Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 1 April 2026

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

Date: Wednesday 4 March 2026

Time: 9.32 am

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

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock

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 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.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00020

That the apologies from Councillor McLellan for absence and from Councillor Coker for lateness, be accepted.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor Coker declared an interest in Item 14 - 2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation in relation to the Summit Road Society application.

Councillor Fields declared an interest in Item 12 - Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority

Councillor Coker joined the meeting at 9.43 am during consideration of Item 6.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 9.39 am and returned at 9.50 am during consideration of Item 6.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.04 am and returned at 10.10 am during consideration of Item 6.

6. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2026

Sunita Gautam, Chairperson, and Simon Britten, Deputy Chair, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area report.

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

Jason Middlemiss, Chairperson, and Maryanne Lomax, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report.

Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Bailey Peterson, Community Governance Manager, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report.

Paul McMahon, Chairperson, and Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report.

Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Nigel Millar, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00021

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - February 2026 Report.

Mayor/Councillor Cotter Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

Attachments

a Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central 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 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council

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

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

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.18 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Stephen Wood

Stephen Wood spoke regarding vulnerable road users.

Attachments

a Stephen Wood - Presentation to Council

3.1.2

Phillip Bates

This public forum did not proceed.

Councillor Cotter returned to the meeting at 10.20 am during consideration of Item 3.1.3.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.19 am and returned at 10.22 am during consideration of Item 3.1.3.

3.1.3

Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour

Co-Chair Yvette Couch and Sarah Wilson spoke on behalf of Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour to update the Council on the Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour programme.

Attachments

a Whaka-Ora Healthy Harbour - Presentation to Council

3.1.4

Rebecca Robin

Rebecca Robin spoke regarding trauma-led emergency responses in Christchurch East, including Bromley, Wainoni and Aranui, and evidence-based recommendations for strengthening future emergency responses using Christchurch’s documented learnings, national emergency management guidance, and Mātauranga Māori frameworks.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.43 am and returned at 10.45 am during consideration of Item 3.1.5.

3.1.5

Robina Dobbie and Ann Satterthwaite

Robina Dobbie and Ann Satterthwaite spoke regarding the introduction of 5G and their concerns for residents’ health.

Attachments

a Robina Dobbie - Presentation to Council

b Ann Satterthwaite - Presentation to Council

3.1.6 John Minto

John Minto spoke regarding Item 20 – Notice of Motion - Request for staff advice regarding protest free areas.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Hayley Guglietta

Hayley Guglietta spoke regarding Item 17 – Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference.

The meeting adjourned at 11.04 am and reconvened at 11.25 am.

17. Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference

Council Comment

1. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Deputy Mayor Henstock with the following additions:

a. Recommendation 4 – The appointment of the Burwood Ward Councillor to the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee (Committee).

b. Additional Recommendation 8 – Noting that the Committee’s meetings and minutes are open to the public.

2. Council Officer Andrew Rutledge joined the table to present the report.

3. Tania Wati was invited to the table speak to the report on behalf of Ngāi Tūāhuriri.

4. Following debate, the meeting voted on the Motion which was declared carried.

Officer Recommendations

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.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00022

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 Burwood 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.

8. Notes that the meetings and minutes of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee are public in accordance with the Local Government Act and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

For	13	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	2	Councillor Johanson, Councillor Moore
Abstain	1	Councillor Donovan
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

There was no presentation of petitions.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00023

That the Open and Public Excluded minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday, 4 February 2026 be confirmed.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

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

7. Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00024

Community Board Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

8. Hagley Avenue - Clearway

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00025

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Mayor/Councillor Keown Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

9. Pihipihi Lane: Name Correction

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00026

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Pihipihi Lane: Name Correction Report.

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

3. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes the Central City Parking Restrictions Committee’s resolution of 22 August 2025 (CCPRC/2025/00012) regarding the stopping of vehicles on “Pipihihi” Lane, due to the incorrect spelling of the lane name.

4. 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 Recommendation 5 below.

5. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on Pihipihi Lane, as detailed on Attachment A, plan TG151615, Issue 3, dated 19/11/2025, subject to the following exceptions and conditions:

a. Goods Service Vehicles, for the purposes of loading /unloading activities relating to properties within, or requiring access from, Pihipihi Lane only.

b. Street cleaning & rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor.

c. Trade and other vehicles (including those operated by service authorities) of any class of vehicle, if authorised to do so by the council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

d. Emergency vehicles

e. Any vehicle or specified class of vehicle that has entered Pihipihi Lane under the above provisions must not be parked for longer than is necessary for its driver to carry out their business or for the period of any emergency.

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

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

10. Bus stop upgrades on Gloucester and St Asaph Streets

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00027

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Cartwright Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

11. Cathedral Square Roading Network- Worcester Boulevard from Oxford Terrace to Cathedral Square (Area 9B)

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00028

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Councillor MacDonald/Deputy Mayor Carried

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

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

12. Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00029

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

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

Conflict of Interest	1	Councillor Fields
Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

13. Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00030

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to 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. Alters the 4 February 2026 Council decision (CNCL/2026/00015) only in relation to the Environmental Partnership Fund allocation to the Friends of Coronation Reserve and Witch-Hazel McAlister, as follows (underlining being the addition):

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

*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

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Scandrett Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

14. 2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00031

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Cotter/Mayor Carried

Councillor Coker declared an interest in Recommendation 6 in relation to the Summit Road Society application.

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

15. 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund - March 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00032

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Fields/Mayor Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

16. Discretionary Response Fund March 2026

Council Comment

1. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Scandrett and Seconded by Councillor Barber (the Motion).

2. A Foreshadowed Motion was Moved by Councillor Moore and Seconded by Councillor Johanson to grant $35,000 from its 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund to RDU 98.5FM towards RDU50 - Anniversary Events Programme.

3. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, the Motion was amended to grant $35,000 to RDU 98.5FM.

4. When put to the vote, the Motion was declared carried.

Officer Recommendations

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.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00033

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 $35,000 from its 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund to RDU 98.5FM towards RDU50 - Anniversary Events Programme.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Barber Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

18. Three Waters Quarterly Activities Update (October - December 2025)

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00034

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Three Waters Quarterly Activities Update (October - December 2025) Report.

Councillor Barber/Councillor Scandrett Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

20. Notice of Motion - Request for staff advice regarding protest free areas

Council Decision

Councillor Notice of Motion:

That the Council:

1. Requests staff to investigate and report back to the Council with advice on establishing protest-free zones at sensitive sites in Christchurch, including the Bridge of Remembrance, the Earthquake Memorial, places of worship and cemeteries.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Cartwright Lost

For	7	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	8	Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Moore
Abstain	1	Councillor Scandrett
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

Councillor Herz Jardine left the meeting at 12.37 pm and returned at 12.38 pm during consideration of Item 19.

19. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00035

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this report.

Mayor/Councillor Keown Carried

For	16	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 Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16

Absent	1	Councillor McLellan

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00036

That at 12.39 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 239 to 240 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.46 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.46 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2026

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2303090
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Community Boards recommendation to Council to dispose of a narrow strip of land within the Millstead Oaks subdivision.

1.2 The origin of this report results from the completion of the Millstead Oaks subdivision and the subsequent need to practically manage ongoing costs of land maintenance.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, 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. Recommends that the Council resolves to transfer:

a. section 2 RPS6694 to the owner of Lot 40 DP 602661 and issue one amalgamated title and

b. section 3 RPS6694 to the owner of Lot 41 DP 602661 and issue one amalgamated title and

c. section 4 RPS6694 to the owner of Lot 42 DP 602661 and issue one amalgamated title and

d. section 5 RPS6694 to the owner of Lot 43 DP 602661 and issue one amalgamated title

4. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to undertake all actions, negotiate and conclude all the agreements necessary to facilitate the recommendations above on terms and conditions acceptable to him at his sole discretion.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Council acquired the boxed drain contained within Section 1 SO 570152 to facilitate the naturalisation of the Styx Drain and enable the Millstead Oaks subdivision.

3.2 All subdivision, road formation and reserve works have been completed, leaving a 140-metre long and 3.5-metre wide strip of land not required by council for its works and therefore to be resolved.

3.3 It is proposed that section 1 will vest as road, section 6 will vest as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve and sections 2–5 will be transferred to each of their respective adjoining owners to the west. All sections are shown on scheme plan RPS6694.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Styx Mill Drain was one of the old style boxed drains common throughout Christchurch and although Council has statutory rights to maintain drains of this nature these rights do not confer ownership. Given the Council’s desire to naturalise the Styx Drain it was logical for Council to take ownership of it to enable development.

4.2 In the first quarter of 2023 Council compulsorily acquired the land identified as Section 1 SO 570152 that contained the boxed Styx drain and was held in the historic Deeds Register with its owner being long deceased.

4.3 This drain extended through the (now) formed Redbrook Road to the north and adjoins Council utility reserve to the south. Section 1 is to vest as road, Section 6 will vest as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve and it is planned to transfer sections 2-5 to their respective adjoining owners to the west.

4.3.1

4.4 This strip of land falls within the Upper Styx Outline Development Plan (attached), which includes land for residential sections, roads and utility reserves. Specifically this portion of the boxed drain is intended for road, residential development and reserve.

4.5 By taking ownership, the Council was able to divert and naturalise the Styx Drain and investigate whether to fully fill the old drain or if it was required provide subsoil drainage in the form of a piped easement, the later was the case.

4.6 This subsoil drainage work was to be completed by either the developer or the Council dependent on timing, as it transpired the developer completed the drainage works at its cost which allowed its development to proceed in a timely manner.

4.7 The subsoil drain is now operative and will be protected by way of easement, however, this strip of land remains problematic for the Council for the following reasons;

· Due to its elongated and restricted width, it provides little meaningful public access. There are alternative points of access to the Council reserves from Redbrook Road.

· It is too narrow for contactors mowers to safely manoeuvre.

· Council could be liable for 50% share of fencing costs for up to 140 linear metres of fencing.

4.8 To mitigate these issues and with development having been completed on the strips eastern boundary it is proposed to transfer the strip of land to each of the (now) four adjoining owners on the western side for a nominal consideration, however staff have no delegation to dispose of property, a decision by the full Council is required.

4.9 A nominal consideration is justified given the issues outlined in paragraph 4.7, these issues justify a significant discount on any perceived value. In addition, we cannot force the adjoining owners to purchase the land, the nominal consideration has been an incentive for them to accept the Council proposal that has little or no added benefit for them.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.10.1 Dispose of the land to owners on the western boundary.

4.10.2 Retain ownership.

4.11 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.11.1 Dispose of the land to the properties on its eastern boundary – This option was ruled out because the land to the eastern side has already been built on and fenced.

4.11.2 Lease or licence the land to adjoining owners – This option was ruled out because it does not provide a permanent solution.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: Dispose of the land.

4.12.1 Option Description: Dispose of the land to the owners of four sections on its western side.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· No cost of maintenance.

· No cost of fencing.

· Disposal of a thin strip of land that has little or no practical access.

· The subsoil drain can be protected by way of registered easement.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· Cost of survey and associated staff costs.

4.13 Option Description: Retain ownership.

4.13.1 Option Description: Hold the land in Council ownership.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· 100% control of the land.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· Ongoing maintenance cost.

· Costs of fencing.

· Due to its elongated and restricted width, it provides little or no practical access.

· Potential problems i.e. fly dumping, antisocial behaviour

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 The criteria for the above options were analysed by comparing any need to retain the land against the benefits of disposal and what that means at a practical operational level.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Council ownership	Option 3 - <enter text>
Cost to Implement	$10,000	Nil
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Estimated $10,500 immediate fencing costs $1150 p/a mowing costs
Funding Source	Three waters operational budget	Three Waters operational budget
Funding Availability	LTP 2024-2034	LTP 2024-2034
Impact on Rates	<0.01%	<0.01%

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Because the pipe work for the subsoil drain will be protected by an easement that gives rights to access the pipe should maintenance be required, there is no risk associated with the disposal of this land.

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 full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity as prescribed in s12 of the Local Government Act 2002. There is however no staff delegation to dispose of land.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision Strategy and Policy Considerations.

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Community Outcomes – Manage ratepayers’ money wisely.

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 evaluation of the need to retain ownership of the land given is size situation and shape.

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Disposal of Surplus Property – There is no other logical purchaser.

6.5 This report is consistent with the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.6 There are no community impacts in this decision. The significance was assessed as being of low significance and therefore community views are unknown.

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

6.7.1 Harewood ward.

6.8 The Community Boards view has not been canvased ahead of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.11 The land has no customary uses or ongoing mana whenua activities and does not impact Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.12.1 Have no impact on the adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.12.2 Have no impact to emissions reductions.

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

6.16 No significant impacts are anticipated because there is no change in the nature of the land, it is only the underlying ownership that changes.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Survey the land.

7.2 Transfer to the adjoining owners and.

7.3 Issue titles.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	304/7050 SO 570152 Diagram	25/2349079
b	304/7050 Upper Styx ODP	25/2349184

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

9. Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/525589
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gavin Hutchison, Head of Three Waters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to decide how to mitigate the risk of odour from the Christchurch wastewater treatment ponds.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

1.3 There are two reasonably viable options: increased aeration in the ponds; or a combination of increased aeration and diverting some partly treated wastewater around the ponds for about 16-60 days per annum. Staff recommend increased aeration of the ponds without diversion because it is most cost-effective, is supported by mana whenua, avoids possible ecological effects of diversion and is more straightforward both for construction and operation.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation Report.

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

3. Agrees to increase aeration of the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant ponds sufficient to mitigate the 95^th percentile increase in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and requests this be implemented urgently.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Offensive and objectionable odours from the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) are mainly caused by the ponds. There are other causes of odour at the CWTP but this is the most significant one and the one that produces the most issues. The odour occurs when Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels in the CWTP ponds are high. The problem will be solved after a new activated sludge plant and its supporting systems are operating in 2028. In the meantime, there are two options for reducing BOD levels in the ponds:

3.1.1 Increased aeration in the ponds (see Attachment A). This entails putting more aerators in the ponds and having increased power supply to run the aerators. It might take four months to get the increased power supply to the aerators. The Council would seek resource consent, if needed, for using diesel generators in the meantime; or

3.1.2 Diverting some of the partly treated wastewater around the ponds, adding disinfection to it, and then combining it with the treated wastewater that has passed through the ponds and discharging it together in the existing 3.5 km long outfall (see Attachment A). This entails piping the partly treated wastewater around the ponds and combining it, in the existing outfall structure, with the fully treated wastewater being discharged from the ponds.

3.2 The table in Attachment B compares those options. It shows that increased aeration, diversion (with no change to current aeration) or a combination of increased aeration and diversion will all be effective in substantially reducing the frequency and likelihood of offensive and objectionable odour. However, the potential adverse effects of continuous diversion (options 3, 4 and 6) mean that they cannot be cost-effective and have not been short listed for consideration.

3.3 Of options 1, 2 and 5, aeration is more cost-effective than combined aeration and diversion. It is cheaper than diversion, has more straightforward resource consent requirements, and has less potential construction and operational complexity.

3.4 Mana whenua have indicated that they support aeration.

3.5 If Council prefers aeration over diversion, the Council needs to decide what its target is for the effectiveness of the aeration. The higher the target, the fewer the modelled possible days of odour issues but the higher the cost. Staff present two options in this report for the quantity of aeration (Attachment B):

(a) Enough aeration to mitigate the risk of offensive and objectionable odour, due to BOD loads, on 95% of the days in a calendar year; or

(b) Enough aeration to mitigate the risk of offensive and objectionable odour, due to BOD loads, on 99% of the days in a calendar year.

3.6 The differences in effectiveness and costs are:

(a) In targeting 95% of the time, the pond improvement arising from aeration means the ponds could be expected to cope with some high BOD load days beyond that 95% target; accordingly, there may be around three days per annum of offensive and objectionable odour caused by BOD in the ponds. The cost of the 95% option is $7.7m including operation for three years;

(b) In targeting 99% of the time, the pond improvement arising from aeration means the ponds could be expected to cope with some high BOD load days beyond that 99% target. In this case there are unlikely to be any days of offensive and objectionable odour caused by BOD in the ponds. The cost of the 99% option is $11.2m including operation for three years.

3.7 Either aeration or diversion will require an increase in the Three Waters operating budget as existing budgets will not be able to cover the operating cost of either option.

3.8 There has not been time to obtain a report on ecological and health effects from the diversion options. The 16-60 days per annum of diversion of 400 L/sec in option 5 would have less adverse effects than the continuous discharge in options 3, 4 and 6; however, the extent of that adverse effect is unknown. Officers consider that Council has sufficient information to decide that aeration to achieve the 95^th percentile solution is the most cost-effective option without needing that further information on ecological effects.

3.9 The law requires the Council to choose the most cost-effective option.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 There are several potential causes for offensive and objectionable from CWTP. Council’s experts identify BOD overload of the pond system as a primary cause. The mitigations discussed in this report do not address the other potential causes. These mitigations will therefore not end potential offensive and objectionable caused by the other factors:

4.1.1 From the temporary activated sludge plant.

4.1.2 Excessive loads or disruptive chemicals discharged into the city wastewater network, which can cause poor process performance in the primary or secondary processes.

4.1.3 Significant breakdowns or equipment failures that lead to failures in treatment or existing odour control systems.

4.1.4 The period after extreme rain events as the ponds re-establish their normal biota.

4.1.5 Odour emissions from other parts of the process such as digester pressure relief valves or access doors and hatches to high odour processes.

4.2 These odour sources can occur, approximately, several times a month but not to the scale and duration of the pond issues, nor to the same intensity.

4.3 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of how many kg of oxygen a given volume of water needs to break down organic material into CO2 and an inert sludge. The reason that BOD is the parameter of interest is that studies and experience show that if ponds are overloaded with BOD there may be offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site.

4.4 Prior to the 2021 fire, the ponds had been receiving very low BOD loads from the main process for decades. This means that sludge accumulation in the ponds was minimal and so the ponds had plenty of resilience. That resilience was of benefit initially after the fire as there was no existing sludge breaking down in the base of the pond. But over time this sludge has accumulated, is breaking down and thereby reduces the ponds’ capacity to accept these high loadings, meaning they are more likely to go anoxic and so generate more odour.

4.5 Aeration would increase the capacity of the ponds to accommodate higher loads of BOD than they normally tolerate.

4.6 Diversion would reduce the BOD loading on the ponds to an appropriate level.

4.7 In aeration, air is bubbled or pumped into wastewater to provide more oxygen and permit more BOD to be treated. It reduces odour by ensuring microbe populations are dominated by aerobic species which exhale odourless oxides such as carbon dioxides. As part of the temporary fire recovery an aeration system was also commissioned in Pond 1 in July 2023 to better treat BOD released to the ponds.

4.8 Diversion means that some of the partially treated wastewater that has been through the CWTP does not go into the ponds. That partially treated wastewater would instead be piped around the ponds and then combined with the fully treated wastewater in the outfall pump station. This would reduce the BOD load on the ponds.

4.9 Adding either aeration or diversion improves the resilience of the system, providing extra tools if there are issues at the CWTP. They broadly provide the same resilience benefits.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.10.1 Aeration, without diversion, to achieve the 95^th or 99^th percentile BOD mitigation (options 1 or 2).

4.10.2 Aeration plus diversion to achieve complete BOD mitigation.

4.11 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.11.1 Doing nothing was ruled out because it would not mitigate the odour.

4.11.2 Relying on working with industry to reduce the spikes in BOD entering the system was ruled out because achieving large reductions would need large and unrealistic reductions in commercial activity. But Council can seek to work with industry to seek gains at the same time as implementing its preferred option.

4.11.3 Continuous diversion (options 3, 4 and 6 in Attachment B) was ruled out because it costs significantly more than aeration alone, takes longer to implement, has increased construction and operational complexity, might have adverse ecological effects in the ocean and has additional consenting requirements.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: Aeration that would substantially reduce the risk of offensive and objectionable odour from BOD for 95% of the time (option 1 in Attachment B).

4.12.1 Option Description: Aeration is described above. The number of aerators needed is shown in Attachment A. The comparison between the aeration options, and between aeration and diversion, is in Attachment B.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· It costs less than diversion, has low risk of failure and operational simplicity, and does not require discharge of partially treated wastewater to the ocean.

· is the Council might consider it preferable to aeration seeking the 99^th percentile target (option 2) because while option 2 aims at no offensive and objectionable odour, the modelled difference in effectiveness is not substantial and the costs are higher.

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· Quick implementation may require use of diesel generators for about 6-10 weeks. That has possible effects of noise and discharges to air. Staff consider that this temporary noise can be mitigated and that the air discharges ought to be readily consented by the Regional Council.

4.13 Aeration to the 95% standard plus occasional diversion (18 – 60 days per annum) to substantially reduce the risk of offensive and objectionable odour from BOD (option 5).

4.13.1 Option Description: Diversion is described above and shown in the plans in Attachment A. The comparison between options is in Attachment B.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· This has no material advantage aeration option 2 but might have the advantage over option 1 of seeking to avoid any days of offensive and objectionable odour.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· It may have adverse ecological effects (as yet unquantified) from discharging partially treated wastewater into the ocean. It is harder to implement and is more complex to operate, leading to greater risk of failure.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.14 The analysis criteria are in Attachment B. Further explanation and key points follow.

4.15 Days per annum that BOD might still potentially cause offensive and objectionable odour: Officers worked this out by modelling the extent to which the option would have treated BOD, received by the ponds from the main CWTP process, to acceptable levels using flow and BOD data from the last three years. The modelling excluded a period in February 2024 in which the cause has now been separately fixed. The modelling considered periods of 1-2 days of high BOD as low risk because it is likely that aeration will improve pond health to the extent that high BOD for 1-2 days is unlikely to cause offensive and objectionable odour.

4.16 Effect on ocean ecology: Ecological assessment has noted that:

(a) Increased BOD levels might pose a high risk: The environment is sensitive to this. It could lead to reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e., hypoxic or anoxic conditions) in the marine receiving environment, with potentially significant implication on biota survival;

(b) Increased TSS might pose a medium risk;

(c) Some disinfectants in the discharge might pose a very high risk and could be toxic to marine biota. Ecological advice is that mitigation is difficult.

4.17 However, there has not been a full assessment of the extent of any adverse effects of diversion. That would require more detailed research.

4.18 Construction complexity:

(a) Constructing aeration is not complex. Extensions to the CWTP power system that would be needed are well understood, key materials and aerators are available and contracting resource available.

(b) Constructing diversion is more complex. Complexities include:

§ Supply chain risks for pipes and pumps;

· Construction activities will require significant trenching activities around road crossings, including crossing NZTA property;

§ Significant chemical storage, dosing and electrical monitoring and control required.

4.19 Time to implement: If the aerators are ready before the power supply is installed then the Council can use diesel generators for a short time (possibly 6-10 weeks) as a temporary solution. Staff consider that this should be readily consentable, and the Council’s ornithologist advises that it is unlikely to adversely affect birdlife.

4.20 Operational complexity and risk of performance failure:

(a) Aeration is straightforward to operate and has little risk of performance failure;

(b) Adding diversion to aeration has increased operational complexity. CWTP staff will need to maintain chlorination dosing, ensure that chemical and fuel supplies are maintained, and probably do additional monitoring both at the ocean outfall pump station and shoreline monitoring to comply with new resource consent conditions.

4.21 RMA consent requirements:

(a) Aeration: None needed for the aeration. A resource consent may be needed for the diesel generators but officers consider that this will be a straightforward process that does not cause any project delay.

(b) Diversion: A new resource consent will be needed for discharge of partially treated wastewater to the ocean. This is likely to need a full assessment of adverse effects on the ocean ecology and public health risks to shellfish gathering. The quality of the diverted wastewater is likely to comply with the standards in the Wastewater Environment Performance Standards but that may not speed up the consenting process. Disinfection (potentially by way of chlorination) is needed for the discharge to be compliant, and this would add to the consenting complexity.

4.22 Assessment under the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 objectives and principles is crucial.

4.23 Section 17 objectives of a water services provider: The relevant objectives are (in summary):

· Provide water services that are reliable, resilient, of sufficient quality and meet regulatory requirements (s17(1)(a));

· Ensure water services are provided in a cost-effective and financially sustainable way (s17(1)(b));

· Perform functions in accordance with sound business practice (s17(1)(c ));

· Act in the best interests of current and future consumers (s17(1)(d))).

4.24 The Council could reasonably consider that either aeration alone (options 1 and 2) or aeration plus occasional diversion (option 5) meet those objectives.

4.25 Section 254 provides that that when the Council makes a decision about providing wastewater infrastructure and treating wastewater, it must “choose the option it considers to be the most cost-effective option for providing wastewater services over the life of the infrastructure assets required to implement that option”.

4.26 The term “cost‑effective” requires an assessment of the value obtained for the cost, over the life of infrastructure. Value for each project can include social, cultural and environmental attributes. It is not possible to limit or be precise about what attributes are relevant for any project. This will depend on the circumstances and the objectives of Council. The most cost-effective option is not necessarily the cheapest option.

4.27 In practice, identifying the most cost‑effective option requires assessing the financial costs with what can be purchased. A higher cost option may still be the most cost‑effective if it provides better long‑term value to achieve Council's objectives for infrastructure. For example, better value may be achieved from a range of possible factors such as longer asset life, improved environmental performance, easier consenting, stronger policy alignment, reduced risk of failure, greater social or cultural acceptability. Ultimately, the most cost‑effective option is the one that delivers the greatest overall value for the cost during the asset’s life.

4.28 Officers consider that aeration alone is more cost-effective than diversion alone for the cost, effectiveness, and implementation reasons set out in Attachment B and further described above.

4.29 Deciding whether to use aerators sufficient to meet the 95^th or the 99^th percentile BOD event, or aeration plus occasional diversion (option 5) is a fine-grained cost-effective judgment. Regulatory compliance is more likely with options 2 and 5, but it carries a significant cost burden for a reasonably small modelled gain over the effectiveness of the 95^th percentile aeration option.

4.30 There is an information gap about ecological effects of diversion. The diversion of partially treated wastewater has potential to have adverse effects in the ocean. The extent of adverse effect depends on the specific ocean environment and on the quantity in the diversion compared to the status quo. That ecological assessment is not available for this report; however, officers consider that the Council can reasonably make a decision on its preferred option without having that detail.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option Aeration to 95-99% BOD Removal	Aeration to 95% BOD Removal + 400l/s Diversion Option (Option 5)
Cost to Implement (CAPEX)	$5.6m - $8.2m	$8.6m
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs (OPEX)	$2.2m – $3.1m (three year period)	$3.6m (three year period)
Funding Source	Capital Source – Activated Sludge Project OPEX – Additional budget to be sought	Capital Source – Activated Sludge Project + additional capital OPEX – Additional budget to be sought
Funding Availability	Sufficient existing funding from activated sludge project	Additional capital would be required to manage funds required in excess of $8.5m

5.1 Capital funding for the aeration option will use budget contingency assigned to the Activated Sludge Project (ASP). However, the recent outbreak of war in the Middle East has significantly increased cost risks and fuel constraint risks. This means there is risk associated with reassigning capital budget from the ASP to the aeration option as that places the ASP project at risk of a budget over run. A maximum of $8.5M is available from the ASP budget, any capital funding requirements above this would require additional funding.

5.2 There is insufficient contingency to fund the diversion pumping works from the ASP project and additional capital funding will be required from other areas.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risks are described in the option and assessment criteria above and in Attachment B.

6.2 The fuel crisis causing all process to rise. That is unavoidable.

6.3 Project delays risk more odour issues. That risk will be mitigated by seeking urgent implementation of the Council resolution and by using diesel generators if necessary.

6.4 Delays caused by consenting delays can be mitigated by good communication and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the regulatory authority. That communication and engagement is already happening and is working well.

6.5 Lizards: A Herpetologist site visit on 23.3.2026 has indicated no lizards are present around the oxidation ponds, including the bunds between the ponds. That means a wildlife permit regarding lizards will not be required. An accidental discovery protocol will, however, be required during physical works.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.6.1 The Council has statutory authority to make the decision in this report.

6.7 Other Legal Implications:

6.7.1 Legal considerations for consenting under the Resource Management Act have been assessed in the option assessment above.

6.7.2 Te Huingi Manu Wildlife Refuge -Bromley Oxidation ponds are a wildlife refuge. No issues on lizards or birds have been identified, if aeration is chosen. But diversion might have an adverse effect on the habitat.

6.7.3 Consistency with the mandatory objectives of water services providers is assessed above. That assessment shows aeration alone is more cost-effective than diversion alone in meeting the Council’s and the Act’s objectives, but that the cost-effectiveness assessment is a finely balanced judgement for the Council for comparing aeration alone with aeration plus occasional diversion . The Council must “choose the option it considers to be the most cost-effective option for providing wastewater services over the life of the infrastructure assets required to implement that option”. Aeration to achieve the 95^th percentile mitigation of BOD (option 1) is arguably more cost-effective than that to achieve the 99^th percentile improvement (option 2) or aeration plus occasional diversion (option 5), as it costs less, and as the minor difference in the calculation of potential days of non-complying offensive and objectionable outcomes is a modelled estimate rather than a certainty.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.8 The required decision:

6.8.1 Broadly aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework .The 99% options for aeration or diversion align with Council’s Integrated Water Strategy Te Wai Ora o Tane, which targets 100% consent compliance (pg 32);

6.8.2 The decision on whether to aerate or divert is of medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The Council decision is a choice between aeration alone and aeration plus occasional diversion. Doing nothing and continuing to discharge offensive and objectionable odour from the site is not an option; and

6.8.3 Is consistent the Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.10 Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal

6.10.1 Activity: Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal

· Level of Service: 11.01.8 Number of wastewater odour complaints per 1,000 connections to the wastewater network per year (DIA 4a) - <=0.6

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 Either aeration alone or aeration plus occasional diversion will significantly reduce the impacts of odour from the CWTP. Aeration alone will avoid community concerns with discharge of partially treated wastewater to the ocean.

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

6.12.1 Coastal Ward and Linwood Ward

6.13 The Community Boards have not been asked for comment.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 The decision is a significant decision in relation to a body of water of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

6.15 We here quote a statement dated 24 March 2026 from the Upoko of Ngāi Tūāhuriri regarding the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment:

Ngāi Tūāhuriri has been working closely with Christchurch City Council over the past week to build a clearer understanding of the issues affecting the Bromley Wastewater Treatment Plant and the range of options available to address them.

During this time, Ngāi Tūāhuriri have not made public statement. This has been deliberate. It is important to us that any position we take is informed by evidence and a thorough understanding of the facts. Forming a view in the absence of reliable information would not have been appropriate.

Over the past week, we have been engaged in discussions with council staff and have been reviewing technical reports and advice. We acknowledge the work undertaken by the Council to evaluate a range of alternative options to the proposed bypass.

We note that aeration presents a viable option that will significantly reduce odour impacts for residents while also supporting improved pond health within the treatment system, removing the need to discharge partially treated wastewater into the ocean.

Ngāi Tūāhuriri will continue to work constructively with the Council as further decisions are made, with a focus on outcomes that uphold environmental integrity and the wellbeing of our communities.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16 The decisions in this report are likely to impact CWTP’s greenhouse gas emissions.

6.16.1 Increased aeration in the ponds would support an improved ponds emission rating (according to the Water NZ Greenhouse Gas Guidelines). Diversion pumping would not have that benefit; however, this change is relatively minor and only for the short period to the commissioning of the new activated sludge plant.

6.16.2 There might be emissions from diesel generators for a short time if Council chooses the aeration option.

6.17 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 Implement the Council decision and seek any necessary Resource Management Act approvals.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Options Maps	26/624104	117
b ⇩	Option Table	26/610052	121

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kylie Hills - Senior Engineer - Water & Waste Planning

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Gavin Hutchison - Head of Three Waters

Tim Ure - Senior Project Manager

Approved By

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

10. 2025-26 Sustainability Fund Allocation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/174795
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jessica Weston, Senior Adaptation Advisor Jane Morgan, Team Leader Climate Hazards Adaptation Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval for the allocation of the 2025-26 Sustainability Fund which supports projects that address the Council’s climate change objectives.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2025-26 Sustainability 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 the recommended allocations from the 2025-2026 Sustainability Fund as outlined in the following table:

Funding Request Number	Name	Name/Subject	Amount Recommended
27	Te Manawa Ora Trust	Pa Whakaoranga Kaupapa Māori Community Garden	$25,000.00
45	Smith Street Community Farm Trust	Water & Carbon Retention Project	$22,000.00
22	The New Brighton Community Gardens Charitable Trust	Young Propagating Gardeners and Sustainability Hub	$20,000.00
61	Food Resilience Network Inc	Roots of Resilience: Growing Climate‑Ready Soils	$20,000.00
65	Hornby Presbyterian Community Trust (Te Whare Awhero)	Grow Hornby	$20,000.00
55	Para Kore Marae	Mai i Kurawaka & Kope Tautaiao 2026	$15,525.00
07	Living Springs	Climate resilience	$15,000.00
42	RAD Bikes Charitable Trust	Strengthening 'Find a Bike' 2026-27	$15,000.00
46	Christchurch Envirohub Trust	Envirokids	$15,000.00
53	G & P Farm shop Limited (trading as Untamed Earth Organic Farm)	Collective Regenerative Farming Project	$15,000.00
63	Terra Nova Foundation	Ōtautahi Emissions Reduction Project	$15,000.00
40	Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Inc	Returning Raupō to Whakaraupō	$13,000.00
06	Richmond Community Garden Trust	Riverlution Precious Plastic	$12,500.00
08	Canterbury Horticultural Society	Orchards in Schools (OIS)	$12,500.00
41	Garden to Table Trust	Garden to Table Christchurch	$12,500.00
43	Re-Purpose Pals	Re-thinking Waste for Wellbeing	$12,000.00
14	Wild Game Recovery Charitable Trust	Hunting for conservation and food security	$10,000.00
15	Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery/Climate Action Campus Ōtautahi	Community Education for Climate Change resilience	$10,000.00
33	Sir Peter Blake Charity Limited	BLAKE NZ-VR: Climate Change	$10,000.00
35	Conservation Volunteers New Zealand	CVNZ Community Nursery	$10,000.00
36	Shirley Community Trust	MacFarlane Park Food Forest	$10,000.00
52	Canterbury Community Gardens Association Inc	Community Orchards	$10,000.00
54	Christchurch Transitional Architecture Trust	Christchurch Conversations 2026	$10,000.00
37	Untouched World Charitable Trust	Change Forward - Rangatahi in action	$8,400.00
16	Canterbury Horticultural Society	CHS Avebury Climate Resilient Garden	$8,000.00
31	The Green Lab	Summer back yard building	$8,000.00
38	All Aboard Transport Decarbonisation Trust	Going Places 2026	$8,000.00
60	Kia Kotahi Ako Charitable Trust	Powering solar education with Te Pā Foundation	$8,000.00
01	A Rocha Aotearoa New Zealand	Eco Church: Children, youth and climate action	$5,000.00
03	Cultivate Christchurch	Cultivate Explore	$5,000.00
10	Future Curious	Climate Futures Summit	$5,000.00
49	Styx Living Laboratory Trust	Community tree canopy project	$5,000.00
21	The Surfboard Library	Surfboard Library & Precious Plastics Programme	$3,500.00
50	Stitch O Mat Charitable Trust	Running Costs - Promoting Sustainable Practice	$2,573.00
29	Sustained Fun Ltd	World Sustainable Toy Day	$2,570.00
32	Ki te Tihi / The Loft Charitable Trust	Carbon Positive Certification for The Loft	$932.00
04	BLOOM Sustainability Limited T/A &BLOOM	BLOOMING Sustainability newsletter	Decline
05	BLOOM Sustainability Limited T/A &BLOOM	The Bloom Sustainability Sprint	Decline
09	Oaklands Te Kura o Ōwaka School	Installation of Solar Panels	Decline
12	Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust	Fire Sensor for new walking track	Decline
13	Stepping Stone Trust	Car Electrification	Decline
17	Hiringa Refuelling New Zealand Ltd.	Christchurch Hydrogen Demonstration Opportunity	Decline
19	Brighton Observatory of Environment & Economics Trust	Supporting Adapting Communities: (Heat).	Decline
20	Blue Cradle Foundation	Immersive Lab for Seaweek 2026	Decline
23	Christchurch Envirohub Trust	Environmental Coworking Space	Decline
24	Lakshman Jayasekara	'EUDAIMONIA- Back to the Future for Happiness'	Decline
34	Growing New Brighton	Autumn planting	Decline
44	Summit Road Society	Linda Woods Reserve Revegetation	Decline
48	Dharma Yodha New Zealand Inc.	Community Sustainability Leaders Workshops	Decline
41	The Wednesday Challenge HQ Limited	The Weekday Challenge Business Programme	Decline
56	Ōnuku Rūnanga	Te Kori a te Kō	Decline
57	Summit Road Society	Ōhinetahi Revegetation	Decline
58	Without Waste Limited	SUC Free Ōtautahi	Decline
62	TechCollect NZ Limited	Christchurch Free Community E-Waste Drop-Off	Decline
64	Food Resilience Network Inc	Growing Futures: Ōtautahi Permaculture Programme	Decline
66	The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board	Offset operating costs by introducing solar energy	Decline
67	Big Street Bikers Limited	Activation Specialist	Decline
68	Avon Ōtākaro Network Inc	Ōtākaro Stormwater Truth (Phase Two)	Decline
11	The Wednesday Challenge HQ Limited	The Wednesday Challenge Schools' Programme 2026	Decline
18	Neighbourhood Trust	Solar Panel Project	Decline
39	Predator free NB/Coastal Kaitiaki	Predator free NB	Decline

4. Approves the transfer of any unallocated funds from 2025-26 Sustainability Fund to the 2026-27 Sustainability Fund.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The purpose of the Sustainability Fund (fund) is to encourage community, school, social enterprise or business projects that help meet our climate change objectives and targets.

3.2 The fund has $400,000 available for allocation. The fund is heavily over-subscribed, with 61 applications seeking $733,760 in total.

3.3 Technical assessors from across the Council evaluated the applications against the funds criteria and prioritised the applicants for funding. A cross-Council Evaluation Panel then moderated these assessments and made funding recommendations.

3.4 Of the 61 applications, 36 were assessed as Priority One or Two, meaning that funding is recommended, and 25 were assessed as Priority Three or Four meaning that funding is not recommended.

3.5 Please note that appended to this report are:

3.5.1 Attachment A – Decision Matrix which provides details about each application (organisation details, project details, and high-level financial information) and an assessment from the staff technical assessors.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 In June 2021, the Council approved the Kia tūroa tea o, Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy which sets out four climate change goals to future proof our district, and ten related climate action programmes that will help us deliver on these goals. The goals are:

· Net Zero Emissions Christchurch.

· We understand and are preparing for the ongoing impacts of climate change.

· We have a just transition to an innovative low-emission economy.

· We are guardians of our natural environment and taonga.

4.2 The Sustainability Fund provides a mechanism to support community action that contributes to these climate goals by encouraging community, school, social enterprise, or business projects that deliver climate action.

4.3 A lessons learned review with staff was undertaken following the 2024-25 Sustainability Funding round. This identified what worked well and where improvements could be made.

4.4 The most significant changes were to the evaluation criteria, noting BAU processes requiring sustained annual funding are unlikely to be funded. This fund is intended for new and emergent projects and programmes. For groups applying year on year, staff expect applicants to demonstrate they are seeking funding to expand upon their existing work, rather than simply maintain it.

4.5 In addition, a cap on the maximum amount applicants can request of $40,000 or 60% of the total project costs was introduced – to support more equitable distribution of funding and ensure that the fund can support a broader range of projects. This also brings the fund in line with other Council-administered grants, where funding caps are already in place.

Process

4.6 The Sustainability Fund opened on 1 December 2025 and closed on 23 January 2026.

4.7 A technical assessment of each application was undertaken by the Council’s subject matter experts on emissions reduction, biodiversity, freshwater, transport, waste, sustainable building design, energy efficiency, red zone, community resilience, innovation and business, sustainable events, climate and sustainability education, and coastal issues.

4.8 Each application was evaluated against the following criteria:

· Relevance – alignment with the Council’s climate change objectives.

· Benefit – the nature and scale of public good being delivered.

· Legacy – the ability to deliver ongoing benefit.

· Deliverability – the project is ready and able to be delivered.

· Measurability – has clear measures of success.

4.9 The technical assessment considered a range of information provided by applicants including budgets, letters of support, and job descriptions; as well as reviewing reports associated with previous funds allocated to these projects where applicable.

4.10 The technical assessors prioritised each application as follows:

· Priority 1 - Highly recommended for funding. Project meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund.

· Priority 2 – Recommended for funding. Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes well to the purpose and outcomes of the Fund, but to a lesser extent than Priority 1 projects.

· Priority 3 – Not recommended for funding. Meets eligibility criteria, meets most evaluation criteria, and contributes to the fund purpose and outcomes, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 projects.

· Priority 4 – Not recommended for funding. For example, it may not meet eligibility criteria, insufficient information was provided, other funding sources are more appropriate, or the project offers a limited or uncertain benefit.

4.11 On 11 March 2026, the technical assessors presented their assessments to an Evaluation Panel of cross-Council staff for moderation and funding recommendations.

Recommendations

4.12 Priority One (13 applications) and Priority Two (23 applications) totalling 36 applications were recommended for funding.

4.13 Priority Three (15 applications) and Priority Four (10 applications) totalling 25 applications were not recommended for funding.

4.14 The Evaluation Panel took the approach of fully allocating the funds by spreading partial funding across Priority One and Two applicants, with the aim of maximising the benefit to the community. All $400,000 funds available were allocated.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.15.1 The Council can endorse the recommendations of the Evaluation Panel; or

4.15.2 The Council can determine which, if any, applicants receive funding, and the amount allocated. Should unspent funds remain, they will be added to the amount available in the 2026-27 financial year.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Preferred Option: Endorse the Evaluation Panel recommendations.

4.16.1 Option Description: Endorse the recommendations made in this report.

4.16.2 Option Advantages:

4.16.3 This approach ensures that funding is allocated in alignment with the process of expert assessment undertaken by multiple staff against the fund’s criteria.

4.17 Alternative option: Councillors distribute the funds.

4.17.1 Option Description: Councillors opt to distribute funds differently from the recommendations made in this report and/or hold funds back.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· Some decisions may benefit from additional elected member community knowledge and/or expertise.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· This approach does not entirely align with the process of expert assessment undertaken by multiple staff against the fund’s criteria.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Alternative Option
Cost to Implement	$400,000	Up to $400,000
Funding Source	LTP 2024-34	LTP 2024-34
Funding Availability	Within budget of $400,000	Within budget of $400,000
Impact on Rates	No additional	No additional

5.1 The available balance of the 2025-26 Sustainability Fund is $400,000. This consists of $400,000 budgeted in the Long-Term Plan. This report recommends allocating $400,000 to applicants, which if approved would leave a balance of $0 in the fund.

5.2 Adhering to the fund’s Terms of Reference, any unspent funds will be carried forward into the 2026-27 Sustainability Fund.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

6.1 Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau The Grant Funding Agreement that each successful applicant must sign before funds are allocated aims to minimise the risks to the Council. Despite this, some risk remains that projects don’t proceed, fail to deliver against outcomes, or timeframes change. A detailed accountability report is required from applicants to help manage these risks.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 The Council has the authority to allocate grant funding from the Sustainability Fund.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The required decision:

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

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 staff assessment against the policy criteria.

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

6.5 Citizens and communities

6.5.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 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.

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

6.8 Many of the projects supported through this Fund aim to help improve water quality, support the regeneration of nature and encourage environmental understanding and action by whānau and Tamariki. These projects would be aligned to the interests of Mana Whenua.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.9.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Once Grants are approved by the Council, a Grant Funding Agreement will be sent to successful applicants with funds released upon signature. Ideally this process is concluded by the end of April 2026.

7.2 Recipients of the Sustainability Fund must provide a Project Report to the Council no later than three months after completion of the project, or within 13 months of receiving funding.

7.3 Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by email and will be directed to alternative Council funding streams if applicable.

7.4 A Newsline article will announce that the fund has been allocated.

7.5 A lessons learned process will be undertaken to inform next year’s process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Decision Matrix	26/540827	131

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jane Morgan - Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning

Maiki Andersen - Principal Advisor Climate Risks

Jess Weston - Senior Adaptation Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/304189
Presenter Te Kaipāhō:	Councillor Pauline Cotter, Hearings Panel Chair
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process of the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark.

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

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

1.4 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel, having heard all the parties. It can do so by considering this report, which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations. You may also wish to review the Hearings Panel agenda.

2. Hearings Panel Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Tira Taute

That the Council:

1. Resolves to retain the Lichfield Street Carpark;

2. Confirms that the primary reason to hold the carpark is to provide casual, short-stay parking to support the Central City, on a commercial basis that reduces the burden on ratepayers;

3. Authorises staff to find and implement costs savings where they will not have material changes to service delivery;

4. Notes that the Council is already consulting on proposed increases to car parking fees as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan; and

5. Requests staff to present advice on mechanisms to improve the financial performance of the Lichfield Street Carpark including, but not limited to further regular fee changes, dynamic pricing, reviewing the balance and location of long and short-term parking, costs savings and changes to the operating model, in time to inform the 2027 to 2037 Long Term Plan.

3. Background / Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Lichfield Street Carpark Building is a Council‑owned facility at 33 Lichfield Street that was rebuilt in 2016–2017 following demolition of the original 1960s structure damaged in the Canterbury earthquakes. The replacement building was developed to support the central city rebuild by providing short‑stay off‑street parking for shoppers and visitors, particularly within the core retail area. The facility continues to operate on this basis and includes several ground‑floor commercial tenancies.

3.2 During the 2024/25 Annual Plan process the Council requested a report on options for the future of the carpark. This report, which was considered by the Council in June 2025, raised issues including whether the carpark remains the best use of Council capital, whether it aligns with current policy, and whether continued ownership is justified given the maturity of the central city rebuild and the availability of privately owned parking nearby.

3.3 The report found that the carpark is performing its original role and supports access to central city retail, hospitality, and entertainment activities. Average peak occupancy has increased over recent years but remains below the 85 per cent target set in the Central City Parking Policy. Similar parking options are widely available in the surrounding area, largely provided by the private sector.

3.4 From a financial perspective, the building generates an annual operating surplus of $1.5 million but only delivers a return of around 3 per cent on the capital invested. This level of return is below what Council policy expects for non‑strategic, income‑earning assets. While the asset has a high book value and may appreciate over time, it is underperforming compared with alternative uses of Council capital and is exposed to future risks such as rising maintenance costs and changing transport patterns.

3.5 The policy assessment concluded that off‑street parking buildings are not considered strategic assets. Council policy is largely neutral on ownership, provided parking objectives are met efficiently. The report noted that Council’s role in directly owning parking facilities has reduced over time and that private operators now meet most central city parking demand.

3.6 Several options for the future of the facility were identified. These included retaining the carpark with changes to the operating model to improve financial performance, recycling the capital through sale of the land and building, or first seeking further information by consulting the community and stakeholders (at the time of the earlier report, Council had not undertaken consultation on the future of this specific facility).

3.7 The preferred option adopted by Council was to “learn more” by undertaking consultation. Council resolved in June 2025 to seek the views of stakeholders and the wider public before making any final decision on ownership or operation.

4. Consultation Process and Submissions Te Tukanga Kōrerorero Ngā Tāpaetanga

4.1 Consultation started on 10 November and ran until 7 December 2025.

4.2 Project details including links to the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage were advertised via an email sent to key stakeholders, posts on the Council Facebook page, a newsline story , the Life in Christchurch Transport Survey, signs and flyers available at the carpark.

4.3 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage had 2,799 views throughout the consultation period.

4.4 Staff met with Ballantynes representatives on 4 December to discuss the consultation.

4.5 The engagement that was carried out on the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark, and the views of the community including their preferences, is outlined in the following parts of the staff report to the Hearings Panel:

Summary of submissions

Submitters to be heard

Submitters who do not wish to be heard

4.6 Submissions were made by six organisations/businesses and 1238 individuals. Eight submitters were heard, though initially 63 had indicated they wished to be heard.

4.7 A total of 1,122 submitters indicated a preference, while 123 did not. Of those who stated a preference, 925 submitters (74%) preferred that the Council retain the carpark and change the operating model, while 197 submitters (16%) preferred that the Council sell the carpark and reallocate the funds elsewhere.

4.8 The analysis identifies a significant tension between the community’s expectation for low-cost parking and pressures for improved financial performance.

5. The Hearing Te Hui

5.1 The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillors Pauline Cotter (Chair), Kelly Barber, David Cartwright, Melanie Coker, and Mark Peters. The Hearings Panel convened on 20 February 2026 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

5.2 Before hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the options presented to submitters, an overview of community feedback , and also presented the Hearings Panel with further information concerning the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark.

5.3 The Panel heard from eight submitters, who expressed:

· Very strong support for retaining the carpark, except for one submitter who explained the nature of ownership and management of private carparking buildings, including that these do not make money but are considered a necessary ‘loss leader’ to encourage customers to visit a commercial development

· Strong support for the Council to retain its influence on central city parking pricing

· Significant concern at the likelihood of price rises if sold

· Concern over loss of valuable assets in principle

· Some support for measures to increase revenue, such as fee increases, long-stay parking on upper floors and surge pricing

· Confidence that the opening of One New Zealand Stadium will increase demand for parking when events are on.

6. Consideration and Deliberation Ngā Whaiwhakaaro me Ngā Taukume o Ngā Kōrero

6.1 The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council officers during the hearing.

6.2 The Hearings Panel acknowledged the overwhelming support by submitters for the Council to retain the carpark and change its operating model, with key reasons given in written submissions being:

· Submitters were concerned that selling the carpark would lead to higher parking prices, reduced access, and greater market power for private parking operators.

· Many saw the carpark as an important tool for maintaining competitive parking in the central city.

· Submitters valued the assurance that parking revenue stays local rather than being taken as private profit.

· Several believed that parking demand will increase over time due to central‑city growth, higher‑density housing, and upcoming major facilities.

6.3 The Hearings Panel considered the financial implications of either retaining the carpark and changing the operating model, or of selling it. These include:

6.3.1 Implications of Retaining the Carparking Building

§ The facility currently generates a $1.5 million annual operating surplus but delivers only a 3% return on the book value.

§ Most revenue from the building comes from carparking. In FY 2024 casual parking generated $2.89m while the commercial rentals on the ground floor generated $263,000. Staff noted that these rentals are still receiving a COVID-19 discount.

§ Lichfield Street Carpark charges neither the cheapest nor the most expensive parking fees in the central city. Prices for a two-hour stay range from $4.50 to $28.00, with Lichfield St charging $8.60.

§ The target for peak occupancy is 85% and actual occupancy is currently sitting at over 70% and has been steadily growing. There has been only seasonal change in usage since consultation began. By contrast, the Art Gallery carpark, prior to the number of publicly available carparks being reduced, had an occupancy level of approximately 60%.

§ There has been no future demand modelling done for the carpark. It was not included in modelling of mode share for One New Zealand Stadium, though the expected increase in throughflow at the bus exchange was.

§ Options to increase revenue include:

· Increasing fees, which could have an impact on usage

· increasing the number of long-stay parks particularly on the upper floors

· leasing, surge pricing.

§ However, staff noted that:

· The purpose of the current policy of encouraging short-stay parking is to support retail and businesses in the central city (whereas increasing long-stay parks would encourage more commuter parking)

· The Council is not an expert at maximising income from parking buildings and would need to seek external advice on the best way to structure fees.

6.3.2 Implications of Selling the Carparking Building

§ The Hearings Panel noted the officer advice that there is likely to be interest from buyers.

§ The carpark cost $31m to build and borrowing is over 30 years, with full repayment expected in 2047-48.

§ The carpark returns approximately 3% p.a. on its book value, noting the Council’s long-term average cost of funds is 5.0%.

§ In answer to a panellist’s question about the financial benefits of selling the carpark for a certain sum, e.g. $50.0m, staff provided the following answer:

§ If the Council were to sell the Lichfield Street Car Park in the 2027 financial year (01 July 2026 – 30 June 2027), for $50.0m for example, and apply the proceeds to debt reduction then:

· In the financial year 2026/27 the interest expense on borrowing would decrease by $1.0m, and from financial year 2027/28 it would decrease by $2.5m.

· From the financial year 2027/28 the debt repayment that Council rates for would decrease by $1.67m per year, representing the lower balance of borrowing.

§ To put this example in context, the Council’s total borrowing is approximately $2.6-9b, with net borrowing at approximately $1.6-9b.

§ Wellington City Council has sold its central city carparks and Auckland Council, if it has not sold all, has reduced the number it owns.

6.4 The Hearings Panel also noted that there are operational implications of either retaining the carpark and changing the operating model or of selling it. These include:

· The carpark is ten years old and has an expected life of 70 years.

· Whether retained or sold, the building would most likely remain a carpark due to its sloped floors making it unsuitable to be converted to another use.

· A private operator may change the mix of short-stay and long-stay parking by introducing all-day rates or leasing. They may also reduce services (e.g. toilets and security).

· The carpark contains more disability parks than required under resource consent and anecdotally they are well used. A private operator might consider removing some disability parks, though there would be little benefit in doing so as it would not be possible to create two standard parks from one disability park.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The Hearings Panel agenda contains information on the financial implications of the options for the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark.

8. Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 The Hearings Panel agenda contains information on the risks and mitigations for the options for the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark.

9. Reference Documents

Document	Location
Hearings Panel Agenda including an Officer report, a full summary of submission and all written submissions	Hearings Panel Agenda Officer report Summary of submissions Submitters to be heard Submitters who do not wish to be heard
Hearings Panel Minutes	Hearings Panel Minutes
Hearings Panel Minutes Attachments	Staff presentation and handout from submitter
Kōrero mai \| Let’s talk Webpage	Kōrero mai \| Let’s Talk webpage

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author Ruth Close - Hearings Advisor

Approved By Councillor Pauline Cotter - Chair of Hearings Panel

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

12. International Relations Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/475274
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Duncan Sandeman, Manager Office of the Mayor and Civic Services
Accountable Senior Manager Pouwhakarae:	Matthew Pratt, Strategic Advisor

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a summary of International Relations activities over the 2025 calendar year, outline proposed areas of work for the next 12 months, and seek approval for the Mayor and identified elected members to undertake travel in support of the International Relations Policy Framework (IRPF) over the triennium.

1.2 The report provides the Council with oversite of delivery against the IRPF. The IRPF is an international relations strategy jointly owned by a wide range of internationally active city institutions setting out how Christchurch will engage with the world for the benefit of its residents.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the International Relations Update 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 Council funded travel by the Mayor and elected members identified in Attachment B: Schedule 1 (Elected Member Travel in Support of the IRPF) through to October 2028 for the joint purposes of:

a. Commemorating significant Sister City anniversaries, and

b. Supporting International Relations Policy Framework engagement.

4. Approves the upgrade of our relationship with Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China, to a Sister City.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report provides an update on Christchurch’s international relations activities over the 2025 calendar year and outlines key initiatives for the year ahead, consistent with the International Relations Policy Framework (IRPF).

3.2 It also seeks Council approval for elected member travel to support these initiatives and affirms the strategic direction for international engagement.

Key Achievements and Progress

3.3 Key achievements and progress include:

3.3.1 Continued support for the Pacific Technical Assistance (PacificTA) programme, delivering practical capacity-building across multiple Pacific Island countries in partnership with Taituarā and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT).

3.3.2 The advancement of a strategic city relationship with Chennai, India, including completion of a Tier Two city study and initial engagement through the India New Zealand Business Council.

3.3.3 Ongoing collaboration with Shenzhen, China, to upgrade the existing “friendly city” relationship to a formal Sister City agreement, following strong support from Shenzhen city officials.

Proposed Actions

3.4 It is recommended that the Council approves the Mayor and selected Councillors to undertake visits to China (Shenzhen and Wuhan) and India (Chennai) between 2026 and 2028 to:

3.4.1 Commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Christchurch–Wuhan Sister City relationship.

3.4.2 Sign the Sister City agreement with Shenzhen.

3.4.3 Present the business case for a strategic relationship with Chennai.

3.4.4 A second visit to Chennai to progress the strategic relationship, accompanied by a Christchurch delegation including key city partners.

3.5 It is recommended that the Council endorse the upgrade of Shenzhen to Sister City status.

3.6 Travel costs will be met from existing budgets, with future activation costs to be considered through the Long Term Plan (LTP).

Strategic Alignment

3.7 These initiatives align with the IRPF’s principles of targeted, cohesive, and responsible engagement. They focus on priority regions such as Guangdong Province and South Asia and aim to deliver benefits for Christchurch through increased trade, innovation, education partnerships, and cultural exchange.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The International Relations Policy Framework (IRPF) provides a strategic approach for Christchurch City Council and its city partners to engage internationally in a way that enhances wellbeing, economic prosperity, and global connectivity for Ōtautahi Christchurch.

4.2 It aligns with the Council’s Strategic Framework which seeks to make Christchurch a place of opportunity for all, open to new ideas, new people, new investment and new ways of doing things; a place where anything is possible.

4.3 Council receives periodic updates on progress being made against the IRPF, most recently in April 2025. In that update Councillors were briefed on the intention to:

4.3.1 Work with Taituarā in supporting the delivery of the Pacific TA programme.

4.3.2 Identify a city in India to seek a long-term strategic relationship.

4.3.3 Upgrade the friendly city relationship with Shenzhen to a Sister City.

4.4 The organisation continues to make progress against each of these initiatives and this report outlines the next steps in each programme of work.

4.5 A full description of international relations activities conducted by the Council in 2025 is included in Attachment A.

Pacific Technical Assistance

4.6 The Council continues to provide support to the PacificTA programme. This programme, funded by the New Zealand Government’s aid programme and managed by Taituarā, aims to improve the quality of life for citizens in Pacific Island countries by providing practical, hands-on support to local managers responsible for public services.

4.7 PacificTA matches New Zealand-based local government technical experts with Pacific Island teams, delivering onsite training, mentoring, and technical assistance to strengthen capacity in managing essential public infrastructure and services.

4.8 Key areas of support include:

4.8.1 Environmental Management: Water and air quality, coastal planning, marine pollution response, biodiversity, pest control, flood and hazard management.

4.8.2 Infrastructure & Asset Management: Drinking water, sanitation, stormwater, roads, waste management, ports, libraries, parks, and asset planning.

4.8.3 Urban & Transport Planning: Public transport, urban planning, building control, boating safety.

4.8.4 Public Health & Safety: Crime prevention, civil defence, food safety, animal control.

4.8.5 Governance & Decision-Making: Financial management, organisational structure, democracy support, major event planning.

4.9 In 2025 the Council provided support to Honiara in the Solomon Islands, and to Port Vila and Luganville in Vanuatu.

4.10 Establishing a single Sister City relationship in the Pacific may provide a visible connection for some communities, however, it would concentrate resources and effort on one city alone. Council’s support for the PacificTA programme ensures that assistance is directed to areas of greatest need, as identified by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, across multiple Pacific Island countries.

4.11 This approach delivers broader regional impact, aligns with national priorities, and leverages Christchurch’s expertise where it can make the most difference. It has been assessed as the most efficient, effective, and equitable way for Christchurch to contribute to improved wellbeing in the South Pacific.

Strategic City Relationship in India

4.12 Discussions within the City’s IRPF Group have indicated a strong preference for establishing a city-to-city relationship in India, with a focus on commercial and economic collaboration. Currently, no New Zealand city has a formal relationship in India, presenting a unique opportunity for Christchurch to lead in this area.

4.13 CIR commissioned a study on Tier Two cities across the subcontinent (excluding the Tier One cities of Mumbai and Delhi), which was subsequently reviewed and endorsed by the IRPF Group. The study identified Chennai as the most suitable match for Christchurch.

4.14 Chennai, a Tier Two city with a population of approximately 6.75 million, is the capital and largest city of Tamil Nadu, located on the Coromandel Coast of the Bay of Bengal. It is India’s sixth-most populous city and forms the fourth-largest urban agglomeration, making it a significant hub for technology, education, and trade.

4.15 In February 2025, the Mayor signed an MoU with the India New Zealand Business Council (INZBC) to support development of this relationship. INZBC subsequently delivered a letter of introduction from Mayor Mauger to the Mayor of Chennai, from whom a favourable response has been received.

4.16 A sub-group of the IRPF Group is now developing a detailed business case outlining why Christchurch is a strong strategic match for Chennai. This will identify areas of mutual benefit and “win-win” opportunities across sectors such as technology, education, trade, and cultural exchange.

4.17 Once completed and peer-reviewed, it is proposed that the business case will be presented by the Mayor and a small accompanying delegation to the Mayor and officials of the Greater Chennai Corporation, alongside key business entities identified by INZBC. This visit is targeted for the second half of 2026.

4.18 If the proposal gains traction in Chennai, the next steps will include hosting a reciprocal visit to Christchurch and a further, more substantive, delegation to Chennai in FY 2027/28, with the aim of formalising a strategic city relationship.

Upgrade of relationship with Shenzhen

4.19 As briefed last year, Christchurch has maintained a “friendly city” relationship with Shenzhen since 2015. During the Mayor’s visit to China in 2024, discussions with the Mayor of Shenzhen and the Deputy Director-General of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries confirmed strong support from the Chinese side for upgrading this relationship to a formal Sister City agreement.

4.20 Since then, CIR has worked closely with the Shenzhen Foreign Affairs Office to progress this matter, and both cities now stand ready to sign a Sister City agreement.

4.21 Council approval is sought to upgrade the relationship.

4.22 While this change will not significantly alter the level of engagement in the short term, it will enhance the prestige and strategic value of the relationship. This upgrade aligns with the IRPF, particularly its focus on Guangdong Province as a priority region. Shenzhen is a global innovation hub and a key economic centre within Guangdong, offering substantial opportunities for collaboration in technology, trade, education, and cultural exchange.

Assistance to the Ukraine

4.23 In February 2025, the Ukrainian Ambassador to New Zealand (based in Canberra) visited the Mayor and raised the possibility of Christchurch entering into a Sister City arrangement with Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, which has been significantly impacted by the ongoing conflict.

4.24 While it is common for visiting ambassadors to suggest Sister City relationships, most proposals do not align with Christchurch’s strategic priorities. However, in this case, there may be merit in exploring the idea further.

4.25 Christchurch’s experience in post-earthquake recovery could provide meaningful technical assistance to Kharkiv as it rebuilds its infrastructure and community resilience once the conflict ends.

4.26 This matter has not progressed to date due to capacity constraints within CIR. The next step is to consult with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to assess whether this initiative aligns with national-level international relations priorities. If MFAT indicates support, a full project plan will be developed for consideration by ELT before any commitment is made.

Elected Member Travel in Support of Sister Cities and the IRPF

4.27 The Mayor and Councillors are key diplomatic assets for Christchurch. Their presence can open doors to partners and decision-makers that may otherwise be difficult for local stakeholders to access independently. These visits also provide opportunities to observe and learn from best-practice initiatives on the ground, offering insights that can inform and enhance local policy and development.

4.28 It is proposed that the Mayor, accompanied by Councillors appointed to the relevant Sister City Committees, undertake visits to China and India as outlined in Attachment B: Schedule 1: Elected Member Travel in Support of the IRPF.

4.28.1 China Sister Cities visit. For the China Sister Cities visits, the Mayor would be accompanied by Councillors who currently serve on the China Sister Cities Committee. This approach ensures appropriate governance oversight, continuity, and alignment with Christchurch’s existing international relationships.

4.28.2 India visit – exploratory and enabling. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are recommended to undertake the first India visit. This visit is expected to be exploratory and enabling in nature, focused on establishing initial relationships and assessing opportunities for future strategic engagement.

4.28.3 Future India Sister City governance. An India Sister City Committee has yet to be established and would be formed subject to the success of the initial engagement. Once established, the Committee would support the ongoing development and governance of the relationship. Councillors Barber and Keown advised the Mayor, following the local body election last year, of their interest in serving as elected member representatives on any future India Sister City Committee. Councillor Barber confirmed his interest through the expressions of interest process that was open to all Councillors.

4.29 These visits will support the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Christchurch–Wuhan Sister City relationship, enable the formal upgrade of the Shenzhen relationship to Sister City status, and progress toward establishing a strategic relationship with Chennai.

4.30 Other requests for Mayoral travel to partnership destinations initiated by city stakeholders will be considered when appropriate and feasible, and where there is minimal or no cost to Council.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.31 In considering the recommendation to approve Council‑funded travel for the Mayor and relevant Councillors, the following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.31.1 The Mayor and Councillors do not undertake the travel.

4.31.2 The Mayor and Councillors personally fund their own travel.

4.31.3 The Mayor and Councillors undertake the travel, funded within existing OPEX budgets.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.32 Preferred Option: The Mayor and Councillors undertake the travel, funded within existing OPEX budgets.

4.32.1 Option Description: This option allows elected members to undertake international travel funded by the Council to represent the city, strengthen official relationships, and progress strategic objectives. It ensures equitable participation and enables the city to be formally and appropriately represented at key international engagements.

4.32.2 Option Advantages

· All elected members, regardless of personal financial circumstances, have a fair opportunity to participate in international relationship building and official representation.

· Enables the city to send appropriate representation to partner cities enhancing city ties, economic connections and cultural partnerships.

· Official, fully funded representation helps progress agreed objectives such as economic development, and city‑to‑city cooperation.

· When Council funds the travel, members participate in an unambiguous official capacity, ensuring alignment with Council expectations, oversight processes, and reporting requirements.

· Council can choose the most appropriate representatives based on role, expertise, and the purpose of the visit, not based on who can personally afford to travel.

4.32.3 Option Disadvantages

· Funding travel creates an upfront budget impact that may attract negative public scrutiny.

· Even when travel is strategic and appropriate, some residents may view elected member travel as a junket.

· Diplomatic and relationship‑building travel may not produce immediately measurable outcomes, which can make benefits harder to communicate to the public.

4.33 The Mayor and Councillors do not undertake the travel.

4.33.1 Option Description: The Council could choose not to undertake any outbound international travel and instead only receive incoming delegations from Sister Cities and partnership destinations.

4.33.2 Option Advantages

· Lower costs and climate change impacts.

4.33.3 Option Disadvantages

· Could compromise long-standing relationships by giving international partners the impression that Christchurch is not fully invested.

· May lead City stakeholders to questioning Council’s willingness to play a leading role in Christchurch’s international relations ecosystem.

· City stakeholders may miss out on opportunities brought about by travelling as a Christchurch Inc delegation, especially in areas such as Asia.

4.34 The Mayor and Councillors personally fund their own travel.

4.34.1 Option Description: The Mayor and Councillors who wish to undertake these visits could pay their own way, with fully or partially (e.g. pay for flights but not on-ground costs) funded travel.

4.34.2 Option Advantages

· Elected members can still attend international events and maintain Sister City relationships, ensuring the City is represented despite the absence of Council funding.

· This option protects Council budgets and avoids ratepayer criticism regarding spending on elected member travel.

4.34.3 Option Disadvantages

· Only those with sufficient personal financial means for travel can participate, which undermines fairness and equal opportunity.

· Elected members funding their own travel could create confusion about whether they are acting in a personal, political, or official capacity, which could lead to governance or reputational issues.

· The public may interpret self-funded travel as inappropriate personal investment in official relationship-building, or as creating real or perceived conflicts of interest.

· Participation may be limited under this option, reducing the Council’s ability to deliver the IRPF and potentially resulting in missed opportunities.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The travel costs associated with the proposed visits to India (Chennai) and China (Shenzhen and Wuhan) will be met from existing approved budgets within CIR and the Mayor’s Office, ensuring no additional funding is required at this stage.

5.2 As at 1 February 2026 the estimated costs are:

5.2.1 China (Shenzhen, Wuhan, Qingdao): $13,000

5.2.2 China (Wuhan): $1,500

5.2.3 India I: $10,500

5.2.4 India II: $15,000

5.3 Further costs associated with activating and sustaining the upgraded Sister City relationship with Shenzhen, and with progressing a strategic relationship with Chennai, will be considered as part of future planning and prioritisation discussions in the Long Term Plan (LTP).

5.4 These costs may include hosting reciprocal delegations, business engagement activities, and cultural exchange initiatives to support and strengthen these relationships and deliver measurable benefits for Christchurch.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Financial Risk

6.1.1 Risk: Travel and engagement costs could exceed estimates, or future funding for relationship activation may not be secured in the Long Term Plan (LTP).

6.1.2 Mitigation:

· Confirm that initial travel costs are covered by existing approved budgets (CIR and Mayor’s Office).

· Clearly signal that further costs will be subject to LTP prioritisation and Council approval.

6.2 Reputational Risk

6.2.1 Risk: Failure to deliver on commitments (e.g., Sister City upgrade with Shenzhen or strategic relationship with Chennai) could damage Christchurch’s credibility internationally.

6.2.2 Mitigation:

· Ensure robust planning and timelines for each initiative.

· Maintain transparent communication with international partners and stakeholders.

· Secure Council approval before formal commitments are made.

6.3 Political/Community Perception Risk

6.3.1 Risk: Some councillors or community members may perceive prioritisation of PacificTA over a Pacific Sister City as insufficient support for local Pasifika communities.

6.3.2 Mitigation:

· Clearly articulate the rationale: PacificTA delivers broader regional impact, is assessed professionally in-region, and aligns with national priorities.

· Identify any opportunities for local Pasifika community involvement in PacificTA initiatives.

· Communicate benefits of equitable, multi-country engagement versus single-city focus.

6.4 Operational Risk

6.4.1 Risk: There may be limited staff capacity within CIR to manage multiple international initiatives simultaneously.

6.4.2 Mitigation:

· Prioritise initiatives based on IRPF focus areas and Council direction.

· Leverage partnerships with INZBC, MFAT, and other agencies for support.

· Continue to stage activities over a realistic timeline (2026–2028).

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

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

· A green, liveable city. Connecting and working with international partners to share best practice on building climate resilience.

· A cultural powerhouse city. Council’s support for Sister City contributes to a cultural powerhouse city by supporting community groups to connect and deepen relationships with citizens in our Sister Cities.

· A thriving prosperous city. Collaborates with city-wide stakeholders on international initiatives that attract talent and that stimulate a prosperous economy for Christchurch.

6.6.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by discussions with city stakeholders who collectively represent Christchurch’s international interests, and who support the IRPF.

6.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s International Relations Policy Framework.

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

6.8 Economic Development

6.8.1 Activity: Civic and International Relations

· Level of Service: 5.0.1 Support Sister City Committees to deliver community activities to deepen the sister city relationships - 100% of Sister City Committees plan and deliver projects and activities in alignment with the IRPF

· Level of Service: 5.0.9.1 Lead city-wide coordination and collaboration in support of the agreed vision and priorities set out in the 2020 International Relations Policy Framework (IRPF) action plans - Support delivery of implementation Plan to agreed timelines

· Level of Service: 5.0.10 Deliver visit programmes, functions, and activities for visiting dignitaries - Liaise with embassies, honorary consuls, and local stakeholders to plan and deliver visit programmes, functions, and activities for visiting dignitaries, in accordance with agreed priorities for inward visits and the IRPF implementation plan

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 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 and traditions.

6.10 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua, but it will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.11 Mana Whenua are an integral partner in the IRPF, particularly through Ngāi Tahu’s commercial interests in tourism.

6.12 Staff will continue to engage via Council’s Treaty Relationships Team to ensure that the interests of mana whenua are represented in the International Relations City Stakeholders Group, and to develop related future opportunities, including arrangements for city travel.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.13 The IRPF’s core principle of Global Responsibility enables the International Relations City Stakeholders Group to work collectively in response to global challenges such as climate change, or for the Council to do so independently where appropriate.

6.14 There is significant potential for climate change-related collaboration across all partnership destinations, particularly in the South Pacific. In collaboration with Taituarā, staff will ensure that climate change considerations are integrated into any project work with the South Pacific.

6.15 Long-haul air travel is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and the proposed travel to support the IRPF is no different.

6.16 Carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed travel has been calculated as follows:

6.16.1 China: 1,294kg per person;

6.16.2 India: 1,529kg per person.

6.17 Wherever possible, carbon offsets will be purchased at the time of ticket purchase.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 To progress the initiatives outlined in this report, the following actions are proposed:

7.1.1 PacificTA

· Continue active support for the Pacific TA programme in partnership with Taituarā and MFAT.

· Report annually to Council on outcomes achieved and opportunities for Christchurch’s involvement.

7.1.2 Strategic Relationship with Chennai

· Complete and peer-review the business case by mid-2026, identifying mutual benefits and “win-win” opportunities.

· Schedule a Mayoral delegation to Chennai in Q3/Q4 2026 to present the business case to the Greater Chennai Corporation and key business entities.

· If the proposal gains traction, plan:

o A reciprocal visit by Chennai officials to Christchurch in 2027.

o A second Christchurch delegation to Chennai in FY 27/28 to formalise the relationship.

7.1.3 Upgrade of Relationship with Shenzhen

· Confirm arrangements with the Shenzhen Foreign Affairs Office for signing the Sister City agreement in 2026.

· Host a return delegation from Shenzhen.

· In association with the China Sister City Committee, develop an activation plan for the upgraded relationship, including trade, innovation, and cultural exchange initiatives, for consideration in the Long Term Plan (LTP).

7.1.4 Ukraine

· Consult with MFAT to assess alignment with national international relations priorities and obtain guidance.

· If supported, develop a full project plan outlining scope, objectives, and resource requirements for consideration by ELT.

· Explore opportunities for Christchurch to provide technical assistance for post-conflict rebuilding, leveraging expertise in resilience and recovery.

7.1.5 Elected Member Travel

· Finalise travel schedule as per Attachment B: Schedule 1: Elected Member Travel in Support of the IRPF, ensuring alignment with IRPF priorities and cost control measures.

· Purchase carbon offsets for all long-haul travel and explore hybrid engagement options where feasible.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Council International Relations 2025	26/275508	210
b ⇩	Schedule 1: Elected Member Travel in Support of the IRPF	26/495899	218

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Duncan Sandeman - Manager Office of Mayor & Civic Services
Approved By	Matthew Pratt - Strategic Advisor

13. Hagley Park & Botanic Gardens - No Stopping & Mobility Park Parking Restrictions - Update
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2489271
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sahan Lalpe, Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1 Seek approval by the Council for the installation of no stopping restrictions at the Botanic Gardens parking area off Riccarton Avenue; and

1.1.2 Convert three general car parks into mobility parks at the Botanic Gardens parking area off Armagh Street.

1.2 This report is considered a minor update following the Council’s decision which approved the parking meters on Hagley Park on 18 September 2024 (link to the original report^{^[1]}).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Hagley Park & Botanic Gardens - No Stopping & Mobility Park Parking Restrictions - Update Report.

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

3. Revokes any previous resolutions in accordance with Clause 6 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, within the Hagley Park car parking areas described in this report, pertaining to parking or stopping restrictions, made pursuant to any Bylaw, Local Government Act or any Land Transport Rule, to the extent that they are in conflict with, or recommended to be removed, in regard to the parking or stopping restrictions described in Recommendations 4-5 below.

4. Approves, 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 within the Hagley Park Botanic Gardens parking area as detailed on plan Hagley Park – Riccarton Avenue – Botanic Car Park, (TG148381 dated 19/01/2026). Attachment A to this report.

5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and in accordance with section 12.4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, within the Hagley Park Botanic Gardens parking area as detailed on plan Hagley Park – Armagh Street – Botanic Car Park, (TG148381 dated 19/01/2026). Attachment B to this report. This restriction is to apply at all times.

6. Approves that the above 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 The additional no stopping marking restrictions are proposed to primarily discourage drivers from parking on ‘the Lane’ running along the Te Kura Hagley Park Tennis Club, Christchurch Pétanque Club and High School Old Boys Rugby Football Club.

3.2 Drivers parking along this lane prevents other users from accessing Hagley Park via the gated entrance by the High School Old Boys Rugby Football Club.

3.3 It is also proposed to convert existing general car parks at the Botanic Gardens parking area off Armagh Street to mobility car parks to meet the minimum requirements of the District Plan for off-street carpark, Table 7.5.1.1^{^[2]}.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Lane – adjacent to the Botanic Gardens parking area off Riccarton Avenue.

4.1.1 The no stopping marking mitigates health and safety issues as currently there is limited access for emergency services to the Hagley Park sports fields when cars are parked on this section. Hagley Park, and this parking area are well used during winter months for sports.

4.1.2 Staff also note that Te Kura Hagley Park Tennis Club (TKHP) have previously raised concerns regarding visitors leaving their club and nearly being hit by cars as there is limited visibility with cars parking along this section.

4.1.3 In addition, service vehicles (e.g. mowers) have limited access when vehicles are parked on the Lane, disrupting standard operations of Hagley Park.

4.2 The additional mobility parking – at the Botanic Car Park off Armagh Street.

4.2.1 There are approximately 280-300 car parks in the Botanic Car Park off Armagh Street, meaning the minimum number of mobility parking spaces is ‘2 for the first 50 car parking spaces + 1 additional mobility parking space for every additional 50 car parking spaces or part thereof’.

4.2.2 The approximation is due to the spaces being unmarked on the gravel surface, some bays having no wheel stops to guide drivers of the spacing and location of trees creating spaces that could be used by small cars but are not appropriate for larger ones to park.

4.2.3 In total seven mobility parks are required as per District Plan. The proposed plan ensures the minimum mobility park requirement is met at the Botanic Car Park off Armagh Street.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.3 Recommended Option (no stopping): Installing no stopping restrictions and installing three mobility parking appropriate signs, see Attachment A.

4.3.1 Option Advantages

· These changes address health and safety concerns and provide further accessibility parks.

· Keeps access to the park clear for other users and authorised personnel that need to access the interior of Hagley Park from the Riccarton Avenue entrance.

· Prevents drivers from circumventing the paid parking without consequence.

· Provides a mechanism for Council staff to appropriately enforce the restriction (e.g., through fines or towing offending vehicles).

· Reinforces existing informal signs and marking.

4.3.2 Option Disadvantages

· Results in a change in parking availability for some users.

4.4 Alternative Options (to no stopping): Maintain the status quo – do nothing and leave the parking spaces unrestricted.

4.4.1 Option Advantages

· There are no advantages for maintaining the existing condition as the health and safety and accessibility concerns will remain.

4.4.2 Option Disadvantages

· Does not solve existing access issues experienced by staff when the lane is blocked by vehicles.

· There is no clear mechanism to discourage drivers from parking in this space, by issuing fines or towing offending vehicles.

· Relies on the good will of the community to keep this space clear for other users.

· Lack of accessibility parking.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Do nothing
Cost to implement	$5,000 to install new signs with line marking	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Will be added to and covered by the area maintenance contract	$0
Funding Source	Traffic Operations Team’s ‘Road Marking and Signs’ budget.	n/a

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Council staff have previously communicated with all identified existing users of Botanic Garden’s parking areas. This includes community and sports groups operating in the park and all pre-approved parkers -subject to individual agreements within the Council.

6.2 This proposal is only seeking to make minor changes as outlined in Attachments A and B.

6.3 This proposal does not materially affect the intent of the previously approved resolution.^{^[3]}

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Clause 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, (the Bylaw) states that the bylaw is to set out the requirements for parking and control of vehicular or other traffic on any road or area under the care, control or management of the Council.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.5.2 Clause 7 of the Bylaw provides the Council with the legal authority to specify the areas subject to parking management, including tariffs, and time limits

6.5.3 Clause 8 of the Bylaw provides the Council with the legal authority to specify classes of vehicles that can use a parking place.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decisions:

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

6.6.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined as this proposal does neither materially affect the intent of the existing conditions at Hagley Park nor the previously approved resolution: CNCL/2024/00135

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

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

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.0.1 All Community Parks are managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional, and equitable manner (Maintenance) - 90% Maintenance Plan key performance indicators are achieved

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 This recommendation is proposed to address previous feedback related to parking within Hagley Park. The changes are minor and in line with the previous Council decision. There was no further consultation regarding these recommendations.

6.10 The decision affects the Central Ward of Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will arrange for the new road marking and signs to be installed as per the Attachments, within this financial year.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Hagley Park off Riccarton Avenue - Botanic Garden - Parking Area	26/101901	224
b ⇩	Hagley Park off Armagh Street - Botanic Garden - Parking Area	26/101905	225

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sahan Lalpe - Traffic Engineer

Andrew Hensley - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Kathy Graham - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

15. Notice of Motion - Parker / Gilberthorpes / Waterloo Intersection Signalisation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/465918
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Peters
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

1. Purpose and Origin

1.1 Pursuant to Standing Order 22 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, Councillor Peters provided a Notice of Motion outlined in the recommendation section which is accompanied by the associated Officer advice.

2. Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

Councillor Peters Notice of Motion:

That the Council:

1. Pauses any further work on the Parker Street, Gilberthorpes Road, and Waterloo intersection as part of the South Express MCR and asks staff to report to Council on options to enhance the safety and effectiveness of the intersection, including full signalisation, in time for consideration as part of the 2027-37 Long-Term Plan.

Officer Recommended Alternative:

That the Council:

1. Pauses any further work on the permanent design of the Parker Street, Gilberthorpes Road, and Waterloo intersection as part of the South Express MCR and asks staff to report to Council on options to enhance the safety and effectiveness of the intersection, including full signalisation, in time for consideration as part of the 2027-37 Long-Term Plan.

2. Requests staff bring interim options to the Council regarding the safety and usability of the intersection for pedestrians and cyclists, to allow users of the South Express MCR a safe route ahead of permanent changes.

3. Resource Impact of the Notice of Motion

3.1 An initial decision to pause the current works is unlikely to have a significant impact on staff resource. Overall, however, there would be considerable time and cost implications for this change.

Initial Pause

3.2 Council Officers are engaged in ongoing discussions with KiwiRail regarding the scope of the level crossing works to be designed and priced. This is mostly done by a single Project Manager, who is also working on several other projects. The immediate resource implications of an initial decision to pause the current works would likely be small as staff would cease progressing permanent design works.

3.3 Should the Council wish to look at an interim option to improve pedestrian and cycle use of the intersection ahead of the permanent works, this could be pursued (and is recommended by staff). An outline scheme design has been assessed, so the initial task would be to seek the Council’s approval for this change. The resource implication for this would be relatively small and partially offset by the pause to the permanent works.

Providing Options, including full signalisation

3.4 There would be a significant time and cost implication for this change.

3.4.1 Further investigations and design work would be required. This would involve staff time from across the Transport, and Professional and Technical Services Units, including Project Management, Designers, Traffic Operations and Real Time Operations teams.

3.4.2 Further engagement with KiwiRail would be required to undertake a revised Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment (LCSIA) based on the proposed design. As signalisation may change the flows and types of traffic using the level crossing it is likely that this would trigger a complete redesign of the level crossing upgrade, with associated cost and resource impacts.

3.4.3 Re-designing the intersection would require new Safe System Assessments at the scheme and detailed design stages for which external consultants would be engaged.

· If the Council pursued an alternative design, this would also require a partial revocation of the currently approved scheme design.

3.4.4 Considering the substantial re-design of the intersection, it is likely that external consultants would be engaged to complete further studies and investigations.

3.5 Direct costs would be incurred through the construction costs associated with fully signalising the intersection, an increase to the current project estimate.

3.6 Should the proposed design progress, the construction of the cycleway through this intersection would be delayed, potentially for 12 to 24 months.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Project Progress

4.1 The MCR route was designed to travel along Waterloo Road, through the intersection with Parker Street and Gilberthorpes Road. The scheme design was approved by Council 22 July 2019.

4.1.1 The design is available on Page 42 of the Agenda: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/ITEC_20190722_AGN_3834_AT.PDF

4.2 Traffic resolutions for this intersection have not yet been presented to the Council. This will be done once the full design has been completed, ahead of procurement and construction.

Intersection Assessment

4.3 As a result of consultation, the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association requested at a meeting on site an assessment of the intersection. The intention was to highlight how unsafe the intersection was deemed to be and form the basis to support the full signalisation of the intersection.

4.4 The intersection assessment report was presented to the Community Board and Residents’ Association in May 2023. This report identified and assessed four options to address safety issues at this intersection. Full signalisation of the intersection was rated second of these four options.

· The intersection assessment is available as Attachment A.

· The intersection scoring assessment is available as Attachment B.

4.4.1 The assessment states traffic modelling shows signalisation may divert vehicles away from the intersection on account of the delay caused by the lights. However, as the intersection currently feels unsafe, signalisation may attract additional traffic, creating a higher crash risk if diversion does not occur.

4.4.2 The option to signalise the intersection would maintain the existing traffic flows, with only minor changes. However, the option was noted to not align with the district plan.

4.4.3 Signalisation was noted as a high-cost option which would require the realignment and widening of the rail crossing, as well as the cost of signal infrastructure. The cost of this would be higher than a standard signalisation and in 2021, this was estimated to be in excess of $2m.

Network Context

4.5 The intersection is made up of five arms.

4.5.1 Moffet Street is a local street with an average daily traffic count of 1550 vehicles. This street is intended to be closed as a cul-de-sac as part of the South Express cycleway design.

4.5.2 The other roads in the intersection are collector roads, classified as urban connectors. Their average daily traffic counts are as follows:

· Waterloo Road (western approach) 3300 vehicles

· Waterloo Road (eastern approach) 3810 vehicles

· Gilberthorpes Road (northern approach) 6075 vehicles

· Parker Street (southern approach) 5375 vehicles

4.6 In mid-2025, the Council and KiwiRail completed a significant upgrade to the level crossing at Halswell Junction Road.

4.6.1 The preferred route for vehicles accessing Waterloo Business Park is therefore via the State Highway and Halswell Junction Road. While this has not been modelled at this stage, it is reasonable to assume that the introduction of signals at Waterloo/Gilberthorpes may act as an attractor for heavy vehicles to short-cut away from the preferred route.

4.7 Staff receive and respond to hybris and Snap, Send, Solve tickets relating to this intersection. Between March 2023 and March 2026, 19 tickets had been received specifically regarding this intersection. Some of these are duplicates, and may ask for information rather than raise concerns.

4.8 Statistically, the existing intersection has a low history of medium to serious incidents resulting in injury, making it a low priority for capital spend against the safety improvement budgets.

4.8.1 During the period 2016-2025, there were 11 reported crashes within a 50m radius of the centre of this intersection. Of these:

· 0 were Fatal

· 1 was Serious (loss of control right-turning at Parker/Foremans)

· 2 were minor injury (Both related to cars not stopping fully at stop sign on Waterloo Road)

4.8.2 Using the KiwiRAP assessment methodology in 2024, this was ranked as the 644^th most dangerous Council-owned intersection.

5. Officer Advice

Any Current Related Work Underway / Achievability of the Notice of Motion

5.1 The design for the South Express cycleway passes through this intersection and is currently at detailed design stage.

5.1.1 To complete the intersection design co-ordination with the KiwiRail level crossing is required. KiwiRail informed the Council of the estimate in mid-2024, however, this was high so discussions remain ongoing.

5.1.2 Staff of both organisations agreed to a priority list of level crossing upgrades, to ensure focus was kept on the next project. This is now the third priority for delivery, after Scruttons Road and Radcliffe Road. Therefore progress in recent months has been limited.

5.2 The Council and KiwiRail are reviewing the project scope, with consideration of a “Minimal Viable Product” that addresses only the increased risk that the Council’s project is generating.

5.2.1 This would be expected to reduce the estimate but would not address pre-existing issues with the level crossing.

5.3 Once the level crossing scope review is complete, the cycleway design will be reassessed to ensure alignment with the revised scope before progressing to the Council for approval, procurement and construction.

Financial Implications / Capex and Opex Funding Sources

5.4 The financial implications of the initial pause would be relatively low, however, the associated budgets for this project would need to be delayed.

5.5 The investigation and delivery of interim measures are estimated to cost around $200-300k. It should be noted that much of this cost would be in the closure of Moffett Street, which is a key part of the current permanent design.

5.6 Based on other recent projects and the nature of the crossing, it is likely that the signalisation element would require around $3m of CAPEX funding over and above the current project budgets.

5.6.1 There may also be further additional funding required for the level crossing, however, it will not be possible to confirm this until a new Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment (LCSIA) has been completed. This could be significant.

5.6.2 The introduction of signals will have an ongoing OPEX impact for communication and power.

Other Considerations (e.g. Risks, impacts on Mana Whenua, climate change, accessibility, Annual Plan/Long Term Plan implications)

5.7 The LCSIA for the level crossing was assessed based on the South Express cycleway scheme design. Should the design of this intersection change, a revised LCSIA would be required.

5.8 Any new scheme design would require the Council to revoke, in part, its previous resolution approving the current scheme design.

6. Legal Advice

6.1 There is no legal reason to decline the Notice of Motion.

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Officer Advice Provided by

Natasha Wells – Project Manager, Transport

Jacob Bradury – Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Ron Lemm – Manager Legal Service Delivery

Approved By

Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Intersection Assessment	21/1161617	234
b ⇩	Intersection Scoring Assessment	26/598490	260

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
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	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 March 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
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	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	31 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
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	RS&E	Management
Councillors' proposed amendments - Infrastructure and Regulation	14 February 2024	1 April 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Climate Change Portfolio Lead Report	3 July 2024	30 April 2026	SP&R	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
Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	F&P 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	CS&P	CS&P - Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve	10 April 2024	8 May 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
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	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Ōtākaro-Avon Stormwater Management Plan	19 June 2024	29 May 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Tsunami Alerting System Review	18 June 2025	29 May 2026	CS&P	CDEM
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 May 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund - March 2026	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Bus stop upgrades on Gloucester and St Asaph Streets	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Discretionary Response Fund March 2026	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Pihipihi Lane: Name Correction	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Legal Services
Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project	5 March 2025	4 June 2026	F&P 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	F&P 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	F&P Unit	Management
Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project	29 August 2019	30 June 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Welles Street Temporary Improvements	17 September 2025	30 June 2026	Professional & Technical Services	Project Management
Yaldhurst Memorial Hall	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	F&P 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	F&P 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	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Hearings Panel Report on Lincoln Road Peak Hour Bus Lane Proposal	7 July 2022	1 June 2027	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Cathedral Square Roading Network- Worcester Boulevard from Oxford Terrace to Cathedral Square (Area 9B)	4 March 2026	31 July 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
Stop Road (airspace) and Dispose of to Adjoining Landowners	5 June 2024	16 March 2026	24 March 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	28 February 2026	2 March 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Proposal from the East Christchurch Housing Trust to Rent Council Land for Community Housing	3 September 2025	30 July 2026	24 March 2026	F&P Unit	Management
Ferry Road bus depot site	10 September 2025	30 September 2026	24 March 2026	F&P Unit	Management
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	3 March 2026	CS&P	CS&P - Governance (Pap-Inn-Cen)
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	12 March 2026	Executive Office	Executive Office
Elected Member Appointments	3 December 2025	4 March 2026	13 March 2026	CS&P	CS&P - Governance (Fen-Wai-Har)
109 Salisbury Street - Proposed Parking Restrictions - P5	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	5 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Antigua Street (Moorhouse to St Asaph) - Speed Limit Changes	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	17 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Cashmere / Sutherlands / Hoon Hay Valley Road - Speed Limit Changes	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	17 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Discretionary Response Fund Application - MOVE Ōtautahi	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	3 March 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
MCR Nor'West Arc - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	4 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
South-East Central Neighbourhood - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	25 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Te Kaha Surrounding Streets - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	4 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Waimakariri Road and Whitchurch Place - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	17 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Elected Member Appointments	21 January 2026	22 April 2026	12 March 2026	Executive Office	Executive Office
Burwood & Mairehau intersection improvements	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	25 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	27 February 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Hagley Avenue - Clearway	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	6 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations

6. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/496809
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 ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497189	32
b ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497187	44
c ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497185	51
d ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497193	58
e ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497192	68
f ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report March 2026	26/497191	74

7. Draft 2026/27 Annual Plan - Community Board Submissions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/552588
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Democratic Services Support
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

14. Biodiversity Fund Allocation - Correction
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/540557
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Foster, Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

16. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/472436
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

8. Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/312978
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sarah Stuart, Property Consultant
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.	25/2303090	97

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
18.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 4 March 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
19.	2026 Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities	There is considerable public interest in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. However, this will be largely satisfied during the public consultation process. By discussing this matter publicly at this stage, it could predjuidce the commercial position of the Council which outweighs the public interest.	1 July 2027 Upon confirmation that the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has been adopted.
20.	Open Space Provision and Acquisition of Vacant Land	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	This information is being withheld to enable the Council to engage in negotiations and commercial activities which would otherwise be disadvantaged if the information were made public at this time. The Council's ability to engage in commercial negotiations without prejudice outweighs the public interest.	1 August 2026 Upon the review and approval of the Head of Facilities and Property and Head of Parks.