Agenda of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

A black text on a white background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Waihoro

Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

Date: Thursday 28 August 2025

Time: 4.02 pm

Venue: Linwood Boardroom,
Gate B, 180 Smith Street,
Woolston

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Callum Ward

Keir Leslie

Melanie Coker

Will Hall

Roy Kenneally

Tim Lindley

Lee Sampson

Tim Scandrett

Principal Advisor

Emma Pavey

Community Governance Manager

Tel: 941 6231

emma.pavey@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

Jonathon Jones

Community Board Advisor

Tel: 941 5563

Jonathon.Jones@ccc.govt.nz

Website: www.ccc.govt.nz

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

Karakia Tīmatanga

Waiata: The Board sang a waiata to open the meeting.

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2025/00078

That the apology for absence from Sara Templeton be accepted.

Callum Ward/Tim Scandrett Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2025/00079

That the minutes of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Thursday, 14 August 2025 be confirmed.

Callum Ward/Tim Lindley Carried

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

5.2

Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements

The following presenters spoke regarding item 8 - Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements.

Item number	Name	Organisation
5.2.1	Danny Rood	Local resident
5.2.2	Lindsay Sanford	Tillmans Fine Furniture

Item 8 records the Board’s decisions on this matter.

Attachments

a Item 5.2.1 - Danny Rood - presentation to the Board

8. Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2025/00080 Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements 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. The level of significance was determined by the small number of affected residents and businesses, the low impact the proposed changes would have on residents and businesses and that the project is CRAF funded.

3. Makes the following recommendations required for the implementation of the project, including any traffic controls and /or stopping restrictions, relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

4. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls or parking and stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls or parking and stopping restrictions described in recommendations 5 – 10 below.

5. Approves all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, road surface treatments, signage and road markings on Somerfield Street, commencing at its intersection with Strickland Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres as detailed on plan TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

6. Approves all kerb alignments, traffic calming devices, road surface treatments, signage and road markings on Strickland Street, commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 60 metres as detailed on plan TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

7. Approves that, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south-western side of Strickland Street commencing at its intersection with Somerfield Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres as detailed on plan TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

8. Approves that, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south-eastern side of Somerfield Street, commencing at its intersection with Strickland Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres as detailed on plan TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

9. Approves that, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north-western side of Somerfield Street commencing at its intersection with Strickland Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres as detailed on plan TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

10. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that the Somerfield Street approach to its intersection with Strickland Street be controlled by a Give Way.

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

Tim Scandrett/Melanie Coker Carried

Community Board Decided SCBCC/2025/00081 Original Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part A

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board recommend that Council:

12. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northwest bound 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 south west side of Strickland Street, commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 60 metres as detailed on plan TP TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

13. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southwest bound 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 Somerfield Street, commencing at a point 5 metres southwest of its intersection with Strickland Street, and extending in an south westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres as detailed on plan TP TP365001, dated 07.08.2025, and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

Tim Scandrett/Melanie Coker Carried

Secretarial note: The Board returned to item 5.1 deputations for Cave Rock Lighting.

The meeting adjourned at 5.27 pm after item 5.1.11 and reconvened at 5.34 pm before item 5.1.14.

5.1

Cave Rock Lighting

Deputation item 5.1.1 Alastair Maitland was not present and did not present.

Deputation item 5.1.4 Carmen Hammond withdrew her request.

Deputation item 5.1.6 Andrew Docking withdrew his request.

The following presenters spoke regarding item 7 - Cave Rock lighting.

Item number	Name	Organisation
5.1.2	Brian Johnston	Local resident
5.1.3	Lesley Murdoch	Local resident
5.1.12	Dave Diggs	Local resident
5.1.13	David Lynch	Momentus Public Relations Ltd
5.1.7	Paul Corwin	Local resident
5.1.8	Alisdair Hutchison	Local resident
5.1.9	Sigrid Campbell	Local resident
5.1.10	Angela Woodward	Local resident
5.1.5	Andrea Davis	Sumner Community Residents Association
5.1.11	Toni Pengelly and Monique Bond	Local residents
5.1.14	Rev Mike Hawke	St John Woolston Church

Two written deputations were distributed to the Board regarding item 7 - Cave Rock lighting.

5.1.15	Paul Baddeley	Local resident
5.1.16	Bruce Whitfield	Local resident

Attachments

a Item 5.1.9 - Sigrid Campbell - photos presented to the Board

b Item 5.1.9 - Sigrid Campbell - speaking notes presented to the Board

c Item 5.1.11 - Toni Pengelly and Monique Bond - tabled document to the Board

d Item 5.1.15 - Written deputation - Paul Baddeley - distributed to the Board

e Item 5.1.16 - Written deputation - Bruce Whitfield - distributed to the Board

Secretarial note: Due to technical difficulties, the livestream/recording stopped during item 7. The meeting was adjourned, and the livestream/recording continued. The video recording is therefore in two parts.

The meeting adjourned at 5.52 pm and reconvened at 5.58 pm.

7. Cave Rock Lighting
	Community Board Comment Council officers Maria Adamski, Senior Parks Asset Planner, Swantje Babritzki, Senior Engagement Advisor, and Ron Lemm, Manager Legal Service Delivery, presented the information in the staff report. After questions from staff, Tim Scandrett moved a motion seconded by Tim Lindley that aligned with officer recommendations but removed the hours of operation and added to explore ecologically friendly types of lights as part of further negotiations with the Deed Holder; the motion also added a timeframe of six months for the report back to the Board. The motion was put to the vote and carried.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receive the information in the Cave Rock Lighting 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 2019. The level of significance was determined by the heritage significance of the site, the level of local community interest and concern, and possible costs and risks to Council. 3. Resolves that staff enter into further negotiations with the Deed Holder to vary the ‘Deed of Accessibility in Respect of LED Lighting Installation at Tuawera – Cave Rock, Sumner,’ (the Deed) to include the following: a. Amending the hours of operation to 5pm to 9pm (June to August) and 8pm to 11pm (September to May) in the following year. b. Turn the lights off during the week prior to and including the date of the Matariki public holiday each year. c. Extend or reduce the lights to emphasise the form of the maritime mast. 4. Staff to report back to the Community Board with the outcome of negotiations with the Deed Holder for a final decision on the hours of operation and configuration of the lights.
	Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2025/00082 Part C That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receive the information in the Cave Rock Lighting 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 2019. The level of significance was determined by the heritage significance of the site, the level of local community interest and concern, and possible costs and risks to Council. 3. Resolves that staff enter into further negotiations with the Deed Holder to vary the ‘Deed of Accessibility in Respect of LED Lighting Installation at Tuawera – Cave Rock, Sumner,’ (the Deed) to include the following: a. Turn the lights off during the week prior to and including the date of the Matariki public holiday each year. b. Explore ecologically friendly types of lights. c. Extend or reduce the lights to emphasise the form of the maritime mast. 4. Staff to report back to the Community Board with the outcome of negotiations with the Deed Holder for a final decision on the hours of operation and configuration of the lights in six months from 28 August 2025. Tim Scandrett/Tim Lindley Carried

The meeting adjourned at 6.37 pm and reconvened at 6.39 pm.

9. Elected Members’ Information Exchange Te Whakawhiti Whakaaro o Te Kāhui Amorangi

Part B

There was no elected members’ exchange.

Karakia Whakakapi

Meeting concluded at 6.40 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 11 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

Callum Ward

Chairperson

8. Hoon Hay Park - Te Kōmanawa Rowley School - Place Cadet Nature Play Project
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/951965
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Megan Carpenter, Team Leader Parks Recreation & Planning
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 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to approve the concept plan for a nature play space proposed for Hoon Hay Park by tamariki at Te Kōmanawa Rowley School.

1.2 The report is in response to a Place Cadet nature play project that a class at Te Kōmanawa Rowley School have been completing for Terms 2, 3 & 4 at school in 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Hoon Hay Park - Te Kōmanawa Rowley School - Place Cadet Nature Play Project 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. Approve the concept plan for the construction of nature play at Hoon Hay Park as per attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The report recommends Community Board approval for a nature play space at Hoon Hay Park.

3.2 A classroom of 10-year-old tamariki at Te Kōmanawa Rowley School have been participating in a Place Cadet programme led by the Gather Foundation.

3.3 They have developed a concept plan for a nature play area adjacent to the existing playground on Mathers Road at Hoon Hay Park.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Hoon Hay Park is located at 75 Mathers Road, Hoon Hay. It is a large sports park that has a skate park, full basketball court, and two playgrounds.

4.2 A class of students at Te Kōmanawa Rowley School are participating in a Place Cadet project led by the Gather Foundation. The Gather Foundation offer curriculum-aligned, co-design programmes, focused on creating outdoor structure and environments at no cost for schools. “When children have opportunities to take part in the design of their outdoor spaces, they feel valued and develop a sense of belonging, manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga for their local environments.” (source - (Gather Foundation).

4.3 This is the first project that the Gather Foundation has completed on a park, the programme is usually led within the school grounds. However, in this case the school participated in this programme in 2023 and were keen to move outside the school grounds to their local park.

4.4 The programme started in June 2025, and the tamariki have been to a site visit on the park, been mapping locations, and completing sketches and models. They have been learning about the local wetlands, ecology, and their place within these spaces, they have been getting creative and sharing ideas so they can make the park even better for the whole community.

4.5 Theme of the tamariki’s brief for the landscape plan;

· Challenge and Discovery – Fun ways to test your body and brain

· Hang out spot – places to chill, laugh, and chat together

· Comfy Hideaways – shelter from the wind, rain, and sun

· Fun for Everyone – something for all ages and interest

· ‘Our Place’ – welcoming and full of local stories

· Safe to explore – adventure without feeling worried

A group of people sitting on the floor

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Te Kōmanawa Rowley School tamariki creating early play models.

Image source: Photographer - Petra Mingneau

4.6 Parks staff attended a workshop with the tamariki in August to discuss possible locations for the nature play area and other design considerations. The tamariki were discussing landscape features and moulding these out of clay and paper.

4.7 The attached concept plan is an indicative design, as the tamariki are still working through the details of each feature. Staff will share more information to the Community Board via memo once the details are confirmed, prior to any works onsite.

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

Date	Subject
17 April 2025	Gather Foundation – Hoon Hay Place Cadet Project Proposal - Minutes of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Information Session/Workshop - Thursday, 17 April 2025

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Approve the concept plan for the construction of a nature play space at Hoon Hay Park.

4.9.2 Do not approve the concept plan and request that Gather Foundation consider an alternative concept plan.

4.10 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.10.1 Do nothing (status quo). This was ruled out due to the process that the tamariki have been involved in and the amount of time involved.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Approve the concept plan for the construction of a nature play space at Hoon Hay Park.

4.11.1 Option Description: Approve the concept plan for the construction of a nature play space at Hoon Hay Park.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Support a project that gives local tamariki an opportunity to develop manaakitanga (process of showing respect, generosity, and care for others) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship and protection) for their local park.

· A small portion of the playground at Hoon Hay Park receives an upgrade and refresh at no substantial cost to the ratepayer.

· The tamariki are developing a stronger connection to their local park and participating in Council processes e.g. engagement, Community Board approval, construction and ongoing care of park.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· None noted.

4.12 Do not approve the concept plan and request that Gather Foundation consider an alternative concept plan.

4.12.1 Option Description: Do not approve the concept plan and request that Gather Foundation consider an alternative concept plan.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Can give the Community Board more time to consider a concept plan that has more information and details.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· The project timeframe is within the school calendar year. This group of school kids would not be able to develop an alternative plan and gain Community Board approval prior to the end of the school year.

· Adding additional costs to a project that had limited budget.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.13 The options were assessed considering the time the tamarki have spent on the project to date and the wider impact on the park.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Request alternative
Cost to Implement	n/a – Gather Foundation are funding. CCC parks may contribute plants and trees to support project out of existing budgets	Additional cost to Gather Foundation to work with the children and consider an alternative design.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered within existing Parks OPEX and support from volunteers.	Covered within existing Parks OPEX and support from volunteers.
Funding Source	External budgets	External budgets
Funding Availability	n/a	n/a
Impact on Rates	n/a	n/a

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The risk around the project not being delivered is low, due to the Gather Foundation having funding to deliver the project and support from the wider community to build and implement the concept plan.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register dated 25 March 2025, the Community Board has the delegation:

· Approve and adopt any new landscape development plans for parks and reserves provided the design is within the policy and budget set by the Council (Community Board Delegations Register pg.96 Part D – Sub Part 1 – Community Boards.)

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people effected by the proposal and the impacts on the wider reserve.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

· Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

· Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022-2032

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

6.6 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.6.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.5 Resident satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the City's parks and foreshore network - >= 70%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The tamariki at Hoon Hay School and the Gather Foundation have been leading the consultation for this project. At this stage there has not been any wider formal engagement led by the Council.

6.8 There have been three community drop-in sessions based on advice from the school as the best way to connect to the community.

6.8.1 One was at a community hāngi at the school, attended by several hundred people. Many tamariki outside the project group came to the project table and shared their ideas directly with many different ages attending.

6.8.2 Another took place in Hoon Hay Park during a busy sports evening.

6.8.3 The third was held at the school during afternoon pickups.

6.9 Other engagement opportunities include

· Input from preschool and kindergarten – the team have talked with both groups at the hāngi and met separately because they wanted to give more detailed feedback.

· Three Year 8 students, who were involved in the previous project, have offered to be mentors for this one and have been attending sessions where possible.

· Project updates are posted on the school’s Facebook page and discussed in classrooms, encouraging tamariki to talk with their families and peers.

· Home updates - we know children regularly discuss the work at home, which broadens whānau awareness and involvement.

6.10 All community input is being mapped and will be compiled for review and shared with the Council at the end of the project.

6.11 The concept plan has been shared with the Council’s Sport Liaison Officer to ensure that the proposal does not impact on sports allocation within Hoon Hay Park.

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

6.12.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.15 There is no change of any significance to the existing use of the park.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.17 The proposal to approve the concept plan for a nature play space does not have an impact on climate change. The development will involve the use of additional resources, but this is not regarded as significant and is reasonable in the circumstances as the proposal encourages local community involvement generally and in that sense the carbon associated with travel is low.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The tamariki will continue to develop models as their detailed design if the concept plan is approved by the Community Board. The detailed design will be shared with the Community Board via memo.

7.2 A scaled prototype of the nature play space will be created in October with the aim to construct the space in November 2025. The construction will be a team effort by the tamariki with support from their whanau and qualified tradespeople.

7.3 The Parks Unit will manage the works onsite via a Temporary Access Permit and will involve our Parks Partnership Rangers.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Hoon Hay Park - Nature Play Indicative Concept Plan - August 2025	25/1706492	31
b ⇩	Hoon Hay Park - 2025 Place Cadets Calendar - Final	25/1696084	32

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Megan Carpenter - Team Leader Parks & Recreation Planning

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Al Hardy - Manager Community Parks

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

9. Christchurch Yacht Club - Application for Building and Site Development
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1521186
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jason Tickner, Parks and Recreation Planner; Felix Dawson, Leasing Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the application by the Christchurch Yacht Club (the Club) for the construction and use of a new storage building, concourse extension, boat ramp extension, and additional fencing at Yacht Club Reserve, 239 Main Road, Moncks Bay.

1.2 The report is staff initiated to address the request from the Club.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Yacht Club - Application for Building and Site Development Report.

2. Approve the construction and use of a new storage building, concourse extension, boat ramp extension, and additional fencing at the west side of Yacht Club Reserve, 239 Main Road, Moncks Bay, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment A of the agenda report.

3. Notes that:

a. approval is subject to the Christchurch Yacht Club meeting all regulatory requirements including the Building Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991. This includes, but is not limited to, gaining resource consent approval from the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury Regional Council.

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

c. appropriate consultation has been undertaken.

4. Requests that the Manager Property Consultancy does all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the intent of this report to implement the resolutions above including approving final design, completing negotiations, and administering the terms and conditions of the updated licence.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Christchurch Yacht Club (the Club) have been in continuous occupation of the site at 239 Main Road, Moncks Bay for the purpose of a yacht club since 1891 and continue to operate as a functioning club with a proud history of producing top class sailors.

3.2 The Club’s facilities are run down and have not been repaired since the earthquakes. For the Club to continue, repairs and improvements are required to the building facilities, ramp and concourse wharf areas. The Club have historically left the licence area open to the public but in recent years have experienced consistent difficulties managing public swimming from their pontoon and have looked at fencing options to help manage the issue.

3.3 Under the terms of the Licence, the Licensee is required to ask for Landlord approval for any building or fencing improvements. The Landlord is required to give reasonable consideration to such requests and cannot unreasonably withhold consent.

3.4 The Club have been in correspondence with the Council since 2023 regarding their plans to develop the site to enable the Club to continue to function into the future with particular emphasis on providing a facility to enable development of young sailors.

3.5 There have been several consultations to determine community views, and the Club have made design changes in response to the submissions. The key changes are reduction of the rescue boat shed size to a minimum and dropping the proposal to fence the eastern boundary.

3.6 The resulting plans proposed for approval include:

· Extending the existing pier/concourse to the northwest of the existing clubhouse

· Installing new concrete slipway for launching boats on the western boundary

· Construction of a new rescue boat storage building on the southwestern boundary

· Fencing the western side of the property at the boundary around the new development

3.7 The building work will remain within the footprint of their licensed site. Planning and building consent will be required separate to this process and will need to be advanced by the Club.

3.8 Building costs would be covered by the Club, and not the Council.

3.9 The Parks Unit supports the new design and rebuild on the basis that:

· the existing wharf/ramp needs replacement to enable the Club to continue as a functioning yacht club into the future

· the new boatshed is a reasonable proposal and is required to enable the Club to continue as a functioning yacht club into the future

· the proposed west fence between the club house and proposed storage shed is a reasonable proposal and necessary to assist the Club in management of the site

· approval will lower the risk of challenge from the Club to the exercise of the Council’s obligations under the exclusive licence.

3.10 Staff consider that the recommended option represents a balance between the needs and rights of the Club and the impact and effects on neighbours and the community.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

The Property

4.1 The Club is located at 239 Main Road, Moncks Bay (Lot 1 DP 4704) on the Council owned ‘Yacht Club Reserve’, which is shown in red below and is treated as park under the Local Government Act 2002.

4.2 The Club site adjoins the Avon-Heathcote Estuary / Ihutai to the north, Main Road and the Coastal Pathway to the south, and the Council owned public car park and boat ramp to the east.

A aerial view of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 - Yacht Club Reserve

4.3 The park was originally owned by the Club but in 1971 after subsidence problems with the carpark area the Club and the Council entered into an agreement whereby the Council took ownership of the carpark and public access ramp. The Club received a licence in perpetuity for its improvements: the clubhouse, ramps and wharf/concourse, shown in yellow above.

4.4 The area is popular with walkers, cyclists, swimmers, fishermen, kayakers, and other recreational craft users. The public gain water access through the carpark and ramp to the east but have also traditionally made use of the Club wharf facilities which have been left open by the Club for public use.

Rowing Club Site

4.5 It should also be noted that the Club have rights over the former rowing club site situated to the east and shown in yellow below. This is not a Christchurch City Council owned or managed reserve/land holding and not the subject of this report.

A aerial view of a body of water

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2 - Former Rowing Club Site

4.6 The redevelopment of the site has been on-going for a number of years but on hold until recently with issues around piling construction. The outstanding issues have since been resolved and the Club are currently progressing the completion of the jetty, and boatshed which is used purely by adult sailors as the strong tidal flow makes it unsuitable for juniors and rescue craft.

4.7 The Council considered and came to the resolution on the 20 June 2017 as part of the 2017/2018 Annual Report, to grant the Club $239,713 as a contribution to repairs on the facility in conjunction with work undertaken on the Coastal Pathway. This money has been ring fenced and will be applied to the construction of the new ramps and reinstatement of the jetty and boatshed on that site. The funding was conditional on the following:

· There is enduring public access in perpetuity to the Coastal Pathway, and adjoining deck area and ramps providing access to the beach area below.

· The design and specifications of the replacement base are consistent with the developed design for the Coastal Pathway.

Christchurch Yacht Club

4.8 The Christchurch Yacht Club was established in 1891 in Monck’s Bay (originally known as ‘Christchurch Sailing Club’) and has been an active sailing club every year since. The Club has produced several Olympic sailors and continues as a well-functioning club with a current focus on its junior programme.

4.9 Membership numbers for the Club have fluctuated over the last seven years, with a drop in 2021 – 2023 primarily due to Covid 19 although membership has stabilised at around 95. The Club membership numbers are listed below:

· 2017-2018 season 100

· 2018-2019 season 125

· 2019-2020 season 123

· 2021-2021 season 99

· 2022-2023 season 94

· 2023-2024 season 95

A dock with boats and buildings in the background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 3 - Christchurch Yacht Club

A group of boats on a dock

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 4 - Club Site and Car Park during a Regatta

4.10 The Club operates from a central two-storey building consisting of the club house on the top floor and storage at ground floor. A winch is operated from the downstairs storage for the purpose of rescue boat haul out. A rigging area and boat ramp is located to the east of the main building which is fenced by means of low posts and rope. To the west of the building is an existing wooden concourse/wharf being used as temporary yacht storage. It is run down and in need of replacement. There is also an additional boat ramp and dry dock next to the wharf that is run down and in need of repair. Past use of the site for antifouling is no longer appropriate.

4.11 The Club has built and own the floating pontoon in front of the club house. This structure extends beyond the licence area, into the Estuary/Ihutai.

4.12 The current facilities are dated and in need of repair or replacement to enable the Club to maintain existing membership levels and continue to operate long term. The Club has prepared a staged development plan, with stage one being the subject of this report for Council consideration and approval.

4.13 Stage one contains three key elements: a repaired wharf/concourse with small extension and re-siting of the ramp further west to link with a new patrol boat shed. The west area will be fenced. This is stage one and will be undertaken in conjunction with work on the Rowing Club.

4.14 Stage two will involve either repair or replacement of the existing clubhouse and will require a further decision of the Council. A staged approach enables the Club to continue operating during reconstruction work.

Key Operational Issues - Why the Club has Proposed this Development

4.15 Overcrowding-wharf and concourse

· Existing flat space for rigging is limited largely to the east side due to the damaged concourse/wharf on the west. This results in overcrowding in the rigging area on the east side of the clubhouse with yachts frequently spilling over into the car park.

· Modern yacht clubs require the operation of IRB patrol boats with four being a minimum for a club of this size. These are currently tightly stored under the clubhouse and launched by way of a power-driven winch from inside the building down a steep ramp. This splits the use of the two rigging areas and creates health and safety issues at time of launching with strict safety protocols required on the ramp and potential conflict with swimmers on the pontoon. Launching is difficult from this location and not well suited for emergency access. Moving the main launching ramp away from the pontoon will help to alleviate the issues. Storage of boat fuel under the wooden clubhouse is also a significant risk.

A larger rigging space keeping yachts within the license area is required to free up the car park for public use. Moving the rescue boats to dedicated storage and a separate launching facility is also preferred to enable effective use of the rigging space and launching away from people walking past. It will also function in a safer/quicker manner for launching rescue boats particularly in the case of emergencies.

4.16 Public use of the pontoon for swimming

The Club wharf has always been popular for public swimming. Since the introduction of the pontoon, popularity has continued to increase, and the Club consistently experiences problems with launching of yachts and patrol boats on club days. This has even escalated to threats of violence to club members from swimmers and is causing increasing health and safety concerns for the club. Signage and a gate in front of the pontoon have proved unsuccessful to-date in effectively managing this issue. The Club has reluctantly conceded that to manage this issue increased fencing to control access may be required.

A group of people on a dock

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 5 - Conflict between swimmers and powerboats at the club owned pontoon

Club Development Proposals

4.17 In June 2023, in response to issues with the public on the pontoon, the Club requested Council consent to the installation of fencing on both the east and west side of the licence area. The proposal included lockable boat access gates on the east side together with a pedestrian gate.

4.18 Consultation with the neighbours and local community generated a number of objections including concern about aesthetic impact, restriction of public access and questioning the need generally. The proposal was parked.

4.19 In November 2023 the Club submitted an initial development proposal that addressed the storage and ramp issues. A fence on the west side was included but a fence on the east side was not re-visited at that stage.

4.20 The key elements of the design included:

· Extending the existing pier/concourse to the northwest of the existing clubhouse and removing existing ramp

· Installing a new concrete ramp for launching boats on the western boundary

· Construction of a new rescue boat and junior yachts storage building on the southwestern boundary

· Fencing the western side of the property at the boundary

4.21 The initial proposal was intended to provide increased rigging area, storage for rescue boats and junior dinghies, and a re-located launching ramp for rescue boats and yachts. The building design was of a low sloping roof with local stone cladding. It was intended to minimise visual intrusion through being of the lowest feasible height and clad with the same stone used on the walls along the Coastal Pathway. The contentious fence and lockable gates on the east side were not included. The design is shown below:

A blueprint of a building

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 6 - Original Proposal (Site Plan)

A collage of different views of a building

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 7 - Original Proposal (Artist Impressions)

Community Engagement

4.22 Community consultation for the above proposal was undertaken in December 2024. It included a sign on the premises, ‘Have Your Say Page’ on the Council website, letter box drop, and communication with key stakeholders.

4.23 The building design was not supported by the majority of submitters with objections to the size of the structure, intrusion into view shafts, and poor design style generally. The new ramp and increased concourse area was generally supported although submissions expressing concern over intrusion into the estuary and amenity overall were received. A summary and schedule of the feedback for the initial design and earlier fence proposal is contained in the attached link: Kōrero mai webpage

Revised Design

4.24 Following consultation on the initial design above, the Club undertook a redesign of the development to attempt to alleviate some of the concerns raised by submitters. The main changes included:

· Reduced length of the storage building by 9.42m or 41.1% to minimise visual intrusion.

· Reduced total area of building from approximately 128.6m² to 93.1m² being a 27.6% reduction.

· Modified cladding

· Change in building style from the flat roof, rock wall style, to a more architectural boat shed style.

· Fencing on the east and west side

4.25 The revised design is shown below and included in Attachment A

A blueprint of a building

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 8 - Redesigned Site Plans (Change to Storage Building)

A collage of different buildings

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 9 - Redesigned Proposal (Artist Impression)

4.26 Revised design comment

Wharf/concourse

4.27 This configuration has remained consistent in both designs. It addresses the Club’s issue of limited rigging space and ramp issues in front of the Club. It has been generally supported although with some concern over increased intrusion into the estuary, amenity and effect on ecology. These are discussed in paragraph 6.25.

Boat Shed Building

4.28 The revised design was produced as a response to criticism around the bland linear nature and size of the first design. The size has been reduced to the minimum required for rescue boat storage leaving a view shaft between the club house and proposed boat shed. Dinghy storage has been removed.

4.29 The design style was modified to produce a more classical boat club look with traditional cladding and pitched roof. Staff acknowledge neighbours’ concerns over visual intrusion but note that the Club has reduced the size to the minimum required to continue to operate and that the revised design generally received a more favourable public response than the first option.

Fences

4.30 Fencing on the west side of the club house is continued and considered necessary to secure the site and the new developments from the road (see Fig.9).

4.31 Due to the length of the process for approval and risk that in the future a further fence request would be required, the Club chose to re-introduce the fencing proposal at the eastern side of their licence area as part of this redesign.

4.32 Taking on board criticisms of the first fence consultation the Club made changes including: brand-new fence instead of second-hand option, open style, relatively low (1.4m) pool style fence to reduce impact on sightlines, light grey colour to minimise visual impact, and as per the original design, providing a pedestrian gate to allow public access during daytime and non-event days. The proposed fence is shown below.

A building next to a body of water

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 10 - East Side Fence Proposed (removed)

4.33 The above revised design was circulated to original submitters in March 2025 for further comment.

4.34 This feedback was reported to the Community Board by way of an Information Session on the 29 May 2025.

4.35 A final round of wider community engagement seeking comment on the final proposed plans was undertaken in July 2025. Refer para 6.25 for detailed discussion summarising issues and staff comment.

4.36 The Club has made a late change and agreed to withdraw the proposed east fence from the design in response to community concerns.

4.37 Council Process Summary

Proposal	Process	Date	Comment
Request for new fence	Local consultation	September 2023	Objections to style of fence and perceived loss of public access despite undertaking to leave gate unlocked
Original Development Proposal - Information Sharing	Initial Information Session with Community Board	26 September 2024	Inform the Community Board of the new development proposal, the process moving forward, and the previous objections to fencing.
Initial design- re-build concourse, /jetty, new build of boat shed- fence only on west side boundary	General consultation through ‘have your say’ page and direct contact with neighbours and key stakeholders	1 November – 3 December 2024	No major objections to concourse and ramp proposal other than concerns about ecology Objections to size/scale, visual intrusion and style of building
Revised design- re-build concourse, /jetty, new build of boat shed (revised), includes fence on east side boundary as well	Targeted consultation to those who submitted on initial design	9 April 2025 - 12 May 2025	Similar response to above on concourse/ramps Less objections to style and size of building, still some objections to visual intrusion arising from the building itself, and objection to fencing proposal
Revised Development Proposal -Information Sharing	Second Community Board Information Session	29 May 2025	Presentation of public submissions, Presentation of revised proposal from the Club, Community Board discussion of revised design and key issues
Design without change from above	General consultation through ‘have your say’ page and direct contact with neighbours and key stakeholders	18 July - 3 August 2025	Similar response to above for revised design, and additional support received from users/club members.

4.38 Additional Matters

Funding

4.39 External funding will be required for this project. The Club cannot gain public funding until they have approval and fully consented drawings for the project, followed by establishing the estimated costs of the project. Only at this stage there will be a presentable project for a marketing presentation.

Resource Consents

4.40 The proposal requires Resource Consent from the Christchurch City Council under the District Plan and Canterbury Regional Council under the Regional Plan.

4.41 The Resource Consent under the Christchurch City District Plan will consider the environmental effects of the proposal in relation to the District Plan Rules, and amongst other matters, will look at the impact of the club building on neighbours, any earthworks and impacts on the coastline.

4.42 Resource Consent is also required from the Regional Council under the Regional Plan for the proposal, in particular building in a waterbody. The Regional Council will consider the environmental effects and ecological impacts the development may have, and if these can be avoided, remedied, and/or mitigated. The Club have indicated that they are confident in gaining approval on the basis of previous adjoining consents, including the Club’s Pontoon installation, and the Christchurch City Council consent approval for the Coastal Pathway Project.

4.43 If the Community Board are to approve the proposal as the Licensor, the proposal will still need to gain both resource consents before construction can commence.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.44.1 Preferred option: Approve the proposed building, concourse/wharf, slipway extension and fencing on west side only.

4.44.2 Option 2 Approve the proposed building, concourse/wharf, slipway extension and fencing on west and east side.

4.44.3 Option 3: Approve the concourse/slipway extension. Decline the building development and/or fencing.

4.44.4 Option 4: Decline the proposed building, concourse/slipway extension, and fencing.

4.45 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Do nothing: The Club requires certainty to enable it to plan future use. To do nothing would significantly impact the long-term viability of the Club

· Relocation: not favoured, the Club has historical links to the site, and it remains a unique location for a yacht club in terms of low tide sailing opportunity.

· Repair existing clubhouse and jetty and continue with existing ramp: The Club need to ensure the site can function effectively and safely and moving the ramp to the west boundary will achieve that. The jetty is at ‘end of life’ and not large enough to service the clubs need for rigging space. Therefore, repairing the jetty and ramp in their current form was not considered as a suitable option.

· Operate rescue boats from rowing club location: not favoured as site is not suitable due to high tidal flow in this location.

· Further reduction of boatshed area: not favoured, the Club have advised that the storage shed is the minimum required to enable this service and storage of its rescue boats.

· Further consideration of boatshed design not favoured. The Club responded to criticism of initial design with a revised design that was generally supported. It is acknowledged that some visual intrusion will occur. The question as to whether the pitch could be lowered or design is unsuitable generally will be left to be considered by urban design experts at resource consent stage.

Fencing

· Lower fence on west side not supported by the Club as it will not provide a sufficient sense of security. The proposed fence matches existing fences on Coastal Pathway.

· The use of a temporary fence on club days was suggested by some submitters. This was not supported by the Club as creating an unnecessary workload for volunteers with difficulty managing the use.

· A variation in licence to guarantee public pedestrian access has been considered. This would require agreement by the Club who have been unwilling to agree to such a change.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.46 Preferred Option: Approve the proposed building, concourse/wharf, slipway extension and fencing on west side.

4.46.1 Option Description: Construction of boatshed on west side, replace and extend concourse removing existing ramp and rebuilding the ramp on the west boundary. Fence the west side development on the road boundary with a design consistent with Coastal Pathway. Public access retained when not in use by the Club subject to management of health and safety and other risks.

4.46.2 Option Advantages

· Provides the Club and its members certainty to move forward with the redevelopment and improvement of their site that will enable maintenance of membership with proper provision of space for rescue craft and rigging area.

· Positions the Club for potential future redevelopment of the main clubhouse through the ability to continue to operate when the clubhouse is redeveloped or refurbished.

· Provides a much safer launching area for rescue boats emergency access and yachts.

· Proposed roadside fence will secure new development area.

· Proposed roadside fence design will be consistent with the Coastal Pathway fencing.

· Not fencing the east side maintains the status quo to a large degree in regard to public access to the site for swimming when not in use by the Club, (subject to club assessment of reasonable management of Health and Safety and other risks).

· The area is run down, and this option will see it revitalised improving public amenity of the area generally.

· Takes account to some degree of the Club’s rights under the exclusive licence.

· Likely removes the risk of challenge from the Club to the exercise of the Council’s obligations under the licence.

4.46.3 Option Disadvantages

· Storage shed and proposed fence will create additional intrusion on the site detracting from its open vista and partially blocking or obscuring some view shafts from opposite neighbours and public generally.

· The ramp and concourse construction may have an impact on the ecology of the area. This is likely to be relatively minor given the construction is predominantly over existing concrete ramps. It will be considered in detail in the resource consent with the Canterbury Regional Council.

4.47 Option 2: Approve the proposed building, concourse/wharf, slipway extension and fencing on both the west and east side.

4.47.1 Option Description: Construction of boatshed on west side, replace and extend concourse removing existing ramp and rebuilding the ramp on the west boundary. Fence the west side development on the road boundary with a design consistent with Coastal Pathway. Fence the east side boundary. Public access retained when not in use by the Club subject to management of health and safety and other risks.

4.47.2 Option Advantages

· Positions the Club for potential future redevelopment of the main clubhouse through the ability to continue to operate when the clubhouse is redeveloped or refurbished.

· Provides a much safer launching area for rescue boats and yachts.

· The fence on the east side will provide a clear and enforceable boundary during club days to assist in management of public swimming from the Club’s pontoon. It also provides a sense of club security for the site generally when not in use despite being open to the public. It should lead to reduced conflict.

· Proposed roadside fence design will be consistent with the Coastal Pathway fencing.

· Maintains public access to the site when not in use by the Club, (subject to club assessment of reasonable management of Health and Safety and other risks).

· The area is run down, and this option will see it revitalised improving public amenity of the area generally.

· Takes account of the Club’s rights under the exclusive licence.

· Likely removes the risk of challenge from the Club to the exercise of Council’s obligations under the Licence.

4.47.3 Option Disadvantages

· Some members of the public perceive this area as public space, and the east side fence is seen as a restriction on this.

4.48 Option 3: Approve the concourse and ramp extension. Decline the building development and/or fencing.

4.48.1 Option Description: Some submitters are opposed to the visual impact of the building and fence, as well as opposing any physical restriction to public access. This option provides an opportunity to minimise the concerns in part or whole by declining either the boatshed or the fence or both. As a minimum the Club would have some extended space for rigging and an improved ramp.

4.48.2 Option Advantages

· Will be supported by some submitters/neighbours.

· Provides the Club and its members some level of certainty to move forward with part of the redevelopment.

· The expansion of the concourse will improve ability to better accommodate activities within the licence area.

· Improved ramp enables easier access to water with boats.

· Maintains public access to the Club site and this section of estuary edge (noting the Club has exclusive rights).

4.48.3 Option Disadvantages

Building

· Does not resolve the issue of insufficient storage area for the Club’s rescue boats, and associated risks of storing petrol engines and equipment underneath their wooden club house.

· Makes patrol and rescue boat launching more difficult and time consuming especially in times of emergency.

· Limits the Club’s ability to provide a proper level of rescue and patrol services.

· Does not resolve safety issues around existing winch retrieval of boats in the middle of the club site.

Fence

· Limits the Club’s ability to manage its health and safety obligations in terms of public swimming from the site.

· Doesn’t address safety concerns raised by the Club in terms of public use of the pontoon.

General

· Provides uncertainty for the Club’s future if they cannot develop their site to allow it to function for its licenced purpose, potentially will fail to maintain existing or attract new membership.

· Doesn’t take account of the Club’s rights under the exclusive licence.

· Could be challenged as an unreasonable decision by the Landlord under the terms of the licence.

4.49 Option 4: Decline the proposed building, concourse and ramp extension, and fencing.

4.49.1 Option Description: Do not provide approval for any changes or improvements to the site.

4.49.2 Option Advantages

· Will be supported by some submitters/neighbours.

· No loss of current view shafts.

· No change to existing estuary ecology/ environmental effects.

· No physical barrier preventing public access, (noting however that the Club has exclusive use rights).

4.49.3 Option Disadvantages

· The site and infrastructure will continue to deteriorate impacting on site usability and amenity.

· Does not enable the Club to effectively and safely operate from a site to which they have rights in perpetuity.

· Likely to prevent the Club from maintaining members and attracting new members.

· Doesn’t take account of the Club’s rights under the exclusive licence.

· Could be challenged as an unreasonable decision by the Landlord under the terms of the licence.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.50 The options in terms of the design proposal were assessed taking into account the Club needs to be able to continue to function, as against the impact of a new build on the amenity values of neighbours and the public generally. Assessment included consideration of current Licensee investment on site and the need for certainty for the Club to move forward.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Approval of development with fencing on west side	Option 2 – Approval of development with fencing of all boundaries	Option 3 – Partial Approval	Option 4– Decline
Cost to Implement	Development of the new building, concourse and fencing is a club cost – Council cost of approximately $4,000 to fence the boundary of Coastal Pathway with matching fencing	Development of the new building, concourse and fencing is a club cost – Council cost of approximately $9,000 to fence the boundary of Coastal Pathway with matching fencing	Development of the new building, concourse is a club cost – no cost to council	Nil
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	Maintenance undertaken by tenant – no cost to Council	Maintenance undertaken by tenant – no cost to Council	Maintenance undertaken by tenant – no cost to Council	Increased maintenance cost to the Club as asset degrades further
Funding Source	Club Funded/ Fundraised	Club Funded/ Fundraised	Club Funded/ Fundraised	Nil
Funding Availability	Club Funded (to be fundraised), except for the Coastal Pathway Fence Portion - Funded through Council existing budgets (CPMS # 61817)	Club Funded (to be fundraised), except for the Coastal Pathway Fence Portion - Funded through Council existing budgets (CPMS # 61817)	Club Funded (to be fundraised)	N/A
Impact on Rates	Minimal	Minimal	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

Funding Shortfall

6.1 There is a risk of the licensee failing to raise sufficient funds to complete the build. The likelihood of this is considered medium given the current financial climate, although it is noted that the project has the support of the Canterbury Yachting Association. The consequences are considered medium. If funding is not gained the project will not progress and the site will continue to deteriorate.

Resource Consent Uncertainty

6.2 There is a risk that even if the Club obtains landowner approval to proceed with the development, resource consent from either the Regional Council or the City Council may be declined, or substantial changes to the plans may be required.

6.3 This presents a "chicken and egg" scenario, as the Club requires multiple approvals under different Acts. In this case, the Club has chosen to seek landowner approval first, as it incurs lower cost to the applicant. In contrast, the resource consent process is often expensive and time-consuming, and could result in wasted expenditure if landowner approval is not granted.

6.4 If significant changes to the plans arise during the resource consent process, and Council officers determine these changes to be fundamentally different from the plans approved under landowner consent, then the plans will need to be reapproved and potentially re-engaged with stakeholders.

6.5 If either of the required resource consents is not granted, the application will not proceed. A standard condition to this effect is included in the decision.

6.6 Legal Objection

6.7 There is a risk that not approving the request for development will be challenged by the Club as unreasonable in terms of the Council’s obligations under the Licence. The overall risk is considered medium. Without a reasonable opportunity to develop the Club will struggle to continue its operations. The consequences of the challenge would be staff costs associated with defending it in court as well as public exposure.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.8 Delegations Parks (Part D-sub Part 1- Community Boards) Authority delegated from Council to Community Boards.

“Authority to give or decline consent as landlord to any matter or request made by tenants/licensees under leases or licences of parks to other parties, and to authorise staff to sign all required documentation”.

6.9 Other Legal Implications:

6.9.1 Local Government Act 2002-Licence entered into pursuant to Local Government Act 2002.

6.9.2 Local Government Act 2002-Decision Making including consideration of community views. Staff consider that the consultation undertaken meets the statutory requirement for seeking and considering community views of those having an interest in the proposal.

The Licence

6.9.3 The Club occupies the site pursuant to a perpetual year to year Licence to occupy for exclusive use (refer to Attachments B-C)

6.9.4 Under the terms of the Licence, the Licensee is required to ask for Landlord approval for any building or fencing improvements. The Landlord is required to give reasonable consideration to such requests and cannot unreasonably withhold consent.

6.9.5 Staff have received legal advice that it would be legally difficult to refuse a request to erect a fence.

6.9.6 Equally a reasonable request to build a boat shed would also be legally difficult to refuse.

6.9.7 Note that the licence was entered into by agreement with the Council for part of the land previously owned by the Club to be transferred to the Council in exchange for an exclusive Licence to the Club for the remainder. This was a practical response to the Club difficulties in managing erosion on the carpark site. The Club would argue it was its clear intention to maintain rights at least resembling its previous freehold. The perpetual nature of the Licence reflects this and any consideration of requests for Landlord approval should take this into account when considering requests for improvements.

Health and Safety

6.9.8 Staff have received legal advice that Health and Safety obligations around the site use, (in particular swimming) fall largely on the Club. Given that fact and the risks associated with some of the behaviours of swimmers it would be unreasonable to deny the Club the right to attempt to manage the risks. The withdrawal of the east side fence by the Club due to public opposition will make management of these issues by the Club more difficult.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.10 The required decision:

6.10.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, in particular the strategic priority of being an inclusive and equitable city that puts people at the centre. Local sports club enable wellbeing, accessibility, and connection.

6.10.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the number of people affected, the level of impact on those affected, and the low cost to Council associated with approving the proposal.

6.10.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

· Open Space Strategy

· Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy

· Christchurch District Plan – in particular, Open Space Coastal Zone (the underlying zone) Policy 18.2.2.1(g)iii which states:

This zone protects the natural environment of the sandy beaches and rocky shorelines of the Christchurch City coast from Waimakariri River to Taylors Mistake, while providing for:

(iii) “existing surf lifesaving, yacht club and coastguard facilities that contribute to the social and cultural wellbeing and health and safety of the community.”

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

6.12 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.12.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.10.1 Appropriate use and occupation of parks is facilitated - Processing of the application is started within ten working days of receiving application - 95%

· Level of Service: 6.8.5 Resident satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the City's parks and foreshore network - >= 70%

6.13 Citizens and communities

6.13.1 Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and Events

· Level of Service: 7.0.3.1 Support citizen and partner organisations to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport in Christchurch - 4,000 hours of staff support provided per annum

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.14 Consultation on the initial fencing proposal was undertaken in September 2023 and was not supported by the surrounding residents.

6.15 Consultation for the original development proposal started on 11 November 2024 and ran until 15 December 2024. Submissions were received from 52 individuals. All submissions are available in Kōrero mai webpage.

6.16 Most submitters (36, 65%) opposed the proposal or did not express support. 18 of those opposing submitters reside directly opposite the club.

6.17 Between 9 April and 12 May 2025, submitters on the previous (2024) plans for Christchurch Yacht Club (the Club) were offered an opportunity to submit on a revised plan.

6.18 Consultation on the revised plan re-opened to the wider community on 18 July and ran until 3 August 2025.  

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

6.19.1 An email sent to 51 previous submitters to notify them the plans were open for further feedback.

6.19.2 Leaflet maildrop delivered to 45 Moncks Bay residents.

6.19.3 Four A3 laminated signs established near the Christchurch Yacht Club clubhouse.

6.19.4 Emails to 16 stakeholders including Redcliffs Residents Association to notify them the consultation was open.

6.20 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 290 views throughout the consultation period.  

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.21 One organisation and 48 individuals made further submissions. These have been combined with the April/May feedback received on the revised proposal.

6.22 Over both rounds, submissions were made by two recognised organisations and 56 individuals. All submissions are available on the Kōrero mai webpage.

· Spokes Canterbury supported the plan, and that the gap between the buildings improved visibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

· Redcliffs Residents Association had no objection to the boat storage shed but opposed the fencing due to aesthetics and a need to maintain public access. They suggested using temporary fencing instead during rigging and sailing events.

· The Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust – who expressed their opposition to the proposal and were concerned about the development’s impacts on the natural ecosystem of the area. They felt that the plans lack clarity regarding the specific area of reclamation needed for the new slipway and gabion, and the extent of estuary likely impacted by other structures. They would therefore expect the Club to submit a resource consent application to Environment Canterbury, which will provide an opportunity for public input and more thorough assessment of the environmental impact. They were also concerned about the visual disruption which could be caused by erecting a new boat shed between the Coastal Pathway and the area.

6.23 Overall, 50% of submitters supported the plans, 38% opposed the plans, and 12% could not be determined.

6.24 Most (73%) of those who opposed the proposal were local residents (16). Around half of those who supported the plans (15) were current or past members of the Club, or family of members.

6.25 Submitters supported the plan for the following reasons:

6.25.1 It will improve the appearance of the area (11).

6.25.2 It will improve safety for sailors and the public (11).

6.25.3 It will bring benefits for the community, not just the club (9). Comments included that it represents growth and will be an asset for the community.

6.26 Submitters opposed the plan for the following reasons:

6.26.1 It obstructs the views of the estuary from properties, devaluing homes (14)

6.26.2 The fencing:

· Restricts public access (16).

· Was already strongly opposed during a consultation in 2023 (7).

6.26.3 It will have adverse ecological/environmental impacts (11).

6.26.4 It will negatively impact the coastal pathway (7).

6.26.5 It does not fit in with the natural landscape of the area (8).

6.26.6 It is inconsistent with the Public Open Space Strategy and Estuary management Plan (5).

6.26.7 It will benefit only a small number of people (5).

Submitters requested:

6.27 That the Club progress the ‘old rowing club’ platform (11), and the rebuild or remediation of the clubhouse building (6) before progressing further work.

6.28 That the Club use temporary fencing when it is needed, instead of permanent (6).

6.29 Key Issues and Submissions in Support - Officers’ Assessment:

Issue Raised	Staff Comment
Rebuild and extend existing wharf/concourse, rebuild west ramp-Related Issues
Impacts on the natural habitat – Environmental effects on the estuary have been cited as a concern by submitters.	Based on the landowner approval request, the applicant has not yet provided expert advice or evidence regarding the potential environmental effects of the proposal. However, the proposal cannot proceed without these effects being properly considered, assessed, and approved through the Resource Consent process. Should landowner approval be granted, a condition will be included to ensure that the development may only proceed if the Club demonstrates that the environmental effects are minor and obtains the necessary consents. It is also noted the development is occurring almost exclusively over an existing modified area (i.e. over an existing concrete boat ramp area).
Building Related Issues
Concerns about design and aesthetics – The revised building design, featuring three narrow and high-pitched roofs, is criticized for resembling "cheaply built multi-unit residential units" and having a "prison fencing look" with the continued vertical bar fence and gates.	The Club has carefully considered the initial feedback received regarding the first iteration of the building’s design. One of the key concerns raised was regarding the proposed rock wall, which initially was intended to screen the boat shed and visually align with the existing rock wall along the adjacent road and pathway. In response, the Club engaged their architect to revise the plans significantly. These changes included reducing the overall scale of the building and reimagining its form to better reflect the character of a traditional boat shed, rather than concealing it behind a wall. Additionally, a large opening was introduced between the new shed and the existing clubhouse to provide views of the estuary and surrounding environment. While aesthetic preferences will always vary, the Club has made a genuine effort to acknowledge and incorporate the concerns of submitters. The revised design reflects thoughtful input from a qualified architect and demonstrates a sincere attempt to address the issues raised. In addition, the amenity effects of the proposal will be further evaluated in detail through the Resource Consent process with Christchurch City Council, should the project proceed to that stage.
Objection to location and impact of the building development on views – A primary concern is the placement of the new building on the coastal pathway, with residents emphasising the obstruction of scenic estuary and sea views, which they believe will negatively impact their property values and diminish the public's enjoyment of the area.	As previously outlined, the Club responded to initial feedback regarding the impact on views by reducing the overall length of the building’s façade by 41%. In addition, the originally proposed rock wall was removed and replaced with open-style fencing, significantly improving visual permeability through the site. It is acknowledged that the building and fencing will alter the outlook for some residents and pathway users. However, this change must be considered alongside the Club’s legitimate need to provide secure storage within the site constraints, such as access to flat land above the high tide line.
Noise impact – concerns about potential noise increase from the construction and reflection of traffic sound from the new building.	It is acknowledged that the proposed building may alter the way road traffic noise is experienced on surrounding sites. However, given the location’s proximity to a busy thoroughfare, traffic noise is an inherent and unavoidable characteristic of the area. As such, potential changes in noise dynamics are not considered a reasonable reason to oppose development on this site. 6.30 It is also noted that the Christchurch District Plan does not treat road traffic noise as a breach of its noise standards, since those standards apply to noise generated by activities on a site, not ambient environmental noise like traffic.
Fencing Related Issues
Impact on public access and use – Residents highlight the importance of the Moncks Bay estuary as a multi-use public space and fear that the new construction and fencing will restrict access for non-yacht club users, effectively privatising a public asset. Not happy that the fence was consulted on in 2023 with community opposition and the updated proposal contradicts this community feedback.	The Club, on selling the site to the Council in the 1980’s, secured a right in perpetuity to occupy the site in exclusivity (i.e. essentially privatising the site). Regardless of the Club’s rights, it is proposing to maintain public access (via an open gate) subject to their discretion and conditions of use. The key times public access may be denied to the public are during events/regattas, after daylight hours, and if there is ongoing vandalism to the site. Suggestion received that the fence should be left open when the club is not operating. Note: the considerations above are no longer strictly relevant following the Club’s late decision to withdraw request for fencing on the east side.
Visual impact and unsightly – Concerns regarding fencing having a visual impact, and that the fencing style and colour not in keeping with the area.	The Club have changed the fencing proposed initially, and are proposing a new, open style 1.4m fence of a light grey appearance to blend in with the environment. Although it is a change from the existing rope style barrier, it is this officer’s opinion that it is not overly obstructive or unsightly, and fencing of a similar nature is common along this stretch of waterfront (namely the fencing along the new Coastal Pathway). The Parks Unit have offered to contribute as neighbour to a share of the costs for fencing to match other fencing on the Coastal Pathway. Note: the considerations above are no longer strictly relevant following the Club’s late decision to withdraw request for fencing on the east side.
Suggestion that the fence should be left open when the club is not operating	No longer relevant following the Club’s late decision to withdraw request for fencing on the east side.
Temporary fencing and/or lower fencing – Options of lower fencing styles and suggestion of the Club putting up temporary fencing for event days were proposed by some submitters.	These submissions refer to the east side fencing and are no longer relevant following the Club’s decision to withdraw request for fencing on that boundary. Note that the Club may explore further the option of temporary fencing as a management tool.
General Issues
Safety concerns with pathway – regarding the building and fencing design and interface with the coastal pathway.	The plans have been revised to include an open-style fence, significantly improving visibility to the adjacent pathway. This represents a substantial improvement over the originally proposed high stone wall, which would have created a more enclosed and obstructive frontage. To further enhance safety, the gate is now proposed to swing inward, reducing potential risks to pathway users. The Club has confirmed that this entrance will be used only for emergency access or limited entry during events and maintenance. It is not intended to serve as the primary access point to the site; the main entrance will continue to be via the car park. This secondary entrance will be subject to further assessment as part of the City Council’s resource consent process.
Addressing existing issues – there's a call to address unresolved issues with existing incomplete yacht club facilities (eg, earthquake repairs) before considering new developments. I.e. they should prioritise other projects.	While the opinion is acknowledged, it is important to note that this matter falls outside the scope of Council’s discretion. Decisions regarding investment priorities and development sequencing are the responsibility of the Club itself. That said, the Club has provided clear and reasonable justification for its decision to invest in the wider site prior to undertaking redevelopment of the existing clubhouse. These considerations include: · The current clubroom remains functional and fit for purpose. · Budget constraints necessitate a staged approach to development. · Operational functionality and safety require the broader site to be established before focusing on the more complex and costly clubhouse redevelopment. · Progress is already underway on the adjacent rowing club site. · Improvements have been made to the existing clubhouse, including a recent re-roofing. · Establishing the boatshed, infrastructure, and rigging area first will allow the Club to continue operating effectively during any future redevelopment or repair of the clubhouse. In light of this rationale, the Club’s approach is supported, and it is not considered that this matter is grounds to decline their request.
Loss of access to the estuary and facilities – the site currently is unfenced and there is free and open access to both the estuary and the Club infrastructure including the boat ramp and pontoon.	It is noted that the Club has held exclusive rights to the site since the original licence was granted in the 1970s. The infrastructure on the site is owned, managed, and maintained by the Club. It is not a public asset, although the Club has historically allowed public use. Technically, the proposal does not alter the legal status of the site, which remains under exclusive licence. However, it is acknowledged that the perception of ownership may shift as a result of the proposed changes. To mitigate this, the Club has proposed to provide public access via a gated entry. Given the clear and legally binding licence the Club holds over the site, it is considered that the Club has the right to control public access to this small stretch of the estuary in order to carry out its activities. Notably, the Club has also proposed to maintain a level of public access that exceeds its legal obligations.
Impact on property values – Concerns from residents that the development will devalue their properties.	While the concern about property values is appreciated, it's worth noting that the impact of development is rarely one-dimensional. Many factors contribute to property valuation, and well-executed projects often bring long-term benefits. Improved infrastructure, new amenities, and increased community engagement could enhance the appeal of an area. The Club retains development rights under its licence to meet the needs of its users, and it is important that these rights are considered thoughtfully alongside the legitimate concerns of neighbouring residents.
Inconsistent with the Council’s Policies – namely the Public Open Space Strategy 2010-2040 and the Estuary Management Plan 2020-2030.	6.31 Open Space Strategy Comment: Supporting Recreation: The Open Space Strategy emphasizes enhancing recreational opportunities and access to coastal areas. A sailing club offering better facilities for water-based recreation aligns with this goal. 6.32 Community Use: 6.33 Although the Club holds an exclusive license, it has historically allowed public access and proposes to maintain a level of access even after redevelopment. Design Sensitivity: The Club has revised its plans to reduce visual impact and improve sight lines, which supports the Strategy’s emphasis on preserving open space character. It is considered, on balance, and given the existing licence and the nature of the proposal and intended use, the application is generally consistent with this strategy. Estuary Management Plan (Not a CCC Document) It is noted firstly that technically the area of the proposal is positioned in a separate title that does not fall into the Common Marine and Coastal Area (CMCA) and the corresponding Act. Support for Safe Recreation: The Estuary Management Plan promotes safe and inclusive recreational use of Te Ihutai. The Club’s role in facilitating sailing and water-based activities contributes to this goal, especially if public access is maintained or enhanced. Stewardship and Infrastructure: The Club has historically maintained its infrastructure and allowed public use. Its revised plans—including a reduced building footprint and improved sight lines—show responsiveness to community feedback and landscape values. Environmental Responsibility: The Plan emphasizes clean water, healthy ecosystems, and reduced environmental impact. While the Club has not yet provided expert environmental assessments, these will be required through the Resource Consent process, ensuring alignment with the Plan’s ecological standards. In summary, the Club’s redevelopment is not inherently inconsistent with the Estuary Management Plan. The formal assessment of such environmental concerns will be considered in the resource consent process.
Questioning the benefit versus impact – question whether the benefits for the yacht club outweigh the significant negative impacts on the wider community's access, amenity, and property values.	Environmentel impact and the balance of effects is a matter that will be considered in detail as part of the Resource Consent process. The project will not proceed unless it passes this gateway.
Call for iwi consultation – The need for proper consultation with mana whenua regarding the cultural significance of the estuary is emphasized.	Consultation with Mana Whenua has been undertaken and described in Section 6.31-6.34 below.
Impacts on the principal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi along with the Marine and Coastal Areas Act	Engagement has taken place with the relevant Treaty Settlement entities, and their interests have been acknowledged as part of the process. While it is recognised that the site lies partially within the vicinity of the Mean High-Water Springs (MHWS) and the estuarine environment, the proposal does not seek to alter the boundaries of the title or the associated licence. Rather, it involves the installation of infrastructure within an area of exclusive freehold title, designed to meet the operational needs of the sailing club. The proposal does not extend beyond the boundaries of the title into the Common Marine and Coastal Area (CMCA). In accordance with the Resource Management Act (RMA), the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be considered as part of the assessment of environmental effects. This ensures that any potential impacts on tangata whenua values are appropriately addressed. Section 6.29 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 defines the CMCA as the area between the MHWS and the outer limits of the territorial sea, excluding land held in freehold title or other specified ownership. As the proposed development is entirely contained within land held in freehold title by Christchurch City Council, it falls outside the scope of this Act.
Submissions items in Support
Support for the Yacht Club's Progress – feedback in support for the yacht club's updated proposal mention that the club is a valuable community asset.	Noted.
Support for the improvements to the visual appearance of the area – feedback was received that the upgrades would improve the outlook for the area that is generally run down.	It is noted that much of the area and infrastructure is nearing end of life and is starting to look degraded.
Improved Safety Outcome – comments that the fence will help mitigate existing safety issues between club users and the public during events.	It has been identified that there have been witnessed public altercation during events with club users and pontoon. The luCb has also provided photos of this issue. It is agreed that a fence and additional signage will likely improve the management of this issue. It is also noted the Club’s right to exclusive use of the area and its assets (including the club built and funded pontoon).
Submissions in support highlighted the importance of the Yacht Club in the community	Noted.

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

6.34.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.35 The decision does 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.

6.36 The decision does involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.37 The proposal was forwarded to the Treaty Partnership Team and considered by Whitiora on behalf of the Tuahuriri hapu. Issues were identified and have been addressed by staff. Whitiora have indicated that there are no further issues at this stage, noting that the proposal will require consideration at resource consent phase which they will be a party to.

6.38 Whitiora support was subject to written support from the Ihutai MR900 Trust. This has been provided verbally at the time of writing this report and will be confirmed in writing and provided at the meeting.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.39 The proposal in this report is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaption to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

6.40 The development proposed will involve use of new resources. The build will involve use of sustainable materials with re-use and recycling where possible.

6.41 Matters of adaptation will also be considered in detail as part of the subsequent Resource Consent process. It is noted that Sailing Clubs require to be adjoining the coast to operate, and this is recognised in the Policy direction of the Christchurch City District Plan, specifically Policy 18.2.2.1(g)iii.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, Parks staff to liaise with the Club on final designs and approve final designs, Property staff to amend licence when work is complete.

7.2 If approved, the Club will need to undertake the preparation and lodgement of Resource Consent to both the Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Regional Council, both of which will need to be granted if the proposal is to proceed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch Yacht Club - Updated Plans August 2025	25/1741438	60
b ⇩	BE1396-LA4817-Christchurch Yacht Club (Inc)	10/535166	69
c ⇩	BE1396-LA4817-CYC Licence variation 2008	23/569589	75

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Minutes of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Information Session/Workshop - Thursday, 29 May 2025

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jason Tickner - Parks & Recreation Planner

Felix Dawson - Leasing Consultant

Paris Porter - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Al Hardy - Manager Community Parks

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

10. Richmond Hill Road - Proposed Parking Changes and Pedestrian Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1455587
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Toni Dakers, Traffic Engineer Krystle Anderson, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to make a decision on proposed parking changes on Richmond Hill Road to improve access and safety for pedestrians.

1.2 This report has been written in response to a request from a member of the public, and concerns raised in the past about poor connectivity for pedestrians between the two hairpin bends adjacent to 54 and 70 Richmond Hill Road.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Richmond Hill Road - Proposed Parking Changes and Pedestrian Improvements 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 traffic control or parking and stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4-7 below.

4. Approves the road layout, on the section of Richmond Hill Road between 54 and 70 Richmond Hill Road, as detailed on Attachment A to this report (Drawings 3338711-CA-202 Rev A and 3338711-CA-201 Rev B, dated 02/09/2025).

5. 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 on the northwest side of Richmond Hill Road, as detailed on Attachment A to this report (Drawings 3338711-CA-202 Rev A and 3338711-CA-201 Rev B, dated 02/09/2025).

6. 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 on the southeast side of Richmond Hill Road, as detailed on Attachment A to this report (Drawings 3338711-CA-202 Rev A and 3338711-CA-201 Rev B, dated 02/09/2025).

7. Approves, in accordance with Section 319(1)(f), 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974, that the path on the northwest side of Richmond Hill Road, between the two hair pin bends and as identified on Attachment A to this report (Drawings 3338711-CA-202 Rev A and 3338711-CA-201 Rev B, dated 02/09/2025) be resolved as a footpath. This path is for the use of pedestrians only, as defined in 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

8. 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).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Concerns have been raised about the safety of pedestrians walking on the section of Richmond Hill Road between the two hair-pin bends. The footpath is poorly defined along this section of road as the kerb is largely flush with the road.

3.2 Due to the narrow road width, drivers park across the kerb to leave space for through traffic. At times these vehicles fully obstruct access for pedestrians who are then required to walk on the carriageway to manoeuvre around them.

3.3 The recommended option is to mark dedicated parking bays for up to 13 vehicles, and no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A. This option was developed in response to feedback from the Community Board at the decision meeting in November 2024 (Agenda, Item 10).

3.4 This option takes into account the site constraints and seeks to find a balance between providing for pedestrians and addressing concerns raised through consultation about the loss of parking and associated risks of increased speeds.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 Staff presented a proposal for improvements on Richmond Hill Road to the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board at their meeting held on 14 November 2024 (Agenda, Item 10). At this meeting the Board resolved for Staff to explore an alternate option that provides for a defined footpath and defined car parking areas (Minutes, Item 10).

4.2 Following this, an initial concept plan was presented at a Community Board workshop in May 2025 (Agenda, Item 3). This option incorporated various elements (give way controls, marked bays, signage) for the purpose of discussion, and has since been developed further to reflect the current operation of the road and ongoing feedback.

4.3 Richmond Hill Road has a carriageway width of around five to six metres on the section between the two hairpin bends. In addition, there is a sealed path over the majority of this length which is around one metre wide and separated by low mountable kerb.

4.4 The path is programmed for a surfacing renewal this financial year as part of Councils resurfacing programme. Maintenance works are also planned which includes battening where required to support the path edge and maximise the usable space for pedestrians.

4.5 Due to the site constraints, any option that provides for both parking and pedestrian access will have some compromises between the amount of parking that can be retained and the clear width that can be allocated for pedestrians.

Traffic Environment

4.6 Richmond Hill Road is a no-exit local road providing access to residential properties. It has a 40km/h posted speed limit. Under the current Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024, there is no requirement to reverse this speed limit, nor is there an allowance to reduce this further.

4.7 Tube count surveys were undertaken in February 2024 outside 62 Richmond Hill Road, and further uphill on the straight near 102 Richmond Hill Road.

4.8 A summary of the key speed survey data is included in the table below.

Survey Location	Average Speed(km/h)		85^th percentile Speed (km/h)
Survey Location	Uphill	Downhill	Uphill	Downhill
62 Richmond Hill Rd	30.1	29.0	35.5	34.6
102 Richmond Hill Rd	39.7	42.4	47.3	50.0

Table 1: Speed survey summary

4.9 Both the average speed and 85^th percentile speed recorded outside 62 Richmond Hill Road are well below the posted speed limit of 40km/h. The speeds increase outside 102 Richmond Hill Road on the straight section of road further uphill around the bend, where the road widens.

4.10 A search of the NZ Transport Agency Crash Analysis System has been undertaken. There have been no crashes reported on Richmond Hill Road within the last five years. Richmond Hill Road is classified as low risk under Council’s risk mapping system.

4.11 A pedestrian walkway is located between 62 and 64 Richmond Hill Road which connects to the lower part of Richmond Hill Road. This is steep and narrow in places so is not suitable for all pedestrians.

4.12 The narrow road width requires drivers to slow to give way to oncoming traffic before manoeuvring around parked vehicles. Parking demands on this section of Richmond Hill Road are variable. Up to 12 vehicles were observed by staff during initial site visits. During ongoing investigations up to 14 parked vehicles have been observed on this section of road. However, feedback from residents is that 15 or 16 vehicles are present at times.

4.13 These vehicles are parked on the northwest side of the road, with the majority parking on the section of road downhill of the walkway entrance (located between 62 and 64 Richmond Hill Road).

4.14 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within the current financial year, following the planned resurfacing of the path.

4.15 The following related briefings/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
29/05/2025	Workshop with Community Board to discuss concept plan https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/05/ISWS_20250529_AGN_10075_AT.PDF
14/11/2024	November 2024 Community Board meeting – Staff report presenting initial options (item 10) https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/11/SCBCC_20241114_AGN_9351_AT.PDF
25/07/2024	Community Board Briefing to provide a background to the proposal and advise the Board that staff were intending to consult on the original Consultation Plan https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/07/ISWS_20240725_AGN_10058_AT.PDF

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.16.1 Option 1 - Recommended Option: Mark no stopping restrictions and defined parking bays in accordance with Attachment A. This option will retain parking for 13 vehicles. Red surfacing is proposed in addition to minor signage improvements.

4.16.2 Option 2 – Revised 2024 Report Plan: Mark no stopping restrictions and pedestrian markings between the pedestrian walkway and footpath to the northeast/uphill. Three parking spaces will be retained in the section uphill of the walkway; one more compared to the previous 2024 version of this plan. No change is proposed to the lower section where most of the parking demand is observed (Attachment B).

4.16.3 Option 3 – Original Consultation Plan: Mark no stopping restrictions over the full section of road, retaining five parking spaces only, in accordance with the original consultation plan (Attachment C).

4.16.4 Option 4 – Do Minimum: Do minimum. Red surfacing and minor warning signage changes only.

4.17 All options have focused on low cost signage and line marking changes only. There is no funding available for any physical works such as road widening, new kerbs or relocating power poles. However as noted above, in addition to these options, maintenance works are planned to maximise the usable space for pedestrians.

4.18 Any work to widen the road/footpath or construct any additional pedestrian walkways or infrastructure will need to be funded through the Councils Long Term Plan. A thorough options assessment including geotechnical/structural investigation would need to be undertaken as part of that process.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.19 The Advantages of these options are summarised in Table 2 below:

Option 1 Recommended Option	Option 2 Revised 2024 Plan	Option 3 Original Consultation Plan	Option 4 Do Minimum
Parking
Retains parking for up to 13 vehicles. Specifies exactly where vehicles are permitted to park, clearly defining the space for both pedestrians and drivers.	No change to the current parking provision on the section of road downhill of #62 (the walkway entrance). Retains three parks uphill of the walkway.	None identified.	No changes to current parking provision.
Pedestrian Access
Maintains a minimum of 600mm between the fence line and parked vehicles to ensure vehicles won’t completely block access for pedestrians walking on the path. For those requiring more space, the proposed yellow lines and marked bays will reduce the length (and time) pedestrians will be required to walk on the road to manoeuvre around parked vehicles, compared to the existing operation. Yellow lines marked adjacent to power poles to allow pedestrians to manoeuvre around them. Provides a clearly defined pedestrian space.	Provides some improvement for pedestrians compared to the existing arrangement by providing a more defined space for pedestrians to connect between the existing walkway and formed footpath uphill of #70.	Ensures the full section of path will be clear of parked vehicles. Yellow lines marked adjacent to power poles to allow pedestrians space to manoeuvre around them.	Red surfacing and minor changes to pedestrian warning signage will advise drivers of the presence of pedestrians in this area and the change in road environment.
Speed
Road markings and parked vehicles will visually narrow down the space. This is expected to have a positive effect on speed management. Drivers are required to slow vehicle speeds to manoeuvre around parked vehicles and give way to oncoming traffic to assist with managing speeds.	Since the majority of parking is being retained, this option is not expected to result in increased speeds through this section of road. Drivers will still be required to slow to manoeuvre around parked vehicles and give way to oncoming traffic which will assist with managing speeds.	None identified.	No changes to current speed patterns. Speed surveys were undertaken in February 2024 with an average speed of 29.5 km/hr recorded over the 7-day survey period. However, the speed of drivers through this section remains a concern for adjacent properties.
Through Traffic
Space is provided between the parking bays (by marked yellow lines) to provide space for conflicting vehicles to give way to approaching traffic.	The marking of yellow lines uphill of #62 will provide some improvement for through traffic – parking will be permitted in three specific locations on the wider section of road.	This option will result in fewer obstructions for through traffic with only five parking spaces retained. With less parking on street there will be improved access and visibility for through traffic.	None identified.
General
This option provides the best balance by retaining parking to meet most of the observed parking demand but also allocates specific pedestrian space.	This option was developed in response to the original consultation feedback; it aimed to provide some improvement for pedestrians but minimise the loss of parking and associated risks of increased speeds compared to the consultation option.	In response to concerns raised though the original consultation process, this option was not presented as the recommended option in the November report.	Lowest cost to implement - some road marking improvements such as red surfacing and upgrades to warning signage would still be undertaken with this option.

Table 2: Summary of option advantages

4.20 The disadvantages of these options are summarised in Table 3 below:

Option 1 Recommended Option	Option 2 Revised 2024 Plan	Option 3 Original Consultation Plan	Option 4 Do Minimum
Parking
Removes the ability for drivers to choose to park in other locations that may be more convenient for them. While the proposal retains parking for 13 vehicles, this may not meet the full demand for parking at times.	Three parking spaces will be retained uphill of the walkway. This won’t fully meet the observed parking demands during busier periods where up to four vehicles have been observed on this section. During these times any overflow parking will move to other parts of Richmond Hill Road.	This option retains around five car parks in locations where the road is wide enough to accommodate them. Parking provision is notably less than the current residential parking demands (staff have observed between 12-14 vehicles however residents have reported 15-16 at times) This would therefore not be sufficient to meet the current on street parking demands in this immediate area and will move these vehicles to other locations, either further uphill or downhill of this location.	None identified.
Pedestrian Access
On the narrowest section of road, a minimum clearance of 600mm will be provided between the fence line and edge of the marked parking bays. This will provide space for pedestrians to walk, but will be insufficient for some, including those with prams. However as noted above, the proposed yellow lines and marked bays will provide an improvement on the existing operation by reducing the length (and time) these pedestrians will be required to walk on the road to manoeuvre around parked vehicles. No changes are proposed to the location of power poles or other physical obstructions.	The width proposed for pedestrians on the upper section is defined by the existing kerbline. In places this is less than the desirable minimum of 1.5 metres for a footpath. The section downhill of the walkway will remain unchanged. This option does not fully address the original concerns raised about parked vehicles obstructing access for pedestrians. Therefore, at times pedestrians will still be required to walk on the carriageway to navigate around parked vehicles. No changes are proposed to the location of power poles or other physical obstructions.	The path width is defined by the existing kerbline, which in places is less than the desirable minimum of 1.5 metres for a footpath. Due to the flush kerb, there were concerns raised through consultation that through traffic will encroach into the path of pedestrians. The proposed road marking and other physical constraints such as the power poles will provide clear delineation for through traffic to reduce this risk. No changes are proposed to the location of power poles or other physical obstructions.	Parked vehicles will continue to impede access for pedestrians over the full section of road.
Speed
None identified.	None identified.	Parked vehicles assist with managing speeds so there is a risk that the speed of through traffic will increase with this option. However, it is noted that this is still a narrow road and opposing drivers will still be required to slow and give way to approaching traffic.	None identified.
Through Traffic
The available width for through traffic will be more constrained compared to the existing layout. Providing clearance for pedestrians will result in vehicles being parked slightly further out. The plan provides a minimum 3.2m wide traffic lane which is sufficient to accommodate one lane of traffic. This will operate in the same way as the existing layout where drivers will need to yield to oncoming traffic.	With the potential for more vehicles to be parked on the lower section of road during busy times, space for vehicles to stop to give way to oncoming traffic will be more constrained, this is particularly an issue when larger vehicles are travelling on the road. There are however existing no stopping restrictions already marked in critical locations such as on the bends to improve visibility and clearance for through traffic.	None identified.	There will be no change to the current operation of the road. The road will continue to operate with essentially one way traffic with limited defined space for opposing vehicles to give way.
General
With the very constrained carriageway width available, drivers will be required to park accurately to ensure they do not encroach into the pedestrian space or obstruct through traffic.	As above, this option does not fully address the issues raised about pedestrian safety on the lower section of road. It was intended to provide some improvement compared to the existing but also consider concerns raised through consultation feedback.	The majority of public submissions during the original consultation process were opposed to this option (79%).	This option does not address any of the issues raised around pedestrian access and safety. This option (along with signage upgrades) was the preferred option through consultation.

Table 3: Summary of option disadvantages

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2	Option 3	Do Minimum*
Cost to Implement - Capital	$10,250 for new markings and signage	$2,200 for new markings and signage	$5,050 for new markings and signage	$6,400 (red surfacing and signage)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Will be added to and covered by the area maintenance contract
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Team Traffic Signs and Markings budget
Funding Availability	Funding available
Impact on Rates	Negligible	Negligible	Negligible	Negligible

*The estimated cost for the Do Minimum is higher than those for Option 2 and Option 3 as it includes red surfacing.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The constraints of the site will mean that any pedestrian space will be less than the recommended minimum width of 1.5m for a footpath. The recommended option will continue to support a slower speed environment by the retention of on-street parking and associated road marking to manage this risk.

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 The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Delegations Register. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping and traffic control devices.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.3.2 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy.

6.4.3 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

6.5 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <95 crashes per year

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The original consultation plan for Richmond Hill Road (Option 3) was consulted on between 2 August and 8 September 2024. Submissions were made by four organisations and 61 individuals. The majority (49, 79%) did not support this plan.

6.9 Following the 14 November 2024 Community Board meeting, staff returned to the Community Board for a workshop on 29 May 2025 and presented a new option with marked parking bays (Option 1).

6.10 A site visit was then organised with staff, Community Board Members and the affected residents. The residents expressed concerns about ongoing maintenance of the road and longer-term solutions, but many indicated they were comfortable with Option 1 (shown at the Community Board workshop) as a short-term solution.

6.11 Option 1 was updated with minor changes and sent to residents on 15 August 2025 inviting questions or feedback by 28 August 2025.

6.12 Staff received feedback or questions from five residents:

· One resident on the lower section of affected part of Richmond Hill Road was disappointed with the removal of parking and felt this would result in vehicles travelling faster. They felt the walking track should be used for people to walk to the bottom of the hill.

· One resident provided positive feedback on the plan and said they felt Council had thought hard about meeting the needs of everyone.

· One resident asked why the speed limit wasn’t being reduced. Staff responded with information about how we can set speeds under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule.

· One resident asked whether a power pole could be moved. Staff responded explaining why it couldn’t be moved as part of this project.

· Staff had not heard from the Richmond Hill Residents Group at the close of the feedback period. Staff phoned the main coordinator to ask if they wanted to provide feedback. They said they would provide written feedback but outlined that they didn’t like Option 1 and would prefer the Board choose a ‘do nothing’ option but add signage. They felt a better, longer-term option needed to be explored. Staff had not received any written feedback from this group before this report was due.

6.13 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

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

6.14.1 Heathcote Ward.

6.14.2 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The proposal in this report is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will arrange for the new markings to be installed. This will be programmed to align with the planned path renewal.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Option 1 - Recommended Option	25/1777328	95
b ⇩	Option 2 - Revised 2024 Option	25/1761555	97
c ⇩	Option 3 - Original Consultation Plan (2024)	25/1778168	98

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Toni Dakers - Traffic Engineer

Krystle Anderson - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kathy Graham - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

12. Charlesworth Street / Olds Place Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1671083
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Toni Dakers, 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 for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions at the Charlesworth Street / Olds Place intersection.

1.2 This report has been written in response to concerns raised by a member of the public about parked vehicles obstructing access and visibility at the intersection, specifically for emergency service vehicles accessing the Woolston Fire Station and Woolston Fire Training Centre on Olds Place.

1.3 The recommended option is to install no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Charlesworth Street / Olds Place Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions 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 4-6 below.

4. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Charlesworth Street, commencing at a point 90 metres northeast of its intersection with Ferry Road, and extending in a northeast direction for a distance of 29 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (TG150186, dated 20/8/2025).

5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Olds Place, commencing at its intersection with Charlesworth Street, and extending in a southeast direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (TG150186, dated 20/8/2025).

6. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Olds Place, commencing at its intersection with Charlesworth Street, and extending in a southeast direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (TG150186, dated 20/8/2025).

7. 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).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Safety concerns have been raised by a nearby resident about parked vehicles restricting visibility and access at the intersection of Charlesworth Street and Olds Place.

3.2 This is particularly an issue for fire engines and other large vehicles turning at the intersection to access the Woolston Fire Station and Woolston Fire Training Centre, located at the southern end of Olds Place.

3.3 The recommended option is to install no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Charlesworth Street and Olds Place form an uncontrolled T intersection, with priority given to Charlesworth Street.

4.2 The Woolston Fire Station and Woolston Fire Training Centre are located at the end of Olds Place. The main access to the Woolston Fire Station is provided via Ferry Road, however the rear entrance via Olds Place is also used for emergency response.

4.3 Charlesworth Street is on the Russley / Mt Pleasant metro bus route (Route 140).

4.4 There is a moderate parking demand near the intersection associated with adjacent residential properties.

4.5 Charlesworth Street narrows at the intersection to 7 metres wide. No stopping restrictions are already provided on the southeast side, however this is insufficient to ensure unimpeded access for emergency vehicles. The length of the proposed no stopping restrictions is based on a tracking assessment for a fire engine.

4.6 The proposal will result in the removal of up to five on street parking spaces.

4.7 There have been no crashes reported at the Charlesworth Street / Olds Place intersection within the last five years. The intersection is classified as low risk under Council’s risk mapping system.

4.8 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within the current financial year (generally around four weeks after the contractor receives the request, but this is subject to other factors such as resourcing and prioritisation beyond Council’s control).

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Mark no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

4.9.2 Do nothing.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Mark no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

4.10.1 Option Advantages

· Prevents parked vehicles from impeding access for drivers manoeuvring at the intersection, including emergency service vehicles.

· Reduces the risk of conflict between opposing traffic at the intersection.

· Ensures the crossing points on Olds Place are kept clear.

· Improves access for through traffic on Charlesworth Street, including metro buses.

4.10.2 Option Disadvantages

· Removal of up to five on-street parking spaces.

· Cost to implement

4.11 Alternative Option – Do nothing

4.11.1 Option Advantages and Disadvantages

· The advantages and disadvantages of this option are the opposite to those described for the preferred option above.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Do Nothing
Cost to Implement: Capital: Operational:	- Approximately $320 for line marking - $750 for staff time (reporting and investigation)	n/a - $750 for staff time (reporting and investigation)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Will be added to and covered by the area maintenance contract	n/a
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Team Operational budget	n/a
Funding Availability	Funding available	n/a
Impact on Rates	Negligible	n/a

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.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy.

6.5 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <95 crashes per year

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by letter drop and post. 12 letters were delivered.

6.9 One submission was received; this was from the resident who raised the original concern and was supportive of the proposal. They have observed ongoing issues with parked vehicles impeding access for larger vehicles manoeuvring to/from Olds Place (including emergency service vehicles, delivery trucks and rubbish trucks), as well as through traffic on Charlesworth Street.

6.10 As part of the submission, they also raised concerns with speeds on Charlesworth Street and suggested speed humps be installed to address this. There are no current plans to install speed humps on this street however a speed survey has been ordered to confirm current traffic patterns. Any relevant information will be sent to Police to assist with enforcement (if they have available resource).

6.11 Staff also contacted the Woolston Fire Station as part of the investigation. They agree with the concern raised about access being impeded at times and confirmed their support for the proposal.

6.12 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

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

6.13.1 Heathcote Ward

6.13.2 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The proposal in this report is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will arrange for the markings to be installed.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan - Charlesworth Street / Olds Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	25/1673685	110

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Toni Dakers - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation - Safety

Kathy Graham - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

13. Westmorland West Valley Reserve - Landscape Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/633613
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katelyn Elley, Parks and Recreation Planner and Megan Carpenter - Team Leader Parks & Recreation Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board for the approval of the Westmorland West Valley Reserve landscape plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Westmorland West Valley Reserve - Landscape Plan 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. Approve the landscape plan as shown in Attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This landscape plan aims to ensure there is a forward plan to inform planting in the valley, establishment of fire management controls, and location of an additional recreational link to support broader recreational connectivity to surrounding areas.

3.2 Regional Parks staff have worked closely with the South West Baptist Church (SWBC) to develop a six-year community planting programme and ensure alignment to other requirements of the reserve.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Staff have prepared a landscape plan for Westmorland West Valley Reserve. The purpose of this plan is to align future planting, fire management controls, and track development in the reserve.

4.2 West Valley Reserve is a Regional Park. The terrain of the reserve is steep with rock fall hazards in some locations.

4.3 The reserve is currently not open to the public and the area is managed by contract grazing. The base of the reserve is a stormwater basin managed by Three Waters. Community planting funded by Three Waters is set to begin in this area this year.

Planting

4.4 There has been interest from the Southwest Baptist Church (SWBC) to undertake planting in the reserve. Regional Park rangers have engaged with this group and have developed a six-year staged planting programme. Staff have signed a volunteer agreement with SWBC to undertake this work starting in 2026.

4.5 The planting will include a variety of fire resilient and drought tolerant species. These will include a mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The known maximum height of the tallest trees is 25m for kowhai and 25 – 30m for totara and matai, however, it will take many years for these to reach this height. The taller tree species will be planted further below residential boundaries, therefore should not impact on existing residential views. See Attachment A for proposed planting stages and plant types.

Fire Management

4.6 Following fires in recent years in the Port Hills there has been an increasing need for fire management. The plan includes a proposed 20-meter-wide fire buffer zone around the edge of the valley to be fenced and grazed. A stock yard is proposed in the plan to facilitate the grazing of these areas. Fire resilient species will be planted throughout the valley to further mitigate fire risk.

4.7 Fencing is planned to be installed once approval is granted.

Track and Carpark

4.8 The plan includes a shared used track from Penruddock Rise to Cashmere Road to provide linkage between adjacent valleys. The establishment of this track will allow mountain bike and walking access all the way from the Adventure Park, through Westmorland East and West Valley Reserves to Te Kuru and other areas of Halswell.

4.9 Given the harsh terrain and rock hazard areas this is an indicative track, subject to detailed design and consent. Staff will monitor the area over various seasons to determine the safest and most practicable alignment.

4.10 A proposed carpark and accessway off Cashmere Road will allow the public to access the reserve. It is intended that once developed, the reserve will be opened to the public.

Funding

4.11 The proposed planting programme, stock yard, and fencing will be funded by the Three Waters project ID #69218 SW Port Hills Revegetation and Sediment Control Stage 1 and planted by volunteers.

4.12 All other elements are to be covered under the following Regional Parks capital budgets.

4.12.1 Shared use track -If approved, staff will use Regional Parks Operational budget (staff time) to undertake further investigations/ detailed design of the track. Funding of $50,000 will be prioritised within the next five years in project ID 65873 Regional Parks Development for Port Hills & Banks Peninsula Delivery Package.

4.12.2 Accessway / Carpark – An expanded gravel carpark with post and cable fencing will be developed for $10,000 in Project ID 65873 Regional Parks Development for Port Hills & Banks Peninsula Delivery Package. It is expected that this will be prioritised within the next two years.

Westmorland East Valley Reserve

4.13 When preparing the landscape plan for Westmorland West Valley Reserve, a plan was also developed for the East Valley, including Ravensdale Park. This was shared for consultation with Westmorland Residents Association (WRA), Westmorland Ecology Group, and residents surrounding Ravensdale Park. Feedback revealed clear opposition to the proposed toilet block, perimeter path, and trees in Ravensdale Park. In response, staff will re-develop the plans considering the feedback received along with prior community requests, such as shelter from the wind around the existing playground.

4.14 Once a revised landscape plan is prepared, staff will undertake broader engagement with the Westmorland community before seeking Community Board approval. Staff expect community engagement to occur towards the end of 2025, before seeking Community Board approval in early 2026.

4.15 The following related memos/information were circulated to the meeting members.

Date	Subject
14 July 2025	Westmorland West and East Valley Reserve – Upcoming Community Engagement on Landscape Plan – refer attachment B

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.16.1 Approve the landscape plan for Westmorland West Valley Reserve that includes planting, fire management control, and a shared use track.

4.16.2 Do nothing.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.17 Preferred Option: Approve landscape plan for Westmorland West Valley Reserve.

4.17.1 Option Description: Approve the landscape plan for the reserve that includes planting, fire management control, and a shared use track.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Fire mitigation – The proposed fire buffer zone and planting low-flammability native species will improve fire resilience and support community safety.

· Planting – The proposed planting will support biodiversity and ecological resilience and aligns directly with the goals of Christchurch’s Biodiversity Strategy.

· A new shared track will connect the reserve into the wider valley network encouraging active travel, social access, and lifestyle benefits, and aligning with Christchurch’s Public Open Space Strategy to deliver a diverse and equitable green infrastructure network.

· Integrating planting, fire-management, access design, and track location into a single staged plan avoids future conflicting works, streamlines maintenance and reduces long‑term operational costs.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Due to the harsh and steep terrain an exact alignment for the shared use track cannot be determined at this stage and will be subject to further detailed design and consent.

4.18 Option 2 -Do nothing – Status Quo

4.18.1 Option Description: Status Quo.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

· No upfront capital cost.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to develop improved fire resilience.

· Missed opportunity for biodiversity and ecological outcomes if community planting cannot be undertaken.

· A gap in connectivity in the wider track network will remain.

· Without a landscape plan that integrates all elements, there is a risk of future conflicts between activities, leading to inefficiencies and potential ecological or operational issues.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 -Do nothing
Cost to Implement	· Plants and material – Total cost estimated at $192,000. Based on an estimated $25,000 per year +10% added each year. · Track- Estimated at $50,000* *Subject to increase if resource consent required · Fencing / Stock Yard - $30,000 · Carpark/ accessway -$10,000	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered by Regional Parks operational budgets	Covered by Regional Parks operational budgets – status quo
Funding Source	· Regional Parks Capital Budget ID 65873 Regional Parks Development for Port Hills & Banks Peninsula Delivery Package · Three Waters Capital Budget ID 69218 SW Port Hills Revegetation and Sediment Control Stage 1	N/A
Funding Availability	Yes	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that during further investigations/ detailed design that the proposed shared use track is deemed unfeasible. However, relevant staff have been on site and inspected the proposed location, received preliminary planning advice and have determined that this outcome is unlikely. However, the final alignment may slightly differ to what is proposed in this plan.

6.1.1 During consultation stakeholders and the community were made aware of this risk to manage community expectations.

6.1.2 Staff support including the proposed track in the landscape plan. Doing so enables progression for further investigations and detailed design, while ensuring that planned activities, such as the planting programme do not conflict and avoid the need for additional consultation or approvals later.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3 As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register, 20^th February 2025, the Community Board has the delegation to;

“Approve and adopt any new landscape development plans for parks and reserves provided the design is within the policy and budget set by the Council.”

(Part D – Sub Part 1 - Community Boards, pg. 96)

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by minimal impact on the community.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

· Climate Resilience Strategy 2021

· Biodiversity Strategy 2008 - 2035

· Public Open Space Strategy 2010 – 2040

· Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Plan 2024–54

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

6.7 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.7.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.3.5 Customer satisfaction with the recreational opportunities and ecological experiences provided by the City's Regional Parks - >=80%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Engagement started on 23 July until 11 August 2025.

6.9 Engagement involved:

6.9.1 Staff met with SWBC and WRA.

6.9.2 WRA shared the landscape plan with the community and held a public meeting on 30 and 31 July. Staff were present to discuss and receive feedback.

6.9.3 SWBC held a public meeting on 4 August to discuss the proposed landscape plan and allow the community to provide feedback.

Summary of Feedback

6.10 SWBC and WRA are overall supportive of the landscape plan.

6.11 Staff received four email submissions; all were overall supportive of the landscape plan.

6.12 Key feedback via email submission and during public/ stakeholder meetings including the following:

· Support for revegetation planting.

· Support for the fire buffer zone, many noting that this is essential given climate change and the risk posed to nearby residents.

· One individual was opposed to the fire buffer zone noting that they did not see the need and requested that planting is extended to the reserve boundary, however, were overall supportive of the plan.

· Support for the proposed track, many noting it would be a great addition to the network of tracks in the area.

· Some feedback noted that future planning should consider a safe link from the proposed track across Cashmere Road to Te Kuru.

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

6.13.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.16.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.17 The establishment of a fire buffer zone will help mitigate the heightened fire risk posed by climate change.

6.18 The proposed planting programme will reduce emissions by absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the proposed landscape plan is approved, the Regional Parks team will order plants for the 2026 planting season.

7.2 Further investigation and detailed design of the shared use track will be undertaken.

7.3 All other elements will be implemented when relevant funding is available.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Westmorland West Valley Reserve Landscape Plan	25/1608797	118
b ⇩	Memo to Communtiy Board - Westmorland West and East Valley Reserve - Upcoming Community Engagement on Landscape Plan	25/1685993	119

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Katelyn Elley - Parks and Recreation Planner

Megan Carpenter - Team Leader Parks & Recreation Planning

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Paul Devlin - Manager Regional Parks

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

14. Kordia Licence at Sugarloaf and Thomson Scenic Reserves
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1265500
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Community Board’s approval to grant a new long-term licence to Kordia Limited for the telecommunication site which straddles Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve and Thomson Scenic Reserve.

1.2 The licenced area involves land which is situated in two Christchurch City Council wards. A separate report was considered by Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board on 8 September 2025.

1.3 Officers will provide an update of the Banks Peninsula Community Board’s decision, as the meeting had not taken place prior to the report deadline. Approval by both Community Boards is required for the new licence to be granted.

1.4 The report is staff-generated at the request of Kordia, whose current lease expires on 31 August 2026.

1.5 Kordia Limited has requested a new licence to ensure continuity of services and ongoing investment in critical national infrastructure.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Kordia Licence at Sugarloaf and Thomson Scenic Reserves 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 the licenced area covers two Christchurch City Council wards being Banks Peninsula and Cashmere.

4. Notes the decision-making powers requested in this report relate to the licenced area within the Cashmere Ward. Dual consent is required by Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board and Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board to approve the granting of a new licence agreement; that report was considered on 8 September 2025.

5. Subject to the approval (8 September 2025) of Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board, Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board, approves the granting of a new licence to Kordia Limited for a term of 33 years commencing 1 September 2026 at an agreed rental of $77,000 per annum plus GST plus property rates recovery over that part of the land described as Res 4259 Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve and PT Res 4170 Thomson Scenic Reserve and shown in Attachment A to this report in accordance with Section 48A of the Reserves Act 1977.

6. Requests that the Manager Property Consultancy do all things necessary and make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the intent of this report to implement the resolutions above including completing negotiations for and administering the terms and conditions of the new licence.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Kordia operates a key telecommunications hub from the Sugarloaf and Thomson Scenic Reserves.

3.2 The lease, initially established in 1963 and expiring in 2026, supports services including emergency communications, cellular coverage, digital TV and FM broadcasting.

3.3 The new licence is essential for continuity of these services.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

The Land

4.1 The Kordia site is located within the Sugarloaf and Thomson Scenic Reserves which is managed under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 The land is described as Res 4259 Sugarloaf Scenic Reserve and PT Res 4170 Thomson Scenic Reserve. The Land is owned by the Crown and the Council has been appointed to control and manage the land.

4.3 The licence area, as shown in the Attachment A, consists of buildings, structures and land (area C) and an access road (area D).

4.4 The licence area covers two Christchurch City Council wards, namely the Cashmere Ward and the Banks Peninsula Ward as marked on Attachment A.

4.5 The current use as a telecommunications facility is longstanding and does not involve further expansion or intensification.

4.6 Continued use is deemed consistent with the reserve’s purpose under the current legislation, provided environmental effects remain managed and contained.

Strategic Importance and National Significance

4.7 The Sugarloaf site plays a critical role in the national telecommunications network.

4.8 It supports digital television, FM radio, cellular services, emergency communications, and microwave data transmission throughout Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region.

4.9 The site's elevation and infrastructure make it uniquely suited for high-frequency transmission, and there are no practical alternative locations with equivalent coverage or connectivity.

Continuity of Essential Services

4.10 The site is used by emergency services including NZ Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and Civil Defence for critical communications.

4.11 Disruption or loss of this site would have immediate and wide-ranging effects on public safety and communications resilience.

4.12 A long-term licence provides Kordia with the stability needed to ensure continuous operation and planned infrastructure maintenance.

Infrastructure Investment and Maintenance

4.13 Kordia has a long-standing presence on the site since 1963 and has invested significantly in maintaining the 120-metre telecommunications tower and associated buildings.

4.14 The company has committed to ongoing maintenance, including reroofing the facility during the next licence term.

4.15 Kordia is responsible for maintenance of the access road and land contained in the licence.

4.16 A secure licence is necessary for Kordia to justify continued investment in nationally significant infrastructure.

Licence Term and Rental

4.17 The proposed licence term is 33 years which is the maximum term permitted under the Reserves Act.

4.18 The annual rental was assessed by an independent valuer and both parties have agreed to a net rental of $77,000 plus GST and recovery of the proportionate Rates levy.

4.19 Market rent reviews will be completed every 11 years, with CPI rent adjustments made three-yearly.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.20.1 Option 1 (Preferred): Grant a new licence to Kordia.

4.20.2 Option 2: Short-term licence (e.g 10-15 years).

4.20.3 Option 3: Decline the licence request and decommission site.

4.21 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.21.1 Option to relocate facility – deemed impractical due to infrastructure, terrain, and national integration requirements.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.22 Preferred Option: Grant Long-term Licence.

4.22.1 Option Description: 33-year licence commencing 1 September 2026.

4.22.2 Option Advantages

· Ensures continuity of emergency and broadcast services

· Supports long-term national infrastructure planning

· Enables Kordia to undertake planned maintenance.

4.22.3 Option Disadvantages

· Long licence term reduces flexibility for future land use changes.

4.23 Option 2 - Short-Term Licence.

4.23.1 Option Description: 10- or 15-year term.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· Retains more flexibility over land use.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· Undermines certainty for infrastructure investment.

· May jeopardise national telecommunications service continuity.

4.24 Option 3 – Decline the licence request.

4.24.1 Option Description: Terminate licence at expiry.

4.24.2 Option Advantages

· Future flexibility for land use – Council could explore alternative uses of the site potentially aligning with updated strategic, environmental or recreational priorities for the scenic reserve.

4.24.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reputational risk to the Council

· Loss of the site could result in major outages or services

· May jeopardise national telecommunications service continuity.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

The proposal to grant a new licence to Kordia was assessed against the following key criteria:

4.25 Strategic and Operational Importance
The Sugarloaf site is essential to national and regional telecommunications, emergency services, and public broadcasting. Maintaining Kordia's long-term presence ensures continuity of these critical services.

4.26 Environmental and Land Use Compatibility
The licence involves no new development or intensification, aligns with current use of the scenic reserve, and does not adversely affect the environment or recreational values of the site.

4.27 Policy and Legal Alignment
The proposal supports the Council’s Long Term Plan objectives, complies with the Reserves Act 1977 (subject to public notification), and ensures responsible stewardship of public land without financial cost to ratepayers.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option 33 year Licence	Option 2 - Short Term Licence	Option 3 – Decline Licence
Cost to Implement	No capital cost to Council	No capital cost to Council	No cost to Council
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Ongoing maintenance remains with Kordia	Ongoing maintenance remains with Kordia	Grounds maintenance costs not yet quantified
Funding Source	N/A (tenant-funded)	N/A (tenant-funded)	Maintenance to come from Parks opex budgets
Funding Availability	N/A	N/A	Unknown
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Unknown

5.1 Operational Expenses incurred included the rental valuation, preparation of licence plan and staff administration costs in preparing the licence document. These costs are recovered through operational budgets. The rental valuation costs were split between both parties.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk of service disruption if the licence is not renewed; mitigated by granting a long-term licence.

6.2 Risk that there may be some community concern around leasing part of a scenic reserve to a corporate entity. Clear communication that this is a longstanding essential utility use with no change in the footprint or public access impacts and the fact that the licence supports critical infrastructure should mitigate that risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The land is owned by the Crown and Council has been appointed to control and manage the land.

6.3.2 Licences of Crown owned land must be approved by the Minister of Conservation. Delegated authority was granted to the Chief Executive in 2013 to make certain decisions that previously had to be referred to the Department of Conservation for the approval of the Minister of Conservation or their delegate. Chief Executive approval will be sought prior to execution of the licence ensuring that due process has been followed.

6.3.3 The reserves are subject to the Reserves Act 1977. Council must ensure continued compliance with permitted use under the Act.

6.3.4 The previous lease was issued prior to the Reserves Act 1977 and any occupation must now be by way of a licence.

6.3.5 The Sugarloaf site is on scenic reserves, and the applicable licencing provision is Section 48A - use of reserve for communication stations. Section 48A licences do not automatically exempt Council from public notification unless:

· The activity is already detailed in an approved management plan, or

· The reserve is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

6.3.6 In this instance, the Cashmere Spur and Bowenvale Valley Reserves Management Plan approved July 1991 contemplates the lease on Thomson Park/Sugarloaf Scenic Reserves for telecommunication purposes and therefore, public notification is not required.

6.3.7 Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 (the “Act”) – The Sugarloaf and Thomson Scenic Reserves fall within the area protected by the Act. The proposed licence to Kordia Limited relates to the continued use of an existing telecommunications facility with no new development or structural modifications proposed. As such, the proposal does not trigger notification or referral requirements under the Act. The Summit Road Protection Authority, including the Summit Road Protection Society, does not need to be consulted in this instance. The Society has however been notified by way of an email on 12 August 2025 from the Executive Secretary of the Authority of the intention to grant a new licence.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 Relevant Christchurch City Council policies including the Leasing Council Property policy.

6.4.2 The granting of a new licence complies with this policy as there is only one logical tenant for use of the public property where there are buildings on parks and reserves.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

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

· Resilient Infrastructure – the Sugarloaf telecommunications facility is a core component of Christchurch’s critical infrastructure, supporting emergency response, public broadcasting, and mobile/data services.

· Renewing the licence enables long-term continuity of these services, which is consistent with the Council’s commitment to building and maintaining resilient infrastructure networks.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the following considerations:

· Limited Public Impact – the licence affects a very small number of people directly and maintains the status quo of an existing facility. There is minimal potential for widespread community concern or disruption.

· No impact on strategic assets or Mana Whenua – the decision does not involve the sale or change in control of any strategic Council assets, and there is no identified impact on Māori land, culture, or traditions.

· High reversibility and low risk – the licence is fully within Council’s statutory powers under the Reserves Act, poses no financial risk, and can be controlled through standard licence conditions and review clauses.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The 2024-2034 LTP emphasises resilient infrastructure, continuity of essential services, and cost-effective stewardship of Council-managed assets.

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

6.7 The proposal meets the intent and direction of Council’s governing documents. It supports infrastructure continuity, prudent asset management, environmental care, and long-term planning – making the licence consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 There is a positive impact with the continuation of essential communications.

6.9 The continued operation of the facility directly contributes to the Council’s community outcomes, particularly:

6.9.1 Strong sense of community – enabling connection and access to emergency services.

6.9.2 A well-connected and accessible city – through high-quality telecommunications.

6.9.3 A safe and healthy city – through uninterrupted emergency and public service communications.

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

6.10.1 Cashmere Ward and Banks Peninsula Ward with benefits to the greater Christchurch area.

6.11 The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board view has not been canvassed directly; supporting the decision ensures infrastructure continuity and minimal site changes and supports Council’s long-term vision as a resilient, well-connected and sustainable city.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.14 The decision relates to operational continuity of nationally significant infrastructure and involves no changes to land use, expansion or new development.

6.15 The granting of a new licence supports the status quo and has no material impact on the relationship of Mana Whenua to the land, nor on their culture, traditions, or partnership arrangements with the Council.

6.16 Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke have been contacted directly and have no concerns with a further licence.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute negatively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions as there are minimal emissions or adaptation impact due to the existing infrastructure and no expansion is planned to the built infrastructure.

6.16 Reusing existing infrastructure rather than developing a new site reduces emissions and avoids additional environmental impacts.

6.17 This is consistent with Council’s climate mitigation and adaptation principles, especially those encouraging efficient land use and low-impact infrastructure solutions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Finalise licence documents and execute agreement effective 1 September 2026.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Kordia Limited - Sugarloaf Areas	25/1246264	133

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Paul Devlin - Manager Regional Parks

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

15. Barnett Park - Regional Park Landscape Plan
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1081568
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jason Tickner – Parks and Recreation Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan.

1.2 The report is staff initiated to address a community request for a plan and direct community planting efforts in a strategic manner.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Barnett Park - Regional Park Landscape Plan Report.

2. Approves the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan in Attachment A, and the supporting information in Attachment B.

3. Notes that the decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the low number of people affected, the low level of impact this plan would have on future social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the area, and the low risks to the Council, ratepayers, and wider community of carrying out this landscape plan.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The purpose of this proposed landscape plan is to help outline and implement prioritised community and council projects in the Barnett Park conservation area, as well as assisting the Council to direct current funds and allocate future budgets.

3.2 A request for a plan for the Barnett Park Valley was received from the Redcliffs Residents Association (the RRA) who are planting the valley and working alongside the Council.

3.3 Engagement was undertaken with specific stakeholders and the wider community in late 2024. Feedback was generally positive, and a number of suggestions were received and were included in the plan.

3.4 The proposed Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan and supporting information have been included in the Attachments for approval.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Barnett Park Conservation is a well-used regional park that serves many user groups (walkers, climbers, etc). Among these are the RRA, who have been working with Council Park Rangers to regenerate the area.

4.2 The park is bounded by the Barnett Park Sports Grounds to the north, Greenwood Park to the south and east, and private farmland to the west, with John Britten Reserve beyond this property to the west. The reserve is shown below:

Figure 1 - Barnett Park Conservation

4.3 The RRA approached the Council to get guidance on the appropriate planting areas and potential projects in the park. As a result, Council officers, in collaboration with the RRA, have developed a landscape plan to guide planting efforts and future improvements.

4.4 The landscape plan, Attachment A, proposes designated planting zones and recommended species to guide both the community and the Council with restoration efforts. It also sets out future improvements which include new track connections, interpretive signage, waterway improvements, and upgrades to park entrances.

4.5 The plan also includes projects that extend into adjoining parks, these being:

· A connection pathway is proposed through the adjoining sports park portion of Barnett Park Sports Grounds.

· Planting and track extension further up the valley into Greenwood Park.

· Investigate entrance and car park improvements at the Summit Road entrance of Greenwood Park.

4.6 In addition to the Plan is a Supporting Information document, Attachment B, that outlines the site, purpose of the plan, vision and objectives, as well as identifying:

· Ecological Context

· Catchment Pests

· Catchment Flora and Forna

· Planting List (including flammability categories)

4.7 The plan excludes the Sports Park portion of Barnett Park (with the exception of a pathway connection). A separate detailed landscape plan will be prepared for this section of the park in 2025/2026 to address the programmed playground improvements and urban forest plan projects in this area.

Stream Naming Request

4.8 A recent request was received from Martin Ward of the RRA regarding the naming of the Rifle Range Drain. Substantial efforts have been made by Mr Ward to track down the historical and/or cultural naming of the waterway at the base of the valley. Mr Ward has received feedback from from Ngāti Wheke on the matter, with their representative identifying ‘support for the name Te Awa Kura being applied to the stream’.

4.9 Renaming a watercourse is managed by the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (NZGB) under the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2008 and would require consultation with other Hapū including Ngāi Tūāhuriri.

4.10 Council staff will investigate this further and cannot include the suggested name into the proposed plan at this point of time given the need to follow the mandated process and requirement to undertake wider engagement.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 Approve the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan.

4.11.2 Request changes to the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan.

4.11.3 Decline the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan.

4.12 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.12.1 Detailed Plan Developed – this valley is of a scale and nature that a detailed landscaping plan is not necessary nor cost effective. However, future detailed landscaping plans are intended for some of the specific capital projects identified.

4.12.2 Including the entirety of Barnett Park in the Plan – The park comprises two distinctly different areas with separate functions: a Sports Park located on the valley floor, and a Regional Park conservation area situated further up the valley. To avoid confusion and ensure clarity of purpose, it was considered that these areas are planned for separately rather than combining them under a single, multi-purpose plan.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option 1: Approve the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan

4.13.1 Option Description: Approve the landscape plan to allow the community groups and council officers to continue the restoration of the valley in a strategic manner, and progress with the project identified.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Provides certainty and direction to the Regional Park Rangers, the RRA, and the wider community regarding future planting and projects planned for the conservation park.

· The plan outlines clear mitigation strategies for several known risks and management challenges, including fire hazards along site boundaries and planting beneath transmission lines.

· The proposed restoration will enhance tree cover and create habitat for a diverse range of native flora and fauna.

· The initiative will contribute positively to climate change mitigation and help reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff.

· Improves our community’s enjoyment of the park through improvement of facilities and connection with the natural environment.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· As with any restoration and park development, there are costs associated.

4.14 Other Option 2: Request changes to the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape plan

4.14.1 Option Description: Undertake another round of engagement and make changes to the plan based on any additional feedback and community board direction.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Gives the community a second chance to provide feedback on the proposal.

· Opportunity to add additional options or projects for consideration.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· It will delay the plan approval, and the subsequent projects already indicated and requested.

· Additional costs involved undertaking engagement and plan redesign.

4.15 Other Option3: Decline the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan

4.15.1 Option Description: Decline the plan and continue with status quo

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· No further costs to the Council.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· No clear direction and no agreement of projects and priorities.

· May result in planting of inappropriate species in inappropriate locations (for example the planting of Kahikatea trees under the transmission lines).

· Would not provide the direction needed to support the RRA in the mahi they do.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Revise Plan	Option3 – Decline
Cost to Implement	Volunteer Planting – Donation of time and plants from volunteers. Total costs unknown. Council Cost to Implement Projects Estimated: $633,600	Unknown	Nil
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	Planting Community Lead (no cost to Council)	Planting Community Lead (no cost to Council)	Community Lead (no cost to Council)
Funding Source	Native Planting Principle planting efforts beyond 2025/2026 will be RRA lead and funded. $20,000 estimated Regional Parks planting budgets provided for planting in 2025/26. #65873 Regional Parks Development for Port Hills & Banks Peninsula Delivery Package $20,000 estimated Specimen planting of the valley floor will be funded from the Urban Forest Budget. CPMS Project #73097 Urban Forest Implementation Track Improvements $50,000 Regional Parks Maintenance and Renewal Budget Stream Improvements $400,000 approx. CPMS Project #69218 Port Hills Revegetation and Sediment Control Interpretive signage $5,000 approx. #61747 Regional Parks Planned Displays, Visitor information & Signage Renewals	Unknown dependent on what changes/additional projects are added to the plan	NA
	Parks Planning Opex Budget to undertake further engagement and redesign. Funding Source for Projects would have to be confirmed based on changes made to the plan and new projects introduce. Pathway Connection via Sportsgrounds $138,600 approx. Proposed to be funded from CPMS 61781 Community Parks Access & Carpark Development
Funding Availability	Yes	Unknown	NA
Impact on Rates	Nil – within existing budgets	Unknown	Nil

5.1 The intended lifespan of the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan is 10 to 15 years. Projects such as the stream improvements, interpretive signage, and pathway connection via the sportsgrounds are budgeted to be undertaken in the next 1-3 years, while the completion of the planting/revegetation of the valley is more likely to take the full 10-15 year.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

Fire Risk

6.1 The fire risk is addressed through a combination of strategies outlined in the plan and supporting documentation. These include:

· Establishment of fire breaks to reduce the spread of potential fires.

· Implementation of a regular maintenance schedule to manage vegetation and fuel loads.

· Careful selection of plant species with lower flammability and appropriate spacing to reduce fire hazards.

Impact on Transmission Lines

6.2 There is a risk that the Council or community groups may inadvertently plant large tree species beneath transmission lines, potentially leading to future safety, access, and compliance issues. To mitigate this:

· The plan designates specific low-planting zones beneath transmission corridors.

· Only low-growing, non-invasive species are permitted in these zones.

· Council rangers will actively monitor planting activities to ensure compliance and prevent the establishment of inappropriate vegetation.

Impact on Sites of Significance to Māori

6.3 The project area includes land of cultural and historical significance to Māori. Any inappropriate development within this area carries the risk of impacting sacred sites and damaging the relationship between mana whenua and the Council. To mitigate this:

· The restoration plan has been shared with mana whenua, with the intent to restore the mana of the whenua through the re-introduction of the native flora to the valley.

· As individual projects progress to detailed design stage, further engagement and input will be sought from local hapū to ensure alignment with tikanga and values.

· The Council will adhere to its statutory obligations to consult with iwi and hapū, particularly for any works involving waterways or areas of known cultural significance (eg. the cave/s).

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register, 21^st July 2025, the Community Board has the delegation to;

“Approve and adopt any new landscape development plans for parks and reserves provided the design is within the policy and budget set by the Council.”

(Part D – Sub Part 1 - Community Boards, pg. 96)

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Alings with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

6.6.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low number of people affected, the low level of impact this plan would have on future social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the area, and the low risks to the Council, ratepayers, and wider community of implementing this landscape plan

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

· Urban Forest Strategy

· Tree Policy

· Public Open Space Strategy

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.3.5 Customer satisfaction with the recreational opportunities and ecological experiences provided by the City's Regional Parks - >=80%

· Level of Service: 6.3.7.4 Volunteer participation at community opportunities across parks network - Volunteer hours - maintain or grow compared to previous year

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Early engagement with the RRA took place on 11 August 2024. Staff met with the association and discussed the draft landscape plan. Several suggestions were made including revising the pest species on the proposed plant register, improving public amenity areas, and exploring land gifting opportunities with neighbouring landowners. These suggestions were taken into consideration.

6.10 Consultation started on 21 August and ran until 19 September 2024. An email was sent to 29 key stakeholders, including the RRA, local school, local sports clubs, and environmental advocacy groups.

6.11 The consultation was hosted on Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk which had 592 views throughout the consultation period.

6.12 A range of marketing tactics was used to promote consultation to the community including social media, letter drops to residents neighbouring Barnett Park, and physical signs at the entrances to the park. The consultation was shared to three local community group pages. The local library was provided with leaflets with information about the consultation and instructions on how to make a submission.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.13 Submissions were made by one recognised organisation and 31 individuals. All submissions are available on the Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

6.14 The Disabled Persons Assembly submitted in support of the draft landscape plan with suggestions to improve existing tracks and trails and ensure any new tracks are fully accessible for those living with disabilities.

6.15 Submitters made the following requests:

· Improve amenities in the area e.g. bins, BBQs, fences, gates (7)

· Improve dog control in the park (5)

· Create new walkways and revise old ones (4)

· Address issues with invasive species e.g. Gorse (2)

6.16 The RRA submitted a list of suggestions and requests which were responded to by staff. This response was given to a representative of the residents’ association to provide to the other members.

6.17 The staff responses to submitter questions and requests are available on the Kōrero Mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

Supplementary information

6.18 A quick poll was conducted on the Let’s Talk webpage to reduce barriers to participate. People were asked “How much do you like or dislike the Draft Barnett Park Landscape Development Plan?”. The following ratings were submitted, out of 25 responses.

· 18 5-star ratings

· 7 4-star ratings

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

6.19.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.21 Initially we sought direction from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. The Kaitiaki advice was to pass this through to Whitiora as agents for Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. Whitiora identified at the time that they did not wish to provide any further comment to the landscape development plan.

6.22 We also approached Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) Rūnanga and provided copies on the plan. We have been working closely with a representative from the Hapū, however have recently received direction from our Treaty Partnership team to work unilaterally with Whitiora in this location.

6.23 The Council also commissioned Mahaanui Kurataio Ltd in 2021 to provide a “Statement of Mana Whenua cultural values for earthworks to be performed at the Council’s and community planting project, Barnett Park (Te Awakura)” to inform and accompany the Archaeological Authority application

6.24 There will be further works and engagement with Mana Whenua as we progress the second stage of works to stabilize the Rifle Range Drain, which is one of the projects identified in the Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.25 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.25.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change

6.25.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.26 The large-scale planting restoration will sequester carbon and have a positive impact on emissions and reduce the impact of climate change. The proposal will also provide habitat for native flora and fauna and help reduce stormwater runoff issues.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Council rangers will continue to collaborate with the RRA to implement the restoration planting outlined in this plan, and to carry out ongoing pest control and maintenance.

7.2 Council planning and project staff will advance the current funded projects and prepare detailed plans for targeted engagement and approval. The next step is to develop a detailed landscape plan for the Valley Floor area (Regional Park), integrating the following funded initiatives:

· Second Stage of the Rifle Range Stream naturalisation and stabilisation

· Improvements to the Bay View Road entrance to the park

· Specimen planting on the valley floor under the Urban Forest Plan

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan	25/1724196	144
b ⇩	Barnett Park Conservation Landscape Plan Supporting Information	25/1724197	145

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Rifle Range Stream Stabilisation Project – Barnett Park – Community Board Decision

Minutes of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Thursday, 13 March 2025

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jason Tickner - Parks & Recreation Planner

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Paul Devlin - Manager Regional Parks

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

16. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Summer with your Neighbours 2025-26
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1438893
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio, Community Development Advisor Heather Davies, Community Development Advisor Nime Ah Kam-Sherlock, Community Recreation Advisor
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 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to consider the allocation of funding for reimbursement from its 2025-26 Summer with your neighbours fund from the applicants listed below.

1.2 The Board allocated $4,000 to this fund at its meeting held on Thursday 14 August 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Summer with your Neighbours 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. Allocates its 2025-26 Summer with your Neighbours fund as follows:

Applicant	Activity	No. attending	Recommendation
Leonne Watson (Hillsborough)	BBQ	20	$50
Louise van Tongeren (Beckenham)	Street BBQ	50	$75
Shelley Washington (St Martins)	BBQ	20	$50
Evelyn Kenneally (Rowley Community Centre)	'Open Day' for Rowley Community Centre	100	$150
Sonia Pollard (Somerfield)	Halloween Street Celebration	70	$105
Fleur Hart (Huntsbury)	BBQ	30	$50
Kathy Duncan (Richmond Hill)	Neighbourhood BBQ	50	$75
Sarah A Suckling (Cashmere)	Street BBQ	60	$90
Katrina Cowie (Cashmere)	Street BBQ	25	$50
Kristy Hogsden (Castle Way Residents Assocation)	Summer afternoon picnic	30	$50
David George Drayton (Huntsbury)	Gathering of neighbours	25	$50
Karen Loveday (Cashmere)	BBQ	35	$52.50
Margaret Jenkin (Heathcote Valley)	BBQ	30	$50
Iliffe Kirsten (Redcliffs)	Christmas Party	40	$60
Jen Saunders (Heathcote Valley)	Street BBQ	45	$67.50
Tejada Stark (Horotane Valley Road)	Neighbourhood picnic	50	$75
Timothy Greer (Heathcote Valley)	BBQ	15	$50
Mhairi Flett (Huntsbury)	Summer BBQ	20	$50
Dave Mitchell (Spreydon)	Street Party	30	$50
Jill & Grant Borland Ritchie (Hoon Hay)	Mavin Road Street Party	50	$75
Dennis Sloane (Addington)	Morning Tea / BBQ	25	$50
Sue Kingham (Beckenham)	BBQ	85	$127.50
Kylie Ehrich (Mokihi Community Garden)	Neighbourhood BBQ	40	$60
Tanya Jephson (Sumner)	Bi-annual neighbourhood gathering	30	$50
Lisi Reid (Huntsbury)	Street BBQ	40	$60
Aine Elliott (Cracroft)	Street BBQ	40	$60
Ange Ritchie (Opawa)	Street BBQ	50	$75
Finn Jackson (Somerfield Residents Association)	Somerfield End of Year Community Picnic	200	$200
Katie Brazil (Westmorland)	BBQ and axe throwing	30	$50
Fiona Miller (Beachville Road Neighbourhood Support)	Afternoon tea and bowls	70	$105
Sirena Blair (Beckenham School Parent Teacher Association)	School and wider community planting and working bee morning	130	$195
Bridget Kinnersley (Hilmorton)	Summer get-together	100	$150
Zella Askew (Heathcote Community Sports Club Incorporated)	Heathcote Community Sports Club Open Day	60	$90
Grace Le Heux (Addington)	Parlane Street party	40	$60
Wendy Dudson (Beckenham)	BBQ	60	$90
Emmy Nicol (Spreydon)	Neighbourhood Gathering	40	$60
Kristin Hoskin (Cashmere)	Driveway BBQ and working bee	25	$50
Allison Love (Cashmere)	Neighbours' Night Out	350	$200
Helena Parsons (Sumner)	Lower Sumnervale community picnic	60	$90
Catherine Cox (Cashmere)	Community Christmas BBQ	60	$90
Liam Carroll (Beckenham Neighbourhood Association)	Summer neighbourhood BBQ	200	$200
Michael Graveston (St Marys the Virign)	Addington Community Carols	80	$120
Matthew Sinclair (Cracroft Residents Association)	Community Summer BBQ	75	$112.50
Ruth Wilkins (Cracroft)	BBQ in Addington Bush	40	$60
Derek McCullough (Mt Pleasant)	Neighbours BBQ	40	$60
		Total	$3,790.00

4. Declines the applications received from: Aine Elliott to paint a four-square court on a private lane and Finn Jackson from Somerfield Residents Association for a Halloween event.

5. Notes that the granted funds are to be used towards food items, non-alcoholic drinks, or invitation/advertising costs only.

6. That any unspent 2025-26 Summer with your Neighbours funding is returned to the 2025-26 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 The recommendations above are aligned with the Council's Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of Strengthening Communities. It will provide a strong sense of community, active participation in civic life, safe and healthy communities, celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport, valuing the voices of children and young people.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.2 The Community Board has the delegated authority to determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community.

3.2.1 Allocations must be consistent with any Council-adopted policies, standards or criteria.

3.2.2 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal or environmental court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled Organisations, or Community Board decisions.

· Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.4 The significance level was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

3.5 Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.6 At its meeting on 14 August 2025, the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board resolved to allocate $4,000 from its 2025-26 Discretionary Response Fund towards Summer with your Neighbours 2025-26.

3.7 Summer with your Neighbours is about bringing people closer together and celebrating the unique and diverse mix of each neighbourhood. It invites residents to consider if they have ever wanted to organise a neighbourhood gathering, or to get to know the people who live close to them. This popular event has grown from year to year and is promoted by the Council.

3.8 Posters were placed in and around the Board area, including libraries. Previous applicants were sent information inviting them to apply for the Summer with your Neighbours funding. Staff also promoted the fund through the Board webpage, social media and other networks.

3.9 Summer with your Neighbours will run from 25 October 2025 to 30 March 2026. Applications for funding opened on 12 July 2025 and closed on 10 August 2025.

3.10 In total 48 applications had been received, with 46 applications to be considered by the Board due to:

· Two applications have been declined due to applying for funding twice.

Staff have assessed the applications to ensure that they meet the Summer with your Neighbours guidelines and recommended an amount to be allocated to all of the applications.

3.11 Staff recommendations were based on the following, in order to maintain consistency over the allocation of recommendations:

· A city-wide formula of $2.50 per person has been applied as a consistent approach to applications. When the requested amount is less than the $2.50 per head formula, the requested amount is what has been recommended; however, due to the increased Summer with Your Neighbours applications in the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote area for 2025/2026, a formula of $1.50 per person has been applied.

· A maximum of $200 and a minimum of $50 per event have been applied to all applicants.

· Where two approximate attendee numbers have been noted, recommendations are based on the lower approximate figure.

3.12 A matrix outlining the applications and staff recommendations is attached (refer Attachment A), along with the Summer with your Neighbours Guidelines (refer Attachment B).

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Summer with your Neighbours 2025-26 Matrix	25/1811318	156
b ⇩	Summer with your Neighbours 2025-26 Guidelines	25/1438894	159

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Walders - Support Officer

Hannah Martin - Community Support & Events Coordinator

Approved By

Emma Pavey - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes-Central

17. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - September 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1440305
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Emma Pavey, Acting Community Governance Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose of Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report provides the Board with an overview of initiatives and issues current within the Community Board area.

1.2 This report is staff-generated monthly.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - September 2025.

3. Community Support, Governance and Partnership Activity

3.1 Community Governance Projects

Activity	Detail	Timeline	Strategic Alignment
2025 Community Service Awards	The Community Board has resolved to discontinue the separate Community Service Awards and will instead present the awards later in the year.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.
2025/26 Summer with Your Neighbours	Applications to Summer with your neighbours opened on 12 July at 9 am and closed at 5 pm on 10 August 2025. The Board will consider the applications at its final meeting on 11 September 2025.	25 October 2025 – 30 March 2026	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.
Emergency Preparedness	Communities have been supported to undertake preparedness planning for natural disasters. Sumner Residents Association, Redcliffs Residents Association, Cashmere Residents Emergency Support Team, and Somerfield Community Emergency Response Team have the capacity to set up an emergency hub in their neighbourhood when required.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy. Community Board Plan Priority
Heathcote River Raft	The event is scheduled for Sunday, 8 March at 1 pm. Staff are supporting the coordinator and committee with planning, permit applications, and connections with key stakeholders.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.
Ferrymead Pump Track	Staff have been assisting the project team with funding initiatives, with an application currently pending consideration at the Council decision meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 3 September.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

3.2 Community Funding Summary

3.2.1 Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2025/26 – as of 22 August 2025:

· Discretionary Response Fund balance for 2025/26 is $120,339 (including carryforwards).

· Youth Achievement and Development Fund balance is $10,000.

· The Off the Ground Fund balance is $3,000.

The 2025/26 Discretionary Response Fund Spreadsheet as of 22 August 2025 is attached for record purposes.

3.2.2 Report back to the Community Board:

Name | Event | Photos

Rachel Baker, Junior World Orienteering Championships, Italy

The highlights of the event were having some success in the forest races and making friends and connections with people from all over the world! I came 21^st in the long distance and 39^th in the Middle distance (out of 150 people), so I was very happy with my results. The training week prior to the competition week was a great learning experience to learn which skills work best in the different terrain, and to get valuable coaching from our NZ team coaches.

Next year, I aim to make the top 10 in a forest race at the junior world champs. I am also hoping to coach at the NZ junior orienteering camp in December. I am currently organising an introduction to Orienteering event for the University club this term on Mount Vernon. Competing at the junior world champs has inspired me and continues to inspire me to share my love for the sport and coaching with others.

A group of people posing for a photo

AI-generated content may be incorrect. A person running in a race

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

3.3 Participation in and Contribution to Decision Making

3.3.1 Report back on other Activities contributing to Community Board Plan [for items not included in the above table but are included in Community Board Plan]

· The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023-25 Community Board Plan was adopted by the Board at their meeting in May 2023 and can be found online here.

· Progress on the Community Board Plan is attached.

3.3.2 Council Engagement and Consultation.

· On 29 July 2025, the Board gave feedback to Council officers on options for Coastal Hazards Adaptation planning. The Board was briefed on the options at its Information Session/Workshop on 26 June 2025. The Board indicated its support for the Woolston to Taylors Mistake (Option 3) option as the next area for adaptation planning, noting that:

o It is an area of high risk (second-highest level of risk)

o There is a high level of community engagement and willingness to engage

o There are fire hazards (Port Hills) in the area, which are impacted by climate change.

· The Sumner community asked for consultation on the operation of the mast lights on Tuawera Cave Rock. The consultation was open from 12 May to 28 May 2025. The Board will consider the feedback and staff recommendation at its meeting on 28 August 2025.

· A proposal for safety improvements at the Somerfield Street and Strickland Street intersection was open for consultation from 11 July to 3 August 2025. This followed community feedback sought in May 2024 on transport issues in this area. Staff updated the Board on the project at the Board’s Information Session/Workshop on 26 June 2025, amongst other Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) projects. The Board is scheduled to receive a decision report at its meeting on 28 August 2025.

· A proposal to make it safer for pedestrians on Richmond Hill Road was open for feedback from 2 August to 8 September 2024. At their meeting on 14 November 2024, the Board requested a workshop to explore an alternate option that provides for a defined footpath and defined car parking areas. Staff investigated this and presented options to the Board at their Information Session/Workshop on 29 May 2025. This was followed by a site meeting on Richmond Hill Road with elected members, residents, and staff. A decision report is scheduled for the Board’s meeting on 11 September 2025.

· The Christchurch Yacht Club's proposed redevelopment of their club facilities was reopened for further consultation from 18 July to 3 August 2025. This follows earlier consultation in late 2024, in response, the club updated its plans and in April Council contacted those who had previously provided feedback. The Club has requested to proceed for a Community Board decision based on the plans used in the previous consultation. A decision report is scheduled at the Board’s meeting on 11 September 2025.

· A proposal to lower the speed on Cashmere Road, Sutherlands Road, and Hoon Hay Valley Road to make it safer for people walking was reconsulted, following initial consultation in 2023 and the new Setting of Speed Limit 2024 Rule that came into effect in September 2024. The roads are in the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area, but they border with Waihoro Community Board area. Feedback opened on 4 July and closed on 18 August 2025, and a decision on this matter is expected to be made by Council in February 2026.

3.4 Governance Advice

3.4.1 Public Forum – The Board received the following public forum presentations at its 14 August 2025 meeting:

· Local residents spoke regarding parking safety issues on Beechworth Avenue.

· A local resident spoke regarding parking issues on Opawa Road.

3.4.2 Deputations – The Board received the following deputations at its 28 August 2025 meeting:

· Local residents, Momentus Public Relations, Sumner Community Residents Association and the Vicar of St John’s Woolston spoke in relation to Item 7, Cave Rock Lighting.

· A resident and the Owner of Tillmans Fine Furniture spoke in relation to Item 8, Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF – Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements.

3.4.3 Correspondence – The Board received the following correspondence at its 14 August meeting:

· State of the paths in Barrington Park.

· Traffic accidents at the intersections of Stanley/ Durham Street South and The Colombo/ Durham Street South.

· Illegal parking on Sumner Street.

3.4.4 Information Sessions/Workshops – The Board received the following information sessions/workshops in August 2025:

· Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme FY26-FY29

3.5 Community Development

3.5.1 Kia ora Addington: Kia Ora Addington continues with the community connection through skill-sharing nights scheduled monthly at Manuka Cottage. These nights provide an opportunity for local people to lead and share their amazing skills with the local community, providing an opportunity for connection and collaboration.

This month(August) is traditional Ukrainian Borscht making, knife and gardening tool sharpening, and hair braiding.

3.5.2 What’s Up Waltham: What’s up Waltham, with community input are looking at ways to activate Waltham Park with the potential of a Car Boot Sale in the coming months.

4. Advice Provided to the Community Board Ngā Kupu Tohutohu ka hoatu ki te Poari Hapori

4.1 Closed Information Requests from Community Open Forums – July 2025.

Ticket

Involved Business Units

Original Request

Officer Advice

Open Forum 29 May 2025 Request - Norfolk pines on the Coastal Pathway

CIPA Parks (CCC Unit/Team)

Concerns relating to Norfolk Pines on Coastal Pathway

The Christchurch Coastal Pathway Group and Christchurch City Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding in November 2013 to jointly deliver the Coastal Pathway project and a developed design plan in October 2014. A Landscape Plan for the Coastal Pathway project, including this area was completed in 2018 and the plant species aligned with the recommendations and plant description in the developed design, was agreed with the Christchurch Coastal Pathway Group. The (former) Waikura/Linwood-Central Heathcote Community Board approved the Landscape Plan on 15 August 2018 (refer to minutes, Item 11), at paragraph 5.12 the planting schedule is set out, including the Norfolk Pines. The report notes at paragraph 4.4. “Extensive consultation occurred during the development of the Main Road Master Plan, which included the Coastal Pathway” (refer Main Road Masterplan, which summaries Community Workshops held on 28 May and 4 June 2013. The Landscape Plan proposed the planting of eight Norfolk Island Pines in the swale area between the car park and shared path. The Christchurch Coastal Pathway documentation does not outline why Norfolk Island pines were specifically included in the Landscape Plan, however staff advise that some likely reasons could be:

1. Coastal Resilience: Tolerant to harsh coastal conditions: Norfolk Island pines (Araucaria heterophylla) are known for their strong tolerance to salt spray, wind, and exposed coastal sites—making them ideal for seaside planting

2. Aesthetic and Historical Appeal: Iconic and ornamental: With their distinctive symmetrical shape and towering presence, Norfolk pines have long been favoured for planting along the coastline and promenades (e.g., Napier’s Marine Parade). They offer both visual appeal and a sense of place.

Cultural familiarity: New Zealand residents often associate these trees with the coastal landscape, creating a sense of continuity and charm.

3. Structural and Shade Qualities: Shade and visibility: Their horizontal branching canopy structure provides shade without obstructing views—an ideal combination for shared pathways where visibility and comfort are both important

Damage to Coastal Pathway

There is currently no visible damage to the Coastal Pathway because of the newly planted Norfolk Island Pines. The tree pits were designed to prevent future infrastructure damage by allowing the tree roots adequate below ground space and installing root barriers to redirect root growth away from hard surfaces (e.g., footpaths, pipes, foundations). As part of the Open Forum presentation to the Board on 19 May 2025 a photo was presented showing existing footpath damage near the Esplanade entrance, which is likely to be caused by the mature Norfolk Island Pines (which have an estimated to be 100+ years old). This damage will be passed onto the Council’s Pavement Maintenance Engineer for further assessment.

4.2 Customer Service Request Report – Report on open and completed tickets (requests for service) in July 2025 is attached.

4.3 Graffiti Snapshot Report – The monthly report for July 2025 is attached.

4.4 Attached Memos include:

· Memo - NZTA Funding - LCLR Targeted Fund (2024-27)

· Memo - Simeon Street Cycleway - Milton Street Crossing Update

· Memo New Footpaths Programme

4.5 On 1 August 2025 the Board received advice that Orion have agreed for Council to utilise their power pole to install a new light on Koromiko street.

4.6 At the Board’s meeting on 15 May 2025 the Board received correspondence from Rex and Jan Raistrick in relation to parking issues on Lyttelton Street. The Board referred the issue to staff for investigation. The Board received staff advice on 1 August 2025:

We understand that high parking demands are observed at times which may make access more challenging. However, no stopping restrictions are typically only considered for residential driveways when there is a site-specific safety concern that poses an increased risk to drivers exiting the property, and it is demonstrably different from others in the immediate area. Factors that are considered include the location, topography, presence of street furniture, or whether the driveway serves a high volume of traffic (typically more than 250 vehicles per day).

In this case the driveway is clearly defined and no different to any other driveway along this section of road. It is around 5 metres wide which already provides some increased clearance for exiting vehicles when compared to a standard residential driveway.

A search of the NZTA Crash Analysis System has been undertaken to confirm if there is any history or pattern of reported crashes associated with driveway access or manoeuvring along this section of road to indicate an inherent safety issue. No crashes relating to driveway access have been reported on this section of Lyttelton Street within the five-year search period.

Based on the above, parking restrictions are not supported at this time however we can continue to monitor it. If parked vehicles are blocking access or parked within 1 metre of the driveway, we encourage residents to report this to Councils enforcement team to investigate. They can be contacted via the Council Call Centre on 941 8999.

4.7 The Board received two items of correspondence relating to the height of no parking signs on Beachville road at the Board’s meeting on 15 May 2025. The Board received advised on 20 August 2025 confirming the signs have been lowered.

4.8 The Board received correspondence at its meeting on 10 April 2025 from a resident in relation to traffic concerns on Cheviot Street in Spreydon. The Board received staff advice on 22 August 2025 that staff have been monitoring Cheviot Street in response to the parking and access concerns raised by the resident and have also received several similar concerns from other nearby residents in recent months. A proposal for no stopping restrictions will be developed for consultation with affected residents.

4.9 Ōmōkihi South Library and Customer Service Hub update

Cook Brothers Construction has completed the first concrete pour on the Ōmōkihi South Library and Customer Service Hub. The team trucked in more than 300 cubic metres of concrete, which comes to 52 truckloads. The second half will be poured in early September. Once the concrete is cured, the next step is for the structural steel to be erected.

4.10 On 21 August 2025, Board members were taken on a site visit of the construction and saw first-hand the progress at the site.

4.11 The recent demolition of the old building has seen more than 20 tons of material reused and repurposed. The team working on Ōmōkihi has managed to divert approximately 69% of material, which puts this project at the upper end of industry performance. That material includes joinery, furniture, and carpet tiles for use in the local community.

A building under construction with cranes

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A construction site with workers on the roof

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

image 1:3

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote - Discretionary Response Fund 2025/26	25/1684555	170
b ⇩	Waihoro Community Board Plan Monitoring Report - August 2025	25/1748947	171
c ⇩	Waihoro Customer Service Request Report - July 2025	25/1690859	180
d ⇩	Waihoro Graffiti Snapshot Report - July 2025	25/1690860	183
e ⇩	Memo - NZTA Funding - LCLR Targeted Fund (2024-27)	25/1690872	185
f ⇩	Memo - Simeon Street Cycleway - Milton Street Crossing Update	25/1690873	189
g ⇩	Memo New Footpaths Programme	25/1690874	191

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Nime Ah Kam-Sherlock - Community Recreation Advisor

Heather Davies - Community Development Advisor

Jonathon Jones - Community Board Advisor

Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio - Community Development Advisor

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Jane Walders - Support Officer

Hannah Martin - Community Support & Events Coordinator

Approved By

Emma Pavey - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes-Central

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Name	Subject
Tracey Paterson	Traffic hazard - Moncks Spur Road and Glenstrae Road
Prue Parsons	Tree hazard on Rose Street
Sean Eustace	Cycleway safety on Collins Street in Addington
Reuben Hunt	Christchurch Yacht Club application for Building and Site Development

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Public Forum - Request for the recommencement of the Grange Street Renewal	15 May 2025	14 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Management
Correspondence	14 September 2023	30 August 2025	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Correspondence	12 June 2025	11 September 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Correspondence	10 April 2025	30 September 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Spr-Cas-Hea)
Public Forum - Cumbria Lane Lighting, Westmorland	12 June 2025	30 September 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Management
Public Forum - Development of New Sections in West Halswell	12 June 2025	30 September 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Spr-Cas-Hea)
Public Forum - Replacement for the Plaque at Ashgrove Reserve	13 February 2025	30 September 2025	Parks	Community Parks
Sumner Valley Riding School Trust - proposed new lease	10 April 2025	1 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
The Green Effect Trust (Trees for Canterbury) - Proposed new lease - Charlesworth Reserve	13 March 2025	1 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Public Forum - Basketball court at Ti Rakau Reserve	10 July 2025	9 October 2025	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Public Forum - Tree removal Farnley Reserve	10 July 2025	9 October 2025	Parks	Botanic and Garden Parks
Public Forum - Tree shading property in Hillsborough	10 July 2025	9 October 2025	Parks	Botanic and Garden Parks
Public Forum - Mt Pleasant Community Centre traffic management issues	15 May 2025	14 October 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease	13 March 2025	31 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Grant an Easment over Waterworks Reserve 109 Scruttons Road Heathcote Christchurch.	15 February 2024	31 October 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
2025/26 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Board Projects	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Bunyan Street / Domett Street Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Correspondence	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Parks	Community Parks
Correspondence	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Public Forum - Parking Issues on Opawa Road	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2025/26 Strengthening Communities Fund Applications for Consideration	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2025-26 Discretionary Response Fund Cashmere High School Board of Trustees, National Readers Cup Challenge in Auckland September 2025 Project	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Cave Rock Lighting	28 August 2025	27 November 2025	Parks	Asset Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements	28 August 2025	27 November 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Public Forum - Spokes Canterbury	12 June 2025	1 December 2025	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Sumner Tennis and Squash Club Application to lease 8-14 Heberden Avenue and 140 Nayland Street	11 May 2023	1 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Lyttelton Street safety improvements	10 July 2025	20 December 2025	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Orion Easement at Waltham Park	10 April 2025	31 December 2025	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Parking changes on Selwyn Street and Milton Street	14 August 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Selwyn Street pedestrian and cycle safety improvements	10 July 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Redcliffs Village - Coastal Pathway safety improvements.	15 February 2024	30 June 2026	Transport & Waste	City Streets Maintenance

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	DUE DATE	ACTION CLOSURE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Public Forum - Request for the recommencement of the Grange Street Renewal	15 May 2025	29 August 2025	25 August 2025	Three Waters	Asset Management
Proposed Lane Names - 245 Worsleys Road, Cracroft	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	27 August 2025	Planning & Consents	Resource Consents
Fifield Terrace - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	12 June 2025	11 September 2025	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Willard Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	14 August 2025	13 November 2025	28 August 2025	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations

7. Correspondence
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1779471
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jonathon Jones, Community Board Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

11. 429 Selwyn Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1648592
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Toni Dakers, Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

18. Valedictory
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1755160
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jonathon Jones, Community Board Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community