Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 4 March 2026

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

Date: Wednesday 4 February 2026

Time: 9.35 am

Venue: Camellia Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock – partially via audio/visual link

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor David Cartwright

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Tyrone Fields

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt

Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Andrei Moore

Councillor Mark Peters

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8999

mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

Samantha Kelly

Team Leader Democratic Services Support

Tel: 941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order. Where no voting record is shown, the item was carried unanimously by those present.

Moments silence

The meeting held a moment’s silence to acknowledge the passing of Nigel Harrison, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Deputy Chair.

Councillor Barber joined the meeting at 9.36 am.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Secretarial Note: The Mayor noted that Deputy Mayor Henstock joined the meeting via audio/visual link and would be joining in person later in the meeting.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 9.40 am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 9.41 am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 9.44 am and returned at 9.46 am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.03 am and returned at 10.07 am during consideration of Item 7.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.06 am and returned at 10.14 am during consideration of Item 7.

Deputy Mayor Henstock left the meeting via audio/visual link at 10.08 am and returned at 10.09 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - December 2025

Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report.

Keir Leslie, Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.

Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Nicola McCormick, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report.

Simon Britten, Deputy Chairperson, Emma Pavey, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report.

Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Sarah Brunton, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report.

Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, and Chris Turner-Bullock, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00007

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - December 2025 Report.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor Cotter

Attachments

a Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council

b Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council

c Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council

d Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Presentation to Council

e Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council

f Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

There were no deputations by appointment.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

4.1

Daniel O’Meara presented a petition regarding ticketed events at Cathedral Square.

Whereas Cathedral Square has been hired out to private event organisers on no less than eight occasions since 2023, and

Whereas the Christchurch City Council has, in April of 2025, stated their intention to continue hiring out Cathedral Square for concerts and other private, ticketed events, thereby depriving the Christchurch public, at those times, of the right to use their own town square, and

Whereas the Christchurch City Council has further stated the intention to rent out Cathedral Square for private use on as many as 120 days in the year, and

Whereas these concerts and other private, ticketed events can perfectly well be held in Hagley Park, as they have been in the past,

Therefore, we the undersigned, being qualified electors of the city of Christchurch, petition the Christchurch City Council to pass the following resolution:

That Cathedral Square shall once more be designated as a space principally for public and civic use; that the Christchurch City Council will cease to hire out Cathedral Square to private organisations for exclusive, ticketed events; that Cathedral Square may not be fenced off or closed to the public except for legitimate construction purposes, for cleaning, or in case of emergency; that, should such an emergency arise, an official public consultation on the measure will be launched either immediately or as soon as practically possible; and that, under ordinary circumstances, Cathedral Square is to be fenced off for cleaning on no more than four days per year, these being weekdays, and the time of closure falling between 10pm and 6am.

Attachments

a Daniel O'Meara Petition - Presentation to Council

b Daniel O'Meara - Presentation to Council

Councillor Cotter returned at 10.35 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Graham Sattler

Graham Sattler and Hye-Won Suh (Principal Flute player) spoke on behalf of Christchurch Symphony Orchestra regarding the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra's direct and indirect value to the community.

Attachments

a Graham Sattler - Presentation to Council

3.1.2 Graham Townsend

Graham Townsend spoke on behalf of Climate Action Ōtautahi regarding Item 15 - Endorsing the Fossil Fuel Treat Notice of Motion.

Attachments

a Graham Townsend - Presentation to Council

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.45 am during consideration of Item 3.1.3.

3.1.3 Gur Preet

Gur Preet spoke regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Councillor Barber returned at 10.47 am during consideration of Item 3.1.4.

3.1.4 Rebecca Robin

Rebecca Robin spoke regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

3.1.5 Kelly Gibson

Councillor Johanson read, on behalf of Kelly Gibson, her speech regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

3.1.7 Ashley Campbell

Ashley Campbell spoke on behalf of her Christchurch North East/Ōrei constituents, regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting during consideration of Item 5.

5. Council Minutes - 21 January 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00008

That the Council confirms the Open and Public Excluded Minutes (Item 18) from the Council meeting held 21 January 2026.

Mayor/Councillor Keown Carried

6. Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 15 December 2025

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00009

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded Minutes (Item 19) from the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 15 December 2025.

Mayor/Councillor Keown Carried

Report from Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - 8 December 2025

8. Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00010

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook 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. Resolves pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) containing 203m² described as 3R Tulett Park Drive Lot 160 DP 499649 Certificate of Title 768569 as road.

4. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to take all steps necessary to complete all necessary documentation to conclude the dedication of Lot 160 DP 499649 Certificate of Title 768569 as road.

Councillor Keown/Mayor Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor Donovan

Report from Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 11 December 2025

9. Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board: Representation on Committees and External Organisations, 2025–2028

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00011

Community Board Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Appoints Cody Cooper to the Ruapuna Community Liaison Committee.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor Donovan

Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - 8 December 2025

10. Burwood & Mairehau intersection improvements

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00012

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

Signalised intersection

That the Council:

1. Approves that in accordance with Sections 6 and 10.5 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, all traffic movements at the Burwood Road and Mairehau Road intersection be controlled by Traffic Signals as detailed on plan TP361401, sheet 1, dated 12/08/2025, and attached to this report as Attachment C.

Special Vehicle Lanes

2. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to special vehicle lanes made pursuant to any Bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the special vehicle lanes described in recommendations 3 - 10.

3. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northbound 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 west side of Burwood Road, commencing at its intersection with Mariehau Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 186 metres, as detailed in plans TP364801, and TP364802 dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment B and Attachment C.

4. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound 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 east side of Burwood Road, commencing at a point approximately 207 metres north of its intersection with Mariehau Road and extending in a southerly direction until its intersection with Mairehau Road as detailed in plans TP364801, and TP364802 dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment B and Attachment C.

5. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Mairehau Road, commencing at its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of approximately 22 metres as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

6. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Mairehau Road, commencing at a point approximately 90 metres east of its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in a westerly direction for a until its intersection with Burwood Road as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

7. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Mairehau Road, commencing at its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in a westerly direction until its intersection with Greenhaven Drive, as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

8. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Mairehau Road, commencing at a point approximately 88 metres west of its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in an easterly direction until its intersection with Burwood Road as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

9. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Mairehau Road, commencing at its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in a westerly direction until its intersection with Greenhaven Drive, as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

10. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Mairehau Road, commencing at a point approximately 88 metres west of its intersection with Burwood Road and extending in an easterly direction until its intersection with Burwood Road, as detailed in plan TP364801, dated 12/08/2025 and attached to this report as Attachment C.

Councillor Barber/Mayor Carried

For	15	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	1	Councillor Cotter
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor Donovan

11. Submission on Proposed Rates Cap Model

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00013

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Submission on Proposed Rates Cap Model report.

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

3. Approves the Christchurch City Council submission on the rates target model for New Zealand (Attachment A) to be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs.

4. Approves the Chief Executive to make minor edits to the submission on the rates target model for New Zealand for consistency and accuracy prior to its submission to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor Donovan

Councillor Donovan returned at 11.23 am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2025-2028

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00014

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2025-2028 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. Ratifies the Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement for 2025-2028 and notes that the Agreement will be updated when the anticipated change in statutory purpose is enacted (Attachment A of this report).

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

For	14	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	2	Councillor Coker, Councillor Johanson
Abstain	1	Councillor Herz Jardine
TOTAL	17

13. Environmental Partnership Fund

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00015

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Environmental Partnership Fund 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 $469,840 has been granted to date via a non-contestable process.

4. Approves the recommended allocations from the 2025/26 Environmental Partnership Fund amounting to $443,033 as detailed below:

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Recommended
Richmond Community Garden Trust	Riverlution Biodiversity Resilience Project	$18,000
Opāwaho Heathcote River Network Incorporated	Predator Free Opāwaho and Community Group Support	$67,000
Friends of Coronation Reserve	Coronation Reserve biodiversity enhancement	$32,580
New Zealand Conservation Trust	Redwood Stream Trapping Project	$4,781
The Living Memorial Trust	The Ōtukaikino Wildlife Management Reserve Restoration Project	$35,000
The Green Lab	Rāwhiti Domain	$4,000
Living Springs Trust	Living Springs Ecological Restoration	$52,995
Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust	Kaituna Community Weeding	$15,000
Redcliffs Residents Association	Regreening Barnett Park/Te Awakura Valley	$8,650
Styx Living Laboratory Trust	Pūharakekenui Styx River Catchment Enhancement Planting	$20,000
Avon Ōtākaro Network Inc	Avon Ōtākaro Network catchment wide restoration and community engagement	$30,000
The Little River Wairewa Community Trust	Wairewa Weedbusters	$20,000
Predator FreeNB/Coastal Kaitiaki	Predator Free NB/Coastal Kaitaiki	$10,000
Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Inc	Rāpaki ki uta ki tai	$54,700
Witch-Hazel McAlister	Okuti Reserve Education Trail	$14,327
Taumutu Runanga Limited	Whakaora Te Muriwai o Whata (The Restoration of Muriwai o Whata/Coopers Lagoon	$50,000
Takamatua Ratepayers Association	Takamatua Stream Esplanade Reserve restoration	$6,000
Total		$443,033

Secretarial Note: Attachment A omitted specifying the allocation of $650 for the Redcliffs Residents Association newsletters. This omission does not change the total grant amount of $8,650.

5. Approves the recommended allocations from the 2026/27 and 2027/28 Environmental Partnership Fund amounting to $214,000 detailed below noting that allocation of these funds is subject to future Annual and Long-Term Plan adoptions.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Recommended
Richmond Community Garden Trust	Riverlution Biodiversity Resilience Project	2026/27 - $19,000
Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust	Kaituna Community Weeding	2026/27 - $10,000 2027/28 - $5,000
Styx Living Laboratory Trust	Pūharakekenui Styx River Catchment Enhancement Planting	2026/27 $20,000
Avon Ōtākaro Network Inc	Avon Ōtākaro Network catchment wide restoration and community engagement	2026/27 - $30,000 2027/28 - $30,000
Taumutu Runanga Limited	Whakaora Te Muriwai o Whata (The Restoration of Muriwai o Whata/Coopers Lagoon	2026/27 - $50,000 2027/28 - $50,000
Total		$214,000

6. Adopts the staff recommendation to decline the applications for the Environmental Partnerships Fund as detailed below:

Organisation	Project Name	Amount	Rationale for decline
New Zealand Chinese Creative Arts and Culture Troupe Incorporated	Volunteer Beach and Community Cleanup	$0	Project can be completed without funding
Cultivate Christchurch	Cultivate Explore	$0	Did not meet partnering criteria as per the TOR
Tegan Mackay	Swant’some:Caterpillars to Classrooms	$0	Not an incorporated society
Sea Cleaners	Restoring the mauri of Banks Peninsula’s coastline together	$0	Did not meet partnering criteria as per the TOR
Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Inc	460 Governors Bay Road Project	$0	Terms of Reference allow only one project to be funded per group and the other project was higher priority
The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals	Animal Desexing to Help Protect the Taonga Species of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula	$0	Did not meet partnering criteria as per the TOR
Food Resilience Network Inc	Nature Works: Exploring Green Infrastructure at Ōtākaro Orchard	$0	Already funded from a different Council source

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Cotter Carried

For	17	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

The meeting adjourned at 11.27 am and reconvened at 11.47 am. Upon reconvening, Deputy Mayor Henstock joined the meeting in person.

14. Notice of Motion - Investigation into the viability of a clearway on Memorial Avenue

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00016

Councillor Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Requests staff to hold a workshop with the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board as early as possible within the first half of 2026 regarding the viability of establishing a clearway on Memorial Avenue between Greers Road and Clyde Road to:

a. Develop a shared understanding of the issues, potential options, and associated trade‑offs.

b. Enable staff to provide a more accurate estimate of workload, costs, and impacts.

c. Ensure any potential project can be considered as part of Long-Term Plan deliberations.

2. Requests staff to rename, rescope and initiate capital project #75070 Memorial Avenue Cycle Lanes to include changes to the section of Memorial Avenue, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of effective and efficient options and wider network impacts.

Councillor Cartwright/Mayor Carried

For	17	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

15. Notice of Motion - Endorsing the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00017

Councillor Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Endorses the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative which includes the following three pillars:

a. “Non-Proliferation: Developing the plan that would allow governments to stop building out the problem by ending the expansion of coal, oil and gas production”.

b. “A fair phase-out: An equitable plan for the wind down of existing fossil fuel production, where nations with the capacity and historical responsibility for emissions transition fastest, providing support to others around the world”.

c. “Just Transition: Fast track the adoption of renewable energy and economic diversification away from fossil fuels so that no worker, community or country is left behind”.

2. Agrees for the Christchurch City Council to be registered as an endorser to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative on the Treaty website: www.fossilfueltreaty.org

Councillor Coker/Councillor Cotter Carried

For	9	Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore
Against	8	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

16. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00018

Mayor’s Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this report.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

For	17	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00019

That at 12.16 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 217 to 218 of the agenda be adopted

Mayor/Councillor Cotter Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.34 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.35 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026.

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 12 February 2026

7. Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/308731
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Rodgers, Transport Network Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

1. The Board took into consideration the deputations at Items 6.1 and 6.2 and relevant correspondence in Item 8.

2. Council Officers Jacob Bradbury, Peter Rodgers and Weng-Kei Chen joined the table to speak to this Item and answered questions from elected members.

3. Council Officers presented the image in Attachment A (tabled) to explain safe driving speeds of the proposed roading layout.

4. Melanie Coker then Moved Option 2 from the agenda report, to approve the proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices with speed humps on the approaches and exits from the roundabout (Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda). This was seconded by Kate Hodgins.

5. Will Hall then Moved a Foreshadowed Motion to approve a variation of Option 1 from the agenda report with one speed hump on the northbound entry lane for the new subdivision road. This was seconded by Nathaniel Herz Jardine.

6. At conclusion of debate, the Board voted on the Motion as Moved by Melanie Coker and was declared carried.

2. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout Report.

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

3. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 166 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for 126 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

4. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound 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 east side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at a point approximately 21 metres south of its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in an southerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

5. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of northbound 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 west side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at a point approximately 33 metres south of its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

6. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 31 metres west of its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 74 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

7. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 31 metres west of the prolongation of the western kerb line of its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 76 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

8. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 39 metres east of the prolongation of the eastern kerb line of Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 127 metres, as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout 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.

4. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound 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 east side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at a point approximately 21 metres south of its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in an southerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

6. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 31 metres west of its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 74 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

8. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 39 metres east of the prolongation of the eastern kerb line of Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 127 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

9. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout Report.

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

11. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 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 12 – 17 below.

Cashmere Road frontage – 250-258 Cashmere Road

12. Approves the roundabout, new paths, kerb alignments, traffic calming, road surface treatments and road markings, on Cashmere Road commencing at a point 166 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction to a point 31 metres west of its intersection with Brookford Place as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

13. Approves the roundabout, new paths, kerb alignments, traffic calming, road surface treatments and road markings, on Penruddock Rise commencing at its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 36 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

No Stopping and Bus Stops - Cashmere Road

14. 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:

a. On the southern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point 161 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 82 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

b. On the southern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point 65 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Penruddock Rise as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

c. On the southern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with a point 65 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Brookford Place as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

d. On the southern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

e. On the northern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point 31 metres west of the prolongation of the western kerb line of Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Penruddock Rise and the new subdivision road as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

f. On the northern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and the new subdivision road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 87 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

g. On the northern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point 101 metres east of the prolongation of the eastern kerb line of Penruddock Rise and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

15. Approves that a bus stop in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, be reserved for large passenger service vehicles only, for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers only, as part of a bus service as defined in the Land Transport Management Act 2003.

a. This restriction will apply on the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at a distance 79 metres east of its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

b. This restriction will apply on the northern side of Cashmere Road commencing at a distance 87 metres east of the prolongation of the eastern kerb line of Penruddock Rise and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

No Stopping restrictions – Penruddock Rise

16. 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:

a. On the western side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at the new intersection with Cashmere Road detailed on Attachment A and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

b. On the eastern side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at the new intersection with Cashmere Road detailed on Attachment A and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.

17. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, a bi-directional shared path, reserved for road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004 be established:

a. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 161 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

b. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

c. On the northern side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 22 metres west of the prolongation of the western kerb line of Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Penruddock Rise and the new subdivision road as detailed on Attachment A.

d. On the northern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and the new subdivision road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 116 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

18. Approves that for any parking restrictions on land currently vested with Council as Road Reserve, these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff report are in place.

19. Approves that for any parking restrictions on land not yet vested with Council as Road Reserve, these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff report are in place and when the land has been vested with Council.

4. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Part C

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

9. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout Report.

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

Cashmere Road frontage – 250-258 Cashmere Road

No Stopping and Bus Stops - Cashmere Road

14. 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:

No Stopping restrictions – Penruddock Rise

16. 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:

a. On the western side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at the new intersection with Cashmere Road detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

b. On the eastern side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at the new intersection with Cashmere Road detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

a. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 161 metres as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

b. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout	26/12797	111

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Option One - Plan for Approval - Cashmere / Penruddock Roundabout without speed humps	26/191417	124
b ⇩	Option Two - Plan for Approval - Cashmere / Penruddock Roundabout with speed humps (as consulted)	25/2628346	125

Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/12797
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Rodgers, Transport Network Planner Krystle Anderson, Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to approve a roundabout and associated infrastructure at the Cashmere Road / Penruddock Rise intersection required by subdivisions accessing Cashmere Road.

1.2 The report is staff-initiated, resulting from approved subdivision consents.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout 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.

4. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of southbound 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 east side of Penruddock Rise, commencing at a point approximately 21 metres south of its intersection with Cashmere Road and extending in an southerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

6. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 31 metres west of its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 74 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

8. Approves that a special vehicle lane in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road, commencing at a point approximately 39 metres east of the prolongation of the eastern kerb line of Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 127 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

9. Receives the information in the Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout Report.

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

Cashmere Road frontage – 250-258 Cashmere Road

No Stopping and Bus Stops - Cashmere Road

14. 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:

d. On the southern side of Cashmere Road, commencing at its intersection with Brookford Place and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

No Stopping restrictions – Penruddock Rise

16. 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:

a. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 161 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

b. On the southern side of Cashmere Road commencing at its intersection with Penruddock Rise and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 In February 2024 Council granted subdivision / land use consent for RMA/2023/1256 for a residential subdivision of 250-258 Cashmere Road.

3.1.1 Part of the requirements of the consent is for upgrades to the Cashmere Road frontage, including a roundabout, service strip, 2.5m shared path, kerb and channel, bus bay, pedestrian refuge, landscaping, undergrounding of services and lighting (if required).

3.2 Council has entered into a cost-share agreement with the developer for the design, project management and delivery of the roundabout to pay for Council’s share of the roundabout and upgraded existing roading.

3.3 Three options have been proposed:

3.3.1 A roundabout without speed humps (Attachment A)

3.3.2 A roundabout with speed humps on the approaches and exits (as consulted, Attachment B)

3.3.3 That the board instructs staff to investigate further options

3.4 The recommended option is to approve a roundabout without speed humps, for the following reasons:

· A roundabout has been approved through the resource consent, so changes to the design are likely to have a financial and reputational impact on Council

· The removal of speed humps responds to feedback received during consultation

· However, the design of the roundabout has enough horizontal deflection to mostly bring speeds to within safe system recommendations

· Approval allows proposed parking restrictions to be enforceable.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 This report seeks Community Board approval for the civil works within the legal road required for the subdivision at 250-258 Cashmere Road, and for the traffic and parking restrictions associated with those works.

4.1.1 The internal roads have not yet been formally named.

4.1.2 250-258 Cashmere Road has been granted resource consent for residential subdivision, including internal roading and intersections with the existing road network.

4.1.3 The proposed roundabout offers significant improvements to the operation of the existing road network beyond what can be required of the developer under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Therefore Council has entered into a cost-share agreement with the developer for Council’s share of the roundabout and surrounding roading.

4.2 While the requirements on the developer are set through the resource consent, for enforcement of any restrictions to be effective, Detailed Traffic Resolutions are required, with delegations set as per Council’s delegations policy.

4.2.1 The full roading layout and restrictions within the existing road corridor requires approval by the Community Board and/or Council.

4.2.2 For roads within the subdivision, the design is approved through the RMA and the resource consenting process; however, a post-construction report to the Community Board will be required to formalise any intersection controls, parking restrictions on internal roads, or parking restrictions deemed necessary after construction. Therefore, the Community Board will receive a report after these roads have been constructed and handed over to Council.

4.3 Cashmere Road is classified as a minor arterial road in the District Plan. The design therefore needs to accommodate larger heavy vehicles, light passenger vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

4.4 Part of the requirements of the subdivision consent is for upgrades to the Cashmere Road frontage, including a roundabout at the Penruddock Rise intersection, service strip, 2.5m shared path, kerb and channel, bus bay, pedestrian refuge, landscaping, undergrounding of services and lighting (if required). The Cashmere Road upgrade plan includes the following features:

· Refuge/splitter island(s) on Cashmere Road, Penruddock Rise and the new subdivision road.

· Changes to the Cashmere Road kerb alignment between Penruddock Rise and Brookford Place

· Shared path (minimum 2.5m) on both sides of Cashmere Road, including within the splitter islands

· Alterations to existing on-road cycle lanes with the option to transition to off-road shared path prior to the roundabout.

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

Date	Subject
19/12/2025	Update - Cashmere/Penruddock Roundabout

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.6.1 Option One – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices (Attachment A)

4.6.2 Option Two – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices with speed humps on the approaches and exits from the roundabout (Attachment B)

4.6.3 Option Three –investigate changes to layouts and/or traffic control devices

4.7 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.7.1 Option Four - Do not approve roundabout and traffic control devices.

This was ruled out as this would:

· result in any parking restrictions being unenforceable by the Council, and would permit unsafe parking behaviour.

· Prevent development from fulfilling consent conditions.

· Delay development, including incurring costs to Council associated with the delay.

4.7.2 Option Five – Roundabout with additional left turn lane into Penruddock Rise from Cashmere Road.

This was ruled out for the following reasons:

· Traffic modelling of the intersection indicates that this is unnecessary for the efficient operation of the intersection, and is also not feasible within the current and future road corridor, as described in further detail in the staff response to engagement feedback in section 6.15 of this report.

4.7.3 Option Six – Traffic Signals

This was ruled out for the following reasons:

· A traffic light alternative has been modelled (including projected traffic growth) but found to have less capacity than a roundabout and to operate less efficiently and with higher average delay and longer queues on all approaches.

· The proposed design does not preclude the possibility of a traffic signal ‘metered’ roundabout where one (or more) approaches are controlled by traffic signals when queues reach a certain length (a local example of this is the NZTA controlled Springs Road / Halswell Junction Road roundabout and entrance to the southern motorway). However this is not considered necessary at present or in the foreseeable future.

· The subdivision consent conditions do not include traffic signals, this would need to be re-designed from scratch at Council’s cost.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Option One – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices

4.8.1 Option Description: That all proposed layouts and markings are approved by the Board without change, so that any restrictions and violations can be enforced.

This Option includes the plans as shown on Attachment A, including

· Roundabout and splitter islands with pedestrian crossing points

· Cycle lanes

· Shared paths

· Parking restrictions (No Stopping)

The existing path by Francis Reserve is known to flood and is relatively low lying and flat. Staff in consultation with the designer and contractor will look at mitigating this along the frontage of Francis Reserve.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· The roundabout will reduce delays for traffic exiting Penruddock Rise.

· Cyclists have the option of either going off-road and crossing at the refuge island crossings, or continuing on-road in the traffic lane.

· Includes a shared path on the north side of Cashmere Road fronting the development, with the capability to extend it east and west as a requirement of future development and/or future Council projects.

· Allows parking restrictions to be enforceable and for the road environment to operate as intended by the design.

· The roundabout has been designed to manage approach speeds

· Responds to some concerns raised during consultation

· Traffic modelling including growth projections anticipates that this intersection will have sufficient capacity to operate without significant delays well into the foreseeable future.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· Not the consulted scheme, which received support from a number of submitters

· Lack of vertical deflection may mean speeds can be higher for some movements – particularly travelling east along Cashmere Road.

· Removing the vertical deflection was not considered in the initial Safe System (Road Safety) Audits for the project. This option has been assessed by our internal safety teams, and staff are seeking a safety audit addendum which should be ready ahead of the meeting. Furthermore, this could be further addressed post-construction through monitoring (as discussed in Section 4.12).

4.9 Alternative Option: Option Two – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices with speed humps on the approaches and exits from the roundabout

4.9.1 Option Description:

This is the same as Option One, but with speed humps at the approaches and exits to manage speeds around the crossing points as shown on Attachment B. As with Option 1, staff will look at flood mitigation options along the Francis Reserve frontage.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Advantages are mostly the same as Option 1

· However, this option further reduces the risk by more actively managing speeds around pedestrian conflict points.

· Based on evidence from other roundabouts with vertical speed deflections, it is likely that the effect on traffic efficiency and overall journey times is extremely small.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· A number of submissions commented on the humps as a negative of the design (noting that a smaller number of other submitters commented on this a positive aspect)

· Due to the lack of developments on the northern side of Cashmere Road at this time, there is likely to be limited pedestrians crossing north-south for a number of years. This means the additional safety benefits may not be realised for some time.

4.10 Alternative Option: Option Three – investigate changes to layouts and/or traffic control devices

4.10.1 Option Description: The staff will investigate changes to the layout and/or traffic devices, and provide this information in a further report to the Community Board

For this option to be worthwhile, the Board would need to provide clear direction around the layout or device changes they are seeking, so that staff can provide advice around implications, including cost, safety, accessibility and timeframes.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· May ensure that the Community Board's wishes for the area can be better served

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not allow installed parking restrictions to be enforceable and for the road environment to operate as intended by the design

· Requires additional resources to evaluate alternative designs

· Delay development, including incurring costs to Council associated with the delay.

· There is no obvious funding source to carry out any changes to the installed design – this would likely come from the Subdivisions programme, which is currently fully allocated

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 The staff recommended option has been selected for the following reasons:

· The technical details of the recommended layout have been accepted through the RMA subdivisions process. Therefore there would be no additional costs for the Council for investigation or physical costs (this is true of both Options 1 & 2).

· Allows Council Parking Compliance to enforce parking restrictions if needed (this is true of both Options 1 & 2).

· Safety is managed through the design of the roundabout: while Option 2 may be the safest for pedestrians, due to the time for subdivisions to be developed there are not expected to be significant number of pedestrians crossing many of the legs of the roundabout for a number of years. Therefore the additional benefits of Option 2 may not be realised for some time.

· A number of submitters expressed frustration at speed bumps at intersections, and the recommended option responds to this feedback.

4.12 If Elected Members are concerned about the potential safety ramifications of option 1, staff could undertake monitoring a few months after completion.

4.12.1 This would be similar in nature to that undertaken at the Cashmere/Colombo roundabout, so would assess movements, speeds and near incidents.

4.12.2 There would be an additional cost for this, which would be of the order of $30,000 for monitoring (excluding the cost for implementation of any future safety improvements).

4.12.3 If this identifies issues that need resolving, this would require further budget and separate approvals.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Option One – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices	Option Two – approve proposed roundabout layout and traffic control devices with speed humps	Option 3 – investigate changes to layouts and traffic control devices
Cost to Implement	· $1.18M to implement · $750 for the preparation of this report	· $1.2M to implement · $750 for the preparation of this report	· Not possible to quantify without knowing the changes requested. · Likely to be a few thousand dollars for the investigation
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal on the overall asset.	To be covered under the roading maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal on the overall asset.	As above, it is not possible to quantify without knowing the changes requested.
Funding Source	78070 Subdivisions - Penruddock - Cashmere Roundabout, Additional funding will be brought forward from: 60090 Programme - Subdivisions Infrastructure	78070 Subdivisions - Penruddock - Cashmere Roundabout, Additional funding will be brought forward from: 60090 Programme - Subdivisions Infrastructure	· 165 Transport Infrastructure for Subdivisions · This would likely need topping up in future years through an Annual Plan/LTP to ensure Council meets its obligations concerning new subdivisions
Funding Availability	Yes	Yes	TBC
Impact on Rates	<0.01%	<0.01%	TBC

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risks include:

6.1.1 If parking restrictions are not approved, they will not be enforceable.

6.1.2 If Option One is selected, there is a small risk of more and/or higher severity crashes at the new roundabout compared to Option Two. Staff could undertake post-construction analysis of the roundabout (similar to studies for Cashmere/Colombo roundabout) to ensure it is operating safely, however, this would have an additional cost (around $30k)

6.1.3 If Option Three is selected, then all usual design and construction risks apply. As the design has been approved through the Resource Consent process there is likely to be a considerable cost and reputational risk for Council related to redesign and/or delays to the construction of the roundabout.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 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 no-stopping and traffic control devices.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no 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 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 decisions:

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

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Consultation started on 8 January and ran until 25 January 2026.

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

· An email sent to the Westmorland Residents Association and the Cracroft Residents Association.

· A flyer delivered to 70 properties around the intersection on 8 January 2026.

6.9 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 781 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.10 Submissions were made by one recognised organisation, and 44 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

6.11 Submitters were asked if there was anything we needed to know before work starts.

6.12 The Westmorland Residents Association had concerns about the speed bumps, and the removal of the left-hand turning lane into Penruddock Rise. They also suggested moving the pedestrian crossing points away from the roundabout.

6.13 Submitters liked the following elements of the plan:

· Overall support / overall positive comment (13)

· Cycling improvements (4)

· Speed bumps (3)

6.14 Submitters disliked the following elements of the plan:

· Speed bumps (17)

· Removal of the left-hand turning lane into Penruddock (14)

· Elements of the design are similar to the Cashmere/Colombo/Dyers Pass roundabout design and this causes congestion (10)

· Lack of parking for tennis courts (3)

· Pedestrian crossing points at the roundabout (3)

· The plan is for a roundabout rather than traffic lights (3)

6.15 Staff have provided responses to the common concerns raised by submitters:

Submitter concern	Staff response
Speed bumps	The roundabout needs to be designed to accommodate large and heavy vehicles including buses and as a result, the lanes are wider than for a road not designed for these larger vehicles. As far as possible this has been mitigated through the turning radius and roundabout deflection, however, there are some movements where it is insufficient to slow smaller vehicles to within safe system recommended speeds (generally <30km/h). The speed humps in Option Two reduce speeds specifically at or before the locations where motor vehicles will be coming into conflict points or sharing space with other motor vehicles, or with pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users. This includes pedestrians or cyclists crossing the road and any on-road cyclists continuing straight through on Cashmere Road who will need to share the lane with motor vehicles (including heavy vehicles).
Similarities to Cashmere/Colombo/Dyers Pass roundabout and congestion concerns	The proposed Cashmere/Penruddock roundabout design is larger than the Cashmere/Dyers roundabout, which was restricted by existing property boundaries and by the terrain. It is extremely unlikely that speed humps would increase delays significantly. A pre-and post-construction analysis of the Cashmere/Dyers Roundabout indicated that the new design of that roundabout had reduced mean operating speeds and reduced conflicts as intended, however had not resulted in reduced traffic throughput.
Removal of left-hand turning lane into Penruddock	Cashmere Road in the vicinity of Penruddock Rise is increasingly becoming urbanised with the current subdivision of land opposite Penruddock Rise, however originally the intersection was designed when Cashmere Road was a 100km/h road, the speed limit was reduced to 70km/h in 1997, followed by 60km/h in 2015, and was further reduced to 50km/h in December 2019. The left hand turning lane from Cashmere Road into Penruddock Rise functions as a deceleration lane for left turning traffic to slow to turning speeds. This is a safety treatment usually used at rural high speed intersections (ie with speed limits of 70 to 100km/h). It is not necessary for the efficient operation of this intersection to include a second dedicated left turn lane at the roundabout. Traffic modelling of the proposed roundabout intersection has found that the conversion of a T intersection to a roundabout results in no increased delay to the left turn from Cashmere Road into Penruddock Rise during the PM peak hour, and that inclusion of a left turn only lane into Penruddock Rise results in negligible changes in average delays. The roundabout will also result in a significant reduction in delays for the right turn from Penruddock Rise during the AM peak hour. Inclusion of a left turn lane will also require additional space which is not currently accounted for in the design, will have safety implications which have not been considered in the road safety audit process so far, and is not currently technically feasible to include. For example, a similar treatment to the Wigram / Aidanfield / Skyhawk intersection would not be possible as the road carriageway would encroach into Francis Reserve, which is not available for that purpose.
Lack of parking	There is insufficient road space available to include footpath/shared path, cycle lane and traffic lanes on Cashmere Road outside the tennis courts. Parking remains available a short distance away on Penruddock Rise.
Pedestrian crossing points	It is standard practice to place pedestrian crossing points near the intersection as this is on the main pedestrian desire line. Shifting the pedestrian crossing points will not decrease the distance for pedestrians to walk to the bus stops, and will move the crossing points further from the desire lines, including the desire line for pedestrians walking to/from the new subdivision to the north.
Traffic lights	A traffic light alternative has been modelled (including projected traffic growth) but found to have less capacity than a roundabout, and to operate less efficiently with higher average delay and longer queues on all approaches. Based on the road classifications, the requirement for Traffic lights is not met.

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

6.16.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.17 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Roading changes will be installed by the developer via the subdivision consent approval process.

7.2 Later, once the road is vested, a separate report will come to the community board for approval of the detailed resolutions within the development.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Option One - Plan for Approval - Cashmere / Penruddock Roundabout without speed humps	26/191417
b	Option Two - Plan for Approval - Cashmere / Penruddock Roundabout with speed humps (as consulted)	25/2628346

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Peter Rodgers - Transport Network Planner

Krystle Anderson - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

8. Hagley Avenue - Clearway
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/203772
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kathy Graham, Team Leader Traffic Operations Gautham Praburam, Traffic Engineer Hannah Ballantyne, Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to make permanent the clearway currently operating on the north side of Hagley Avenue between 7:30 am and 7:30 pm.

1.2 The kerbside lane on Hagley Avenue between St Asaph Street and Riccarton Avenue previously operated as a general traffic lane carrying north-westbound traffic. Since March 2025, this lane has been trialled as a clearway between 7:30 am and 7:30 pm, with parking permitted outside these hours.

1.3 This report has been prepared following monitoring of the impacts of this arrangement.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Hagley Avenue - Clearway Report.

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

3. Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the existing no stopping restrictions on the northern side of Hagley Avenue, commencing at a point 82 metres northwest of its intersection with St Asaph Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for 102 meters be revoked.

4. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Section 1.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, the stopping of vehicles is to be prohibited only during the clearway hours on the northern side of Hagley Avenue, commencing at a point 82 metres northwest of its intersection with St Asaph Street and extending in a north-westerly direction for 102 meters. The clearway is to apply between 07:30 AM – 07:30 PM, seven days a week, as detailed in Plan TG146302, dated 17/01/2025, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

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

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

3.3 The trial commenced on 10 March 2025 and was scheduled to end on 9 September 2025.

3.4 Given the imminent opening of the Parakiore Metro Sports Centre and the anticipated increase in traffic volumes in the area, staff recommended extending the trial for another six months to continue monitoring usage, assess future demand, and evaluate the impacts of the new sports facility and investigate any alternative parking options.

3.5 Despite the increased parking demand following the trial extension, parked vehicles—including those that overstayed—were not observed to adversely affect traffic flow. This was particularly evident during the morning peak period, when impacts were most anticipated.

3.6 Based on observations undertaken during the trial, together with feedback received from stakeholders and members of the public, staff recommend that the clearway on Hagley Avenue be made permanent.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.11 The trial commenced on 10 March 2025 and was scheduled to end on 9 September 2025.

4.12 Clearway signage and markings were installed in accordance with NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi guidelines and standard city-wide practice.

4.13 Information about the trial was provided to the Mayor, Councillors, the Waipapa Papanui–Innes–Central Community Board, and other key stakeholders prior to the commencement of the trial. In addition, a Newsline story and a Facebook post were published to inform the wider public about the trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.20 At the time of the initial trial, the nearby Parakiore Metro Sports Facility was scheduled to open later in the year (2025) and was anticipated to generate additional traffic and parking demand in the surrounding area. Given the uncertainty around how the opening of the facility might influence traffic conditions, parking behaviour, and overall network performance along Hagley Avenue, staff considered it premature to draw final conclusions from the initial trial period alone.

4.21 Accordingly, staff recommended extending the trial for a further six months to allow continued monitoring of clearway usage, assessment of future parking demand, and evaluation of the operational impacts associated with the opening of the Parakiore Metro Sports Facility. The extended trial period also enabled consideration of the effectiveness of the clearway in the context of any alternative parking options that may become available as travel patterns evolve.

4.22 Following the extension of the trial, utilisation of the parking area increased noticeably. Monitoring indicated that more than ten vehicles were parked per night on most days, with demand exceeding 20 vehicles on multiple occasions over the 12 hour duration.

4.23 43 instances of non-compliance were observed during the extended trial (up to 31 December 2025), including 15 longer overstayers that required towing. The remaining vehicles mostly vacated before 8:00 AM. Additionally, there were 8 instances of vehicles arriving before clearway hours, including one as early as 06:29 PM.

4.24 Despite the higher parking demand and comparatively higher non-compliance observed during the extended trial period, parked vehicles—including those that exceeded the permitted parking duration—were not found to have any major adverse effect on traffic flow or network performance along Hagley Avenue. This was particularly evident during the morning peak period, when the potential for impacts was expected to be greatest.

4.25 Some minor driver behaviour issues were observed during the trial. These included instances where drivers initially queued behind parked vehicles before recognising the clearway arrangement and moving into the adjacent traffic lane. In addition, there were occasional observations of vehicles turning right from St Asaph Street at normal speeds and subsequently slowing down abruptly upon encountering parked vehicles ahead. While these behaviours were noted, they were infrequent and did not result in any recorded crashes. Overall, these observations were not considered to present a level of safety risk sufficient to warrant early termination of the trial.

4.26 The Parakiore Metro Sports Facility opened on 17 December 2025, introducing a new potential source of traffic and parking demand in the area. Although the post-opening monitoring period was relatively short, observations undertaken during this time did not indicate that parked vehicles resulted in any significant safety concerns, traffic congestion, or reductions in network efficiency.

4.27 Based on the observations undertaken throughout both the initial and extended trial periods, and taking into account feedback received from stakeholders and members of the public, staff consider the clearway to be operating as intended. Accordingly, staff recommend that the clearway on Hagley Avenue be made permanent.

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

Date	Subject
18/07/2023	Memo - Options for increasing on-street parking around Christchurch Hospital
18/07/2023	Briefing – Options for increasing on street parking around Christchurch hospital
23/01/2024	Memo - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations
23/01/2024	Briefing - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations
06/03/2025	Memo - Parking near Christchurch Hospital - Clearway trial along Hagley Avenue
03/09/2025	Report - Extension of Hagley Avenue Clearway Trial Period

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.29.1 Make the clearway along Hagley Avenue permanent.

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

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.30 Preferred Option: Make the clearway along Hagley Avenue permanent.

4.30.1 Option Description: This option involves permanently permitting night-time parking on the north side of Hagley Avenue near Christchurch Hospital.

4.30.2 Option Advantages

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

· No additional cost as no infrastructure changes are needed.

4.30.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not maintain full lane capacity at all times, increasing the potential for delays to general traffic and emergency vehicles.

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

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

4.31.2 Option Advantages

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

· Eliminates the need for ongoing enforcement.

4.31.3 Option Disadvantages

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

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

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 None identified.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

6.2.2 Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to subsequently amend or revoke any resolution made under this bylaw at any time.

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.

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

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

6.5 The required decision:

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

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

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

6.5.4 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.3.1 Provide an optimised balance of Council operated parking spaces in the central city - <=85% average occupancy.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Consultation on whether the trial should be retained permanently started on 30 January and ran until 15 February 2026.

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

· An email sent to Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, Hato Hone St John, Fire and Emergency NZ, New Zealand Police, Canterbury Health Laboratories, Hagley College, and Otago School of Medicine.

· A Newsline story which was shared to Council’s Facebook page.

· Signs alongside the clearway

6.10 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 432 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.11 Submissions were made by 50 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

6.12 38% of submissions came from people who have used the carparks provided by the clearway.

6.13 Of those who have used the car parks (20), most said that working at the hospital was the purpose of their trip.

Q: What was the purpose of your trip? (multi-choice)

· Work at the hospital (12)

· Visiting someone in the hospital (7)

· Recreation (3)

· Work elsewhere in the city (2)

When asked what works well about the clearway trial, the most common feedback was:

· Provision of parking near the hospital (24)

· It provides safer parking for hospital staff (10)

· Provision of free parking (6)

· It balances the need for parking with a live traffic lane when required (6)

· They haven’t experienced an impact on traffic flow when the clearway is operating (6)

When asked what doesn’t work well about the clearway trial, the most common feedback was:

· Cars overstay the clearway hours (12)

· The break in the traffic lane for parking is dangerous, e.g. causing cars to swiftly change lanes with little notice (12)

· The hours of the clearway (8) – requests for different hours to better accommodate the needs of different hospital shift workers or traffic flows

· The disruption of traffic flow (6)

· It’s confusing (5)

· There isn’t enough knowledge about the parks (4)

6.14 55% (29) of the submissions were generally positive about the clearway trial, 30% (16) were generally negative, and the remaining 15% (8) were either balanced or did not provide enough information for this assessment to be made.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.16 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

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, no further infrastructure changes will be required, as all necessary measures have already been implemented as part of the trial.

7.2 Submitters and key stakeholders will be formally notified of the Council’s decision.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Clearway - Hagley Avenue	26/286821	135

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gautham Praburam - Traffic Engineer

Kathy Graham - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

10. Bus stop upgrades on Gloucester and St Asaph Streets
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/56202
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Mansour Johari, Passenger Transport 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 Council to approve bus stop improvements within the Plan A area on Gloucester Street and St Asaph Street.

1.2 This report has been prepared by staff in response to community requests.

1.3 The proposed bus stop upgrades were consulted on concurrently and are presented in a single report to streamline time and costs. However, the decisions concerning each bus stop are independent, and they can be pursued separately if necessary.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Bus stop upgrades on Gloucester and St Asaph Streets 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. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to parking or stopping restrictions and traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions and traffic controls described in resolutions 4 to 6 below.

Bus stop 14271 – 78 St Asaph Street (Attachment A)

4. Pursuant to Section 339(1) of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. Approves that a bus passenger shelter be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 37 metres west of its intersection with Montreal Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 3.6 metres.

Bus stop 30688 – 203 Gloucester Street (Attachment A)

5. Pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017:

a. Approves that a bus stop on the northern side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 127 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked.

b. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 108 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

c. Approves that a Bus Stop be installed, on the northern side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 118 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d. Approves that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 132 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

6. Approves that a bus stop sign, a seat, and directional and warning tactile pavers be installed at bus stop 30688 outside 203 Gloucester Street, as shown on Attachment A.

7. Approves that these resolutions, described in clauses 4 to 6 above, take effect when traffic controls or parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Based on community requests staff are proposing two bus stop upgrades, which are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed bus stop upgrades.

Adress and ID	Origin	Upgrades
78 St Asaph Street - 14271	(2x) Community	Shelter installation
203 Gloucester Street - 30688	Community	Slight relocation – improving access to bus stop and bus

3.2 The proposed plan for bus stop (ID 30688) on Gloucester Street also incorporates standard line markings, tactile pavers, and seat to improve accessibility and safety.

3.3 These upgrades have been prioritised based on patronage and community requests.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

78 St Asaph Street – 14271

4.1 Staff have received two community requests for a bus shelter at this stop. The bus stop serves nine bus routes (3, 5, 7, 60, 80, 81, 84, 85, and 86). On average, 69 passengers use this bus stop each day.

4.2 A bus stop is deemed well-used if, on average, it serves around 20 or more passengers daily. This is the traditional CCC threshold for bus shelter installation.

4.3 The existing bus stop includes standard line markings, signage, seat, and tactile pavers.

203 Gloucester Street – 30688

4.4 Staff have received complaints that private vehicles park in this space, preventing buses from pulling in safely and stopping parallel to the kerb. This results in the rear of the bus blocking the traffic lane. In addition, the parked private vehicles restrict sightlines for drivers exiting the new driveway.

4.5 The bus stop serves bus routes 5 and 7. On average, 23 passengers use this bus stop each day.

4.6 The bus stop previously featured a standard layout, including a bus box, lead-out no-stopping restrictions, and a lead-in space provided by a driveway immediately before the bus box.

4.7 The driveway has been moved away from the bus stop due to the new adjacent housing developments, creating a space between the driveway and the bus stop with no parking restrictions implemented.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

78 St Asaph Street – 14271

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

4.8.1 Shelter installation.

4.8.2 Do nothing.

203 Gloucester Street - 30688

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

4.9.1 Bus stop relocation.

4.9.2 Do nothing.

4.10 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.10.1 The option to provide lead-in no-stopping restrictions at the existing bus stop location was ruled out for the following reason:

· This option would result in the loss of two parking spaces compared with the preferred option.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

78 St Asaph Street - 14271

4.11 Preferred Option: Shelter installation.

4.11.1 Option Advantages

· Improves customer satisfaction by providing weather protection for passengers.

· Responds to two community requests for the installation of a shelter.

4.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· Costs associated with shelter cleaning and maintenance.

4.12 Do nothing Option:

4.12.1 Option Advantages

· The Council will not incur any costs.

4.12.2 Option Disadvantages

· Does not improve customer satisfaction.

· Does not respond to two community requests for the installation of a shelter.

203 Gloucester Street - 30688

4.13 Preferred Option: Bus stop relocation.

4.13.1 Option Advantages

· No loss of on-street parking.

· Improved access to bus stop for buses.

· Improved access to and from the bus for passengers.

· Buses would no longer block the traffic lane when stopping at the stop.

· Improved sightlines from driveway.

4.13.2 Option Disadvantages

· Staff have not identified any specific disadvantages.

4.14 Do nothing Option:

4.14.1 Option Advantages

· The Council will not incur any costs.

4.14.2 Option Disadvantages

· None of the identified advantages associated with the preferred option would be realised.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The estimated costs for the recommended option and the do-nothing option are provided in the table below.

5.2 The implementation costs in the table below include the expenses for investigation, design, and construction of bus stop upgrades.

5.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - The Transport Unit Operational Expenditure budgets include maintenance of bus stop infrastructure.

5.4 Funding Source – Traffic Operations budget for public transport infrastructure upgrades.

78 St Asaph Street - 14271

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do nothing
Cost to Implement	$31,000	$0
Funding Source	CPMS 50465	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Bus stop maintenance contract - minimal effects to the overall asset	N/A
Funding Availability	Available	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A

203 Gloucester Street - 30688

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do nothing
Cost to Implement	$6,500	$0
Funding Source	CPMS 50465	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Bus stop maintenance contract - minimal effects to the overall asset	N/A
Funding Availability	Available	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Should the Council proceed with Option 2, the do-nothing option:

· None of the identified advantages associated with the preferred options would be realised.

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 restrictions by resolution.

6.2.2 Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to amend or revoke any resolution made under this bylaw at any time.

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

6.2.4 The council has delegation for resolution of bus passenger shelters under Section 339 (1) of the Local Government Act 1974.

6.2.5 The council has delegation to hear and determine objections to bus stop shelters.

6.2.6 Staff confirm the shelters will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

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

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people impacted by each individual plan, the low risk and cost associated with the decision.

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.4.1 More people are choosing to travel by public transport - >=14 million trips per year

· Level of Service: 10.4.4 Improve customer satisfaction with public transport facilities (quality of bus stops and bus priority measures) - >=73%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Consultation has been carried out with affected property owners and tenants.

6.8 The consultation period ran from 20 January to 10 February 2026. Letters were delivered to the property owners and tenants affected.

6.9 Environment Canterbury support the proposed upgrades.

78 St Asaph Street – 14271

6.10 Staff did not receive any submissions for this proposed bus shelter.

203 Gloucester Street – 30688

6.11 Staff have received five submissions for this bus stop:

6.11.1 One resident sought clarification on the rationale for the proposed changes. Staff provided an explanation, and no further feedback was received.

6.11.2 One resident supported the proposed plan.

6.11.3 One resident raised concerns that, if the proposed plan proceeds, their driveway could be blocked in the event that multiple buses arrive at the same time.

· Staff responded that this bus stop has not been identified or confirmed as a location where multiple buses regularly arrive at the same time.

6.11.4 Three resident raised concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed bus stop to their driveway.

· Staff responded that the proposed bus stop would improve sightlines from the driveway compared with existing conditions, as buses would only be present a few times per day and for short durations of approximately 30 seconds each time.

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

6.12.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. However, providing shelters along with other bus stop upgrades will enhance public transport user satisfaction and encourage more people to use public transport.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the staff recommendations are approved, staff will engage with contractors to proceed with construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed bus stop improvements	26/223645	148

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mansour Johari - Passenger Transport Engineer

Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation Safety

Approved By

Kathy Graham - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

11. Cathedral Square Roading Network- Worcester Boulevard from Oxford Terrace to Cathedral Square (Area 9B)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2540525
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport Hannah Pirie - Senior Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the design and detailed traffic resolutions for the section of Worcester Boulevard between Oxford Terrace and Cathedral Square, as part of the Cathedral Square Roading Network project and as shown in Attachment A.

1.2 This street upgrade forms a key component of the broader Cathedral Square Anchor Project from the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. It focuses on completing the upgrade of the west end of Worcester Boulevard, spanning from Cathedral Square to the Oxford Terrace River Walk.

1.3 The report is staff generated to continue with the reinstatement and enhancement of the Cathedral square and adjacent areas of the Cathedral Square and surrounds.

1.4 Delegation for approving this project sits with the Council. Cathedral Square is located within the Central City and therefore is of Metropolitan Significance.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Cathedral Square Roading Network- Worcester Street from Oxford Terrace to Cathedral Square (Area 9B) 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. Makes the following resolutions required for the implementation of the project, including any traffic controls and /or parking/ 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 kerb lines, traffic calming devices, traffic controls, parking, and stopping restrictions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic calming, parking and stopping restrictions described in recommendations 5 – 11 below.

5. Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments, signage and road markings on Worcester Boulevard, commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Cathedral Square as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

6. Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments, signage and road markings on Oxford Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Club Lane and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Boulevard as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

No stopping

7. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times:

a. On the east side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point six metres south of its intersection with Club Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

b. On the west side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point four metres north of its intersection with Club Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 59 metres, as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

c. On the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 10 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

d. On the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 65 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

e. On the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 93 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Cathedral Square as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

Parking restrictions

8. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, a Loading Zone be installed, on the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A. This Loading Zone is to be restricted to the use of Goods Vehicles only for a maximum loading period of five minutes. This restriction is to apply 6:00am to 10:00pm, Monday to Sunday.

9. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, a small passenger service vehicles stand be installed on the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply 10:00 pm to 6:00 am (the following day), Monday to Sunday.

10. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, a mobility parking space be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle to a maximum period of 120 minutes, on the north side of Worcester Boulevard commencing at a point 84 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres as detailed on plan RD4011S7, dated 16/01/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A. This restriction is to apply at all times.

General approval

11. Approve that these resolutions 4 – 11, 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).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The intent of this project is to upgrade the northern side of Worcester Boulevard, alongside the Sheraton Hotel.

3.1.1 There are developments ongoing in this area, and the timing of the work is planned to tie in with the opening of these in 2027.

3.1.2 The footpath is in poor condition, having had no maintenance since the 2011 earthquakes.

3.1.3 The project seeks to integrate this with the recently completed upgrade of the other side of Worcester Boulevard.

3.2 There are two options provided within the report:

· The recommended option is to repair and refurbish the footpath and road surface in this area, including widening the footpath, and changes to parking to complement adjacent developments.

· The alternative option is to do the minimum changes to allow the hotel to function in accordance with the consented design, and to provide safe pedestrian access on the northern side of Worcester Street. It is likely that this would need to be upgraded at some point, when there is more certainty around other developments in the area.

3.3 Staff have recommended this option for the following reasons:

· It meets the post-earthquake vision for a high-quality public realm within the square, and matches recently completed work on the southern side of Worcester Street.

· Ties in to, and has been workshopped with, the developer of the Sheraton Hotel.

· Has been discussed with stakeholders who have wider development interests in the square.

· The alternative may eventually cost more, as a future project to improve this section of Worcester Street is still likely to be required.

3.3.2 However, staff note that the recommended option:

· Is significantly more expensive.

· Provides less flexibility for working around future developments.

· Reduces public parking within the Central City.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

4.1 Cathedral Square was identified as an anchor project within the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, with Crown and Council funding identified under the Cost Share Agreement.

4.1.1 A regeneration strategy and action plan for Cathedral Square and the surrounding area was publicly consulted on in 2017. 83% of respondents generally support the plan. People supported the plan for:

· Creation of dynamic people-friendly spaces; Making the city more vibrant and creating a European feel.

· Making the Square a destination rather than a thoroughfare; Creating a gathering place for people of all ages.

· Rejuvenating the Square by adding green space and water.

4.1.2 Concerns were raised around maintaining vehicle access to local businesses (e.g. hotels) and services available in the area.

4.2 To work towards the vision developed by Regenerate Christchurch, staff have been developing designs that can be delivered within available budgets, which include the access requirements of adjoining land owners and users as they become known.

Progress on Cathedral Square

4.3 The Council has progressively been redeveloping areas within Cathedral Square to unlock the vision identified by Regenerate Christchurch and to create welcoming, safe, and vibrant public spaces that enhance the urban realm surrounding Cathedral Square and key facilities such as Te Pae and Tūranga.

4.3.1 Plans to progress with the redevelopment of Cathedral Square were first presented to Council in March 2019 (CNCL/2019/00068), with approval sought to renew the sections outside of the Old Government Buildings, Distinction hotel and the Spark building. As the redevelopment of these sections of Cathedral Square did not affect vehicle circulation within them, authority was delegated to the Executive Leadership Team to proceed with these upgrades.

4.3.2 Since the March 2019 report, elected members have been provided with progress updates in 2021 and 2023. The update in 2023 involved an explanation of why the focus of the renewal had shifted from the area outside the Cathedral to the section of Worcester Blvd between Oxford Terrace and the Square, namely, to ensure that the renewal of transport infrastructure in this section was timed to coincide with the opening of the Regent and Sheraton developments.

4.4 Works on the southern side of Worcester Boulevard have recently been completed to align with the opening of the Regent building and to provide a pedestrian link along Worcester Boulevard to the Museum and Botanic Gardens.

4.5 Area 9b – the Northern side of Worcester Street, to the east of the intersection with Oxford Terrace - is the next area being developed.

4.5.1 With the planned opening of the Sheraton Hotel in 2027, staff have prioritised this section of Worcester Boulevard. The design would provide a streetscape and footpath that is consistent with the recently completed works on the southern side.

4.6 For information, future stages of this project are being revised the moment. Stage 9b is still required to be delivered due to the works needing to be completed prior to them opening of the proposed Sheraton Hotel. Council will be briefed soon on the process and reasons for revising future stages of the project.

Site Context

4.7 The current condition of the footpath on the northern side of Worcester Boulevard is shown below. This is unchanged since the earthquakes in 2011, and has multiple surface defects, an uneven surface, and is not in keeping with the works completed on the southern side, nor will it be considered appropriate for the frontage of a new high-quality hotel development.


Worcester Blvd (hotel frontage)	Worcester Blvd (completed works)

4.8 As part of the development of the hotel, consent has been granted for a porte cochere to be constructed facing onto Worcester Boulevard. Council staff have worked with the hotel developer to accommodate this in the design of the recommended option.

4.9 As the redevelopment of this section of Worcester Boulevard will require removal of a number of the 13 metered car parks on the north side of Worcester Boulevard, this report has been presented to the Council to seek approval to progress.

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

Date	Subject
28 March 2019	CNCL/2019/00068: Update to Council re approach to the renewal of Cathedral Square and resolution sought to commence works
2 November 2021	Progress update provided to elected members
22 March 2023	Progress update provided to elected members

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 Option 1 (recommended option)- To repair and refurbish the northern side of Worcester Blvd to be consistent with the works completed on the southern side.

4.11.2 Option 2 – Do the minimum works required to facilitate the opening of the hotel and maintain public safety.

4.12 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.12.1 Option 3 -Traditional kerb and channel construction-this option was not pursued as it does not reflect the work already undertaken on the southern side of this section of the boulevard, and this does not best support the objective of creating a shared space as outlined in the original regeneration intention.

4.12.2 Option 4- No change to the existing on-street parking restrictions. This option was ruled out as it did not allow for the Porte Cochere or accessway off Worcester Blvd to be constructed, both of which were consented as part of the hotel redevelopment.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: To repair and refurbish the northern side of Worcester Blvd to be consistent with the works completed on the southern side.

4.13.1 Option Description: The design is shown in Attachment A. Key features of this design include:

· Removal of parking and physical obstructions to allow access for coaches to the Sheraton Hotel entrance.

· The construction of a flush road and footpath surface to maintain consistency with the works completed elsewhere in the Square and on Oxford Terrace.

· Use of a paving design and type similar to elsewhere in the Square to maintain consistency.

· Increasing footpath width (2.8m) and providing a clear delineation strip to cater for increased footfall.

· Changes to drainage and underground services to accommodate altered kerbline.

· Retention of two 3.2m traffic lanes and the posted 30 km/h speed limit.

· Planting of up to 6 street trees, three on Worcester Blvd and three on Oxford Terrace and landscape planting beds.

· Alterations to the supports for the tram overhead powerlines to suit the porte cochere.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· This option is supported by the developer of the Sheraton Hotel and has been circulated to stakeholders with a development interest in Cathedral Square.

· This enables the construction of the porte cochere and access off Worcester Blvd. These have both been consented as part of the hotel's redevelopment.

· The other proposed kerbside uses (mobility parks, taxi/loading zone) are proposed to service the Regent development, the Sheraton Hotel and future land uses on this section of Worcester Blvd.

· The design of the recommended option is consistent with the recent upgrades on the south side of the street and elsewhere in Cathedral Square.

· Completion of the works along the northern side of Worcester Street in one pass will reduce revisit costs and disruption for existing developments.

· The hotel porte cochere requires changes to the way the tram power lines are supported. The recommended option allows for this to be carried out along Worcester Street in one pass, reducing the chance of future revisit costs.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option will require the removal of the 13 existing metered carparks on this side of Worcester Blvd. These are proposed for removal from the hotel's porte cochere and access way (7 metered parks) and for implementing the tree-planting and parking layout shown on the plan (6 metered parks). This will impact on both revenue and public parking availability adjacent to the square.

· Due to the inclusion of the loading zone and mobility park, it is not considered practicable to include metered parking for the two proposed P30 car parks.

· This is a high-quality, and therefore high-cost solution, which is expected to tie into future, as yet unknown, works. Therefore there is little flexibility should developments not materialise as expected.

4.14 Alternative Option: Do the minimum works required to facilitate the opening of the hotel and maintain public safety.

4.14.1 Option Description: The design is shown in Attachment B. Key features of this design include:

· Removal of some metered parks, and installation of dropped kerb, across access to Sheraton to facilitate access for coaches.

· Retention of 6 of the 13 metered parking spaces

· Keep existing kerb line and road surface

· Installation of asphalt footpath surface

· Alterations to tram overhead power supports only as necessary for the construction of the porte cochere

4.14.2 Option Advantages:

· This enables the construction of the porte cochere and access off Worcester Blvd. These have both been consented as part of the hotel's redevelopment.

· This is a low-cost solution, that gives greater flexibility should future developments not materialise as currently anticipated.

· Retains metered parking adjacent to the square, with impacts on parking availability and revenue.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages:

· The hotel access has been designed based on expected levels where the footpath meets the hotel entrance. Without changes to the kerbline, this may lead to the footpath having inconsistent falls.

· This option has not been circulated with key stakeholders within the square.

· This option does not support other proposed kerbside uses (mobility parks, taxi/loading zone) which have been proposed to service the Regent development, the Sheraton Hotel and future land uses on this section of Worcester Blvd.

· The design of this option is inconsistent with the recent upgrades on the south side of the street and elsewhere in Cathedral Square.

· This would likely result in further works along the northern side of Worcester Street needed to be completed at a later date. This is likely to result in higher overall costs, as well as disruption for existing developments.

· The hotel porte cochere requires changes to the way the tram power lines are supported. This option would likely mean completing changes to the tram power in two stages.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.15 Both options support the consent conditions for the Sheraton Hotel, and address known condition issues.

4.16 However, the staff recommended option has been selected for the following reasons:

· It has a finish consistent with the recovery plan, and the recently completed southern side of Worcester Street

· Has been consulted with, and supported by, the adjacent hotel developer to ensure a compatible interface in terms of accessibility and function

· Is likely to result in lower overall costs due to not requiring a second visit to complete the works in this area.

4.17 However, staff note that the recommended option is significantly more expensive initially, and therefore provides less flexibility for adapting to future developments.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The recommended option is estimated to cost $2.5 million to construct, with the main project costs components being:

· Carriageway repairs and resurfacing

· Footpaths

· Stormwater management

· Lighting Poles and Fittings

· Tram Work (Cost will be offset in relationship to tram upgrade project)

· Planting and maintenance

· Works on Behalf of CCC (e.g. Cameras, etc.)

5.1.2 Due to the nature of works within the Central City, and the concentration of underground utilities in this area, staff have allowed a higher contingency allowance. This will be refined as the Detailed Design progresses.

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Do Minimum
Cost to Implement	$2.5M	$0.5m
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Maintenance of new street trees and planting beds is estimated to cost $3,000 per year	Minimal change to existing
Funding Source	CPMS#83801 Cathedral Square - Worcester Boulevard (Oxford Terrace - Cathedral Square) And CPMS#60273 Cathedral Square Roading Network	CPMS#83801 Cathedral Square - Worcester Boulevard (Oxford Terrace - Cathedral Square) And CPMS#60273 Cathedral Square Roading Network
Funding Availability	$14.0m	$14.0m
Impact on Rates	Within budget, so no additional impact on rates	Within budget, so no additional impact on rates

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that if work does not start on site by August 2026, it will not be completed prior to the opening of the Sheraton Hotel.

6.2 There are a high number of underground and overground services in this area. Some allowances have been made to the rates for working around these (see point 5.1.2), but the extent and exact location has not yet been fully determined.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The decision-making authority for all decisions in connection with Metropolitan Significance projects sits with the Council.

6.3.2 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board will be kept informed.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 There is no other legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision beyond the normal decision-making considerations for the Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

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 the work being a refurbishment of the existing roadway while facilitating access into the Hotel development.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

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

· Level of Service: 16.0.2 Improve roadway condition, to an appropriate national standard, measured by smooth travel exposure (STE)(DIA 2) - >=75% of the sealed local road network meets the appropriate national standard

· Level of Service: 16.0.9 Improve resident satisfaction with footpath condition - >=43%

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The recommended option has been developed alongside the hotel operator, and the design is consistent with what has been constructed on the east side of the road.

6.9 This option has been shared with 24 people who have development interests in the square and has received no objection.

6.10 The development of this option has been discussed with the tram operator who has confirmed that it has no impact on the tram operation.

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

6.11.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.14.1 Contribute neutrally to the impacts of climate change.

6.14.2 Contribute neutrally to emissions reductions.

6.15 In the development of this project, the following actions are proposed to reduce the carbon footprint of the project:

· The re-use of existing Cathedral Square granite pavers on the Worcester Boulevard footpath to reduce the need to purchase new pavers.

· The construction and installation of the majority of the pavers on a flexible base to allow for access to services in the future.

· New concrete carriageway pavers to be locally produced using local resources.

· Uplift and storage of existing old concrete pavers from the carriageway for use in repairs of areas where needed in the future further along Worcester Boulevard.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the recommendations are accepted, staff will progress the detailed design and commence the procurement process for the streetscape works to progress in line with the timeframes for the opening of the Sheraton Hotel in early 2027.

7.2 It is expected that construction will begin in Spring 2026.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Cathedral Square Area 9B For Approval	25/2619475	162
b ⇩	Worcester Street (Oxford Tce to Cathedral Square, Design Area 9B) Do Minimum(3)	26/362850	163

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Hannah Pirie - Senior Project Manager

Tom Williams - Senior Traffic engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

12. Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2555531
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Elizabeth Neazor, Manager, Legal and Democratic Services; Paul Devlin, Manager Regional Parks, Parks
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 request that the Council considers becoming the Controlling Authority for two walkways (Walkways) to be established under the Walking Access Act (Act).

1.2 The request in relation to this originated with the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust and the Little River Wairewa Community Trust in relation to separate walkways. The requests from the separate Trusts are being put to the Council for a decision within one report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority Report.

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

3. Approves the request made by the relevant community groups that Council become a Controlling Authority of the two (unnamed) Walkways, to be established pursuant to the Act.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council has been asked to be the Controlling Authority for two specified but unnamed Walkways to be established pursuant to the Walking Access Act 2008.

3.2 A Controlling Authority is legally responsible for marking, controlling, maintaining, developing, and funding walkways and related facilities, ensuring safe, enduring, and accessible public walking routes across both public and private land.

3.3 The Council already owns much of the land that these Walkways will cross (being roads and other Council land) and each of the Trusts is anticipated to have all required dealing with landowners where required in relation to land in private ownership; the Council would need to negotiate these requirements with each Trust. The default position is always that the Council retains the statutory liabilities under the Act.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council has been approached by the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (RDBPT) and the Little River Wairewa Community Trust (LRWCT) (jointly, Trusts) to accept the role as a Controlling Authority in relation to two specific walking paths (jointly, Walkways) to be established under the Act. The decision as to whether to accept this role sits with the full Council.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.2.1 To agree to be a Controlling Authority.

4.2.2 To decline to be a Controlling Authority.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.3 Preferred Option: To agree to be a Controlling Authority.

4.3.1 Option Description: To accept the role as a Controlling Authority in relation to two specific walking paths (jointly, Walkways) to be established under the Act.

4.3.2 Option Advantages

· Local Knowledge & Contextual Insight: The Council has a thorough understanding of local terrain, user patterns, cultural values, seasonal issues, and landholder relationships, enabling responsive and context-aware walkway management. Its involvement helps align walkway management with local priorities and planning frameworks.

· Resource Access & Coordination: The proposed arrangement is that the individual Trusts will pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the Walkways however, in the event that the trusts were not able to cover these costs, the Council has access to budgets, grant funding, maintenance teams, planning tools, and infrastructure capabilities which can support formal upkeep of markers, gates, toilets, and other facilities.

· Enhanced Promotion & Safety: The Council can actively promote walkways through local marketing, signage, integration with regional events, and emergency or safety awareness campaigns.

4.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· Financial & Time Burden: Managing walkways involves capital and operational costs (for example, regular maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, and staffing). There is at present no request for a council contribution, nor any dedicated funding for this and if the Council was required to cover these costs they would have to come from existing budgets.

Note: Notwithstanding that under legislation these costs would sit with the Council, as a condition of agreeing to be a controlling authority council proposes that it would enter into agreements with the RDBPT and the LRWCT respectively, so that those costs will sit with the appropriate Trust. Those agreements will not, however, reduce the Council’s statutory obligations.

· Competing Priorities: Councils juggle many responsibilities and walkway management might not always align with urgent local priorities, potentially leading to under-resourcing.

· Legal & Liability Risks: Controlling authorities have certain obligations/liabilities: ensuring public safety, signage, maintenance, biosecurity issues, and GPS use. Councils may face potential claims in case of accidents or environmental damage.

· Community Tensions: Walkways often cross private land. Councils may have to mediate landholder concerns, for example, relating to trespass, litter, invasive species spread, and farm disruption.

4.4 Option 2: To decline to be a Controlling Authority.

4.4.1 Option Description: To decline the role as a Controlling Authority in relation to two specific walking paths (jointly, Walkways) to be established under the Act.

4.4.2 Option Advantages

· The advantages and disadvantages of being a Controlling Authority are set out in 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 above.

4.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· The advantages and disadvantages of being a Controlling Authority are set out in 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 above.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The costs for development and maintenance have already been secured by the RDBPT in relation to one of the Walkways, and it is anticipated that the LRWCT will also be able to contribute to costs for the other Walkways. If Council was required to cover maintenance for the Walkways, this would be found within existing budgets.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Set out above in relation to the Pros and Cons of Council becoming a Controlling Authority for the Walkways.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2 The legal authorisation to consent (or not) to being a Controlling Authority sits with the full Council. Under the Delegations Register, Council has delegated all its responsibilities, duties and powers under the Act to the Chief Executive except “ … (b) the decision to agree to be a controlling authority (or not as the case may be) under section 36 [of the Act]; …”.

Other Legal Implications:

6.3 The pros and cons of this proposal are set out above. The following is further information about the Act and being a Controlling Authority.

The purpose of the Act is:

6.4 To provide the public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors, including areas around the coast, lakes, rivers, and public resources, enabling enjoyment of natural environments; and

6.5 To establish the New Zealand Walking Access Commission (Commission).

The role of the Commission:

6.6 Among other matters, the Commission is responsible for with leading and supporting the negotiation, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of walking access (including walkways) across both public and private land; and

6.7 The Commission may be, and may appoint others to be, controlling authorities of those walking access ways.

Walkways under the Act:

6.8 Walkways are (essentially) paths across public or private land declared to be walkways. With respect to private land, these pathways are set via leases or easements.

The role of a Controlling Authority:

6.9 A Controlling Authority is legally responsible for marking, controlling, maintaining, developing, and funding walkways and related facilities, ensuring safe, enduring, and accessible public walking routes across both public and private land.

Interaction between Council as a Controlling Authority and the respective Trusts:

6.10 Each of the Trusts will enter into agreements with Council setting out the allocation of obligations and responsibilities if Council does accept the role of the Controlling Authority with respect to the Walkways. Those agreements will not, however, reduce Council’s legal obligations under the Act.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.11 The required <decision/decisions>:

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

6.11.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6.11.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.13 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.13.1 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

6.14 The decision in relation to both Walkways affects the Banks Peninsula following wards/Community Board areas.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.15 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/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 not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Paul Devlin - Manager Regional Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

14. 2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/299378
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Newey, Principal Policy Advisor Biodiversity Nicholas Head, Senior Ecologist Lynette Foster, Community Funding 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 Council to consider applications for funding to its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund.

1.2 This report is the mechanism for the Council to allocate its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation Report.

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

3. Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust towards Pig's Ear weed control - Le Bons Bay Conservation Trust covenant.

4. Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust towards Weed control Kōwhai Bush and Te Ara Pātiki covenants.

5. Approves the application of a grant totalling $74,988 from the 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to the Christchurch City Council regional parks operations budget, to fund the delivery of specialist services for the control of Pigs Ear and Mt Evans Spur Valerian in areas requiring contracted abseiling techniques, across the next three years.

6. Approves a grant of $51,745 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to The Summit Road Society towards Ōhinetahi and Linda Woods Reserves Biodiversity Project.

7. Approves a grant of $15,000 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Conservation Volunteers New Zealand towards Whaka Ora Pest Project.

8. Approves a grant of $4,000 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Little River Campground towards Manaia Native Habitat Significant Ecological Site.

9. Approves a grant of $60,000 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Marie Neal towards Kaituna Community Weeding.

10. Approves a grant of $8,475 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Orton Bradley Park Board towards Sea frontage and fish passage restoration for possum traps only.

11. Approves a grant of $25,272 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Pikiraki Limited towards Owhetoro Forest Restoration.

12. Approves a grant of $68,812 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Styx Living Laboratory Trust towards Pūharakekenui | Styx River Restoration at 188 Radcliffe Road.

a. Notes the total amount to be paid in 2025/26 to be spent over two years with progress reporting to be provided in January 2027 and January 2028.

13. Approves a grant of $43,080 from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Inc towards Hokinga Rāpaki Native Reserve 875.

14. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Living Springs Trust for Living Springs Weed control.

15. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Macbeth and Dann Farm Partnership for Macbeth and Dann Waterway and Wetland Restoration Project.

16. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Reagan Knapp for Opara Riverside Biodiversity Enhancement.

17. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Reagan Knapp for Opara Riverside Biodiversity Enhancement - site 2.

18. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Te Ara Kākāriki Greenway Canterbury Trust for Whakaora Hoon Hay Valley Project.

19. Declines a grant from its 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Inc for Whakamahere a Ngāti Wheke.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Biodiversity funding supports the Council's statutory obligations to protect significant indigenous biodiversity on private land and empowers local communities to assist the Council in this task.

3.2 This report presents staff recommendations on a number of eligible applications to the 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund. A detailed matrix analysis of each application is attached to this report as Attachment A. A summary of each application is attached as Application B.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Halting the decline of indigenous biodiversity is a matter of national importance, and a core statutory function of District Councils. The Christchurch district comprises a diverse assemblage of ecosystems that support internationally and nationally important habitats for wildlife, as well as population strongholds for numerous threatened and rare species. Most remnant ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity occur on private land in the district.

4.2 The Biodiversity Fund supports landowners working to protect ecologically significant sites on their land. The fund is a tool established to both support landowners with Significant Ecological Sites (SES) on their property and as an implementation tool for the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy. The Council can provide funding for eligible projects on private land matched with a similar in-kind contribution by the grant recipient. Up to $500,000 is available for allocation this year.

4.3 Funding supports a partnership approach with landowners or groups. The fund criteria require the work to be based on private land, and for landowners or groups carrying out the work to be contributing in a “like for like” context through volunteer labour and/or materials.

4.4 The Fund is an opportunity to support private landowners taking voluntary action, and investing their own time and money, to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on their properties. The projects provide real protection for biodiversity in the Christchurch District through empowering locals and local communities to take direct action.

4.5 Since the fund was established in 2017, more than $2,500,000 has been allocated to projects (excluding the current applications). Previous projects involved fencing, restoration planting, pest plant control and pest mammal control. Some projects involve multiple activities.

4.6 Over approximately 2500 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation has been protected, along with the indigenous fauna that live in those habitats. Many projects have also protected streams and important waterways.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.7.1 Option one is to either approve or decline applications as recommended.

4.7.2 Option two is to change all or part of the recommendations.

4.7.3 Option three to leave one of more applications on the table for further consideration at a later date.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Either approve or decline applications as recommended.

4.8.1 Option Description: Either approve or decline applications as recommended.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· Recommendations are carefully considered and peer-reviewed, expert advice was obtained, they are consistent with Biodiversity Fund eligibility and assessment criteria along with Council’s strategic goals.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· Biodiversity Fund balance would be reduced with less funding potentially available for other opportunities.

4.9 Option 2: Change all or part of the recommendations.

4.9.1 Option Description: Change all or part of the recommendations.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

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

· Allows for another layer of evidence-based consideration of the application.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Changes that are not evidence based can compromise a robust assessment process.

4.10 Option 3: Leave one or more applications on the table for further consideration at a later date.

4.10.1 Option Description: Leave one or more applications on the table for further consideration at a later date.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· This allows Elected Members to request further information and/or staff analysis to inform their decision making, avoiding the need to reject an application outright or make insufficiently informed changes.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Delaying the decision will extend the timeframe before the group can plan next steps, potentially impacting project timelines and costs.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 Applications are assessed by a cross-Council panel of staff and prioritised accordingly. Three primary criteria are used to determine applications’ eligibility:

· Must be private land.

· The site has significant ecological values.

· The site has some form of enduring protection, meaning there is work happening toward enduring protection; or for landscape scale projects there is sufficient governance/experience/expertise in place that staff are satisfied projects will be managed appropriately.

4.12 In addition to these primary criteria, applicants are required to contribute 50% of the cost of the project, either “in kind” through their, or others, voluntary actions or donation of goods and services.

4.13 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal challenges or the Environment 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.

4.14 To determine relative priority of applications, further consideration is given to the national priorities for protecting indigenous biodiversity on private land, which provides a useful context to compare relative merits of applications if required.

4.15 Based on the Biodiversity Fund criteria (see attachment X), the applications above are eligible for funding. The attached Decision Matrix (see attachment Y) provides detailed information on the applications. This includes organisational details, project details, and financial information and a staff assessment.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Change Recommendation	Option 3 – Leave applications on the table
Cost to Implement	$391,372	To be determined	To be determined
Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	2025/26 Biodiversity Fund Total $500,000	2025/26 Biodiversity Fund Total $500,000	2025/26 Biodiversity Fund Total $500,000
Balance Remaining	$101,628	To be determined	To be determined
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil

5.1 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund is $500,000.

5.2 $391,372 is recommended to be awarded from the 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund.

5.3 The remaining balance of $108,628 will sit in the Biodiversity Fund for future allocation.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks associated with allocating funds to the projects as recommended. Checks and balances are in place to ensure the funding granted to projects is spent in accordance with the project plan and meets expectations, including progress reports, proof of completions and inspections if necessary. Staff time in relation to this is an inherent part of overseeing the fund.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council has the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

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 aligns with the Green and Liveable City community outcome “Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy” by supporting individual landowners to protect and enhance biodiversity on private land.

6.5 The decision is consistent with Council Plans and Policies. The programme aligns with the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, supporting implementation of Goal 1 “Conserve and restore Christchurch’s and Banks Peninsula’s indigenous biodiversity” and Goal 3 “Encourage widespread participation in support of indigenous biodiversity conservation.” To assist with implementation, staff work with Environment Canterbury and covenanting agencies to ensure that projects have adequate support and that our combined resources are efficiently allocated.

6.6 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

6.7 The programme aligns with District Plan policies regarding the protection of ecologically significant sites, and the provision of advice and incentives for landowners who wish to do this on private property.

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

6.9 Citizens and communities

6.9.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 The community is very supportive of the Council contributing funds to assist with conservation on private land. Several submissions were made by community groups and individuals to the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 requesting that the Council increase the annual allocation to the Biodiversity Fund. As a result, the fund was increased to $400,000 and further to $500,000 for the 2024/25 year - an outcome consistent with the Council declaring an ecological and climate emergency.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.11 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water but does involve indigenous species and ecosystems that have intrinsic values. Therefore, this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. Staff note, however, that the intent of all projects is to have a positive impact on indigenous biodiversity.

6.12 While matters of indigenous biodiversity are of interest to Mana Whenua, this specific decision to allocate funding to enhance biodiversity will not impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.13 The decisions in this report are likely to contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Most of the projects provide protection and enhancement to regenerating vegetative habitats, which will boost the carbon sequestration capacity of these areas. Protecting and enhancing the ecological health of sites will improve the resilience of the district’s habitats and species within them to the impacts of climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Following Council decision making staff will advise applicants. Staff will work with successful applicants ensuring the respective projects are delivered in a manner consistent with the application.

7.2 Successful applicants will be required to complete the requisite report-back obligations.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Biodiversity Fund 2025/26 Matrix (Under Separate Cover)	26/239937
b	Biodiversity Fund 2025/26 Summary Applications (Under Separate Cover)	26/240218

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Dave Newey - Principal Advisor Policy - Biodiversity

Lynette Foster - Community Funding Advisor

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

15. 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund - March 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/112670
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships; Jacqui Jeffrey, Community Funding 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 Council to consider one application to its Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) for the 2025/26 financial year.

1.2 This is a staff generated report as a result of an application to the CEF from a community-based organisation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund - March 2026 Report.

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

3. Approves a grant of $75,000 from its 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust towards the relocation of the yacht club building to Governors Bay, conditional on the applicant demonstrating they have sufficient resources to complete the project and the production of a robust project plan demonstrating how the project will be delivered before funds are drawdown.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report presents an application for funding from the CEF 2025/26.

3.2 The Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust (Jetty Trust) are requesting a grant to contribute to the cost of moving a historic structure from storage to create a community space for kayak storage, community events and art space. This will sit alongside the Historic Governors Bay Jetty as part of a wider community precinct.

· This application is not connected to the Jetty project currently supported by Council.

· Following a thorough assessment this report will recommend that Council approve a grant of $75,000.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust (Jetty Trust)

4.1 Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust are proposing to relocate a historic yacht club building to a space near the Governors Bay Jetty for use as a community recreational space.

· The refurbished building is intended to serve as a base for a proposed kayak park and provide amenities for visitors to the jetty. The facility will include toilets, picnic tables, equipment storage, and indoor space for public use, community events, and marine education. It will also feature an information centre focused on the history of Te Whakaraupō and a designated area for local artists and craftspeople to exhibit and sell their work.

· The historic Canterbury Yacht and Motorboat Club building, originally constructed in 1923, is currently stored at Lyttelton port. The port company are keen for it to be relocated.

· The Boat House, once renovated, will not require ongoing operational investment from the Council. The facility will be self-sustaining through rental income and community support.

4.2 The Jetty Trust has a track record of planning, fundraising for and delivering large-scale capital projects, having overseen the rebuild of the Jetty itself following earthquake damage to the structure. The yacht club building will contribute to the ongoing financial sustainability of both the Boat House and Jetty, generating revenue for maintenance

4.3 It is recommended that Council approve a grant of $75,000 towards the relocation of the yacht club building, conditional on the applicant demonstrating they have sufficient resources to complete the project before funds are drawdown, because;

· The completed project will establish a community-accessible kayak facility that accommodates educational programs, recreation, equipment storage, and public use.

· The project improves amenities at the Jetty by adding public toilets, seating, commercial space, and historical displays for visitors. It activates the waters at the Head of the Harbour.

· Christchurch’s maritime heritage is preserved by relocating and repurposing a historic yacht club building to reflect the history of Te Whakaraupō. The project involves saving a historical asset of the community. Port Lyttelton, who are storing the building wish to have it removed from their site.

4.4 Whilst the Jetty Trust requested a contribution of $200,000 the recommendation is for $75,000 the specific rationale for this recommendation is that.

· A council contribution of $75,000 will represent a valuable boost supporting the project for the reasons detailed in section 4.8 of this report above.

· Whilst having a city-wide perspective much of the benefit derived from this project will be of a local nature. $75,000 is consistent with this delineation.

· The building is smaller in size and the precinct in which it will be installed is confined. Physical limitations will inhibit widespread and extensive use. Again, a contribution of $75,000 fairly reflects this.

· A Council contribution of $75,000 effectively balances a meaningful and willing up-front contribution against the size, scale and focus of the project. It represents continued Council investment in a unique community whilst recognising the anticipated need for the CEF to support a wide range of initiatives in financially constrained times.

Capital Endowment Fund

4.5 This application is eligible for funding from the CEF as there is evidence that;

· the proposal is for a specific project or activity projects,

· the project demonstrates a benefit for the city of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch, and

· the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

4.6 This application has been assessed according to Council criteria and the assessment peer reviewed. A summary of the assessment is attached to this report Attachment A.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.7.1 Option 1 (preferred option): Agree to the recommendation for a CEF grant to the organisation as detailed in sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this report respectively.

4.7.2 Option 2: Change the amount recommended.

4.7.3 Option 3: Decline the application.

4.7.4 Option 3: Request that the application is left on the table or withdrawn and re-presented.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Option 1 - Preferred Option: Agree to the recommendations for CEF grants to the organisations as discussed in the Background section and Attachment A of this report.

4.8.1 Option Description: Agree to the recommendations for CEF grants to the organisations as detailed in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this report respectively.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· Recommendations are carefully considered and peer-reviewed, expert advice was obtained, they are consistent with CEF eligibility and assessment criteria along with Council’s strategic goals.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· CEF balance would be reduced with less funding potentially available for other opportunities.

4.9 Option 2: Change the amount recommended.

4.9.1 Option Description: Under this option, Councillors can make changes to the recommendations made in this report.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

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

· Allows for another layer of evidence-based consideration of the application.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Changes that are not evidence based can compromise a robust assessment process.

4.10 Option 3: Decline the application

4.10.1 Option Advantages

· CEF balance would remain unchanged allowing greater scope to support future opportunities.

4.10.2 Option Disadvantages

· The projects will not proceed at his time or potentially at all.

4.11 Option 4: Request that the application is left on the table or withdrawn and re-presented.

4.11.1 Option Advantages

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

4.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· Delaying the decision will extend the timeframe before the group can plan next steps, potentially impacting project timelines and costs.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust	Relocation of the historic yacht club building to Governors Bay	$200,000	$75,000
	Total	$200,000	$75,000

5.1 After accounting for all current commitments to the CEF, the unallocated portion for 2025/26 is $1,757,344. If the recommendations in this report are accepted, the remaining available balance for this financial year will be $1,682,344.

5.2 Anticipated applications to the CEF include but are not limited to Halswell Tennis Charitable Trust, Dogwatch Sanctuary Trust, Te Tahi Youth Board and Mainland Rail.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Project Delivery Delays. This risk is mitigated by the fact that project plans have been reviewed; and that funding drawdowns are conditional on sufficient resources being demonstrated. Council staff keep regular communication with applicants to monitor project progress.

6.2 Cost Overruns. This is mitigated by the one-off nature of CEF grants limiting any future financial liability to the Council. Applicants are expected to have contingency plans and secure co-funding for projects where appropriate. Many of applicants have access to additional fundraising opportunities, should a project scope expand between the time of applying for funds, and delivery of their project. The drawdown of approved funding is often conditional on the applicant confirming the funding targets have been reached and he production of a robust project plan demonstrating how the project will be delivered.

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

6.4 Reputational Risk. This risk is mitigated by Applications have been assessed transparently against Council-approved criteria, with detailed staff assessments available as Attachment A.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

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

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 considering the fact that the CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP.

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

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

6.8 Citizens and communities

6.8.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. Views and impacts were sought from the applicants and others during the assessment proves. Wider community views have not been sought.

6.10 Whilst the CEF and the two projects assessed have a city-wider scope, the decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

· Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula

6.11 The Community Board viewpoint has not been sought, as the delegation to consider CEF sits with the Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decision in this report 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. This is because the subject matter of the report and decision involves the administration of an existing funding scheme provided for in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 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 The applicant will be contacted shortly after the publishing of the minutes of the decision in this report. With any grant funding distributed thereafter as per the decision made by the Council.

7.2 The drawdown of grant funding is conditional on the applicant demonstrating they have sufficient resources to complete the project and the production of a robust project plan demonstrating how the project will be delivered.

7.3 If Council resolve to fund the respective project, the applicant will be required to complete an accountability report back to the Council on the success of the projects and how the granted funds were spent.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Capital Endowment Matrix March 2026	26/314875	187

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

16. Discretionary Response Fund March 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/299691
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Foster, Community Funding 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 Council to consider an application for funding from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) from RDU 98.5FM (RDU).

1.2 The report is the result of an application to the DRF.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund March 2026 Report.

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

3. Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund to RDU 98.5FM towards RDU50 - Anniversary Events Programme.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report presents an application from RDU for $88,088 to employ an event manager to deliver a 50^th anniversary series of events and activities.

3.2 A grant of $88,088 was requested. A grant of this magnitude would substantially impact on the Council’s ability to support other community organisations with emergency of unforeseen situation over the remainder of the financial year.

3.3 The staff recommendation of $20,000 will support RDU to deliver a number of events and initiatives, aligns with the eligibility criteria of the DRF, takes into consideration a previous Council directive and ensures there is sufficient funding available in the DRF to support other community organisations over the remainder of 2025/26.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Discretionary Response Fund

4.1 The purpose of the DRF is to assist community groups with emergency or unforeseen situations. Applications will support community-focused projects that contribute to the strengthening of community wellbeing in the Christchurch city area.

The Applicant and Application

4.2 RDU is a popular citywide radio station. In 2026, RDU 98.5FM marks its 50th anniversary, and to celebrate this milestone the station is planning a year-long programme of creative events and community activations. To lead and deliver this additional activity RDU are seeking $88,088 from the DRF to employ a Project Manager. The proposed programme includes regular events in partnership with festivals and creative organisations, pop-ups with their mobile sound system, as well as a large-scale event.

Summary of the Assessment and Rationale

4.3 The detailed assessment of the application is summarised in the Decision Matrix attached to this report in Attachment A.

4.4 RDU 98.5FM presented plans to celebrate their 50th Anniversary to the Council in August 2025. At this meeting staff were directed to assist with their programme. An application was received through the Discretionary Response Fund in mid-December, and while this application does not meet the DRF’s criteria as an unforeseen or emergency situation, the application is being assessed as part of the wider directive to support RDU 98.5FM in their 50th year.

4.5 The staff recommendation of $20,000 is based on $15,000 towards a programme of events, and $5000 towards marketing and promotion of the 50th Anniversary. RDU are encouraged to reapply through the Events and Festivals Fund for their proposed large scale, free to attend, public event.

4.6 The staff recommendation aligns with the Council’s direction to assist RDU, aligns with the eligibility criteria of the DRF and ensures there is sufficient funding available in the DRF to support other community organisations over the remainder of 2025/26.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.7.1 Approve the recommendation.

4.7.2 Change the amount recommended.

4.7.3 Decline the application.

4.7.4 Request that the application is left on the table or withdrawn and represented.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Approve the recommendation.

4.8.1 Option Advantages

· Recommendations are carefully considered and peer-reviewed, expert advice is obtained, they are consistent with DRF eligibility and assessment criteria along with Council’s strategic goals.

4.8.2 Option Disadvantages

· The DRF balance would be reduced with less funding potentially available for other opportunities.

4.9 Option 2: Change the amount recommended.

4.9.1 Option Advantages

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

· Allows for another layer of evidence-based consideration of the application.

4.9.2 Option Disadvantages

· Changes that are not evidence based can compromise a robust assessment process.

4.10 Option 3: Decline the application

4.10.1 Option Advantages

· DRF balance would remain unchanged allowing greater scope to support future opportunities.

4.10.2 Option Disadvantages

· The projects will not proceed at his time or potentially at all.

4.11 Option 4: Requesting that an individual application is left on the table or withdrawn and re-presented.

4.11.1 Option Advantages

4.11.2 Option Disadvantages

· Delaying the decision will extend the timeframe before the group can plan next steps, potentially impacting project timelines and costs.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

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

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
RDU 98.5FM	RDU50 - Anniversary events programme - Events Manager	$88,088	$20,000
	Total	$88,088	$20,000

5.1 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2025/26 Discretionary Response Fund is:

Total Budget Current Year	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$226,949	$92,269	$134,680	$114,680

5.2 To date $92,269 has been awarded from the 2025/26 Discretionary Response Fund to 12 organisations.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The main risks are that the decision does not follow the Council’s criteria for the DRF and that there is insufficient funding to accommodate the decision. Thes risks can be mitigated by a robust assessment of the application and a reconciliation of available financial resources prior to each recommendation.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision:

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

6.3.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the fact that the DRF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP.

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

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

6.5 Citizens and communities

6.5.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.6 The DRF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. Views and impacts were sought from the applicants and others during the assessment process. Wider community views have not been sought.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 The decision in this report 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.

6.8 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. This is because the subject matter of the report and decision involves the administration of an existing funding scheme provided for in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The decision 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 The applicant will be contacted shortly after the publishing of the minutes of the decision in this report. With any grant funding distributed thereafter as per the decision made by the Council.

7.2 If Council resolve to fund the respective project, the applicant will be required to complete an accountability report back to the Council on the success of the projects and how the granted funds were spent.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	RDU 98.5 Decision Funding Matrix	26/180333	194

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Lynette Foster - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

17. Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/291386
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rupert Bool, Head of Parks
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 On 19 February 2025 (item 7, minutes) the Council agreed to disestablish the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) Establishment Committee, and replace it with an interim Committee of Council. The OARC Regeneration Committee will provide governance for the implementation of the OARC Regeneration Programme, aligned with the OARC Assessment Framework, Regeneration Plan, OARC Activity Plan and consenting, policy and legislative requirements.

1.2 At the February 2025 meeting, the Council agreed that membership of the interim Committee would comprise up to three representatives appointed by Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust (MR900) and up to three Council representatives, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and one of the councillors who represents the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor local communities.

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

1.3.1 Establish the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) Regeneration Committee;

1.3.2 Confirm the ward councillor to be a member of the OARC Regeneration Committee; and

1.3.3 Adopt the Terms of the Reference for the OARC Regeneration Committee.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference Report.

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

3. Agrees to establish the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee.

4. Confirms the appointment of the Councillor for [ward] Ward to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Committee

5. Notes that Te Ngāi Tūāhūriri Rūnanga and Te Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust (MR900) will appoint its representatives.

6. Approves the Terms of Reference (Attachment A) for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, Governance Committee.

7. Notes that staff will schedule the first OARC Committee meeting for the second quarter of 2026.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The purpose of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) Regeneration Committee is to provide governance for the implementation of the OARC Regeneration Programme to ensure the ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits of the OARC, and to protect and secure the environmental integrity and the health of the OARC's mahinga kai and awa.

3.2 At its February 2025 meeting, the Council agreed to the OARC Establishment Committee’s recommendation to establish a Committee of Council as an interim decision-making body for the governance of the OARC. A partnership approach for the development of the OARC is key to ensuring Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, as mana whenua, has the ability to exercise its rangatiratanga.

3.3 The decisions in this report will establish the interim Committee. The Committee will consist of up to three representatives appointed by Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and the Ihutai MR900 Trust; and up to three Council representatives, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and one of the councillors who represents the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor local communities, noting that the number of appointees from Council and Ngāi Tūāhuriri will be equal in number.

3.4 This report also requests the Council to adopt the draft Terms of Reference for the Committee, which provide the functions and delegations for the Committee. All decisions must align with the OARC Assessment Framework, Regeneration Plan, OARC Activity Plan and be consistent with the Council’s obligations under the global stormwater discharge consent, the Christchurch District Plan, Council policy, national and regional policies and strategies, and legislation and the guiding documents for the OARC.

3.5 To achieve the outcomes for the OARC Council staff will continue working with Whitiora Centre Limited, the authority mandated by the Rūnanga. Specific science-based advice may also be sought from the University of Canterbury Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, as required to support living laboratory initiatives in the OARC.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes severely affected the Ōtākaro Avon River and surrounding area, with the Government classifying the 602 hectares as a residential red zone. A Regeneration Plan was developed following extensive community and stakeholder engagement.

4.2 The Specific Purpose (Otākaro Avon River Corridor) Zone relates to the area of land covered by the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. It is made up of 8 different areas, including the Green Spine, which provide for different ranges of activities and outcomes. Some provide for ecological restoration, stormwater management, flood protection, public open space and outdoor recreation. Others provide for some different types of activities and scales of built development, including activities relating to education, recreation, visitor attractions, eco-tourism, entertainment, retailing, edge and adaptive housing.

4.3 Continuing to work closely with the community is a high priority for the development of the OARC to create a legacy asset for both the city and New Zealand. The Regeneration Plan acknowledged Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust collectively represent mana whenua and have property rights and interests that are established by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

4.4 The Global Settlement Agreement, signed by the Crown and the Council in 2019, outlined a process of transition planning for governance arrangements. The Agreement noted that the Council could establish a permanent community co-governance entity for the OARC should it choose to do so.

4.5 The Council set up an Establishment Committee for the OARC programme in 2022 to:

4.5.1 provide strategic direction, leadership and decision-making to ensure the OARC and the Ōtākaro Avon River are developed, managed and maintained to provide the optimal ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits;

4.5.2 provide advice on the development of the enduring co-governance entity/framework for the OARC.

4.6 The Establishment Committee endorsed an Assessment Framework for all projects and proposals to be evaluated against. The Assessment Framework aligns with the principles and objectives of the Regeneration Plan. This Council formally adopted the Framework in February 2025 (item 7). It is included in the draft Terms of Reference as an appendix, as discussed below.

5. Interim Committee of Council

5.1 The Establishment Committee was disestablished in February 2025 (item 7), with the Council agreeing to a two-phased collaborative governance approach:

· Phase 1: establishment of a Committee of Council as an interim decision-making body, followed by

· Phase 2: establishment of a charitable trust.

5.2 A partnership approach for the development of the OARC is key to ensuring the rūnanga has the ability to exercise its rangatiratanga. The agreed outcome is for appropriate restoration of the wetlands and delta environment.

5.3 Whitiora Centre Limited is the authority mandated by the Rūnanga to provide environmental, policy and strategic advice in respect of its cultural interests, priorities and values on all Council programmes and projects. Specific scientific advice may also be sought from the University of Canterbury Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, as required to support ongoing living laboratory activities.

Membership

5.4 At its February 2025 meeting, the Council agreed that the interim Committee would consist of up to three representatives appointed by Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, and the Ihutai MR900 Trust; and up to three Council representatives, including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and one of the councillors who represents the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor local communities, noting that the number of appointees from Council and Ngāi Tūāhuriri will be equal in number.

5.5 The Council representatives will be:

5.5.1 The Mayor

5.5.2 The Deputy Mayor

5.5.3 One councillor who represents the OARC communities, i.e. either the councillor for either Burwood Ward, Coastal Ward, or Central Ward.

5.6 The majority of the OARC geographical area is within the Burwood Ward. The Coastal Ward incorporates the majority of the Ihutai Estuary (with the remainder in Heathcote Ward). The Central Ward links the Green Spine to the city.

5.7 Mana whenua will nominate its representatives.

Draft Terms of Reference

5.8 The purpose of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) Regeneration Committee is to provide governance for the implementation of the OARC Regeneration Programme to ensure the ecological, cultural, social and economic benefits of the OARC, and to protect and secure the environmental integrity and the health of the OARC's mahinga kai and awa.

5.9 The Terms of Reference provide for:

· Equal membership between the Council and Rūnanga

· Quarterly meetings

· Secretariat support provided by the Council

· Strategic direction and leadership

· Monitoring performance and reporting requirements

· Decision-making to be made within existing budget

· Delegating all responsibilities, duties and powers concerning the use of land within the OARC Development Plan geographical area, as defined in the District Plan, subject to exceptions/limitations which cannot be delegated.

5.10 All decisions must align with the OARC Assessment Framework (Appendix 1), Regeneration Plan, OARC Activity Plan and be consistent with the Council’s obligations under the global stormwater discharge consent, the Christchurch District Plan, Council policy, national and regional policies and strategies, and legislation and the guiding documents for the OARC.

6. Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

6.1.1 Establish the OARC Committee and adopt the Terms of Reference.

6.1.2 Establish the OARC Committee but do not adopt the Terms of Reference.

6.2 The following options were considered but ruled out:

6.2.1 Do not establish the OARC Committee – the Council has already resolved to establish a Committee (February 2025). There is an expectation from mana whenua and the community that there will be an interim Committee of the Council to oversee the OARC programme.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.3 Preferred Option: Establish the OARC Committee and adopt the Terms of Reference.

6.3.1 Option Description: Under this option the Council would establish the OARC Committee and adopt the draft Terms of Reference (Attachment A).

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· The Committee would be established with confirmed Terms of Reference.

· The first Committee meeting would not need to reconsider the draft Terms of Reference and could focus on work programme matters.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· None.

6.4 Establish the OARC Committee but do not adopt the Terms of Reference.

6.4.1 Option Description: Under this option the Council would establish the OARC Committee. However, it would not adopt the Terms of Reference at this meeting. Further work would need to be undertaken to update the draft Terms of Reference, considering any feedback from the Council. Draft Terms of Reference would then be considered by the OARC Committee and a recommendation made to the Council for adoption.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· The Committee would be established, and scheduling of the meetings could get underway.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· The Committee would need to reconsider the draft Terms of Reference at its first meeting.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

6.5 The Council has already decided to establish a Committee of Council for the OARC Regeneration programme. The Terms of Reference have been worked through with Whitiora and the rūnanga input has been incorporated. In providing this feedback, Whitiora has provided advice to the representatives

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – Establish the Committee and adopt the ToR	Option 2 - Establish the Committee but do not adopt the ToR
Cost to Implement	Nil	Nil
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Existing budgets	Existing budgets
Funding Source	Legal and Democratic Services	Legal and Democratic Services
Funding Availability	Existing budgets	Existing budgets
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 If no Committee is established for the OARC, there will be no focused Committee dedicated to providing strategic leadership for the OARC. Where a governance decision is required, staff will be able to take reports to the Council. Mana whenua input would be provided through Whitiora and incorporated in the programme, however there would not be any mana whenua decision-maker at governance level.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.2.1 The Council determines its committee structure and can establish committees with appropriate Terms of Reference as it deems necessary. The Council has the powers to appoint a Committee under Section 30 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.2.2 The Council has powers of general competence in section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 for the purposes of performing its role. The role of the Council includes giving effect to the purpose of local government stated in section 10. The purpose of local government includes promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

8.2.3 Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 also provides that

“Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

…

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or…”

8.3 Other Legal Implications:

8.3.1 Committees of Council must adhere to the requirements of the Local Government Act; the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and Standing Orders when conducting meetings.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.4 The required decisions:

8.4.1 align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The Strategic Framework acknowledges Ngāi Tahu rangatiratanga over its takiwā and emphasises that our work with Ngāi Tahu is intended to bring about meaningful outcomes benefitting the whole community.

8.4.2 are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. There is a high level of interest in the future of the former residential red zone. However, the Council has already resolved to establish an interim Committee of Council therefore the decisions in this report to establish the committee and adopt its Terms of Reference is of low significance.

8.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular the:

· Regeneration Plan and Global Settlement Agreement

· Council’s Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Activity Plan

· District Plan - The amendments to the Christchurch District Plan introduced through the Regeneration Plan require ‘recognition of the Ōtākaro/Avon River as a taonga and a cultural landscape for which Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri exercise kaitiakitanga to ensure values of cultural importance are managed, enhanced and/or protected’; and ‘the restoration of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor for mahinga kai and the improvement of water quality’ (Policy 13.14.2.1.7).

· Te Whakatau Kaupapa, the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013 is recognised under the Resource Management Act 1990. The section on Ihutai includes the catchments of the Ōtākaro/Avon River and Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River and is an essential resource when making decisions on the ŌARC.

· Agile policy for the Ōtākaro Avon Corridor and balance of the residential red zone land use decision making - This policy outlines how the Council will deal with proposals from third parties to occupy (including licences and access agreements) and or lease the former RRZ land. It provides for a collaborative model, which involves the community and mana whenua at key points in the decision-making process and encourages regeneration in line with community aspiration and priority.

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

8.6 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

8.6.1 Activity: Otakaro Avon River Corridor (OARC)

· Level of Service: 6.8.12.2 Effective permanent Co-Governance entity for the Otakaro Avon River Corridor - Permanent Co- Governance entity operational

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 The OARC is of high interest to the people of Christchurch. Projects to implement the Regeneration Plan will continue to go through usual consultation processes.

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

8.8.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

8.8.2 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

8.10 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. The Regeneration Plan acknowledged Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust collectively represent mana whenua and have property rights and interests that are established by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

8.11 The establishment of a collaborative governance entity and a partnership with Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and the Council, provides for and enables the exercise of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga by mana whenua, and provides for the relationship of mana whenua and their cultures and traditions with their ancestral lands, mahinga kai, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.12 The decision to establish a Council Committee and adopt the Terms of Reference does not have any climate change implications.

8.13 The decisions undertaken by the Committee will relate to projects that will contribute positively to the impacts of climate change through the regeneration of the OARC as a lasting legacy.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 The Delegations Register will be amended to include the delegated authority for the Committee.

9.2 Committee meetings can be scheduled.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Terms of Reference - OARC Regeneration Committee	26/296239	203

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

Actions Register Ngā Mahinga

When decisions are made at meetings, these are assigned to staff as actions to implement. The following lists detail any actions from this meeting that were:

· Open at the time the agenda was generated.

· Closed since the last ordinary meeting agenda was generated.

Open Actions Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	9 May 2006	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	31 January 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	28 February 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners	5 June 2024	1 March 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Fen-Wai-Har)
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Pap-Inn-Cen)
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	Executive Office	Executive Office
109 Salisbury Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions - P5	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Antigua Street (Moorhouse to St Asaph) - Speed Limit Changes	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Cashmere / Sutherlands / Hoon Hay Valley Road - Speed Limit Changes	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Discretionary Response Fund Application - MOVE Ōtautahi	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Partnerships & Planning
MCR Nor'West Arc - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
South-East Central Neighbourhood - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Waimakariri Road and Whitchurch Place - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve	10 April 2024	20 March 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Amendments to the Register of Delegations	17 September 2025	27 March 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Legal Services
Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions	20 August 2025	30 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Infrastructure Amendments - Parks	25 June 2024	31 March 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	16 April 2025	31 March 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
New Footpaths Programme	17 September 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Notice of Motion - Feasibility of free overnight parking at Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre	16 July 2025	31 March 2026	Recreation, Sports & Events	Management
Proposal from the East Christchurch Housing Trust to Rent Council Land for Community Housing	3 September 2025	31 March 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Welles Street Temporary Improvements	17 September 2025	31 March 2026
Councillors' proposed amendments - Infrastructure and Regulation	14 February 2024	1 April 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Elected Member Appointments	21 January 2026	22 April 2026	Executive Office	Executive Office
Climate Change Portfolio Lead Report	3 July 2024	30 April 2026	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Coastal Hazards
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	30 April 2026	Regulatory Compliance	Regulatory Compliance
Burwood & Mairehau intersection improvements	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Environmental Partnership Fund	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Parks	Management
Notice of Motion - Investigation into the viability of a clearway on Memorial Avenue	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Notice of Motion - Investigation into the viability of a clearway on Memorial Avenue	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board: Representation on Committees and External Organisations, 2025–2028	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	9 May 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Hearings Panel report on the Gloucester Street "Streets for People" Trial	2 October 2024	15 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	18 May 2026	Corporate Services Management	Corporate Services Management
Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease	2 April 2025	29 May 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Ōtākaro-Avon Stormwater Management Plan	19 June 2024	29 May 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Tsunami Alerting System Review	18 June 2025	29 May 2026	Community Support & Partnerships	CDEM
Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project	5 March 2025	4 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Lyttelton Street safety improvements	6 August 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Selwyn Street pedestrian and cycle safety improvements	6 August 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements	10 September 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
66E Hills Rd - Sale of Land	16 July 2025	30 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 June 2026	Parks	Planning & Policy
Other Amendments - Planning, Property and Miscellaneous	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project	29 August 2019	30 June 2026	Three Waters	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Yaldhurst Memorial Hall	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton	5 February 2025	30 September 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Report Requests	25 June 2024	31 October 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
27 Hunters Road & 43 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour – FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū Unsolicited Proposals	5 June 2024	31 December 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Hearings Panel Report on Lincoln Road Peak Hour Bus Lane Proposal	7 July 2022	1 June 2027	Transport & Waste	Project Management

Actions Closed Since the Last Meeting Ngā Mahinga kua Tutuki nō Tērā Hui

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	DUE DATE	ACTION CLOSURE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model	19 February 2025	31 December 2025	12 February 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Proposed Governance Model	19 February 2025	27 February 2026	12 February 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Canterbury Museum Draft 2025/26 Annual Plan Request	16 April 2025	10 December 2025	12 February 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	25 February 2026	17 February 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Management
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	10 February 2026	9 February 2026	Parks	Management
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Designation	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	12 February 2026	Three Waters	Stormwater & Waterways Delivery
Plan Stop and Exemptions Amendment	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	12 February 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
Plan Change 13 - Final Approval; and Plan Change 14 - Revoking Alternative Recommendations (in part)	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	12 February 2026	Planning & Consents	City Planning
Canterbury Local Authorities’ Triennial Agreement 2025-2028	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	16 February 2026	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Policy Team
Notice of Motion - Endorsing the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	10 February 2026	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Management
Submission on Proposed Rates Cap Model	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	9 February 2026	Strategic Policy & Resilience	Policy Team

6. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/369822
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report February 2026	26/370099	26
b ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report February 2026	26/370117	43
c ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report February 2026	26/370106	58
d ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report February 2026	26/370077	67
e ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report Februrary 2026	26/370149	76
f ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report February 2026	26/370125	95

*Organisation*	*Project Name*	*Amount Recommended*
Opawaho Heathcote River Network Incorporated as the fund holder on behalf of the Friends of Coronation Reserve	Coronation Reserve biodiversity enhancement	$32,580
The Little River Wairewa Community Trust as the fund holder on behalf of the Witch-Hazel McAlister	Okuti Reserve Education Trail	$14,327

19. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/274934
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

20. Notice of Motion - Request for staff advice regarding protest free areas
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/302932
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillors Keown and Cartwright
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

9. Pihipihi Lane: Name Correction
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2384578
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sahan Lalpe, Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

13. Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/309163
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Julie Pearce – Community Funding Advisor Roslyn Kerr – Parks, Programmes and Partnerships Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

18. Three Waters Quarterly Activities Update (October - December 2025)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/373549
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

Author	Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters
Approved By	Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure