This has funding in FY26 & FY27.

4.3.2 #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. The Traffic Resolutions relating to this were presented to Council in separate report.

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.

Update on previous recommendations

4.4 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.

4.5 Below are the specific recommendations relevant to the delivery of this section of the Harewood Road traffic signals project, and how they have been addressed in the detailed design process:

4.5.1 For staff to investigate if a raised safety platform to be built for a 50km/h speed limit can be installed at the signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing between Matsons Avenue and Chapel Street, and report to the Council in time for consideration of the Hearings Panel report.

The raised crossing has been investigated and included in the design.

4.5.2 Notes the following will be undertaken through the detailed design process:

Mitre 10 access - Staff to investigate treatment details around the Mitre 10 vehicle access to optimise rider safety at this location, in consultation with Mitre10. This will include options to make changes to the cycleway design, such as raising it past the access, along with finer design details such as active/more signage and speed bumps and measures to prevent encroachment of exiting vehicles into the cycleways when looking for gaps in traffic.

Potential treatments have been discussed and agreed with the owners of Mitre 10. These include warning signs, line markings and coloured surfacing across the Mitre 10 driveway to alert drivers entering and exiting to be aware of cyclists

4.5.3 Staff to look at other options for a high visibility alert system at the Mitre10 entrance/exit and, if necessary, consider a trial.

Alert systems that are being used both in New Zealand and internationally have been investigated, but no treatment was found that would reliably and effectively address the visibility concerns. The measures outlined above are consistent with the latest New Zealand design guidance for commercial accessways.

4.5.4 Notes that red surfacing and high friction surfacing requirements will be investigated for all crossings and raised crossings along the route.

High friction and red surfacing has been investigated for the new signalised crossing between Matsons Ave and Chapel Street. High friction asphalt surfacing has been included in the design. Red surfacing is generally only used on unsignalised crossings so has not been included in the design.

Other design considerations

4.6 The delivery of the project will seek to co-ordinate with the renewal of the watermains during construction of the Nor’West Arc MCR around this location, to reduce future disruption in the area.

4.7 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

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.8.1 Option 1 (Staff recommended option) – Approve Detailed Traffic Resolutions

4.9 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.9.1 Option 2 – Do not approve the Detailed Traffic Resolutions – The Council has resolved to continue with the installation of this section. Therefore, this has been ruled out as it will not allow the Council to operate the signalised crossing, nor enforce the road markings and signage, that have previously been approved by Council.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Staff recommended option- Option 1 – Approve Detailed Traffic Resolutions

4.10.1 Option Description:

The design has previously been approved by the Council, so this refers to the approval of Detailed Traffic Resolutions for the Harewood Road section of the Wheels to Wings Major Cycle Route between Matsons Avenue and 27 Harewood Avenue. This will allow the safe and legal operation of this section.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Allows for the operation of the signalised crossing

· Allows for enforcement of the road markings and signage

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· None

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	$2.2 Million
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered by existing maintenance budgets
Funding Source	LTP: CPMS #26611
Funding Availability	$2.25 Million
Impact on Rates	Nil

5.1 The cost to implement Option 1 is based on the 85% detailed design.

5.1.1 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 be 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 Wheels to Wings MCR.

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.3 More people are choosing to travel by cycling - >=13,000 average daily cyclist detections

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

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

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The scheme designs for the linking of the Te Ara O-Rakipaoa Nor'West Arc and Puari ki Pū-harakeke-nui Northern Line major cycle routes 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.

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

6.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.8.2 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board did not provide any feedback directly related to this report.

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 decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.11.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.12 The provision of a safe cycle facility along Harewood Road in the vicinity of local residential areas, schools and businesses is likely to increase the number of students walking or cycling to school.

6.13 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 design with be packaged together with the MCR Nor West Arc (Matsons Avenue – Condell to Harewood) for construction. This is aimed to be tendered before Christmas 2025, with a contractor appointed and construction commenced in early 2026.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Resolution Plan	25/1584773	348
b ⇩	Background Information	25/1506908	349
c ⇩	Wheels to Wings MCR October 2024 options memo	24/1679264	350

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jenny Rankin - Senior Project Manager

Matt Goldring - Transport Team Leader Project Management

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

18. Surface Flooding Reduction Programme - First Projects
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1288350
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tom Parsons – Stormwater and Waterways Engineer Kate Dawkings – Senior Surface Water Planning Engineer Sylvia Maclaren – Programme 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 to set out the proposed first projects to be delivered under the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme, and to outline the process for initiating subsequent projects.

1.2 The report follows workshops in February and June which were used to develop programme prioritisation. At the 10 June workshop, staff noted the intention to bring a decision report to the Council with the first projects to commence.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme - First Projects Report.

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

3. Approves the initiation of the first projects proposed under the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme:

a. Flockton Street Area - Stormwater Pump Station

b. Bells Creek – Stormwater Pump Station and Overland Flow Controls

c. Greenpark – Stormwater Network Upgrades

d. Emmet Orcades - Stormwater Network Upgrades and Diversion

4. Notes that the initiation of further projects under the Programme will occur through Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan preparation.

Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 The Surface Flooding Reduction Programme commences in FY27. Two Councillor workshops in February and June 2025 established flood issues and priority of those issues. This has resulted in a ranked list of 158 flood issue areas.

2.2 Using the Delivery Programme Criteria established in the second workshop, fourteen ‘quick wins’ were progressed to optioneering. Of those, it is recommended to immediately initiate the following projects, with the remainder requiring further investigation:

2.2.1 Flockton Street Area - Stormwater Pump Station

2.2.2 Bells Creek – Stormwater Pump Station and Overland Flow Controls

2.2.3 Greenpark – Stormwater Network Upgrades

2.2.4 Emmet Orcades - Stormwater Network Upgrades and Diversion

2.3 Two further tranches of investigations have been identified using the responsibility and alignment measures from the Delivery Programme Criteria. It is recommended to progress with those investigations in 2025/2026 to identify possible projects.

2.4 Further projects will be drawn down through the usual Annual Plan (AP) and Long-Term Plan (LTP) processes.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Council created the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme during the development of the 2024-2034 LTP with a resolution to:

Establish a new capital programme fund of $20 million per year, starting in FY 27, for addressing and resolving regular surface flooding at sites identified against a priority matrix established by Council in FY 25 and FY 26.

3.2 Development of the priority issues matrix and sites has occurred in collaboration with the Council. This report is to identify the first projects to be delivered from the programme in FY27. Confirmation of the first projects is required for the necessary design work to occur in FY26 to meet the delivery expectation set in the LTP.

3.3 The following related Council information session/workshops have taken place:

Date

Subject

25 February 2025

Surface Flooding Reduction Programme Prioritisation - Workshop 1

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/02/COU_20250225_AGN_10651_AT.PDF

10 June 2025

Surface Flooding Reduction Programme Prioritisation - Workshop 2

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/06/ISCC_20250610_AGN_9973_AT.PDF

3.4 The February workshop established criteria for identifying surface flooding issues. Their relative priority was then determined through a survey of elected members. These priorities were then used by staff to map and rank areas where clusters of surface flooding issues occur. This analysis and the resulting area ranking of flood issues areas was presented to the Council at the June workshop.

3.5 Next steps from the June Workshop were to:

3.5.1 Further investigate top issues and potential options

3.5.2 Identify other Council projects or processes in each area

3.5.3 Apply delivery programme criteria

3.5.4 Develop a recommended programme of initial projects

3.5.5 Prepare a decision report on the first projects to commence (this report).

Delivery Programme Criteria

3.6 The Delivery Programme Criteria presented in the June workshop were used to evaluate potential projects. These criteria were:

3.6.1 Responsibility: Is the issue the Council’s responsibility?

3.6.2 Cost: Is the cost/benefit of the solution acceptable?

3.6.3 Effectiveness: Will the option effectively address risks and vulnerabilities of the area?

3.6.4 Feasibility: Are there legal, technical or other requirements that present significant implementation barriers?

3.6.5 Environmental: Are the environmental impacts acceptable?

3.6.6 Alignment: Does the project align with other Council initiatives?

3.7 Given the need to progress construction in FY27, staff undertook an initial screening of responsibility and alignment criteria for the highest ranked flood pockets, looking for alignment opportunities with other Council projects and areas where the Council is the sole decision maker. This screening established a first tranche of flood issue areas for consideration. This first tranche focused on ‘quick wins’ based on the existence of previous investigation and design work. This included three areas for which NZTA co-funding is available and transport projects have been initiated (Edgeware Village, Cygnet Street / Pacific Road and Clifton Terrace).

3.8 Following this, a high-level assessment was undertaken for the remaining top 60 ranked flood issue areas and this resulted in the recommendation of three tranches of preliminary investigations. Areas with significant prior investigation were considered more favourably for the early tranches to reduce delivery risks in the early years of the programme.

3.9 Flood issue areas selected for consideration in the first three tranches of assessment are:

Tranche 1	Rank	Tranche 2	Rank	Tranche 3	Rank
Sumner & Nayland Street	3&72	Southern Southshore	4	Moncks Bay	19
Flockton Street Area	5	North Linwood	6	Duvauchelle	23
Sockburn	14	Barrington	7	Tennyson Street	24
Lower Heathcote Valley	15	Hillsborough	8	Akaroa	27
Bells Creek	20	Linwood South	10	Beachville Road	31
Shirley	21	Riccarton	11	Redcliffs	40
Kruses Drain	22	Horotane Valley	13	Blighs Bellvue	44
Edgeware Village*	26	Rowses Road	18	Upper Dudley	46
Greenpark Street	30	Torlesse Street area	25
Cygnet Street*	37	Inwoods Rd & Daytona Pl	28
Emmet Orcades	42	Awatea Gardens area	29
Pacific Road*	90	Vickerys Road	33
Clifton*	130	Hay Street*	81

*Potential alignment with transport works

A satellite view of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 Flood Pockets assessed in Tranche 1

3.10 These tranches of projects are indicative only, and the programme will remain responsive to other opportunities that arise, such as new co-funding. Any new flood issue areas that join the list will be subjected to the same assessment against the Delivery Programme Criteria.

3.11 The tranches vary from projects in earlier LTP capital programmes as this programme identifies programme specific flood reduction objectives. Previous LTP projects focused primarily on above floor flood risk, in line with agreed levels of service.

3.12 In addition to work occurring under this programme, areas being considered through existing initiatives include:

3.12.1 Rank 1, Little River, which is being considered through the Little River Round Table group.

3.12.2 Rank 12, Tenby Newport, which is already underway as project.

3.12.3 Rank 32, Pa Road, which is subject to some ongoing works on the Koukourārata Stream Bridge and Oiri Stream culvert.

3.12.4 Eight pockets will be considered through various Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor projects due to their proximity to the corridor:

· Rank 6, Linwood North

· Rank 10, Linwood South

· Rank 25, Torlesse

· Rank 68, Basset / Cossar

· Rank 86, McBratneys

· Rank 110, Landy Lovelock

· Rank 140, Wildwood Ave

· Rank 124, Coopers Road

3.13 From the top 30 ranked projects, four flood issue areas are not recommended to be progressed in the first three tranches but will remain on the list to be considered later in the programme. These are:

3.13.1 Ranks 2, 9 & 16: Richardson & Clarendon Terraces, Waimea Terrace and Ainsley Terrace. There was a previous Council decision not to progress with low stopbanks to address flooding in these areas and there has recently been significant investment in the upper Heathcote to reduce flooding. The worst affected properties were purchased under the Flood Intervention Policy.

3.13.2 Rank 17: Aranui, which has been previously investigated without identifying viable remedial work.

3.14 The Surface Flooding Reduction Programme was established to reduce regular surface flooding issues experienced by communities, and as such the identification and prioritisation of flood pockets has been based on issues experienced to date. Future conditions, including urban intensification and climate change, have the potential to exacerbate flooding issues.

3.15 Design of surface flooding reduction projects will look to consider potential intensification in the next phase of design. Constraints within established urban areas can however mean it is not feasible to mitigate all impacts. The programme Urban Stormwater Detention and Treatment Retrofit Facilities was established within the LTP as the beginnings of a fund for additional infrastructure in response to intensification.

3.16 Significant inter-dependencies exist with the Surface Flood Reduction Programme and the Climate Hazards Adaptation Planning programme in coastal areas.

Inter-dependencies with the CHAP programme

3.17 The Climate Hazards Adaptation Planning (CHAP) programme are currently testing options to determine where adaptation planning should next be located. Options include:

3.17.1 East Christchurch: Waimairi Beach to Southshore and inland along the lower Ōtākaro Avon River.

3.17.2 Both the Lower Pūharakekenui Styx River and the remaining areas within Banks Peninsula.

3.17.3 Taylors Mistake to Woolston and inland to Opawa.

3.18 Initial feedback indicates that the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board and the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board both support adaptation planning progressing in their areas, with the Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board declining to indicate a preference. Further discussions with other stakeholders including the Coastal Hazards Working Group are required and options will be presented for a Council decision later this year.

3.19 Once a decision has been made, the CHAP team recommend integrating significant Surface Flood Reduction Programme options within the selected adaptation area, into the adaptation planning process. This will allow the Council to better understand community values and integrate these into a decision-making process. Additionally, a more fulsome options assessment process would be completed as part of local adaptation planning. Specifically, this means 1) assessing a broader range of adaptation options than what has been considered through the Surface Flood Reduction Programme initial investigation; 2) that options (such as coastal defences) required to complement stormwater management options would also be assessed; and 3) that options would be considered within the wider geographic and financial context, enabling a more comprehensive range of adaptation options to be considered.

Tranche 1 Project Assessments

3.20 Basic assessment has now occurred for the Tranche 1 projects and a practicable option for each flood pocket was assessed against the Delivery Programme Criteria (see table on next page). This results in four projects being identified as candidates for immediate recommendation to proceed to design, consenting and construction. The remainder will continue to be investigated in preparation for future decisions on the programme.

3.21 In some cases, the benefit of the infrastructure in reducing surface flooding issues is yet to be verified through comparative hydraulic modelling. Options proposed are expected to achieve a reduction in flooding but will not necessarily resolve all issues experienced. Residual flood risk will remain after the works are completed.

3.22 High level costs estimates were prepared as part of these initial investigations. These estimates should be treated as indicative only, as the designs are at a very early stage and subject to significant refinement. Significant cost risk remains.

3.23 A decision is now required to progress or defer these four projects.

3.25 The following figures provide indicative layouts of the four projects.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2 Flockton Street Area - Stormwater Pump Station

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3 Bells Creek – Pump Station and Overland Flow Controls

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 4 Greenpark - Network Upgrades

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 5 Emmet Orcades - Stormwater Network Upgrades and Diversion (minor bed and bank works upstream of Shirley Road not shown)

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

3.26 A range of reasonably practicable options were considered for progressing high priority projects for delivery within the programme. These included:

3.26.1 Option 1 (preferred) – Seek approval for delivery of the four ‘quick wins’ projects.

3.26.2 Option 2 – Defer all 158 projects or all three tranches until further information is available across the programme to prioritise between all projects.

3.26.3 Option 3 – Defer until the Annual Plan (AP) or Long-Term Plan (LTP).

3.27 The following options were considered but ruled out:

3.27.1 Progressing all projects equally – not feasible due to resource constraints and would not prioritise funding towards physical works.

3.27.2 Progressing only high priority projects – this would prioritise the largest issue areas which require large projects, with the highest budgets. These projects may not be the most cost effective but would have the longest lead times. This would miss opportunities to align with other Council projects and to deliver projects that are highly effective in smaller areas.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

3.28 The reasonably practicable options descriptions, advantages and disadvantages are set out below:

	Option	Description	Advantage	Disadvantage
1	Preferred: Approval for four quick win projects	Prioritising projects based on issue ranking, ease of implementation and alignment with other programmes	Most likely to achieve LTP expectations and aligns with other programmes. Focuses on projects of highest confidence	Some FY27 budget not allocated
2	Defer all projects	Defer all 158 projects until a uniform level of information is available so that they can be prioritised against each other	Focuses construction investment on the highest priority locations	Requires a long time and significant investment in design to allow ‘apples with apples’ comparison. Unlikely to meet LTP expectations
3	Defer until AP or LTP	Defer decision making until more information is available on other tranche 1 projects	Possibility of approving more projects in one process	Delays in dealing with some areas. Risk that delay may inhibit FY27 delivery

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

3.29 The three options were assessed against ability to deliver against the expectations set in the current LTP. To evaluate this staff had to consider if the deliverability of each option.

3.30 Option 1 was preferred as it provided the best balance of addressing issues immediately, whilst not unduly delaying work on other highly ranked issue areas. The four projects proposed for immediate initiation within Option 1 do not create significant alignment issues with CHAP.

3.31 Deferring a decision until information was available across all tranches or the entire 158 flood pockets (Option 2) would take considerable time and effort, at the expense of immediate needs. This would not meet the expectations set in the current LTP.

3.32 Deferring a decision until the AP or LTP (Option 3) could enable comparison of the first four quick wins against a broader range of projects, however, this would likely result in delay of commencement of the programme delivery until FY28 or later.

3.33 For all options, if the further investigations find other projects within the first tranches that meet the Delivery Programme Criteria, then they will be proposed as capital projects as part of the later AP or LTP preparation.

4. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

4.1 The Council has allocated capital funding to the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme through the LTP. This report does not introduce any new capital expenditure but proposes how the allocated funding will be spent. All three options will deliver within the budget, however, they will have differing outcomes. There is variation between the options in the timing of the expenditure:

4.1.1 Option 1 – Provides the greatest opportunity to meet the current budget expectations set within the LTP. Additional projects will need to be identified in the upcoming AP to meet targets.

4.1.2 Option 2 – Developing information across the programme will be costly and time consuming. This will likely result in later delivery of physical works and some budget being spent on design and investigation for projects that may not be constructed.

4.1.3 Option 3 – Deferring a decision until the AP would risk some of the FY27 delivery. A carry forward is more likely with this option than Option 1.

4.2 As design understanding continues to develop, it is likely that the cost estimates for individual projects will vary from that provided in this report. These changes can be managed through existing financial delegated authorities, in the same way as other projects within the capital programme.

4.3 The following are the high-level estimated costs for the four projects recommended to commence immediately under the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme. The cost estimate for these projects totals $11.4 million.

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Flockton Street Area	Bells Creek	Greenpark	Emmet Orcades
Cost to Implement	$6,200,000	$700,000	$700,000	$3,800,000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	TBC	TBC	TBC	TBC
Funding Source	Surface Flooding Reduction Programme
Funding Availability	Funded within LTP
Impact on Rates	CAPEX already budgeted, consequential OPEX TBC

4.4 Infrastructure creation will have consequential impacts on maintenance and operational costs. These have not yet been detailed for the proposed projects but will be established though the standard LTP process.

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

5.1 Each project progressed under this programme will have associated risks. Given the high-level nature of the initial assessment there remains uncertainty in the costs and effectiveness of projects in mitigating surface flooding. These risks are proposed to be mitigated by progressing further investigation and design work on projects, with any changes resulting from new information to be managed through standard project and change management processes.

5.2 At a programme level, there is a risk of expectations not being met by the programme. Not all flood issue areas will be able to be addressed within the programme. For those areas which result in projects, surface flooding will be reduced but not necessarily removed completely. Residual flood risk will remain and will be managed by existing operational and regulatory processes. There remains a reputational risk to Council of dissatisfaction with the prioritisation process and the effectiveness of projects in reducing flooding.

5.3 Consenting requirements have not been evaluated. Securing approvals and consents could delay projects or increase project costs. Some projects may be deferred until later in the programme if consenting risks are high.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

5.4.1 The Council does not have a legal responsibility to construct infrastructure to reduce surface flooding. The Council has power under various legislation to enact drainage works and provide stormwater services. This legislation empowers the Council to act but does not require it to do so. However, if the Council provides infrastructure, then it takes on liability for consequential damages arising from failure to maintain.

5.4.2 In creating the Surface Flooding Reduction Programme, the Council has chosen to fund works to reduce regular surface flooding at prioritised sites.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.5 The required decisions:

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

5.5.2 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 who may have an interest in the decision and the broad geographical spread of the programme.

5.5.3 Are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

5.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034) under Activity: Stormwater Drainage:

· Level of Service: 14.0.11.1 For each flooding event, the number of habitable floors affected. (Expressed per 1000 properties connected to the territorial authority’s stormwater system) (DIA Sub-part 3, 1b) - <0.1 habitable floors per 1000 properties

· Level of Service: 14.0.11.2 The number of flooding events that occur (DIA 1a) - <2 flooding events

· Level of Service: 14.0.11.3 Number of complaints received by a territorial authority about the performance of its stormwater system (Expressed per 1000 properties connected to the territorial authority's stormwater system) (DIA 4) - < 9 complaints per 1000 properties

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

5.7 The decision affects all Community Board areas as it relates to implementation of a district-wide programme.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

5.10 As the proposed decisions relate to the management of water, they are of specific interest to Mana Whenua. Engagement on the projects will be undertaken during design development so that views of Mana Whenua can be understood and opportunities to align with Mana Whenua objectives can be explored.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.11 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

5.11.2 Contribute negatively or positively to emissions reductions.

5.12 Flood issue areas have been identified based on flooding issues experienced to date. Within projects to reduce surface flooding there is opportunity to mitigate not just current issues but the impacts of increased rainfall due to climate change, where feasible.

5.13 Construction of infrastructure, as proposed in this programme and report, generates emissions. In developing the programme of projects, opportunities will continue to be investigated for nature-based solutions which can be sources of carbon sequestration. Avoiding flood damages avoids the carbon cost of repair, which will balance, to some degree the carbon investment in the infrastructure.

6. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.1 It is proposed to immediately initiate the following projects:

6.1.1 Flockton Street Area Stormwater Pump Station

6.1.2 Bells Creek – Pump Station and Overland Flow Controls

6.1.3 Greenpark – Network Upgrades

6.1.4 Emmet Orcades – Stormwater Network Upgrades and Diversion

6.2 Following this immediate work, investigations will continue for those less immediate projects in Tranche 1, and will commence for the Tranche 2, and then Tranche 3 projects.

6.3 As areas are assessed against the Delivery Programme Criteria, those that pass will be put forward for initiation through standard Council AP and LTP processes. The next update is expected to occur in early 2026 as part of Annual Plan preparation.

6.4 Future projects delivered within the programme will be managed through standard Council AP and LTP processes and reported on through quarterly Three Waters reporting to elected members.

6.5 It is not yet clear how far the programme budget will extend, as project options and therefore costs are still to be determined. Therefore, once the first three tranches are assessed the programme budget will be reviewed, and if there is still headroom, then further projects from further down the priority ranking will also be investigated.

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

Sylvia MacLaren - Programme Manager

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Kate Dawkings - Surface Water Planning Engineer

Approved By

Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

19. Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/557781
Presenter Te Kaipāhō:	Councillor Victoria Henstock, Hearings Panel Chairperson
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 present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process of the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025.

1.2 The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, per its delegation, has considered the written and verbal submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.

1.3 The Council can then accept, reject or amend the recommendations, subject to receiving officer advice confirming that the proposed changes are within the scope of the matter and comply with decision-making requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering:

· The 1,560 written submissions (in the Volume of Submissions attached to the Hearings Agenda and in the Attachments Under Separate Cover document);

· The summary of submissions report to the Hearings Panel (included in the Hearings Agenda);

· The staff advice to support deliberations report to the Hearings Panel (included in the Hearings Agenda);

· This report, which includes a high-level summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented to the Hearings Panel and summarises the considerations and deliberations; and

· Additional information supplied to the Panel during the Hearing (attached to the Hearings Panel Minutes).

1.5 The decision to consult on proposed changes was made by Council on 16 October 2024, as a result of a review of the Dog Control Policy 2016 and Dog Control Bylaw 2016 (Council agenda, 16 October 2024, agenda item 9). The 16 October 2024 Council report provides background context for the proposed changes.

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025 Report.

2. Adopts the Dog Control Policy 2025 at Attachment A, including the following changes made as a result of submissions and staff advice:

a. Adding a date when the policy comes into force (3 November 2025);

b. Amending section 3.1.1 to align with the bylaw and make it clear that if a dog is unable to consistently and quickly respond to commands, it must be leashed in public places, whether a leash is required or not;

c. Adding an explanatory note to section 6.1.3, to note that the prohibition does not apply to organised Council events designed for dogs at Council swimming or paddling pools;

d. Amending the summary of general leashed areas in section 6.2 to reflect a title change;

e. Amending section 6.2.2 so that the title is “On all paths in greenspace areas” and replacing the text to align with the bylaw wording;

f. Amending 6.2.6 to explain that leashing on sports fields applies to the active playing area (and within five metres of it), but does not apply in other areas or at other times;

g. Adding a new section (9.7) to provide advice on protecting dog paws during the heat;

h. Adding an explanatory note to section 9.8 to enable the Animal Services Manager to waive certain requirements for approved events designed for dogs or the inclusion of dogs; and

i. Amending entries in Schedule 1 of the Dog Control Policy 2025 in the following ways:

i. Amending the dog control status of HMNZS Steadfast (Lyttelton) from “Leashed” to “Leashed/Under effective control” and amending the description in relation to required dog controls to require leashing only during events;

ii. Adding a dog control status and definition for Hoon Hay Scenic Reserve (Governor’s Bay) requiring that dogs are leashed in the eastern area to protect grazing stock;

iii. Amending the dog control status of The Groynes from “leashed” to “leashed/under effective control” and amending the description in relation to required dog controls to enable dogs unleashed access to the river and track alongside the dog park;

iv. Amending the description of Kaputone Confluence Conservation Park to Kaputahi Confluence Conservation Park;

v. Amending the comments of the description of Styx Mill Conservation Reserve (excluding the west end and dog park) to enable leashed dogs access on specified paths;

vi. Amending the dog control status of the Styx Mill Conservation Reserve - west end to allow dogs to be off leash on the open field area near the dog park;

vii. Amending the comment of the description of the Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary by including the words “roost” and “moult”;

viii. Amending the dog control status of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor from “prohibited / leashed / under effective control” to “leashed / under effective control”, and amending the comment to require leashing everywhere except in mown grass areas, other than former roads closed to motor vehicles and to add clarifications about former roads and access to the river from mown areas;

ix. Simplifying the entry title for the Central City and amending the comment of the description by deleting the proposed removal of the leashing requirement for Latimer Square and Rauora Park (to retain leashing), and excluding the Avon Loop from the Central City entry so that it is covered by the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor entry (meaning dogs may be under effective control in mown areas, but must be leashed elsewhere);

x. Amending the entry title of Te Kuru Wetlands by adding the words “including Milns, Eastman, Sutherlands and Hoon Hay basins”; and

xi. Adding a new section to clarify that dogs are prohibited in specified reserves managed by the Council but not within the Council’s district.

3. Adopts the Dog Control Bylaw 2025 at Attachment B, including the following changes made as a result of submissions and staff advice:

a. Amending clause 1 to specify the date the bylaw comes into force (3 November 2025);

b. Adding definitions to clause 4 for “formed track”, “greenspace areas” and “path” to support the clause requiring leashing on paths in greenspace areas;

c. Adding an explanatory note after clause 5(4) to clarify that the maximum limit on the number of dogs a person can take into a public place also applies at dog parks and in dog exercise areas;

d. Adding an explanatory note after clause 8(C) so that the prohibition does not apply to organised Council events designed for dogs at Council swimming or paddling pools;

e. Amending the title of clause 9(B) to “All paths in greenspace areas”, and amending the clause to remove the reference to “short leash” and replace “footpaths, shared paths, and formed tracks” with “all paths” to simplify the clause;

f. Replacing the explanatory note to clause 9(B) to provide clarification about the application of the clause; and

g. Amending clause 9(F) so that the requirement to leash dogs on sports fields applies only to the active playing area (and within five metres of it) while games or practice sessions are underway, and clarifying that dogs may be under effective control outside of the area and at other times.

4. Determines that the Dog Control Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issue of dog control, is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications, pursuant to section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002.

5. Approves that staff are authorised to correct any typographical errors and to make minor changes to the policy and bylaw, including but not limited to updating policy numbers and ensuring consistency between the policy and bylaw.

6. Approves the following recommendations from the Hearings Panel, provided in addition to the proposed policy and bylaw:

a. That staff review animal management services to ensure alignment with the revised policy and bylaw so that dog registration fees are adequate to respond to the new regulations (including compliance monitoring, education and enforcement activities) ahead of the next annual plan process;

b. That staff update or install new signage to support the implementation of the replacement policy and bylaw;

c. That staff update and improve the online map that reflects the dog controls in schedule 1 of the Dog Control Policy so that it is up-to-date and clear;

d. That staff explore opportunities to encourage dog owners to undertake training for their dogs to better improve dog control in public places;

e. That information about the replacement Dog Control Policy and Bylaw and other helpful online information is sent to dog owners as part of the dog registration process;

f. That staff develop an online application for the dog limit exemption process;

g. That staff explore whether there are any opportunities to install rubbish bins in key locations to support dog owners picking up after their dogs;

h. That staff investigate options for a dog park, dog exercise area or other fenced area where dogs can be exercised off-leash in the Central City, to encourage and support inner-city living;

i. That staff investigate options for a dog exercise area in Diamond Harbour;

j. That staff investigate implementing an innovative communications pilot programme (including signage) to support behaviour change and education for dog owners; and

k. That staff investigate ways to improve education and owner responsibility around dog fouling.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 All local authorities are required to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to enforce it. The Council’s Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw were last reviewed in 2016. Legislation requires that bylaws are reviewed at least once every 10 years. A dog control policy must be reviewed when a dog control bylaw is reviewed. By reviewing the policy and bylaw, the Council can respond to changes in the district and meet legislative obligations.

3.2 The policy and bylaw work together to impose reasonable regulatory controls on dogs and their owners to minimise the danger, distress or nuisance that may be caused by dogs, and to balance this by enabling appropriate recreational access for dogs and their owners. The policy sets out how the Council will meet its regulatory obligations under the Dog Control Act.

3.3 The legal considerations section of this report sets out important detail about the Council’s use of regulatory power in making this kind of policy and bylaw. The key legislation requiring the council to have a policy and bylaw, setting the scope of regulation, requiring the review, setting out the nature of the review, and the consultation requirements after a review, are:

· The Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act)

· The Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

3.4 The Act places obligations on dog owners and on councils. It requires that when a council is considering a dog control policy, it “must have regard to” the following:

· The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults;

· The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.[8]

3.5 The bylaw then must give effect to the policy, making the dog controls enforceable. A breach of a dog control bylaw can result in a $300 infringement fine (an amount set in the Act).

3.6 Christchurch has one of the highest dog ownership rates in New Zealand, with over 37,000 registered dog owners and almost 45,000 registered dogs.

3.7 The policy does several things, but of highest interest to the public (including dog owners) are the leashed and prohibited rules. The policy and bylaw work together to set out where dogs must be leashed or where they are prohibited in public places in the district, via a combination of specified areas and general rules.

3.8 Leashed or prohibited rules (and reasons for them) are set out in the policy and bylaw and may apply for the following reasons: to protect health and safety; due to high visitor numbers or high recreational use; to protect wildlife; to protect ecological, conservation or habitat values; to protect grazing stock; to protect rare or heritage plantings; to protect swimming and beach recreation areas; to protect spaces used by children; and for cultural reasons.

4. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero Ngā Tāpaetanga

Community engagement and early feedback

4.1 In June 2024, a survey gathered early feedback from 6,245 participants (84% indicated they were dog owners) on dog control issues such as leashing, wildlife protection, and shared space use. A Newsline story ‘Dog survey highlights protection for the environment’ highlighted some of the key results. The Council was briefed on the results of the survey on 3 September 2024 and the report is available here.

4.2 This input helped to shape the proposed changes to the policy and bylaw.

Public consultation

4.3 Consultation on the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and Policy 2024 ran from 11 November to 15 December 2024. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires local authorities to undertake a special consultative procedure[9] to consult the public and to notify registered dog owners of changes to a dog control policy.

4.4 Outreach included emails to nearly 40,000 stakeholders, a dedicated consultation webpage, social media, printed materials, and a public webinar.

4.5 1,560 valid submissions were received (80% from dog owners), including 26 from organisations and businesses. Submissions came from a wide range of groups, including dog service providers, veterinary associations, animal welfare and environmental NGOs, community boards, residents’ groups, and others.

4.6 Submissions generally supported the proposed changes, but also highlighted misunderstanding, disagreement, and suggestions for alternatives. Notably, in locations such as the Groynes, Diamond Harbour, and the Port Hills, some submitters perceived the changes as introducing new restrictions—even though, in some cases, they actually represented a relaxation of existing rules.

4.7 The need for alignment between the bylaw and policy results in duplication and complexity, which can hinder public understanding.

4.8 The consultation material asked six key questions, highlighted ten other areas of change, and noted that the proposed changes were wider than these highlighted areas. Copies of the policy and bylaw with all changes shown (and the reasons for the changes) were included on the consultation page, as well as in the formal statement of proposal required by the special consultative procedure. The full review report, including the section 155 assessment, was included on the consultation page.[10] Feedback was welcomed on any aspect of the policy or bylaw.

Responses to key questions

4.9 The consultation asked six questions on key proposals. Below is a summary of the responses:

Question

Yes

Don’t know

Do you support the proposal to require dogs to be on a short leash on footpaths, shared paths and formed tracks in greenspace areas where dogs are allowed?

656 submitters

43%

824 submitters

54%

61 submitters

Do you support the proposal to require dogs to be on a short leash on shared paths and pedestrian areas on or near roads?

1,070 submitters

70%

401 submitters

26%

67 submitters

Do you support the proposal for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor?

833 submitters

56%

480 submitters

31%

168 submitters

11%

Do you support the proposal for Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary?

1,042 submitters

70%

265 submitters

18%

185 submitters

12%

Do you support the proposal to regulate stormwater basins?

907 submitters

61%

374 submitters

25%

195 submitters

13%

Do you support the proposal to limit the number of dogs one person can be in control of in a public place?

1,051 submitters

69%

329 submitters

22%

150 submitters

10%

4.10 Most of the proposals received majority support. The only proposal with majority opposition was requiring dogs to be on a short leash on footpaths, shared paths and formed tracks in greenspace areas where dogs are allowed.

High-level themes from submissions

4.11 Community feedback revealed a wide spectrum of opinions on dog-related issues, often directly conflicting. These differences were not simply between dog owners and non-owners—even among dog owners, views varied significantly.

4.12 Some key themes included:

4.12.1 Public safety concerns about uncontrolled dogs and inattentive owners.

4.12.2 Frustration over dog waste and its impact on health and the environment.

4.12.3 Support for wildlife protection, though some opposed restrictions or preferred leashing over prohibition.

4.12.4 Calls for a more dog-friendly approach, emphasising dogs as companions and family members.

4.12.5 Concerns about the complexity and clarity of current and proposed rules, including opposition to blanket regulations.

4.12.6 Mixed views on access and restrictions, with some fearing reduced recreational opportunities and others supporting tighter controls.

4.13 Overall, the feedback highlights the complexity and diversity of community perspectives, underscoring the challenge of creating balanced dog control regulation.

Out of scope matters raised in submissions

4.14 Some submitters raised operational issues. Common operational themes included:

· Requests for more rubbish bins in public areas for dog waste;

· Calls for additional or improved dog parks;

· Suggestions for better signage to communicate dog rules; and

· Comments on staffing and funding for animal management officers.

4.15 Out-of-scope submissions included topics not covered by the Dog Control Act or outside Council’s authority, such as:

· Cat regulation;

· Dogs on public transport;

· Cyclist speed regulation;

· Changes to penalties; and

· General dog welfare concerns, which are handled by the SPCA or Ministry for Primary Industries.

4.16 The Hearings Panel Agenda contains a comprehensive summary and analysis of the consultation process and submissions.

4.17 To see all the changes proposed for consultation, the marked-up versions of the policy and bylaw are available at Attachment C and Attachment D. These versions show the current wording, the proposed changes for consultation, and the changes recommended to Council by the Hearings Panel following consultation and hearings. This approach clearly shows the changes between the current, proposed and recommended policy and bylaw wording to support good decision-making.

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Hearings Panel consisted of Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter, Councillors Victoria Henstock, Tyrone Fields, Aaron Keown and Kelly Barber. At the start of the meeting, Councillor Victoria Henstock was appointed as Chair of the Hearings Panel for the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

5.2 The Hearings Panel convened on 12, 13, 14, and 27 March; 9 May; and 5 June 2025 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.3 Before hearing verbal submissions, Council Officers presented a brief overview of the proposed changes and presented the Panel with further information concerning the consultation responses and analysis. The Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments contain the staff presentation.

6. Verbal Submissions

6.1 The Hearings Panel heard from 51 submitters over 12 and 13 March 2025. Submitters included individuals, groups and representatives from organisations, businesses, environmental groups and community boards. The Minutes of the meeting contain a list of presenters and the Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments include all tabled documents.

6.2 The views expressed by submitters who presented in person are best captured in their own words, either through their original submissions (see the Hearings Panel Agenda) or through documents tabled during the hearings process. Many of the issues raised in verbal submissions aligned with those presented in written submissions. Verbal submitters were more likely to be opposed to the proposed changes than those making only written submissions.

6.3 Verbal submitters expressed a wide range of views about the regulation of dogs in public places. General themes included support for the proposals (both public safety and wildlife protections), opposition to restrictions, suggestions for adjustment, and value for the role of dogs in the community, as well as acknowledgement of their natural tendencies and needs.

6.4 Fewer than 5% of submitters presented their submissions verbally, with the majority of submissions received in written form. A summary of key issues raised in written submissions was included in the Hearings Agenda. A summary of the key issues raised during verbal submissions is provided below.

Diverse views on leashing requirements

6.5 Many submitters supported general leashing requirements on footpaths, shared paths, and near roads for safety and public comfort, but leashing on paths in greenspace areas received mixed views.

6.6 Some submitters opposed leashing rules, arguing they restrict dogs’ natural behaviour, are impractical in low-traffic or natural areas, and could increase reactivity and stress in dogs. Some argued it should depend on the dog or owner, or that well-trained dogs should not have to comply with rules. In contrast, others thought leashing was appropriate in some situations, particularly around unfamiliar dogs and around other people, activities and wildlife.

Concerns about dog welfare

6.7 Some submitters placed strong emphasis on the mental and physical wellbeing of dogs, particularly in relation to the proposed leashing requirements. They highlighted the importance of off-leash exercise for enrichment and socialisation, cautioned against over-regulation that could lead to behavioural issues, and underscored the need to recognise dogs as sentient beings.

Concerns about public safety

6.8 Some submitters raised concerns about public safety and presented information about dog attacks they had experienced in public places, as well as their recovery and rehabilitation processes. Attacks and injuries between dogs were raised by submitters, as well as attacks to wildlife (birds) and stock.

6.9 Some submitters noted that not everyone feels comfortable around dogs or wants to be approached by unknown dogs in public places, and that some dog owners want other dog owners to have better control of their dogs. Some submitters acknowledged that some owners overestimate the control they have over their dogs and that some dogs are not well-trained or responsive to commands.

Wildlife and environmental protection

6.10 There was broad support for protecting sensitive ecological areas and wildlife, especially Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary, parts of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, Southshore Spit, stormwater basins and wetlands, and some coastal areas.

6.11 Some submitters requested seasonal or targeted restrictions rather than blanket bans. Other submitters strongly supported protections in key areas and acknowledged that risks to wildlife were not limited to particular times of the year but existed year-round. Some submitters strongly supportive of wildlife protection emphasised the natural tendency of dogs to chase wildlife, supporting either prohibiting or leashing rules.

Dog owner responsibility and education

6.12 Many submissions emphasised the need for a clear and well-understood definition of “under effective control”, education campaigns promoting responsible dog ownership, incentives for training, improved signage and communication of rules. Submitters raised concerns about dog owners not picking up after their dogs or not appropriately disposing of their waste.

Professional dog walkers and dog number limits

6.13 There were mixed views on limiting the number of dogs to be walked by one person at a time (though overall the proposal received support). While there was support for limits to ensure safety and control, some dog walking businesses had concerns about the proposed system but supported the exemption process based on skills and experience. Some professionals were concerned about services being offered by inexperienced handlers, acknowledging that this impacted on all providers, and raised issues around both dog and public safety.

Enforcement and practicality

6.14 There was widespread concern about a perceived lack of enforcement of current rules. Some submitters questioned whether new rules would be effective without increased staffing and funding, clear signage and public awareness, and consistent application of rules across the city.

Access to off-leash areas

6.15 Some dog owners expressed concern about loss of off-leash spaces, especially in urban areas. Suggestions included creating more fenced dog parks, allowing time-based off-leash access (e.g., early mornings) and ensuring equity for people with mobility issues. Submitter views on the current rules revealed some misunderstandings about current access to off-leash areas.

Criticism of consultation process

6.16 Some submitters criticised the process, citing a lack of maps or clear visuals to illustrate the proposed changes, and advocated for stronger engagement with canine behaviour experts and practitioners.

7. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions Ngā Whaiwhakaaro o Ngā Kōrero me Ngā Taukume

7.1 The Panel began deliberations on the afternoon of 13 March and continued 14 March. The Panel worked through the advice for deliberations report prepared by staff (item 5 of the 12 March 2025 Agenda, in particular, Attachment A to that report). This set out the issues, concerns and suggestions raised by submitters, and provided advice for the Panel to consider on potential changes it may wish to make in response.

7.2 The Panel worked through the report and its attachments. This covered the following issues, on which the Panel agreed:

7.2.1 A minor change to swimming pools to enable dog access for events designed for dogs in response to submitter feedback (in both the policy and bylaw).

7.2.2 An improvement was made to the leashing requirement on sports fields (in both the policy and bylaw) in response to concerns raised in submissions. The requirement is now limited to the active playing field and sideline areas during games and practice sessions. It also clarifies that dogs are permitted under effective control outside of these areas, and within them when not in use.

7.2.3 Lifting the current leashing requirement and moving the Avon Loop from the Central City to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor policy entry (meaning dogs can be exercised off-leash and under effective control in mown grass areas in the Avon Loop).

7.2.4 A minor change to Te Ihutai Avon Heathcote Estuary policy entry to acknowledge that dogs are prohibited along the shoreline to protect moulting and roosting (not just nesting) birds

7.2.5 A minor change to the policy entry for Te Kuru Wetlands to acknowledge that Te Kuru is made up of Milns, Eastman, Sutherlands and Hoon Hay basins.

7.2.6 Changes to Styx Mill Conservation Reserve policy entries (both the west end entry and the remainder of the reserve) in response to submitter concerns to allow unleashed dog access to an open field area near the west end dog park and to enable leashed access to specified paths within the otherwise prohibited remainder of the conservation reserve.

7.2.7 Correcting the name of Kaputone Confluence to Kaputahi Confluence in the policy entry.

7.2.8 Adjusting the policy entry for the Groynes in response to submitter feedback so that dogs can have unleashed access to a stretch of path and river near the dog park (with the remainder of the Groynes moving from prohibited to leashed).

7.2.9 Adjusting the policy entry for Steadfast HMNZS Regional Park (above Cass Bay) in response to submitter feedback so that dogs need to be leashed during events, rather than at all times.

7.2.10 Adding part of Hoon Hay Scenic Reserve (above Governor’s Bay) as a leashed area in the policy to protect grazing stock in response to submitter feedback.

7.2.11 A minor change to the policy in relation to under effective control to make it clear that if a dog is unable to consistently and quickly respond to commands, it must be leashed in public places, whether a leash is required or not (replacing the word “should” with “must”), to align with clause 5(3) of the bylaw.

7.2.12 A minor change to the policy enabling the Animal Services Manager to waive policy and bylaw rules for events designed for dogs where the Manager is satisfied that dog-related issues are adequately addressed.

7.2.13 A minor change to the bylaw to clarify that the maximum limit on the number of dogs a person can be in charge of in a public place applies at dog parks and in dog exercise areas.

7.2.14 The addition of a dog welfare matter, which is the inclusion of some brief advice for dog owners about protecting dog paws during heat.

7.2.15 Minor changes to correct numbering or inconsistencies in the documents.

7.3 A change was considered in relation to the Port Hills—specifically, whether leashing requirements could be lifted in key areas—but was later abandoned following subsequent advice to the Hearings Panel.

7.4 The dog control rules in the following areas were considered but not agreed by the Panel on 14 March 2025: Central City; Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor; Paths in greenspace areas; and Coastal Cliff Reserve. The Panel requested further information from Council Officers on some other matters raised in submissions that were of interest and adjourned until 27 March 2025.

7.5 The Panel met briefly on 27 March to adjourn to 9 May, then met briefly on 9 May to adjourn to 5 June 2025. These adjournments were necessary to allow time for the requested information to be prepared and presented for the Panel’s consideration. The information requested by the Panel related to:

7.5.1 Central City: whether or not to lift leashing requirements in two parks.

7.5.2 Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor: what the dog control rules should be in the former red zone.

7.5.3 Paths in greenspace areas: whether or not leashing should be required.

7.5.4 Port Hills reserves: whether any areas could be exempt from leashing requirements.

7.5.5 Stormwater basins: whether a new category for a general rule could be created.

7.5.6 Coastal Cliff Reserve: what the dog control rules should be.

7.5.7 Bays around Lyttelton Harbour: whether or not dogs could be allowed greater beach access during summer.

7.6 The advice provided by Council Officers, which formed the basis of the Panel’s final deliberations meeting held on 5 June 2025, is contained in two memos dated 29 May 2025 (available in the Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments). During this meeting, the Panel considered all submissions received on the policy and bylaw, along with the information provided by Council Officers throughout the hearings process and the advice contained in the memos.

7.7 The key issues addressed by the Hearings Panel in its final deliberations—and, where applicable, how these are reflected in their recommendations to Council—are outlined below.

Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC)

7.8 The Panel discussed the proposed policy entry for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor being adjusted in response to submitter feedback. The proposal included prohibiting dogs in some areas, but the Panel is recommending leashing instead, with dogs allowed under effective control in mown areas and on former roads. The Panel was mindful of the strong support in submissions for protecting wildlife and ecological restoration and balancing this with opportunities for recreational access.

7.9 The Panel clarified dog access to the river within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, adjusting the proposal to note that dogs may access the river from areas where leashing is not required (such as mown grass areas), and clarified that leashed access is permitted from landings. River access from planted or naturalised riverbank areas would be limited by leashing requirements, which would protect wildlife from disturbance from dogs, noting that the cumulative effect of disturbance from multiple dogs along a stretch of riverbank can be severe.

7.10 The Panel requested that staff adjust the recommendation to specify that dogs may be under effective control on former roads and confirmed that former roads closed to traffic are not considered paths or roads for the purposes of leashing requirements. Newly developed paths, such as the City to Sea Pathway, would be subject to the general leashing rule for paths in greenspace areas.

7.11 The Panel agreed to include “other than former roads closed to motor vehicles” to recommendation 1.I.viii. regarding the dog control status of Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, as outlined in the draft Dog Control Policy 2025 document.

Off-leash dog activity in the Central City

7.12 The Panel considered feedback from submitters on the proposal to lift the leashing requirement in Rauora Park and Latimer Square, having previously agreed in deliberations to recommend lifting the leashing requirement in the Avon Loop (which is part of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor entry in the policy). The Panel decided to recommend the status quo for the two parks due to submitter opposition to lifting leashing requirements in those locations, but to make a recommendation that staff explore opportunities for a dog park or other space for unleashed dog exercise in the Central City.

7.13 The Panel noted that the development of a dog park or similar area is outside of the regulatory process for the dog control policy and bylaw, and would need to be separately assessed for suitability, then designed, consulted on and funded.

7.14 The Panel discussed several potential sites in the Central City, including the Avon Loop, part of Latimer Square, a section of Rauora Park, and Te Ara a Rongo Gloucester Worcester Park. They requested that staff investigate a range of possibilities—from a dedicated fenced dog park to a shared space designed to accommodate both dogs and people. The Panel highlighted that many international cities have successfully integrated small dog parks or exercise areas into inner city / urban environments. They also emphasised the importance of providing accessible and appropriate dog-exercise opportunities for Central City residents, especially given the limited size and availability of green spaces in the area.

7.15 There was a draft staff recommendation provided to address the need for a dog park in the Central City. The Panel decided to include additional wording to expand on the type of park, and to emphasise some of the rationale behind the additional wording is to support and encourage inner-city living.

7.15.1 As such, recommendation 5.h. changed from:

· that staff investigate options for a dog park in the Central City, to:

· that staff investigate options for a dog park, dog exercise area or other fenced area where dogs can be exercised off-leash in the Central City, to encourage and support inner-city living.

Coastal Cliff Reserve (Diamond Harbour)

7.16 The majority of the Panel supported the staff proposal to change the dog control status in the reserve from 'prohibited' to 'leashed,' citing health and safety concerns. They also supported maintaining a 'prohibited' status on the foreshore to protect wildlife.

7.17 One panellist preferred reclassifying the area as 'under effective control' to allow off-leash dog exercise in response to submitter feedback, while another advocated for a full prohibition of dogs in both the reserve and the track for safety reasons. Taking these differing perspectives into account, the Panel agreed to proceed with the majority view and recommends that dogs be leashed within the reserve (including the track) and remain prohibited on the foreshore.

7.18 The Panel acknowledged submitter concerns about the limited availability of off-leash dog exercise areas in Diamond Harbour and agreed to add the below recommendation:

· (5.i) That staff investigate options for a dog exercise area in Diamond Harbour.

Lyttelton Recreation Ground

7.19 The Panel considered submitters’ views on the proposal to lift the leashing requirement to allow dogs to be exercised off-leash in the area. After discussing the range of perspectives and concerns, the Panel recommended lifting the leashing requirement. This change would mean the general rule for sports fields would apply: dogs must be leashed if a game or practice session is underway (on and within five metres of the active playing field) and can be off-leash and under effective control at other times.

7.20 Community views were split, with some wanting the leashing requirement lifted so that dogs could be exercised off-leash (due to the lack of flat space in the area), while others had health and safety concerns for players from dog owners not picking up after their dogs, and associated damage to the new turf. The Panel was advised that concerns about dog fouling will be addressed through renewed community messaging on responsible dog ownership and targeted enforcement of this finable offence.

7.21 The issue of dog fouling discussed as part of the issues with the recreation ground, helped to initiate the below recommendations that the panel agreed to include:

· (5.j) That staff investigate implementing an innovative communications pilot programme (including signage) to support behaviour change and education for dog owners and;

· (5.k) That staff investigate ways to improve education and owner responsibility around dog fouling.

Leashing on paths in greenspace areas

7.22 The Panel considered the views raised by submitters in relation to the proposal to require that dogs are leashed on paths in greenspace areas.

7.23 The Panel considered the requirements in the Dog Control Act, particularly taking a harm-minimisation approach to safety in public places. They considered changes to the district over the last decade, including more people and dogs, and the increased use and speed of e-bikes and scooters on paths. The Panel confirmed that leashing on paths is currently required in a number of areas, but can be confusing, and that that footpaths, shared paths and formed tracks are interchangeable in form and function (and clarified that a separation by path-type was not practical).

7.24 The Panel noted that submissions on the proposal were mixed, with some polarisation. The Panel also noted that some opposition was based on a misunderstanding of the current rules (for example, some submitters not being aware that leashing is currently required in most reserves and formed tracks in the Port Hills). It noted that the proposal would future-proof new recreational areas by applying to all paths (and all path types) in greenspace areas (not just those in place now).

7.25 The Panel noted that opposition to the proposal was reduced when a short leash was not required, and it adjusted its recommendation to Council accordingly. The Panel was satisfied that other adjustments improved the proposal – for example, noting that dogs must be leashed when walked along paths, but not when crossing paths, and confirming that dogs can be off-leash near paths (in areas where no other leashing or prohibition rules apply). It also agreed to adjust the proposal so that paths within fenced dogs parks are explicitly excluded from the leashing requirement.

7.26 The Panel discussed whether the explanatory note should have any reference to a short leash, and whether it should include a reference to long leashes being a hazard in some circumstances (to respond to submitter comments). The Panel agreed to leave the explanatory note as recommended in the memo, and discussed other ways to communicate messaging to dog owners.

Dog registration fees

7.27 A draft staff recommendation was initially provided as follows:

· (5.a.) “that staff investigate increasing dog registration fees through the next annual plan process to better fund Animal Management services for the purposes of monitoring, education and enforcement”.

7.28 Following discussion, the Panel revised the recommendation to:

· (5.a.) “that staff review animal management services to ensure alignment with the revised policy and bylaw so that dog registration fees are adequate to respond to the new regulations (including compliance monitoring, education and enforcement activities) ahead of the next annual plan process.”

7.29 The revised wording reflects the Panel’s intent to take a more holistic and unbiased approach to dog registration fees. Rather than predetermining a fee increase, the Panel preferred a review of current budget provisions and service delivery to determine whether existing fees are sufficient to meet the requirements of the updated policy and bylaw. This ensures any future decisions are informed by a comprehensive understanding of funding needs and service alignment.

8. Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

8.1 Staff have provided some legal context about the policy and bylaw for the Panel to include in its report to Council:

8.1.1 The statutory authority to review, consult and make the Council’s Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw comes from both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2002;

8.1.2 The Council is required under the Dog Control Act to have a policy in respect of dogs in its district. The Council must make any necessary bylaws to give effect to the policy;

8.1.3 The regulatory scope and requirements are set out in section 10 of the Act for dog control policies, and section 20 of the Act for dog control bylaws;

8.1.4 The Dog Control Act expressly allows councils to develop bylaws that restrict access to specified public places for the purposes of dog control;

8.1.5 Statutory and/or delegated authority to make the policy and bylaw rests with the Council and cannot be delegated;

8.1.6 The Dog Control Act requires use of the special consultative procedure and the notification of registered dog owners when considering changes to a dog control policy;

8.1.7 The bylaw is made under the Dog Control Act, but must be made in accordance with the Local Government Act and is deemed to have been made under that Act; and

8.1.8 Under s155 of the LGA, certain determinations must be made when a council is making a bylaw. These determinations are covered under the heading below.

8.2 Section 10 of the Dog Control Act requires that councils, in adopting a policy on dogs, must have regard to the following:

8.2.1 The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

8.2.2 The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

8.2.3 The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

8.2.4 The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

8.3 This requires councils to consider policy settings that seek to minimise the harm that can be caused by dogs, and takes a broad view of harm (danger, distress, nuisance, fear of attack or intimidation). It also requires consideration of the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

8.4 The Dog Control Act has broad bylaw-making powers enabling councils to prohibit dogs or require that dogs are leashed in specified public places or categories of places in the district. As well as specific powers, it provides a power to regulate: “for any other purpose that… is, in the opinion of the territorial authority, necessary or desirable to further the control of dogs”.

8.5 The purpose set out in the policy and bylaw is to balance the recreational needs of dogs and their owners with appropriate controls to minimise the potential for harm, distress or nuisance that may be caused by dogs.

Section 155 determinations

8.6 In order to comply with legislative requirements, certain recommendations must be included when the Council adopts the policy and bylaw. Accordingly, the Panel has incorporated these in its recommendations to Council.

8.7 This includes the section 155 determinations from the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). These must confirm that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified problems, that it is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that it does not give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications.

8.8 Detail on this was included in the 16 October 2024 report to Council, and in an attachment to that report titled: Review report - Dog Control Bylaw and Policy (including section 155 report). The report also included a clause-by-clause analysis of the current bylaw as part of the review process.

8.9 The intention of dog control bylaws is the prevention of harm - either to people, wildlife, domesticated animals (including other dogs) or to property. Legislation specifically enables limitations to dog access by way of policy and bylaw-making powers that enable either prohibiting dogs or requiring that dogs are leashed. This largely applies to specific public places and for specified reasons. People still have the right to move freely through those public places, as the restriction is on the dog, not the dog owner when the dog is not with them. Limiting the freedom of movement of people when accompanied by their dogs in some public places and for specified reasons is considered a proportionate response and a justified limitation. For these reasons, the bylaw is not considered inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

8.10 Based on the changes the Panel is recommending as a result of the consultation process, there are no new section 155 implications, and the Panel can recommend to Council that section 155 has been met.

9. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

9.1 Staff advice is that the main costs from changes to the policy and bylaw include updating the Council’s website information (including mapping[11]); installing new or updating existing signage; preparing and updating applications or other processes or systems; staff training for compliance monitoring and enforcement; and undertaking communication with dog owners and the general public on new or changed rules. These costs will be met from existing budgets. The Panel recommends that the policy and bylaw come into force on 3 November 2025 to allow sufficient time for these actions to be completed.

9.2 As noted, all councils are required to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to enforce it. There is no legal requirement for signage, which means updates can be phased in over time, based on priorities and available resources.

9.3 Legislation requires that the policy and bylaw are reviewed at least once every ten years. After some initial costs to implement the changes (such as signage), the regulatory settings are likely to endure, with little change for some time.

9.4 The Panel notes that the Dog Control Act takes a user-pays cost recovery approach to dog regulation, meaning that the Council’s dog control activities (via the Animal Management Team) are funded via dog registration fees, not by general rates revenue.

9.5 The Panel is making a number of recommendations to Council in this report that relate to implementation. This includes a recommendation to ensure dog registration fees are adequate (including to fund compliance monitoring, education and enforcement activities), and that dog registration fees will be reviewed ahead of the next annual plan. The Panel is making recommendations relating to:

9.5.1 Updating or installing signage.

9.5.2 Updating and improving the online dog control map.

9.5.3 Exploring opportunities to encourage dog owners to undertake training.

9.5.4 Sending online information to dog owners as part of the dog registration process.

9.5.5 Developing an online application for the dog limit exemption process.

9.5.6 Exploring opportunities to install bins to support dog owners picking up after their dogs.

9.5.7 Investigating options for off-leash dog exercise in key locations (such as fenced dog parks).

9.5.8 Investigating innovative approaches to behaviour change and education for dog owners.

9.5.9 Investigating ways to improve education and owner responsibility around dog fouling.

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Dog control activities are funded through dog registration fees. The Dog Control Act 1996 limits the use of dog registrations fees to purposes authorised by the Act. Dog registration fees are managed by the Animal Management Team. Dog control signage is funded from Parks, with a contribution from Animal Management. Parks has an ongoing signage maintenance and renewal programme and budget. Signage for dog control purposes is often combined with signage for other Council purposes and is coordinated by Parks. Other costs to implement the changes (staff time) will be accommodated within existing budgets.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
Funding Source
Funding Availability
Impact on Rates

10. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda	Hearings Panel Agenda \| 12 March 2025
Hearings Panel Attachments Under Separate Cover	Hearings Panel Agenda Attachments Under Separate Cover
Hearings Panel Minutes	Hearings Panel Minutes
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments
Kōrero mai Let’s talk Webpage	https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/dogs
Recordings of the Hearings	12 March 2025 - Part 1 12 March 2025 - Part 2 13 March 2025 14 March 2025 5 June 2025
Any other relevant documents	Newsline article - Dog survey highlights protection for the environment Dog control survey results August 2024

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Simone Gordon - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Victoria Henstock - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Dog Control Policy 2025 - For adoption (Under Separate Cover)	25/1459239
b ⇨	Dog Control Bylaw 2025 - For adoption (Under Separate Cover)	25/1460071
c ⇨	Dog Control Policy 2025 - Marked-up version (Under Separate Cover)	25/1216360
d ⇨	Dog Control Bylaw 2025 - Marked-up version (Under Separate Cover)	25/1216368

20. Proposal from the East Christchurch Housing Trust to Rent Council Land for Community Housing
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1630188
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities and Property
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present recommendations on a proposal from a community group, who wish to lease Council land to deliver affordable housing.

1.2 At its 6 August 2025 meeting, the Council heard from Trustees on behalf of East Christchurch Housing Trust (the Trust) regarding a proposal for a small housing project in New Brighton. The Council requested staff provide advice back on the Trust’s proposal.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Proposal from the East Christchurch Housing Trust to Rent Council Land for Community Housing 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. Authorises Officers to negotiate and enter into a ground lease of the Council property at 81 Blake Street New Brighton with the East Christchurch Housing Trust for the purposes of providing affordable housing.

4. Notes, in accordance with s80 Local Government Act 2002 that:

a. the proposed lease to the East Christchurch Housing Trust is inconsistent with the Council’s Leasing Council Property Policy;

b. the reason for the inconsistency is the property is not being put to public tender because:

i. while there may be a broader market, this market is not obvious; and

ii. the proposal offers a direct and efficient means to advance the Council's strategic housing objectives and activate an otherwise underutilised asset, at no material cost to the Council.

c. there is no intention that the Leasing Council Property Policy be amended to accommodate the decision.

5. Notes that the terms of the lease will include, but not be limited, to:

a. A nominal rental (likely $1 per year), reflecting the community benefit and minimal cost to the Council;

b. A limited term, acknowledging the site's constraints and the relocatable nature of the housing units;

c. The land being used exclusively for affordable, relocatable housing, consistent with the Trust’s proposal; and

d. A condition that the Trust obtain all necessary statutory approvals and funding before commencing building on site.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The East Christchurch Housing Trust has proposed leasing Council-owned land at 81 Blake Street, South Brighton, to develop five relocatable one-bedroom homes for affordable housing. The site, previously used for social housing and now constrained by flood and liquefaction risks, is unsuitable for permanent development but viable for relocatable units. The Trust, with a proven track record in delivering community housing, seeks a peppercorn lease and will fund the project through its own equity, sponsorship, and rental income.

3.2 Officers recommend leasing the site directly to the Trust at nominal rent. This option activates underutilised land, aligns with Council housing strategies, supports climate resilience, and delivers immediate community benefit at minimal cost. While the approach is inconsistent with the Council’s leasing policy and may set a precedent, the Trust’s demonstrated capability, and the urgent housing need justify the departure. The alternative, i.e. retaining the site, would miss an opportunity to address housing stress and make productive use of the land.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Housing Context in Christchurch

4.1 There is evidence of increasing levels of housing stress and deprivation in Christchurch.

4.2 Housing stress is primarily a financial metric. It occurs when a household spends a disproportionately high percentage of its income on housing costs, such as rent or mortgage payments. A frequent definition of housing stress is spending 30% or more of a household's disposable income on housing. This financial strain can lead to households cutting back on other essential needs, like food, healthcare, and education, which in turn impacts their overall well-being. A 2022 report showed that in 2018 41% of Christchurch households were housing stressed and 20% were severely stressed (50% or more of household income). A 2025 report shows that in 2023, 40% of private renters, 23% of owner occupiers with a mortgage and 6% of owner occupiers without a mortgage were housing stressed.

4.3 Housing deprivation refers to situations where individuals lack access to housing that meets minimal adequacy standards. This condition manifests in various forms, including rough sleeping, reliance on temporary accommodation such as motels, vehicles, or camping grounds, or residing in severely crowded dwellings. Additionally, it encompasses habitation in uninhabitable housing, defined as residences lacking at least one fundamental amenity such as a safe water supply, electricity, or proper sanitation. Census data for Christchurch shows an increase from 54.7 per 10,000 people being severely housing deprived in 2018 to between 150 and 179.9 per 10,000 people in 2023.

4.4 As of May 2025, the social housing register indicates 1,499 individuals awaiting placement in Christchurch, underscoring a shortage of public housing provisions. It is likely that this is an underreporting of need. Factors like a lack of awareness about or understanding of the register, the complexities of the application process, and the prioritization system can all contribute to underrepresentation

4.5 After the Canterbury earthquakes, Christchurch East and New Brighton sustained losses of council social housing, which has not been replaced within these locales (noting that the Council has facilitated the replacement of all Council-owned housing lost, albeit in different locations).

The East Christchurch Housing Trust

4.6 The East Christchurch Housing Trust, a charitable trust officially registered in March 2019, presented a proposal to develop Council land for affordable housing to the Council at its meeting of 6 August 2025.

4.7 The Trust's current board of trustees comprises community members, including Mr. David Close (Chair, former City Councillor), Mr. David Lawrence (Secretary-Treasurer, Retired Real Estate Agent), Mr. Timothy Baker (Real Estate Agent, current Community Board Member), Ms. Sarah Whitcombe-Dobbs (Psychologist), and Reverend Hugh Perry (Retired Presbyterian Minister).

4.8 The Trust possesses a demonstrated capacity for delivering affordable housing solutions.

4.8.1 In August 2019, the Council leased a property located at 266 Pages Road to the Trust for an annual sum of $1 and provided funds initially designated for demolition. Leveraging these funds, interest-free loans from trustees, and substantial volunteer contributions, the Trust successfully completed upgrades and renovations totalling approximately $40,000.

4.8.2 Since January 2020, the renovated property has been sub-let to the Methodist Mission, allowing its use for families participating in their transitional housing program. Rents levied have consistently remained approximately 20% below prevailing market rates, while concurrently generating sufficient revenue to repay interest-free loans and to accumulate additional funds.

The Current Proposal: 81 Blake Street

4.9 The Trust now proposes to lease Council-owned land at 81 Blake Street (the site) for an affordable housing initiative. The initial phase of this plan involves the construction of five 33m² one-bedroom homes.

4.9.1 Acknowledging site constraints, the Trust intends to construct these compact residences on piles with the ability to relocate in the future.

4.9.2 The Trust is requesting a peppercorn lease from the Christchurch City Council for the designated land parcel.

4.9.3 Project funding is anticipated to be derived from a combination of the Trust's existing equity, corporate sponsorship, and a loan serviced by rental income generated from the new housing units.

4.10 The site at 81 Blake Street, situated at the edge of the Estuary in South Brighton, previously accommodated the Santa Cruz Lane Social Housing complex, which comprised 24 units. Structural damage in the Canterbury Earthquake sequence was uneconomic to repair, and Council demolished the complex.

4.11 Although zoned Residential Suburban, the site is constrained, including its location within both a flood management area and a liquefaction management area, with a minor portion extending into a high flood hazard management area. These site limitations have precluded its consideration for permanent housing.

4.12 The Council currently retains this land for community housing purposes but has no plans for redevelopment due to a lack of funding and site constraints. If there was funding, the most likely use of the site would be a use like that proposed by the Trust (i.e. relocatable homes, constructed with sufficient free board to avoid above floor level flooding).

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

Date	Subject
6/8/2025	Public Forum to Council

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.14 The matters raised in this report require the following decisions:

4.14.1 Lease the site or do not lease the site;

4.14.2 If the decision is to lease the site, then should the Council “deal direct”, which is inconsistent with policy, or run a public tender process; and

4.14.3 If the decision is to lease the site, then should it charge a nominal rent (i.e. a peppercorns or $1 rent), community rent or market rent

4.15 The following reasonably practicable options have been condensed from these considerations and are assessed in this report:

4.15.1 Lease the site to the Trust directly at a nominal rent.

4.15.2 Do not lease the site.

4.16 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.16.1 Run a public tender process seeking proposals for the site – the Council is unaware of any other group with an appropriate proposal for using this site for community housing purposes (noting that from time to time the Council does receive enquiries from groups with ideas for use of vacant Council land for housing, without detailed proposals on how this would be funded and the track record for delivery exhibited by the Trust). The Council also has other potential properties if such proposals emerge in the future.

4.16.2 Charge a community or market rental – the Council normally charges rent for its housing portfolio; however, the revenue is used to meet the Council’s costs. In this case, and subject to the on-charging of rates, there are no additional costs, so a nominal rent is appropriate. Over an extended time frame, the Council does not look to make a surplus from letting land or houses for community housing purpose (i.e. any surpluses in a single year are kept in the Housing Development fund to meet costs in years where there is a deficit).

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.17 Preferred Option: Lease the site to the Trust directly at a nominal rent.

4.17.1 Option Description: This option involves the Council leasing the land at 81 Blake Street to the East Christchurch Housing Trust for the development of relocatable affordable housing at a nominal rent through direct negotiation.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Helps address housing issues: This proposal modestly, but directly, contributes to alleviating housing stress and deprivation identified in Christchurch.

· Asset Utilisation: It effectively activates a Council-owned land parcel (81 Blake Street) that is currently held for community housing but possesses site constraints (flood and liquefaction risk) that prevent traditional, permanent residential development. The Trust's relocatable design offers a practical solution to these limitations.

· Leverages Proven Expertise: The Council benefits from partnering with the East Christchurch Housing Trust, an entity with a history of efficiently delivering affordable housing solutions. Their model incorporates volunteer labour, interest-free loans, and a self-sustaining financial framework.

· Strong Policy Alignment: This approach aligns with the Council's Housing Policy 2016, Community Housing Strategy, and the Joint Housing Action Plan, all of which prioritize increasing affordable housing supply and fostering community well-being.

· Future Resilience and Flexibility: The proposed relocatable homes are designed to accommodate future environmental changes, such as sea-level rise, offering the Council flexibility for future land use without incurring demolition costs for permanent structures.

· Direct Community Benefit: The initiative directly provides secure, safe, and affordable housing below market rates, supporting vulnerable individuals in genuine need.

· Minimal Direct Council Cost: The request for a peppercorn lease means the Council facilities increased housing opportunity at minimal cost, as the Trust's funding model relies on its own equity, sponsorship, and rental income.

· Fosters Collaboration: This partnership exemplifies effective collaboration with a community group, enabling the leveraging of external resources and specialized expertise to address pressing community needs.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Inconsistency with Policy: Engaging in direct negotiation, is inconsistent with the Leasing Council Property Policy, which would normally require a public tender process before entering a lease. In this case, there are good reasons to make a decision that is inconsistent with policy – and the Council has the statutory authority to do so. Additionally, this application has not been considered using the framework in the Council's Unsolicited Proposals Guidelines. While this application displays some of the characteristics of an unsolicited bid, the Guidelines focus more on proposals that require Council expenditure or purchases. Notwithstanding this the assessment in this report addresses similar topics such as strategic alignment priorities.

· Precedent Setting: Approving a nominal lease through direct negotiation could potentially establish a precedent for similar future requests from other organizations.

· Perceived Asset Value: While serving a vital community purpose, a peppercorn lease might be perceived by some as the Council not fully maximizing the economic value of its asset.

· Ongoing Site Constraint Management: Despite the relocatable design mitigating some risks, the inherent flood and liquefaction vulnerabilities of 81 Blake Street mean that this site is not suitable in the long term for community housing.

· Opportunity costs: The Council could consider recycling the capital in this asset and using it to help achieve its community housing goals. This has not been done to date due to the ongoing land use planning in the area and the Council’s wider adaptation work.

4.18 Do not lease the site.

4.18.1 Option Description: This option entails the Council retaining full control of the 81 Blake Street site and not proceeding with the Trust's proposal.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

· Full Council Control: The Council retains complete control and flexibility over the 81 Blake Street site, free from any long-term lease obligations.

· Avoids Precedent: Declining the proposal via direct negotiation would prevent the establishment of a precedent for similar nominal lease requests.

· Alternative Future Options: This preserves the Council's ability to consider alternative future uses or potential disposal of the land, potentially at market rates, although the site's inherent constraints limit its viability for permanent housing development.

· Mitigates Perceived Unilateralism: Choosing not to proceed via direct negotiation avoids any potential criticism related to a non-competitive process for asset utilization.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· Failure to Address Housing Issues: This option does not contribute to alleviating housing stress and deprivation in Christchurch or addressing the specific shortage of social housing.

· A missed opportunity: The 81 Blake Street site would likely remain underutilized for its intended community housing purpose due to its suitability constraints for permanent development. The Council would also forgo the opportunity to leverage the expertise, self-sustaining financial model, and community-focused approach of the East Christchurch Housing Trust.

· Contradicts Policy Objectives: This decision would contradict the core objectives of several Council policies and strategies, which advocate for increasing affordable housing supply, fostering community resilience, and exploring collaborative housing solutions.

· No Community Benefit Realized: The community would not benefit from the site's immediate use for affordable housing.

Analysis Criteria and Assessment Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.19 This proposal aligns substantially with the Council's strategic objectives and directly addresses the identified challenges within the housing sector.

4.19.1 Effectiveness: The proposal directly contributes to the Council's housing vision by furnishing secure, safe, affordable, warm, and dry housing for five individuals. It specifically addresses the housing shortage in Christchurch East and New Brighton. The relocatable design further ensures adaptability to environmental shifts, such as sea-level rise.

4.19.2 Efficiency: The Trust's operational history at 266 Pages Road demonstrates its capability to achieve project outcomes at a reasonable cost, effectively leveraging volunteer labour and interest-free loans. The proposed funding model, which incorporates equity, sponsorship, and rent-financed loans, supports long-term financial viability without requiring ongoing Council subsidies for operational expenses. This approach represents an efficient utilization of Council land and resources.

4.19.3 Legislative Consistency: While the proposal requires the Council's consideration of a peppercorn lease under its Lease Policy, the overarching objective of providing affordable housing is consistent with the Council's legal obligations to foster community well-being. Ensuring that the relocatable construction methodology adheres to land use planning rules and building codes and environmental regulations for a flood and liquefaction management area remains a critical consideration.

4.19.4 Policy Alignment:

· The proposal exhibits strong consistency with existing Council policies, including the Housing Policy 2016, Community Housing Strategy, and Strengthening Communities Strategy. It directly supports the objectives of increasing affordable housing supply and optimizing Council assets for community benefit. The design's response to site constraints also reflects a pragmatic approach within the parameters of current funding principles and environmental realities. Furthermore, the initiative is consistent with the Greater Christchurch Partnerships Joint Housing Action Plan.

· The Council’s policy preference, as outlined in its leasing policy, is to only lease land after an open and transparent process. The Trust’s proposal is requesting the Council to deal directly and does not contemplate a further process (e.g. public tendering proposals for the use of the land for community housing purposes).

· The Council can make a decision inconsistent with its policy for good reasons. In this case the inconsistency is dealing directly with one group, and the good reasons are that the group has presented a proposal that meets a demonstrated need, generally aligns with Council’s strategic priorities, and can be delivered at no cost to ratepayers. While others may be able to present a similar proposal, no group has yet done so.

· On balance officers believe that the advantages of the recommended position outweigh the disadvantages of not publicly tendering use of this site.

4.19.5 Long-Term Sustainability and Resilience: The proposed relocatable homes directly address the long-term sustainability and resilience issues, particularly given the site's location within a flood-prone zone. This design mitigates dependencies on permanent structures in a potentially vulnerable area and affords the Council future flexibility for land use in relation to flooding. The Trust's self-sustaining financial model contributes significantly to the project's viability.

4.19.6 Collaboration and Partnerships: The proposal exemplifies collaboration with a community group, harnessing the Trust's expertise and established community networks. This initiative illustrates the potential for strategic partnerships to access diverse resources to address community needs, even when the Council’s ability to contribute is constrained.

4.20 Considering the critical need to address housing stress and deprivation in Christchurch, the demonstrable capability of the Trust, and the suitability of their relocatable housing solution for the constrained 81 Blake Street site, the preferred option is to lease the site to the East Christchurch Housing Trust through direct negotiation at a nominal rent.

4.21 This option offers a direct and efficient means to advance the Council's strategic housing objectives, activate an otherwise challenging asset, and leverage a proven community partner, all while managing future risks. The advantages of providing immediate, affordable housing and aligning with long-term resilience goals significantly outweigh the challenges associated with direct negotiation or perceived asset value.

4.22 Agreeing to lease the land for the proposal does not constitute statutory approval. The Trust would still need to obtain all statutory approvals for development and use of the site – given the nature of the site, this may not be straight forward. The Council will provide the Trust with guidance through this process via its Case Management service.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 – Direct lease at nominal rental (Recommended Option)	Option 2 – Do not lease
Cost to Implement	No additional cost to Council	No additional cost to Council
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Maintenance and other operating costs will be reduced, with funds being reinvested into other priorities within the housing portfolio	No change to costs
Funding Source	Housing Development Fund	Housing Development Fund
Funding Availability	Funding is available	Funding is available
Impact on Rates	No material change	No change

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk 1: Inability to Obtain Planning and/or Building Approval

6.1.1 There is a risk that the Trust may not be able to secure planning and/or building approvals for their proposed development, given the characteristics of the site. The site's location within both a flood management area and a liquefaction management area, including a portion designated as a high flood hazard management area, presents complex challenges. Failure to navigate these processes successfully could result in protracted delays, necessitate significant design modifications, or render the development unfeasible.

6.1.2 A partial mitigation involves the assignment of a dedicated Council case manager to the Trust. This service provides guidance and support throughout the planning and building approval processes. One of the key tools employed by the case manager is pre-application consultation.

6.1.3 The lease agreement could also be made conditional upon the Trust obtaining all necessary planning and building approvals within a specified timeframe.

6.2 Risk 2: Insufficient Project Funding

6.2.1 There exists a risk that the Trust may be unable to secure sufficient funding, or access to no-interest financing, required for the project's completion. Should this occur, the Trust might subsequently approach the Council for direct financial contributions beyond the proposed peppercorn lease.

6.2.2 The lease agreement could be made conditional upon the Trust obtaining all project funding and financing before commencing construction.

6.2.3 The lease agreement could also explicitly state that the Council's contribution is limited to the provision of the land at a nominal rent, and that no further direct financial contributions for the project's development or operation will be provided by the Council as part of the current approval. Should any Council financial contribution beyond the nominal lease be considered at a later stage, it should be contingent upon the achievement of clearly defined project milestones and subject to a separate, formal approval process by the Council.

6.3 Risk 3: Public Perception and Transparency of Direct Negotiation

6.3.1 The direct negotiation of a nominal rent lease for Council-owned land, particularly in the absence of a competitive public process, may engender public or stakeholder concerns regarding transparency and access to Council resources.

6.3.2 A mitigation for this risk is for the Council to communicate to the community the rationale for direct negotiation with the Trust.

6.4 Risk 4: Future Relocation Costs and Logistics for the Council

6.4.1 Although the units are designed to be relocatable to address the Council's future needs regarding flooding, the actual process of relocation, should it become necessary, could present logistical complexities and financial burdens. While the onus of relocation will primarily rest with the Trust, the Council might still incur indirect costs particularly if the relocation occurs unexpectedly.

6.4.2 To mitigate this risk the lease agreement will contain a relocation clause outlining the responsibilities, timelines, and financial obligations of both parties concerning future relocation, including mechanisms for cost recovery or contribution.

6.5 Risk 5: Neighbourhood Opposition and "Not in My Backyard" (NIMBY) Sentiment

6.5.1 The development of community housing, regardless of its inherent benefits, can occasionally encounter opposition from existing residents, often termed "Not in My Backyard" (NIMBY) sentiment. This opposition may stem from concerns regarding perceived changes to neighbourhood character, property values, increased traffic, or other localized impacts. Such opposition, if significant, can lead to protracted public debate, formal objections during the planning process, and potential reputational challenges for both the Trust and the Council.

6.5.2 To mitigate this risk, in a fair and consistent way, the development should proceed through the standard statutory planning process, ensuring it undergoes the same rigorous effects scrutiny as any other development or land use within the Residential Suburban Zone. This process ensures that all relevant effects are thoroughly assessed and addressed in accordance with the Resource Management Act and relevant District Plan provisions. The Council assesses the effects of use and development primarily through the statutory planning process, rather than through property-related processes (such as this leasing decision). This approach ensures that the community housing providers are treated on a level playing field with any other applicant proposing development on non-Council owned sites, thereby upholding principles of fairness and consistency in regulatory application.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.6.1 The Council has the statutory authority to lease land. This authority is delegated to Officers subject, amongst other matters, to being in accordance with applicable Council policy.

6.7 Other Legal Implications:

6.7.1 This legal consideration is that the recommended approach is inconsistent with existing Policy. As outlined elsewhere in the report, there is good reason to depart from policy in this case.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.8 The required decisions:

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

6.8.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined considering the value of the transaction, the limited number of people directly affected positively or negatively by the decision, and the likely limited interest in the matter.

6.8.3 Are inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. The two areas of inconsistency are:

· The proposal to deal directly with the Trust rather than run a separate tender process calling for uses of the site; and

· Not applying the unsolicited bid framework to this proposal.

6.9 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034) through the Community Housing activity.

6.9.1 Activity: Community Housing

· Level of Service: 18.0.1 Council facilitates and/or funds community housing supply - At least 2080 units

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 The Council must consider the views and preferences of the community when making decisions. This consideration does not necessarily require consultation.

6.11 An understanding of broader community views and preferences can be determined from the submissions made on Annual and Long-Term Plans, and from other consultations.

6.12 Based on these sources there will be some in the community wanting the Council to take this action. There are frequent submissions encouraging the Council to use its land to facilitate community housing.

6.13 There will be some in the community who would conditionally support this proposal but would prefer the Council to redevelop the site more fully and with permanent housing.

6.14 There will be those in the community who oppose the Council being involved. Through consultation processes, the Council receives submissions arguing that that Council should not be involved in community housing, often with a preference that this be left to the Crown.

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

6.15.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board.

6.16 The Community Board’s views have been sought on this matter but were not available at the time of printing this agenda. These views will be tabled at the meeting where this report is considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.18 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua but will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.19 Māori are over-represented among social housing tenants in New Zealand and more Māori than other New Zealanders are affected by overcrowding or live in substandard housing. Statistics show Māori have lower levels of home ownership, limited housing choices and the need for government assistance with their housing.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.20 The proposals in this report consider the impacts of climate change by presenting a proposal that embeds an adaptation pathway into its design. Recognising that the site is already susceptible to flooding and is likely to be more so in the future, the lease will be for a limited period only and the houses will be removable.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council approves the recommendations in the report, then staff will negotiate the lease with the Trust.

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

Author	Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property
Approved By	Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

Actions Register Ngā Mahinga

When decisions are made at meetings, these are assigned to staff as actions to implement. The following lists detail any actions from this meeting that were:

· Open at the time the agenda was generated.

· Closed since the last ordinary meeting agenda was generated.

Open Actions Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Notice of Motion - Micromobility parking	7 May 2025	6 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request	16 April 2025	29 August 2025	Communications & Engagement	Engagement
Lichfield St Carpark Building - Future Strategy	4 June 2025	3 September 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	10 September 2025	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Policy Team
Tsunami Alerting System Review	18 June 2025	17 September 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	CDEM
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Ban Pen)
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Corporate Services Management	Corporate Services Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Finance Risk & Performance Management	Finance Risk & Performance Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Three Waters	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Community (Social) Housing Update Report	19 March 2025	23 September 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Schedule 2	14 February 2024	26 September 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 September 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model	19 February 2025	1 October 2025	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners	5 June 2024	2 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Notice of Motion - Feasibility of free overnight parking at Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre	16 July 2025	15 October 2025	Recreation, Sports & Events	Management
Unsolicited Proposal for sale of 1 Kinsey Terrace	16 July 2025	15 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve	10 April 2024	24 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease	2 April 2025	31 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Climate Change Portfolio Lead Report	3 July 2024	31 October 2025	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Management
Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners	21 August 2024	31 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
East Christchurch Housing Trust	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2025	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2025	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Regulatory Compliance	Regulatory Compliance
Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Antigua Street (Moorhouse to St Asaph)	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Nor'West Arc Section 3 (University to Harewood Road)	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024: Management of Non-Installed Limits - Worcester Street (Latimer Square to Fitzgerald Ave)	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Lyttelton Street safety improvements	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Selwyn Street pedestrian and cycle safety improvements	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Transport speed bumps budget	12 February 2025	29 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton	5 February 2025	30 November 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Moorhouse Avenue - Pedestrian Improvements	18 June 2025	1 December 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request	16 April 2025	10 December 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Management Team
Installation of Public Artwork - "The Godwits"	25 July 2019	15 December 2025	Parks	Asset Management
27 Hunters Road & 43 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour – FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū Unsolicited Proposals	5 June 2024	31 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Infrastructure Amendments - Parks	25 June 2024	31 December 2025	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	16 April 2025	31 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Lincoln Road (Wrights to Curletts) Project - Metropolitan Significance and Property Purchase	13 August 2020	31 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Notice of Motion - Fly Tipping Volunteer Removal Options	19 February 2025	31 December 2025	Transport & Waste	Resource Recovery
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model	19 February 2025	31 December 2025	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Schedule 2	14 February 2024	31 December 2025	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Yaldhurst Memorial Hall	25 June 2024	31 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	2 February 2026	Communications & Engagement	Engagement
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	2 February 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Management Team
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	28 February 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Councillors' proposed amendments - Infrastructure and Regulation	14 February 2024	1 April 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Stormwater & Waterways
Capital Grant - Te Uaka/Lyttelton Museum	12 February 2025	1 May 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Management Team
Hearings Panel report on the Gloucester Street "Streets for People" Trial	2 October 2024	15 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Ōtākaro-Avon Stormwater Management Plan	19 June 2024	29 May 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Stormwater & Waterways
Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project	5 March 2025	4 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
66E Hills Rd - Sale of Land	16 July 2025	30 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 June 2026	Parks	Planning & Policy
Other Amendments - Planning, Property and Miscellaneous	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project	29 August 2019	30 June 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Stormwater & Waterways
Huanui Lane between Gloucester Street and Armagh Street-Traffic Control Changes	11 December 2024	30 September 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Report Requests	25 June 2024	31 October 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Hearings Panel Report on Lincoln Road Peak Hour Bus Lane Proposal	7 July 2022	1 June 2027	Transport & Waste	Project Management

Actions Closed Since the Last Meeting Ngā Mahinga kua Tutuki nō Tērā Hui

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	DUE DATE	ACTION CLOSURE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
(H-H-R) Templeton Cemetery and Sports Park Development Plan - Preparation	12 September 2019	30 September 2025	5 August 2025	Parks	Planning & Policy
27 Hunters Road and 42 Whero Avenue Consultation Outcome	9 June 2022	31 December 2025	11 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Three Waters Activities - March, April, May, and June 2023	6 September 2023	31 August 2025	6 August 2025	Three Waters	Service Excellence
Schedule 1	14 February 2024	30 August 2025	6 August 2025	Parks	Asset Management
Arts Centre	25 June 2024	31 March 2027	8 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Orana Park	25 June 2024	31 March 2026	7 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Access along the Heathcote Expressway MCR (past Scruttons Road level crossing)	6 November 2024	22 August 2025	27 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Surveillance systems across arterial routes	12 February 2025	30 August 2025	18 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport	19 March 2025	30 August 2025	4 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
The Christchurch Foundation Tranche Two Drawdown from the Capital Endowment Fund	4 June 2025	3 September 2025	10 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Discretionary Response Fund Report - Ara Taiohi Incorporated	18 June 2025	17 September 2025	7 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Moorhouse Avenue - Pedestrian Improvements	18 June 2025	17 September 2025	7 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Setting of Speed Limits - Speed limits around schools	18 June 2025	17 September 2025	7 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	8 July 2025	14 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 July 2025	11 August 2025	Corporate Planning & Performance	Corporate Planning & Performance
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	1 August 2025	Parks	Community Parks
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	4 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	CDEM
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	6 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	8 August 2025	Parks	Residential Red Zone
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	10 August 2025	Programme Management Office	Programme Management Office
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	11 August 2025	Corporate Planning & Performance	Corporate Planning & Performance
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	14 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	15 August 2025	Three Waters	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	15 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	28 August 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	23 September 2025	28 August 2025	Parks	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 September 2025	27 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	28 November 2025	28 August 2025	Finance	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	2 February 2026	7 August 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	2 February 2026	7 August 2025	Recreation, Sports & Events	Management
New Brighton CRAF - Marine Parade (Hawke to Bowhill) Street Renewal - Scheme Adjustments and Detailed Traffic Resolutions	2 July 2025	30 April 2026	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Procurement Policy 2025	2 July 2025	1 October 2025	8 August 2025	Procurement & Contracts	Management
Confirmation of Dates for Adoption of the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP)	16 July 2025	15 October 2025	4 August 2025	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Policy Team
Decision in-part on Plan Change 14 - Only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane	16 July 2025	15 October 2025	7 August 2025	Planning & Consents	City Planning
Decision in-part on Plan Change 14 - Only 265 Riccarton Road and 9 Daresbury Lane	16 July 2025	15 October 2025	11 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Audit and Risk Management Committee - Reappointment of an External Committee Member	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	27 August 2025	Legal & Democratic Services	Democratic Services
Barrington/Frankleigh/Milton Intersection Improvements	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	15 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Council submission on Going for Housing Growth proposals	6 August 2025	20 August 2025	11 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Transport
Development Contributions Remission Application - The Arts Centre	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	11 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Extension of Time for Heritage Incentive Grant to 527 Colombo Street, New City Hotel	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	11 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Management
Knights Stream School Safety Improvement - Signalised Crossing on Halswell Junction Road	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	15 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Oaklands School Safety Improvements - Dunbars Road Signalised Crossing	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	15 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Proposed Locky Dock cycle parking and charging station in Rauora Park, Lichfield St	6 August 2025	5 November 2025	27 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Travel Demand Management
Burwood Landfill Site C Operational Extension	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Resource Recovery
Hagley Golf Course Tree Removal and Planting	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	27 August 2025	Parks	Botanic and Garden Parks
Harewood Road traffic signals - Harewood/Gardiners/Breens intersection and Harewood School - Detailed traffic resolutions	20 August 2025	30 April 2026	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Mulgans Track- Licence to Occupy Road Reserve	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Management
National Erebus Memorial	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	27 August 2025	Office of Mayor & Civic Services	Management
Plan Change 14 - Decision Making for Daresbury Heritage Listing	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	22 August 2025	Planning & Consents	City Planning
Water Services Delivery Plan Adoption - Local Water Done Well	20 August 2025	19 November 2025	28 August 2025	Three Waters	Management

[2] Clause 101(4) of the Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

[5] The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 definition: “cremation means the reduction to ashes of dead bodies by burning.”

[6] The request was to inter remains into an existing family grave, where the family of the deceased already held an exclusive right of burial.

[7] Death, Burial and Cremation: A new law for Contemporary New Zealand (NZLC R134) https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/burial-and-cremation-law/tab/report

[9] Section 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996, as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 86 of the Local Government Act contains a modified version of the special consultative procedure for bylaws

[10] Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that certain determinations are made when a council is considering a bylaw. It requires that a report on the section 155 considerations is made available for consultation.

[11] Both the dog control map and the walking track map, as well as other dog-related Animal Management and Policy pages.

5. Council Minutes - 5 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1581085
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

6. Council Minutes - 6 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1579373
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Senior Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

7. Council Minutes - 20 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1688901
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, Chief Executive

8. Canterbury Waste Joint Committee Minutes - 11 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1609352
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

9. Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 11 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1610263
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

8. Report from Transwaste Canterbury Limited (TCL)
	Grant Miller, Hayden Leach and Jeremy Parker of Transwaste Canterbury Limited, presented to the Committee with a 6 monthly report on performance and other matters impacting the regional landfill.
	Joint Committee Resolved CRLC/2025/00009 Part C That the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee: 1. Receives the Transwaste Canterbury Ltd’s Interim Report for 2024/25. Councillor Barber/Councillor Peters Carried
	Attachments a Transwaste Canterbury Limited presentation

10. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 15 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1672475
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

11. Central City Parking Restrictions Committee Minutes - 22 August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1699756
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Simone Gordon, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

6. 109 Salisbury Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions - P5
	Committee Comment In discussing the item, the Committee sought for further stakeholder views from residents regarding the proposed parking restrictions. Deputy Mayor Cotter Moved a Procedural Motion to let the Item lie on the table. This was Seconded by Councillor McLellan, put to the vote and declared carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee: 1. Receives the information in the 109 Salisbury Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions - P5 Report. 2. Notes that the decision in this report are 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 parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 below. 4. Approves that the parking of all vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes, in accordance with Clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, on the north side of Salisbury Street commencing at a point 118 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres as detailed on Attachment A (TG151614, Issue 2, dated 24/07/2025). This is to apply between 8am and 6pm only. 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).
	Committee Resolved CCPRC/2025/00013 Part C The Central City Parking Restrictions Committee resolved that Item 6 - 109 Salisbury Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions - P5, should lie on the table and not be further discussed at this meeting. Deputy Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

12. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - August 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1682027
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

Flood Issue Area & Project Option	Council responsibility	High level cost estimate	Effectiveness	Feasibility	Environmental	Alignment	Recommended Project
Sumner New large diameter pipeline and pump station	Yes	$44,700,000	Yet to be verified. Expect performance to be impacted over time with climate change.	Large scale project. Further design is required as well as consideration of alternative options.	Property and coastal environment interactions. Still to consider impacts and alternative options.	Requires alignment with Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning process.	Not yet, further investigation work required on feasibility before recommendation is made.
Flockton Street Area New pump station to replace temporary arrangement	Yes	$6,200,000	Formalises current operational response, which reduces (but does not remove) surface flooding between Flockton and Aylesford Streets.	Some infrastructure is expected to be feasible. Some wider works may be required to improve effectiveness.	Formalises current operation. Downstream impacts need to be mitigated through further design.	Reduction in Opex and maintenance team workload, as currently temporary pumps are deployed.	Yes
Sockburn Pipe capacity upgrades	Yes	n/a	No effective option was identified for the Sockburn area in this initial assessment.	n/a	n/a	n/a	Not yet, further investigation work required.
Lower Heathcote Valley New culverts beneath rail corridor	Yes - however requires work within rail corridor	$300,000	Overlap of benefits of recent works in the area needs to be assessed before confirming the effectiveness of a solution.	Impacts on rail corridor need evaluation.	No environmental concerns.	Benefit of recent works to be assessed before confirming the residual surface flooding issue and effectiveness of a solution.	Not yet, further investigation work required on feasibility before recommendation is made.
Bells Creek Additional controls on existing pump station operation, and land raising	Yes	$700,000	Yet to be verified. Expected to enhance the performance of existing pump station infrastructure to mitigate surface flooding, however will not resolve all flooding.	Improved controls on existing pump station to be feasible.		Land level changes require alignment with transport work.	Yes
Shirley New pipe network	Yes	$12,100,000	Yet to be verified. Based on previous work, expected to reduce risk of floor level flooding.	Limited space for the construction of infrastructure means further investigation is required to confirm.			Not yet, further investigation work required.
Kruses Drain New pipe network and/or downstream storage and pumping	Yes	$21,500,000	Yet to be verified. Local network upgrades expected to be limited in effectiveness without downstream pumping works.	Concept requires further development to confirm highway and land interfaces.	Potential to incorporate water quality treatment into a second stage.		Not yet, further investigation work required to isolate the benefits of portions of the wider project.
Edgeware Village New pump station, rising main, pipe network and inlets	Yes	$47,400,000	Yet to be verified. Based on previous work, expected to reduce risk of floor level flooding.	Significant infrastructure in a congested area. Land availability and service clashes still to be resolved in design.	No environmental concerns.	Transport led project to upgrade existing inlets.	Not yet, further investigation work required to support large capital investment.
Greenpark Street Pipe upgrade, new inlets and valves	Yes	$700,000	Yet to be verified. Expected to reduce surface flooding within the street.	Stormwater network upgrades expected to be feasible.	No environmental concerns.		Yes
Cygnet Street New lift station, new pressure outfall and upgraded gravity outfall	Yes	$1,900,000	Yet to be verified. Expect performance and infrastructure to be impacted over time with climate change.	Feasibility of works on existing outfall still to be confirmed.	Works within coastal dunes and beach environment. Associated consenting uncertainty.	Transport led project to upgrade existing inlets. Requires alignment with Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning process.	Not yet, further investigation work required on outfall modifications and consenting.
Emmet Orcades Diversion structure upgrade and new pipe network	Yes	$3,800,000	Earlier studies showed effectiveness.	Earlier studies showed feasibility.	No environmental concerns.		Yes
Pacific Road New pipeline, new pump station, new pressure outfall pipeline	Yes	$9,300,000	Yet to be verified. Expect performance and infrastructure to be impacted over time with climate change.	Feasibility of coastal outfall construction still to be confirmed.	Works within coastal dunes and beach environment. Associated consenting uncertainty.	Transport led project to upgrade existing inlets. Requires alignment with Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning process.	Not yet, further investigation work required.
Clifton New pressure pipeline	Yes	$18,000,000	Existing planned outfall upgrades and transport sump upgrades expected to provide some benefit. Additional benefits of a new pipeline yet to be verified.	High cost, economic assessment required to support progressing. Alignment will have significant services and traffic impacts.	Works within coastal and beach environment.	Outfall upgrade project and transport led project to upgrade existing inlets. Requires alignment with Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning process.	Not yet, further prioritisation work required.

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
22.	Public Excluded Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 11 August 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
23.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 15 August 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
24.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 6 August 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
25.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 5 August 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
26.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 20 August 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
27.	Transfer Station Masterplanning: Concept Designs	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage	Information in this report associated with future procurement/commercial negotiations, including pre-tender cost estimates, needs to remain confidential at this time. This outweighs the public interest.	31 August 2028 Upon review by the Heads of Procurement and Legal Services