Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 6 May 2026

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

Date: Wednesday 1 April 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 Jake McLellan

Councillor Andrei Moore

Councillor Mark Peters

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8999

mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

Katie Matheis

Senior Democratic Services Advisor

Tel: 941 5643

katie.matheis@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.

The Mayor acknowledged the recent passing of former Councillor Newton Dodge and the meeting held a moment’s silence in recognition of his contributions and achievements during his 27 years of service.

Secretarial Note: the Chairperson informed the meeting that there would be an adjournment in the afternoon in order to hold a workshop on Item 9 – Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour. The meeting would reconvene the following day, Thursday, 2 April to consider the report.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Decision

There were no apologies received.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Councillor Coker declared an interest in Item 10. 2025-26 Sustainability Fund Allocation in relation to the Summit Road Society application.

Councillor Fields left the meeting at 10.03 am and returned at 10.06 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 10.07 am and returned at 10.09 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.25 am and returned at 10.27 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.27 am and returned at 10.31 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor Cartwright left the meeting at 10.29 am and returned at 10.35 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.30 am and returned at 10.33 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.51 am during consideration of Items 6 and 7.

6. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - March 2026 and

7. Draft 2026/27 Annual Plan - Community Board Submissions

Council Comment

1. The Community Boards presented their Monthly Reports (Item 6) and their Annual Plan submissions (Item 7) to the Council concurrently.

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 Nicola McCormick, Deputy Chairperson, 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.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00037

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Cotter Carried

Attachments

a Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

b Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

c Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

d Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

e Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

f Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Monthly Update and Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Submission - Presentation to Council

The meeting adjourned at 10.59 am and reconvened at 11.18 am. Deputy Mayor Henstock and Councillors Barber and MacDonald were not present at this time.

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Councillor MacDonald returned to the meeting at 11.21 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

Deputy Mayor Henstock and Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 11.22 am during consideration of Item 3.1.1.

3.1.1

Laura Fergusson Brain Injury Trust

Kathryn Jones and Jasmine Harris spoke on behalf of the Laura Fergusson Brain Injury Trust regarding the major capital housing development being undertaken to provide fully accessible residential accommodation for 30 people living with brain injuries and other neurological conditions.

Attachments

a Laura Fergusson Brain Injury Trust - Presentation to Council

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 11.26 am and returned at 11.29 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2

Zoran Rakovic

Zoran Rakovic spoke regarding concerns about the Council deliberating on constitutional questions outside of its jurisdiction and the limit of council authority under the Local Government Act 2002.

3.1.3

Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA)

Dr. Sulav Paudel spoke on behalf of the Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA) regarding the Nepal Festival (18 April 2026), a multicultural celebration with a traditional parade, Everest exhibitions, authentic Nepalese cuisine and cultural performances to celebrate and strengthen community ties.

Attachments

a Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA) - Presentation to Council

3.1.4

South Island Wildlife Hospital

Jenny Fisher spoke on behalf of the South Island Wildlife Hospital regarding the hospital’s work treating sick and injured wildlife and provided an update on current issues.

Attachments

a South Island Wildlife Hospital - Presentation to Council

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 11.48 am and returned at 11.50 am during consideration of Item 3.1.5.

3.1.5

Jolt Dance Company

Lachlan Oakes, Joel Foreman, Lyn Cotton and Kate Finnerty spoke on behalf of Jolt Dance Company regarding what the Company does and its inclusive dance practice and programmes.

Attachments

a Jolt Dance Company - Presentation to Council

3.1.6

AquaPave Permeable Concrete

Adrianna Hess spoke on behalf of AquaPave Permeable Concrete regarding a stormwater map used by Council that outlines areas where staff will consent stormwater discharge to ground and which disallows permeable pavements from being consented for most of Christchurch.

Attachments

a AquaPave Permeable Concrete - Presentation to Council

3.1.7 Greater Hornby Residents' Association

Marc Duff spoke on behalf of Greater Hornby Residents’ Association regarding Item 15 - Notice of Motion - Parker / Gilberthorpes / Waterloo Intersection Signalisation.

Councillor Coker left the meeting at 12.10 pm during consideration of Item 3.2.1.

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1 Don Gould

Secretarial Note: Councillor Cotter raised a Point of Order in accordance with Standing Order 21.2, citing visually disrespectful presentation materials. Upon the Chairperson’s ruling in favour of the Point of Order, a segment of the presentation materials were removed from screen and the speaker continued.

Don Gould spoke regarding Item 9 - Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation.

Attachments

a Don Gould - Presentation to Council

Councillor Coker returned to the meeting at 12.14 pm during consideration of Item 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Rebecca Robin

Secretarial Note: Rebecca Robin presented a petition as part of her deputation (refer Attachment A).

Rebecca Robin spoke regarding Item 9 - Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation.

Attachments

a Rebecca Robin - Presentation to Council

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Secretarial Note: As noted in Item 3.2.2, deputation presenter Rebecca Robin presented a petition to the Council. This was received and is attached (refer Item 3.2.2, Attachment A).

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00038

That the Council confirms the Open and Public Excluded Minutes (Item 18) from the Council meeting held 4 March 2026. 

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Report from Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - 16 February 2026

8. Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00039

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendations to Council accepted without change

That the Council:

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. 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.

Mayor/Deputy Mayor Carried

10. 2025-26 Sustainability Fund Allocation

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00040

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Mayor Carried

Councillor Coker declared an interest in Recommendation 3 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 MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	1	Councillor Keown
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

11. Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00041

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Peters Carried

For	10	Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters
Against	6	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Deputy Mayor, Mayor
Abstain	1	Councillor Scandrett
TOTAL	17

The meeting adjourned at 1.03 pm and reconvened at 2.02 pm. Councillors Fields and Scandrett were not present at this time.

Councillor Harrison-Hunt did not return to the meeting nor participate in any further discussion or vote.

Councillor Scandrett returned to the meeting at 2.03 pm during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor Fields returned to the meeting at 2.06 pm during consideration of Item 12.

12. International Relations Update

Council Comment

1. Council Officer Duncan Sandeman presented the Item and answered questions from elected members.

2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by Councillor Keown and Seconded by Councillor MacDonald.

3. During questions, and with the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, Recommendation 3 was updated to reflect that approval of Council-funded travel would be undertaken within existing budgets (refer Resolution 3). Reference to the document identifying the elected members approved for Council-funded travel was also updated for clarification.

4. With the agreement of the Mover and Seconder, a further recommendation was added to the Motion noting that an expression of interest process would be undertaken to determine councillor interest in travel to India (refer Resolution 4).

5. At the conclusion of debate the updated Motion was voted on and declared carried.

Officer Recommendations

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.

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00042

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 within existing budgets by the Mayor and elected members identified in the International Relations Update Report of 1 April 2026, 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.

5. Notes that the Council will go through a forthcoming Expression of Interest process to gauge interest for the second Sister City trip to India.

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald Carried

For	14	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor, Mayor
Against	2	Councillor Coker, Councillor Johanson
Abstain	0
TOTAL	16
Absent	1	Councillor Harrison-Hunt

13. Hagley Park & Botanic Gardens - No Stopping & Mobility Park Parking Restrictions - Update

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00043

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

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).

Deputy Mayor/Mayor Carried

14. Biodiversity Fund Allocation - Correction

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00044

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Biodiversity Fund Allocation - 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. Alters the 4 March 2026 Council decision (CNCL/2026/00031) only in relation to the Biodiversity Fund allocation towards Kaituna Community Weeding to reflect the grant of $60,000 from the 2025/26 Biodiversity Fund to Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust rather than the application contact, Marie Neal.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

15. Notice of Motion - Parker / Gilberthorpes / Waterloo Intersection Signalisation
	Council Comment 1. Councillor Peters introduced his Notice of Motion and stated his support for the alternative Officer recommendations included in the report on the agenda. He then Moved the alternative recommendations (refer Resolutions 1 and 2) and this was Seconded by Councillor MacDonald. 2. At the conclusion of questions the meeting voted on the Notice of Motion which was declared carried.
	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.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00045 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. Councillor Peters/Councillor MacDonald Carried

16. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00046

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Mayor’s Monthly report.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00047

That at 2.36 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 258 to 259 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.45 pm.

The meeting adjourned at 2.45 pm and reconvened at 2.03 pm on Thursday, 2 April 2026 in the Camellia Chambers.

21. Consideration of Additional Public Excluded Item of Business

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00051

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Agrees to consider the Public Excluded Strategic Property Acquisition Update report at today’s reconvened Council meeting, 1 April, consistent with Standing Order 6.11, noting the information regarding the matter only became available late yesterday.

2. Notes that this matter will be dealt with in the Public Excluded session due to commercial sensitivity and prejudice to the Council’s negotiating position.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Peters Carried

The meeting adjourned at 2.34 pm and reconvened at 2.41 pm during consideration of Item 9.

9. Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation

Council Comment

1. Council Officers Gavin Hutchinson, Adam Twose and Brent Pizzey joined the table to answer questions from elected members.

2. The Officer Recommendations were Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor McLellan with the addition of two further recommendations (refer Resolutions 4 and 5).

3. Councillor Donovan Moved and Councillor Herz Jardine Seconded a foreshadowed motion to progress Option 2 in the Officer report, increasing aeration to achieve the 99^th percentile Biological Oxygen Demand mitigation.

4. During questions two further recommendations were raised. After a brief adjournment to clarify wording, these were incorporated into the Motion with the agreement of the Mover and Seconder (refer underlined Resolutions 6 and 7).

5. At the conclusion of debate the meeting voted on Recommendation 3 (the 95^th percentile option) separately. This was declared carried.

6. The meeting then voted on the remaining Recommendations 1 – 2 and 4 – 7, which were declared carried.

Officer Recommendations

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 that this be implemented urgently.

Motion Moved / Seconded

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.

4. Notes that, under staff delegation, a biochemical additive product aimed at reducing odour is currently being trialled and that staff will either report back to the Council on its efficacy or, if effective, proceed with application under their delegation.

5. Request monthly reporting to the Finance and Performance Committee on monitoring of the temporary treatment plant, noting that updates on the new plant are already provided through the capital performance report.

6. Delegates to staff to add additional aerators from within existing budgets if they identify these are required, noting that this will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee via monthly updates.

7. Notes that a separate briefing will be coming to the Council regarding the psychosocial response and recovery plan.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Moved/Seconded

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00052

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

For	15	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Scandrett), Deputy Mayor, Mayor
Against	2	Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00053

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.

7. Notes that a separate briefing will be coming to the Council regarding the psychosocial response and recovery plan.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

Attachments

a Council Workshop Notes and Officer Presentation - 1 April 2026

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00054

That at 3.02 pm the resolution to exclude the public to proceed with the additional Public Excluded Item in accordance with Standing Order 6.11 be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Cotter Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 3.34 pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 3.34 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 6^TH DAY OF MAY 2026

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/516912
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sarah Stuart, Property Consultant Daisy-Bea Scrase - Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board that Council resolve to:

Dispose of three parcels of land totalling 787m²to the Minister of Land Information as transfers of existing public works under Section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA).

1.2 The report is initiated by staff after a request from The Property Group (TPG) on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) pursuant to the PWA. The affected land is required by the Crown for roading purposes for the SH76 Brougham Street Corridor Improvements project (“the Project”).

1.3 There is no general delegation to staff to make a decision to dispose of property, including in this context.

1.4 Public consultation was required for two affected parcels that are part of Council parks at Selwyn St and Antigua St, in accordance with s138 Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

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

1. Receives the information in the Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements Report.

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

3. Dispose of the parcels of land described below (subject to survey) and identified in Attachment A to the Minister for Land Information for roading purposes as transfers of existing public works under Section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981.

a. Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 44707, held in title CB31B/145, shown hatched black on “Land Requirement Plan Area A” in Attachment A, located at 45 Somerset Cres;

b. Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 37130, held in title CB16F/906, shown hatched black on “Land Requirement Plan Area B” in Attachment A, located south of 32 Antigua St, and

c. Part RS 17, held in title CB 9A/1278 (cancelled) shown hatched black and circled red on Land Requirement Plan Area C in Attachment A, located at 147 Brougham St, Christchurch.

4. Delegate authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to do all things necessary at his sole discretion to give effect to this resolution and transactions.

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

5. Receives the information in the Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements Report.

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Crown requires a total of 787m² of land from the Council for the SH76 Brougham St Improvements project, as a disposal of land for another public work under section 50 PWA.

3.2 The land comes from three separate parcels, two of which are small Council parks at Selwyn St, and Antigua St. The third is a remnant parcel resulting from subdivision over time.

3.3 Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 required public consultation prior to the disposal of any Council parks (or part of).

3.4 Consultation ran from 20 March 2026 to 6 April 2026 with 10 submissions received. 50% were generally supportive of the sale of part of Somerset Reserve for the project, and 70% generally supportive of the sale of part of Antigua Reserve.

3.5 Supporters considered the amount of land required to be minimal relative to the wider benefits to the community including improved cycling safety. They noted positively the proposed two-for-one tree replacement.

3.6 Opposers emphasised the importance of retaining green space and raised concerns about the loss of park amenity at Somerset Reserve. They anticipated a negative impact from the project on pedestrians at the Antigua and Selwyn St intersections and questioned the need for change given existing right-turn facilities at Selwyn St.

3.7 Notwithstanding the submissions in opposition, the recommendation in this report is to proceed with the transfer as on balance the benefits of this project outweigh the disadvantages. It also needs to be considered that this is a significant infrastructure project to be delivered by NZTA which is an acquiring authority.

3.8 This consultation and decision are about disposal not NZTA’s design. The design aspects of this project have previously been through NZTA’s consultation process and are well developed taking into consideration traffic and pedestrian safety considerations. Concerns related to green space have been considered by the Parks Planners who advise that this project does not have a significant impact. Through the Agreement the Council has input into the project’s landscaping plans.

3.9 The Crown will pay compensation of $122,000 (plus GST if any) to the Council for the required land (subject to survey), reasonable valuation and legal fees incurred, and $9,300 (plus GST if any) to cover staff costs.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Land required by the Crown

4.1 The Crown requires three parcels of Council-owned land (Required Land) at 45 Somerset Cres, 32 Antigua St (south of), and 147 Brougham St for the SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements project. The Somerset and Antigua St parcels of the land are part of community parks, the third is a remnant parcel from subdivision. The three parcels required are shown hatched black on the NZTA Land Requirement Plans for Areas A, B & C (Attachment A), with photos provided in Attachment B.

4.2 The required land is not subject to the Reserves Act 1977. Two parcels are held as park and required consultation before disposal per Section 138 Local Government Act 2002. Consultation ran from 20 March 2026 to 6 April 2026.

4.3 Feedback from consultation was mixed. A total of 10 submissions were received, comprising one recognised organisation and nine individual submitters. A summary of submissions is provided in Points 6.10 – 6.16 in this report.

Compensation

4.4 Compensation under the PWA is based on the valuation obtained jointly by the parties. This assessed total compensation payable to the Council of $122,000 plus GST (if any). The compensation for the individual parcels of land is below. No injurious affection applied.

Area A – 45 Somerset Crescent $105,000

Area B - 32 Antigua St (south of) $ 5,000

Area C – 147 Brougham St $ 12,000

Required Process

4.5 The Agreement is entered into by the parties acting pursuant to Section 50 PWA. This enables a local authority to dispose of an existing public work to another Minister or local authority for an alternative public work.

4.6 The resolution of the Council to dispose of the Required Land will provide the authority for the Council to sign the Agreement pursuant to the PWA.

4.7 The Council, in the signed Agreement, consents to the Required Land being declared road for the purposes of section 114 PWA. The relevant documents are then provided by the Crown to the Minister for Land Information for his approval to publish a gazette under s20 PWA declaring the land to be set apart for another public work and then declared to be a road. This will happen upon completion of the works and survey.

4.8 Because the Required Land is being acquired for another public work, the provisions of the PWA under the normal regime for the disposal of land held for a public work e.g. offer back obligations or any other disposal obligations do not apply (section 50(3) PWA).

4.9 The Crown will obtain all ministerial consents required, attend to the legalisation processes, and reimburse the Council’s reasonable valuation and legal fees including a contribution towards the cost of staff time.

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

Date	Subject
18.03.2026	Note to Board - Land disposal for SH76 Brougham St improvements
19.03.2026	Antigua: Note to Board - Land disposal for SH76 Brougham St improvements
20.03.2026	Consultation now live for proposed land disposal

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

Date	Subject
Nil	Nil

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.12.1 Dispose of the Required Land.

4.12.2 Retain the Required Land.

4.13 No other options were considered.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.14 Preferred Option: Dispose of Required Land

4.14.1 Option Description: Dispose of Required Land to the Crown for another public work.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Facilitates the Crown’s SH76 Brougham St Corridor improvement project.

· Traffic congestion on Brougham St will be improved because of the project.

· Improved shared and active transportation

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Diminished areas of the Selwyn and Antigua St parks.

· Recent upgrade to Selwyn Street Park impacted

· Some tree removal required

4.15 Whilst there are some negative impacts at a local level, the decision to dispose of the land will facilitate a project expected to help reduce traffic congestion, support reliable freight movement, encourage more people to choose active and shared transport options, and create long-term benefits for the community, economy and environment.

4.15.1 Option Description: Retain the required land.

4.15.2 Option Advantages

· Temporarily maintains the status quo.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· Impedes progress of the SH76 Brougham St Corridor improvement works.

· Forces the Crown’s hand to consider their options such as political escalation or exercising PWA compulsory acquisition powers.

· Extends the period of traffic congestion.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.16 The criteria for the options above were analysed by comparing the benefits of retaining the land against those of disposing of it at local and wider community levels.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Retain required land
Cost to Implement	Costs reimbursed by NZTA.	Nil
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Council continues to maintain site at existing level.
Funding Source	N/A	N/A
Funding Availability	N/A	N/A
Impact on Rates	N/A	N/A

5.1 NZTA is required to meet the Council’s legal and valuation costs and has agreed on an additional payment for staff costs incurred. Compensation will be paid for the land required.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a high risk of delays to the NZTA project if the land transfer is not approved.

6.2 NZTA requires certainty on land acquisition before tenders for construction are sought in May 2026. If the acquisition of land is not certain at this time, there is a probable risk that NZTA will escalate the matter to ensure project timeframes are not compromised.

6.3 Whilst possible, it would be highly unusual for the Crown to need to use its compulsory powers under the Public Works Act. The Minister would expect the respective roading authorities to reach agreement on the transfer of land required for a major project that will benefit the area’s overall transport network.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The Council has 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.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to consult on the disposal of any part of a park owned by the Council before it disposes of it.

6.5.2 Section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981 provides for the disposal of any existing public work (or part of) to another Minister or local authority for an alternative public work.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Strategic priority to balance the needs of today and the future.

6.6.2 Is assessed as Low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the impact of the decision on users of the local parks, the benefits to ratepayers, and the degree of reversibility of the decision.

6.6.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. It complies with the Disposal of Council Property Policy (2000).

6.6.4 The Council’s Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 requires that properties be publicly tendered unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise. The policy also recognises that where there is only one logical purchaser, this constitutes a legitimate and defensible reason for not undertaking a public tender process.

6.6.5 In the case of this transaction, the proposed disposal is reactive to an unsolicited proposal from NZTA for the transfer of the land to the Crown for another public work. The PWA land acquisition by NZTA is required for its $100-$150m project to improve the SH76 Brougham St corridor. The Transport Unit is aware and supportive of the NZTA project.

6.6.6 Accordingly, the proposed direct sale to the Crown for another public work meets the policy requirement that a public tender may be bypassed where there is a clear rationale for doing so. This transaction therefore complies with the Council’s Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000, and approval is sought from the Council as required for all disposals of Council land.

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

6.8 Transport

6.8.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 635 kilometres (total combined length)

6.9 Disposal of the affected properties under s50 PWA allows the improvement and increased infrastructure provision of Brougham St, including for active and public modes of transport.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 Consultation started on 20 March and ran until 6 April 2026.

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

· An email sent to Kōrero Mai subscribers, Addington Te Kura Taumatua and Addington Methodist Church

· Flyers dropped to residents surrounding both reserves

· A sign at Somerset Reserve.

6.12 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 206 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.13 Submissions were made by one recognised organisation, and nine individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

6.14 Spokes Canterbury requested that as part of the land acquisition, Council ask NZTA for additional safety funding for cyclists and pedestrians in this area as compensation. They were in support of the sale of Antigua Reserve.

6.15 Submitters supported the sales for the following reasons:

· Providing cycling facilities on Brougham Street will make cycling safer and benefit the community (3)

· Replacing the trees lost two for one is a positive (2)

· The amount of land lost is minimal for high benefit (2)

6.16 Submitters opposed the sales for the following reasons:

· Green space is important (3)

· There are already right turn lanes for Selwyn Street (2)

· Losing park space at Somerset Reserve will make it less enjoyable (2)

· Widening Brougham Street will make it less safe for pedestrians and cyclists (2)

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

6.17.1 Spreydon, Cashmere and Heathcote wards and the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.

6.18 The Community Board’s view has not been canvassed ahead of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.19 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.

6.20 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.

6.21 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

6.22 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.22.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.23 The decision to dispose of the land will facilitate the SH76 Brougham St Corridor improvements which aim to reduce emissions through the introduction of T2 lanes, improved active transport options and transportation efficiency.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Proceed with disposal. This involves the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement, settlement and the transfer of the land parcels to the Crown. NZTA will arrange the necessary survey and legalisation once the project is constructed and complete.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	NZTA Land Requirement Plans	26/677529
b	Photos of required land	26/677246

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Daisy-Bea Scrase - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

Brighton Mall Upgrade
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2658876
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Marcy McCallum, Project Manager, Transport and Waste Unit Kiran Skelton, Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to approve the Brighton Mall Upgrade Landscape Plan following community consultation.

1.1.1 It is also for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to make recommendations to Council for the items within the proposed design that rest with Council for decision making.

1.2 The report has been written to enable the project to proceed into detailed design and then construction.

1.3 The report has been written to address action A4 of the New Brighton Centre Masterplan 2015.

1.4 This is a staff generated report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Declares that pursuant to Section 336 (8) of the Local Government Act 1974, the 16 February 1981 Special Order of Council and subsequent amendments of conditions to that Special Order, that created the Pedestrian Mall (known as Brighton Mall) on Brighton Mall, from its intersection with Marine Parade to its intersection with the Brighton Mall slow road (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall), be revoked.

2. Approves that, in accordance with Clause 20 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that Brighton Mall commencing at a point approximately 65 metres north of its intersection with Beresford Street, and extending in a easterly direction to its intersection with Marine Parade, be declared a Shared Zone as detailed on plan TP366001, dated 10/03/2026 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

3. Approves, pursuant to Clause 20 (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the use of vehicles is restricted at any time on Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall). This restriction does not apply to the following:

a. Cycles at any time.

b. Emergency vehicles at any time.

c. Street cleaning vehicles, rubbish collection vehicles and street maintenance vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d. Goods vehicles, for the purposes of deliveries for a maximum period of 10 minutes between the hours of 5:00am and 11:00am, on any day.

4. Approves, in accordance with Clause 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Brighton Mall, commencing at a point approximately 65 metres north of its intersection with Beresford Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Marine Parade, be a one-way street, where vehicles must travel in an easterly direction only. This restriction does not apply to cyclists or emergency vehicles requiring access in an emergency situation.

Pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, and subject to the approval of the Director of Land Transport:

5. In relation to the speed limit on Brighton Mall commencing at a point 65 metres north of its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in an easterly direction to Marine Parade

a. Revokes the existing permanent speed limit of 30 km/h.

b. Sets a permanent speed limit of 10 km/h.

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board:

6. Receives the information in the Brighton Mall Upgrade Report.

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

8. Approves the Brighton Mall Upgrade Landscape Plan, as shown in agenda Attachment B to progress to detailed design and construction.

9. 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 the recommendations below.

10. Approves all kerb alignments, road surface treatments, traffic calming devices, signage and road markings on Brighton Mall, commencing at a point approximately 65 metres north of its intersection with Beresford Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Marine Parade, as detailed on plan TP366001, dated 10/03/2026 and attached to the agenda report as Attachment A.

11. Approves that stopping or parking in any part of the Shared Zone, if approved in recommendation 2 above, be prohibited in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017 except for:

a. Cycles.

b. Emergency vehicles.

c. Street cleaning vehicles, rubbish collection vehicles and street maintenance vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

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

e. Goods vehicles, for the purposes of deliveries for a maximum period of 10 minutes between the hours of 5:00am and 11:00am, on any day.

12. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(3) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that a No Entry control be placed against westbound motor vehicles using the roadway on Brighton Mall at its intersection with Marine Parade.

13. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, the Brighton Mall easterly approach, right turn into Marine Parade, be prohibited.

14. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the Marine Parade northerly approach, left turn into Brighton Mall be prohibited.

15. Approves that in accordance with Clause 17(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the Marine Parade southerly approach, right turn into Brighton Mall be prohibited.

General approval

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

Trees

17. Approves the removal of two of the Pheonix Palm trees in Brighton Mall as detailed in agenda Attachment C. A decision on the viability of relocating these two trees will be made by Council Arborists once the surfacing around the trees has been removed to allow assessment of the root structure. If relocation is possible, Parks staff have expressed a willingness to have the palms transports to a suitable local park location. A possible location that is being considered is Broad Park.

a. Tree 43694 (27 Brighton Mall). This is a Phoenix Palm and is in fair condition.

b. Tree 43695 (34 Brighton Mall). This is a Phoenix Palm and is in fair condition.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The New Brighton Centre Masterplan identified the pedestrian mall (located between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) as a priority area for renewal to support the regeneration of the town centre and encourage private development. Funding for this project has been allocated through the Long-Term Plan.

3.2 Staff worked closely with key stakeholders through the Better for Brighton meetings facilitated by ChristchurchNZ. A significant amount of early engagement was undertaken with stakeholders prior to the formal consultation period which ran between 2 December 2025 and 1 February 2026.

3.3 Three main options have been considered:

· Upgrade of Brighton Mall including the creation of a central gathering area (noting this option involves the removal of two Phoenix Palm trees) (Attachment B).

· Upgrade of Brighton Mall excluding the central gathering area (noting this option will retain the two Phoenix Palm trees, but will not include the central gathering area, cultural artwork and will require changes to the paving design).

· Do nothing.

3.3.2 Staff have also provided options to change this to a Shared Zone, and/or to reduce the speed limit to 10km/h.

3.4 Staff are recommending the option that includes the central gathering area because it meets the community’s current and future needs for a high-quality public realm, including flexible space for events and markets. It aligns with the outcomes of the New Brighton Centre Masterplan, supports and encourages private development, and provides adaptability should needs change in the future (for example, if the Village Green needs to vacate at the end of its lease period).

3.4.1 Staff are recommending options to change the designation from a pedestrian mall to a shared zone, the reduction of the speed limit from 30km/hr to 10km/hr and the relevant traffic resolutions that support the mall upgrade works and the changes to designation and speed.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 The New Brighton Centre Masterplan identified the pedestrian mall as a priority area for renewal to support the regeneration of the town centre and encourage private development. Funding for this project has been allocated through the Long-Term Plan.

4.2 In 2019, the section of Marine Parade between Beresford Street and Hawke Street was upgraded. During consultation for that project (37865 Marine Parade Streetscape Enhancements), the community provided feedback on the adjacent pedestrian mall, with key themes emerging around seating, safety, lighting, and rubbish management. This feedback has helped to inform the current landscape plan.

4.3 The primary objectives of the project are to renew existing assets and create a welcoming, safe, and vibrant public space that aligns with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The upgraded mall is intended to attract both the local community and visitors, contributing to the revitalisation of the area.

Stakeholder Engagement

4.4 Pre-engagement was undertaken with key stakeholders through the Better for Brighton group, chaired by ChristchurchNZ. This group included representatives from the Greater New Brighton Trust (who have developed the Village Green adjacent to the mall), Martini Investments (owners of over 12+ properties bordering the mall), the Coastal Ward Councillor and Community Board member, ChristchurchNZ staff, and project representatives. The concept plan received the group’s support.

4.5 Engagement with key stakeholders and general observations identified that skateboarders and cyclists are currently using the space, largely in a positive manner. However, under the existing ‘pedestrian mall’ designation, these modes of transport are not permitted. To better support active transport and the regeneration of the mall area, a change in designation to a ‘shared zone’ was proposed to permit bicycles, skateboards, and scooters to use the space. All users (motor vehicles, bicycles, scooters, skateboards) would be required to adhere to the new posted speed limit of 10km/hr.

4.6 During the investigation and design phase, potential issues were identified with the existing legal speed limit through the pedestrian mall. As a result, consultation was undertaken with the community to seek feedback on reducing the speed limit from 30 km/h to 10 km/h. This change would align with the proposed change to a shared zone and minimise the risks for all users within this space.

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

Date	Subject
1.12.2025	Memo - Brighton Mall Upgrade – update to elected members

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

Date	Subject
28.08.2025	Brighton Mall upgrade – information session, agenda - https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/08/ISWC_20250828_AGN_10143_AT.PDF Recording - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdy_mlr15s

Available Options

4.9 In the options section below, there are options provided in 3 different categories. These are:

· The layout of the mall upgrade

· Change to a shared zone

· Reductions to the speed limit

4.9.2 The shared zone and speed limit changes are significantly lower cost than the layout changes, as the only physical differences are signage. These can be incorporated into the layout changes for minimal additional cost, so a separate cost has not been supplied.

4.9.3 Should the Shared Zone and/or Speed Limit changes be selected without changes to the layout, there would be an additional cost, which has been supplied.

Brighton Mall Upgrade - Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.10.1 Option 1 (Preferred option) – Upgrade of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall), including creation of a central gathering area and removal of two Phoenix Palm trees (as shown in Attachment B).

4.10.2 Option 2 – Upgrade of the mall without the central gathering area (retains the two Phoenix Palm trees, removes the cultural artwork, and adjusts the paving pattern).

4.10.3 Option 3 – Do nothing

4.11 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.11.1 Option 4 – Removal of all twelve Phoenix Palm trees. This was not considered viable due to the loss of large tree cover, the significance of the trees to the community, the fact that the trees were donated by local residents in 2000, and the significant change it would create to the view along the mall toward the clock tower/library.

4.11.2 Option 5 – removal of the four central Phoenix Palm trees to retain four trees at either end of the pedestrian section of the mall – this was not considered a viable option as it would make the central area too big/empty for day to day use, reduce shade and seating areas, community desire to minimise the number of trees removed and recognising the significance of the trees to the community.

Brighton Mall Upgrade - Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.12 Preferred Option: Upgrade of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) including creation of a central gathering area and removal of two Phoenix Palm Trees

4.12.1 Option Description (Option 1): Upgrade of Brighton Mall, including establishment of a central gathering area adjacent to the Village Green as shown in Attachment B. Key features of this option are:

· Replace the existing asphalt surface with unit pavers to connect the pedestrian area to Marine Parade and the foreshore area, following the agreed paving pattern endorsed by Whitiora Centre Ltd.

· Install new bespoke concrete planters with seating around the remaining ten Phoenix Palm trees (including irrigation to support tree health and additional planting).

· Install new wastewater infrastructure along the centre of the mall to provide connections to support and encourage future development/regeneration.

· New street light poles and lights to increase the lighting level, enable feature lighting of the trees and Police crime prevention cameras.

· Remove two of the twelve Phoenix Palm trees (as identified in Attachment C).

· Create a central gathering area in the centre of the mall to support community events and markets. This will be a multipurpose space that can be utilised for a variety of activities and will be a connection point for the community.

· Install cultural artwork in the centre of the central gathering area. Including paving that references the gifted name Te Ara Kuaka. Note that the official street name will remain Brighton Mall.

· Replace rubbish bins, cycle stands, drinking fountain and signage.

· Upgrade the grated stormwater drain to provide additional capacity.

· Change from a ‘pedestrian mall’ designation to a ‘shared zone’ to formalise the way the mall is currently being used and to support future regeneration of the area.

· Reduction of speed limit from 30km/hr to 10km/hr.

4.12.2 Option Advantages

· Aligns with the outcomes of the New Brighton Centre Masterplan 2015.

· Creates a dedicated and flexible space to support community events.

· Enhances the attractiveness and functionality of the mall, supporting surrounding private development and encouraging further investment and quality tenants. The inclusion of new wastewater infrastructure further supports private investment in the area.

· Future proofing by establishing a community gathering space capable of accommodating a stage and additional seating if the Village Green vacates their current site at the conclusion of their lease, minimising future Council costs.

· Upgrades seating with bespoke planters, including irrigation, to improve the health of the remaining ten Phoenix Palm trees.

· Incorporates cultural artwork vapour‑blasted into the surfacing within the central gathering area. This artwork will reference the name Te Ara Kuaka (the pathway of the Godwit), reinforcing local identity and acknowledging the area’s heritage.

· Increases available space for market stalls, supporting local businesses by drawing more visitors to the mall on Saturday mornings - a recognised contributor to local regeneration.

· Community and stakeholder feedback supported the plan and the creation of the central gathering area (83% support for question 2 ‘Do you support the creation of a central gathering area?’).

4.12.3 Option Disadvantages

· Removal or relocation of two Phoenix Palm trees.

· High capital cost.

4.13 Option 2: Upgrade of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) without the central gathering area and retaining the two Phoenix Palm trees.

4.13.1 Option Description: Upgrade of the mall without the central gathering area. This is broadly similar to Option 1, but retains all existing Phoenix Palm trees. There are also changes to the paving design to remove the central gathering area and cultural artwork – paving will be consistent with the design proposed through the other sections of the mall.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Retains all Phoenix Palm trees.

· General mall upgrades (rubbish bins, lighting, cycle stands, signage etc) can still proceed (including the inclusion of a new wastewater pipe to support future development).

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· Removes the central gathering area, as there is insufficient space to create this around the trees and planter/seating layouts.

· Adds cost for two additional bespoke concrete planters/seating units and extra feature lighting for the two trees. The additional cost is offset by tree removal/relocation costs and the cost of the central gathering area (including the cultural artwork).

· Removes the opportunity for cultural artwork; this would require reconsideration and further consultation with Whitiora Centre Ltd and the artist to determine whether designs could be adapted to work with the revised layout. Installing the artwork onto the unit pavers is unlikely to create the desired effect and may be diluted by the paving design.

· Increases future adaptation costs if a gathering space needs to be created later, should the Village Green vacate their site at the end of their lease period.

· Provides less space for market stalls. The market is considered an important element of the regeneration, drawing significant foot traffic to the mall each Saturday.

· Requires amendments to the paving design through the central section of the mall; however, it would remain consistent with the design proposed for the other mall areas.

· The creation of the central gathering area was widely supported by stakeholders and the community, removing it from the plan would not align with the feedback received. (83% support for question 2 ‘Do you support the creation of a central gathering area?’).

4.14 Option 3: Do nothing

4.14.1 Option Description: Brighton Mall will remain as it currently is with no safety or condition improvements.

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Project funding can be reallocated elsewhere.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not address Action A4 in the New Brighton Centre Masterplan 2015.

· Does not encourage private development or support the regeneration of the commercial core.

· Does not address the condition of the pavement surface, including trip hazards caused by tree roots.

· Does not improve safety (lighting levels remain low, and no Police CCTV is provided).

· Does not improve the condition of the street furniture that is at the end of its useful life and requires significant maintenance or replacement.

· Does not address issues with water ponding where the surface is uneven or where the existing grated drain is damaged and does not provide additional stormwater capacity.

· Does not allow for the installation of new wastewater infrastructure to support future developments adjacent to the mall.

· Does not align with stakeholder and community feedback which was generally in support of the project.

Shared Zone Designation - Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.15.1 Option 1 (Preferred option) – change the pedestrian section of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) from a ‘Pedestrian Mall’ to a ‘Shared Zone’ as per the proposed resolutions outlined in the Officer Recommendations section in this report. As shown on Attachment A.

4.15.2 Option 2 – Do nothing – retain ‘Pedestrian Mall’ designation of the above site.

Shared Zone Designation - Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Preferred Option (Option 1):

4.16.1 Option Description: Change the pedestrian section of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) from a ‘Pedestrian Mall’ designation to a ‘Shared Zone’ as per the proposed resolutions outlined in the Officer Recommendations section in this report and shown on Attachment A.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

· Formalises how the mall is currently being used by the public

· Encourages active modes of transport and opportunities to connect to other infrastructure like the City to Sea Pathway, shared paths along Marine Parade and future routes.

· Provides the Community Board with a more agile process to make any changes to vehicle access times, parking and other operational matters in the future and as the regeneration progresses and needs change.

· Removes the need to follow the full Special Consultative Procedure that comes with the Pedestrian Mall designation under the Local Government Act for future changes to the space. Changes can be made by following standard processes such as consulting with affected parties and a Community Board Decision Report.

· Supports regeneration of the commercial area of New Brighton.

· Aligns with feedback received from the community during the consultation period. (71% support for question 5 ‘Do you support changing Brighton Mall from a pedestrian mall to shared zone?’).

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Potential/perceived conflict between users, particularly cycles/scooters/skateboards and pedestrians (however we are aware that these modes are regularly using the mall without issue).

4.17 Option 2: Do nothing

4.17.1 Option Description: Do nothing – retain ‘Pedestrian Mall’ designation of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall).

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· No cycles/scooters/skateboards will reduce the potential/perceived conflict between users (particularly pedestrians).

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· Making changes to access times or other operational aspects will be more onerous under the Pedestrian Mall designation as any changes will need to follow the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in section 336 of the Local Government Act, which is overly burdensome for small changes.

· Enforcement of the no cycles/scooters/skateboards rule is unlikely to happen (based on observations over the last few years when these modes were prohibited in the pedestrian mall. Staff are not aware of any instances where this rule has been enforced by Council or Police).

· Does not align with Council’s efforts to increase the rates of active transport around the city and connections to other infrastructure like the City to Sea pathway and new and proposed connections along Marine Parade.

· Does not align with feedback received from stakeholders and he community. (71% support for question 5 ‘Do you support changing Brighton Mall from a pedestrian mall to shared zone?’).

Speed Limit - Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.18.1 Option 1 (Preferred option) – change the speed limit of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) from 30km/hr to 10km/hr.

4.18.2 Option 2 – Do nothing – retain the current legal speed limit of 30km/hr – existing resolutions would apply.

Speed Limit - Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.19 Preferred Option:

4.19.1 Option Description: change the speed limit of Brighton Mall (between 2 Brighton Mall and 56 Brighton Mall) from 30km/hr to 10km/hr, as shown on Attachment A.

4.19.2 Option Advantages

· Makes the area safer for all users regardless of how they are travelling.

· Reduces the harm/damage of any impacts – both human and assets (seats, street light poles, rubbish bins etc).

· Vehicle access will remain restricted to delivery/service vehicles and emergency services so the change will have minimal impact on general traffic flow/travel times.

· Encourages foot traffic through the space.

· Best alignment with the recommendation to change the designation from a ‘Pedestrian Mall’ to a ‘Shared Zone’.

· Aligns with feedback support for the speed limit change received during the consultation period. (79% support of the proposed reduction in speed limit from 30km/hr to 10km/hr).

4.19.3 Option Disadvantages

· Increases individual travel times for vehicles using this space by 11 seconds. The estimated impact on collective travel times based on annual average daily traffic volumes is an increase of 23 hours per year (based on 20 daily vehicle movements).

4.20 Option 2: Do nothing

4.20.1 Option Description: Do nothing – retain the current legal speed limit of 30km/hr – existing resolutions would apply.

4.20.2 Option Advantages

· The relatively low number of vehicles using the space will help minimise impacts (less than 20 vehicle movements per day on average).

· The new planter/seats around the trees will narrow the space and make it less desirable/appropriate for vehicles to travel at speed through the mall.

· The estimated impact on individual travel times will reduce by an approximately 11 seconds. Annually, users will save a collective 23 hours (based on 20 daily vehicle movements).

4.20.3 Option Disadvantages

· Potential for higher level of harm to humans and damage to assets if impact occurs.

· Potential for conflict with other users if Shared Zone designation is approved.

· Does not align with feedback received during the consultation period. (79% support of the proposed reduction in speed limit from 30km/hr to 10km/hr).

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.21 The options for the mall upgrade, shared zone, and reduced speed limit were considered both collectively and individually. The primary assessment criterion was ‘Better for Brighton’—identifying which combination of options would deliver the strongest outcomes for revitalising the commercial core of New Brighton.

4.22 Staff have made their recommendation as the suggested layout provides the placemaking benefits sought by the project. The change to a 10km/h Shared Zone further reinforces the intended village centre feel, while also providing operational flexibility and providing minimal impact to the delivery vehicles travelling through the space.

4.22.1 These changes have been well supported by submitters during consultation.

Speed Limit Analysis

4.23 Staff have assessed the proposed for speed limit changes against the requirements in the Setting of Speed Limits (2024) Rule.

4.23.1 The cost benefit disclosure statement completed for Brighton Mall as follows:

4.23.2 The estimated impacts in the cost benefit disclosure statement assume of no growth in daily traffic volumes and are based on the NZTA Optional Cost Impact Analysis Tool.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Option 1 (Recommended) Full upgrade with central gathering area and removing two trees	Option 2 Upgrade without central gathering area – retaining all trees	Option 3 Do nothing
Cost to Implement	$4.2m	$4.2m	Nil (see 5.2)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Covered by existing maintenance contract	Covered by existing maintenance contract	Covered by existing maintenance contract
Funding Source	LTP: CPMS 63360 Brighton Mall Upgrade $4.2m	LTP: CPMS 63360 Brighton Mall Upgrade $4.2m	CCC Street Maintenance Contract
Funding Availability	$4.2m	$4.2m	N/A
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil	Nil

5.1 The cost to implement shows the estimated costs to complete the project, with a 20% contingency on construction items. This is considered appropriate given the stage of design.

5.2 Should the selected option be to Do Nothing with the layout, but change to a Shared Zone and/or reduce the Speed Limit to 10km/h, the cost is expected to be in the range of $10-20k for additional signage.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The risk is that the new assets in the mall are damaged during construction on adjacent sites (due to the mall upgrade works occurring ahead of developments). Additional cost to Council.

The mitigation is that this will be addressed with developers as part of the consenting process and there will be an expectation that any damage needs to be repaired or paid for prior to them leaving the site. Council’s Case Manager will work closely with developers to support this mitigation measure.

6.2 The risk is that surrounding developments may not happen, or may proceed more slowly than anticipated, leaving buildings derelict or sites empty/undeveloped. This would impact the project’s objective to support regeneration of the commercial core.

The mitigation is that Council staff will continue to work closely with developers and provide support wherever possible. However, as the land is privately owned, Council has limited legislative tools to enforce progress. Tools like the Vacant Land Differential Rate will be helpful.

6.3 The risk is that the New North-South Corridor (Oram Ave) does not proceed or is delayed.

The mitigation is that the mall upgrade works have been designed in a way that they can be completed independently. We have ensured that the mall upgrade paving does not encroach into the proposed new corridor to avoid costly rework or changes if the new corridor goes ahead or if it is put on hold.

6.4 The risk is that construction will cause disruption to surrounding businesses and the New Brighton Seaside Market at a vulnerable time when foot traffic is typically lower than peak times of the year.

The mitigation is that the importance of minimising disruption is included in the tender information provided to prospective tenderers and is a component of the tender evaluation.

Staff and the contractor (once the contract has been awarded) will work closely with affected businesses and the New Brighton Seaside Market team to minimise disruption as much as possible.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.6 The Community Board has the delegated authority from Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards include the resolution of stopping and traffic control devices, approval of landscape plans and the removal of trees.

6.7 It is acknowledged that the Community Board holds the delegated authority to specify any road or part of a road to be a shared zone (under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, clause 20). However, as the delegation to revoke a Pedestrian Mall designation sits with Council, we are recommending that the decision to make the change to a shared zone is put forward to Council to resolve at the same time as the revocation of the pedestrian mall.

Setting of Speed Limits Rule (2024)

6.8 The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 requires Road Controlling Authorities (such as the Council) to set speed limits for roads under their control and sets out requirements that must be complied with when setting speed limits.

6.9 The Council is proposing the new speed limits in line with the method set out in Section 2.6 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

6.9.1 Where the alternative method outlined in Clause 2.6 is used, the Council must:

· Demonstrate compliance with Section 2.6(2), including documenting the process followed and the evidence base for the proposed speed limit.

· Complete a cost–benefit disclosure statement that assesses the safety, economic, and network implications of the proposed change.

· Consult on the proposed speed limit in accordance with Clause 3.8 of the Rule, and consider all submissions received.

· Seek approval from the Director of Land Transport before confirming and setting the new speed limit.

· Register and implement the approved speed limit in accordance with the Rule’s requirements, including appropriate signage and creating the required Land Transport Record.

6.10 As per Clause 2.6 of the Rule, Staff have completed cost/benefit disclosure statements for each option, which are included in 0 of this report. Staff have also completed consultation on the proposed speed limit in accordance with clause 3.8 of the Rule, and have considered any submissions received during that consultation, which is included in Section 6 of this report.

6.11 The Rule requires that speed limits are entered into the National Speed Limit Register. Once the speed limit is migrated into the Register, the land transport record will become the legal instrument for the speed limits.

6.12 The decision-making authority for speed limit changes sits with the Council and cannot be delegated to a Committee of Council or other body.

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.14 The required decisions:

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

6.14.2 Are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2019. The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected, the level of impact on those affected and the high level of community interest in the project.

6.14.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.16 Transport

6.16.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within 15 minutes to key destination types by walking (to at least four of the five basic services: food shopping, education, employment, health, and open spaces) - >=50% of residential addresses with a 15- minute walking access.

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes - >= 635 kilometres (total combined length).

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

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

· Level of Service: 16.0.3 Improve resident satisfaction with road condition - >=30%.

· Level of Service: 16.0.8 Maintain the condition of footpaths(on a scale of 1-5, 1 is excellent condition and 5 is very poor condition) (DIA 4) - >=82% footpaths rated 1,2 or 3.

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

6.17 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.17.1 Activity: City Growth and Property

· Level of Service: 13.4.10.1 Deliver projects that will lead to positive community outcomes: -Increasing the supply of community housing; or -Increase employment opportunities; or -Improves Mana Whenua relationships; or -Allows for community "ownership" of service delivery; or -Reduces the impacts of natural or human induced (including climate change) hazards - At least one new project commenced annually.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Te Ara Kuaka Brighton Mall upgrades

6.18 Early engagement with key stakeholders occurred through the Better for Brighton Group. This group included representatives from ChristchurchNZ, Martini Investments (the Pierside developer), the Greater New Brighton Charitable Trust, Life in Vacant Spaces, and Council staff. The group met monthly over a two‑year period, starting in early 2024, with meetings facilitated by ChristchurchNZ. Feedback gathered through this group informed the design process at multiple stages, drawing on members’ knowledge, experience, and future plans for the mall and wider commercial core.

6.19 Early engagement with community organisations including TIDE (New Brighton Business Association), The New Brighton Project/New Brighton Seaside Market and the Greater New Brighton Charitable Trust started in July 2025. Staff met with organisations and discussed the initial concept including the project scope and direction.

6.20 Draft concept and design options were shared at early meetings and stakeholder feedback influenced aspects like plant choices, location and number of rubbish bins, bike stands and drinking fountains and the inclusion of irrigation.

6.21 Consultation started on 2 December 2025 and ran until 1 February 2026.

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

· An email sent to 121 key stakeholders, including emergency services, advocacy groups and local community organisations and businesses.

· The Council and local community group Facebook pages.

· Signs, posters, decals and digital brightsigns installed along and near the mall and in He Puna Taimoana Hot Pools.

· Leaflets sent to Community organisations and businesses in New Brighton and along the mall including New Brighton Project, Grace Vineyard Church New Brighton and the Greater New Brighton Charitable Trust with information about the consultation and instructions on how to give feedback.

· An engagement pop-up at the New Brighton Library active from 2 December 2025 to 1 February 2026, with submission drop-off box for physical submissions.

6.23 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 5541 views throughout the consultation period.

6.24 Three drop-in sessions were held at New Brighton Seaside Market throughout the consultation period, to share information about the project and answer questions.

6.25 Businesses along Brighton Mall were doorknocked to discuss the project. If they were unavailable, a leaflet was left inviting them to get in touch.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.26 Submissions were made by six recognised organisations / businesses (Spokes Canterbury, The Village Green Te Hiato Kuaka, New Brighton Project, TIDE New Brighton Business Association, New Brighton Residents Association and Almora Beyond the Horizon) and 372 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

6.27 Submitters were asked whether they support:

· the new paving along the mall

· the creation of a central gathering area

· the new seating around the existing palms

· the new streetlights, feature lights and other enhancements

· changing Brighton Mall from a pedestrian mall to a shared zone

6.28 All organisations were in support of the proposed changes except New Brighton Residents’ Association, who were unsure about the rationale for security cameras. TIDE New Brighton Business Association and New Brighton Project, who wanted bikes, skateboards and scooters prohibited during the New Brighton Seaside Market or during all events respectively. Amora Beyond the Horizon did not support changing the mall into a shared zone due to concerns about conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and skateboards.

6.29 Out of the 378 submitters, 175 were from residents in New Brighton, North New Brighton, South New Brighton and Southshore, 193 were from residents in wider Christchurch and 10 were from those living outside of Christchurch.

6.30 The majority of submitters supported all of the proposed changes regardless of where they lived. A breakdown of submitter preference overall and by area can be found in Attachment D.

6.31 Submitters comments on the proposals included:

· General positive comments ranging from compliments about the project to excitement that development was taking place on the mall (45)

· General concerns about current empty / derelict buildings in the mall (24)

· Requests for protection from wind, rain and sun (22)

· Requests to include more natural aspects, such as more planting (13)

· Requests to keep the two palm trees proposed for removal (13)

· Requests for rubbish bins (11)

· Requests for drinking fountains (9)

· Requests for bike parking (7)

· Requests for a children’s play area (6)

6.32 Out of scope feedback included comments about attracting more businesses to the area, using the budget to improve safety, increase cleaning and maintenance and revitalising the wider area and emptying rubbish bins more frequently.

6.33 Submitter comments on the proposal to change the mall to a shared zone included:

· Mixing travel modes will make the mall less safe for pedestrians (37)

· General positive comments ranging from compliments about the project to excitement that this change was happening on the mall (20)

· Requests to create a dedicated space for other vehicles (bikes, skateboards and scooters) (14)

· Introduce speed restrictions and traffic calming (8)

6.34 Some submitters also commented that bikes and skateboards are already using the area and cars should continue to be prohibited in the area.

6.35 All comments can be read in the submission report.

Brighton Mall speed limit changes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.36 Consultation started on 16 December 2025 and ran until 1 February 2026.

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

· An email sent to 121 key stakeholders, including emergency services, advocacy groups and local community organisations and businesses.

· An email sent to all previous submitters on the Te Ara Kuaka Brighton Mall upgrades consultation.

· An advertisement on the Te Ara Kuaka Brighton Mall upgrades consultation page.

6.38 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 127 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

6.39 Submissions were made by South New Brighton School, Spokes Canterbury and New Brighton Residents Association and 45 individuals. All submissions are available in the submission report online.

6.40 South New Brighton School, Spokes Canterbury, New Brighton Residents Association and 35 individuals supported Brighton Mall having a speed limit of 10km/h. Nine individuals did not support the speed limit change. One individual didn’t know.

6.41 Spokes Canterbury explained that as a mixed-use zone, the area would be safer for everyone. All other organisations did not provide comments.

6.42 Submitters provided comments about the speed limit changes, the following key themes / requests were identified:

· General positive comments ranging from compliments about the project to approval that lower speeds would be enforced by signs (9)

· [Lowering the speed limit] makes the area safer (5)

· Project is a waste of money (4)

· Remove the road along Brighton Mall (3)

· Do not allow cars along the pedestrian section (3)

· 30km/h is a good compromise (2)

6.43 All comments can be read in the submission report.

Changes to the Design based on Feedback

6.44 The following changes have been made following analysis of the feedback received during the consultation period:

· Cycle stand locations at the western end of the mall have been adjusted. The stands that were proposed next to the light poles have been removed, as they conflicted with market activities.

Moveable cycle stands will now be provided in two locations:

· At the mall end of the 56 Brighton Mall site (this site is Council owned)

· Within the One Fish Playground area

· Using moveable stands allows flexibility to refine both the number and placement of the stands as regeneration progresses. It also ensures that cycle parking can be easily relocated as the New North–South Corridor (Oram Ave) project advances. During construction of the new corridor, the stands can be shifted to alternative locations without difficulty.

· Permanent stands are planned to be installed as part of the New North-South Corridor (Oram Ave) project. Installing permanent stands in this location now would likely result in them needing to be removed and relocated later, which is often challenging to do without causing damage. This option will minimise costs to Council in the future.

· An additional rubbish bin has been included in the final plan. Bin locations have been refined to ensure the central gathering area is well serviced. The proposed bins will have double the capacity of the existing ones, meaning overall bin capacity along the mall will increase even though the overall number of bins will be reduced.

For larger events, extra wheeled bins can be brought in to provide additional capacity. These can be positioned next to the proposed bins as needed.

The proposed bins are the same as the bins used at the Beachside playground and are seagull and rodent proof.

· New wastewater infrastructure will be installed through the centre of the mall. This upgrade replaces ageing pipes that are currently accessed through easements on private land, including some located beneath buildings. These existing pipes are in relatively poor condition and present a risk to Council in terms of potential cost, time delays, and reputational impacts if they fail or require urgent access.

Installing new infrastructure within the mall will reduce these risks and strengthen the overall resilience of the wastewater network. The new wastewater infrastructure will provide greater confidence to developers that reliable and future‑proofed services are in place to support ongoing redevelopment in the area.

Integrating this installation into the Brighton Mall Upgrade will minimise the likelihood of further excavation in the near future, reducing potential disruption and avoiding unnecessary impacts on new paving and cultural artwork, while providing a cost effective solution.

Note that the new wastewater infrastructure will be funded by the 3 Waters Unit.

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

6.45.1 Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board, Coastal Ward

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.48 The decision impacts Mana Whenua as it is acknowledged the New Brighton portion of Te Tai o Mahaanui coastline and coastal marine area is of immense significance to mana whenua/Ngāi Tūāhuriri. Engagement via Whitiora has found no major concerns with the proposal, subject to any further engagement required should the proposed design change, and the ongoing facilitation of the proposed cultural artwork in the central gathering area.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.49 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

6.49.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.50 The increased capacity in the stormwater infrastructure will assist with the impacts of climate change by better managing the flow of stormwater during higher intensity rain events. The mall upgrade will further encourage active modes of transport which will aid in reductions to emissions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will progress the scheme to detailed design, followed by tender and construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Brighton Mall Upgrade - Signage Plan for Approval	26/490686
b	Brighton Mall Upgrade - Landscape Plan for Board Approval	26/490659
c	Brighton Mall Upgrade - Tree Plan for Board Approval	26/490671
d	Brighton Mall Upgrade - Submission breakdown	26/434840

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Marcy McCallum - Project Manager

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Tom Williams - Senior Traffic engineer

David McCormick - Senior Network Planner

Approved By

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

14. Christchurch Kart Club Relocation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/588692
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Hansen, Manager Parks Planning and Asset Management Sarah Oliver, Team Leader City Planning
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision on whether to proceed with investigating the feasibility of relocating the Christchurch Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to an identified privately owned property (confidential).

1.2 A tied vote on the matter in November 2024 resulted in the status quo position being maintained with no clear pathway forward. Staff were requested to report back to the Council regarding the previous related decisions and next steps associated with the project.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Christchurch Kart Club Relocation Report.

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

3. Approves continued investigation of the feasibility of relocating the Christchurch Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to a private property identified in the Public Excluded Attachments of the 20 November 2024 report.

4. Notes that staff will report back on the outcome of these investigations before seeking a final decision on whether to proceed with the relocation of the Christchurch Kart Club,

5. Notes the public excluded information in Attachments A to D of this report will be reviewed for release at the conclusion of investigation work and negotiations with the private property owner.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council identified Halswell-Wigram as a city preferred growth area in 1995 and has planned to relocate the Christchurch Kart Club from Carrs Reserve since that time to address noise issues and to allow Carrs Reserve to be redeveloped as a community park. In 2011_{_[1]}, surrounding land was rezoned to enable residential development, subject to acceptable noise environment levels being achieved for those future residents. The expectation was that the Kart Club would be relocated out of the area.

3.2 Capital funding for the relocation has been included in the Long-Term Plan since 2013, fully funded through Development Contributions. Council resolutions in 2013, 2015, and 2018 reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to continue pursuing relocation. However, despite extensive investigations, no suitable relocation site has been secured.

3.3 Meanwhile, substantial residential development around Carrs Reserve has been enabled through noise attenuation measures, including house specifications, fencing, and bunding. But significant constraints remain. Approximately 50 residential sections remain undevelopable, high bunds and fences separate housing from the reserve, and redevelopment of Carrs Reserve is limited while the Kart Club remains on site.

3.4 The Club itself is constrained by an undersized track, noise limits, and restricted operating hours.

3.5 The original strategic drivers for relocation remain relevant and unresolved, including:

3.5.1 Addressing ongoing noise impacts on residents;

3.5.2 Enabling planned residential development; and

3.5.3 Allowing Carrs Reserve to be redeveloped as a community park.

3.6 One final privately owned site has been identified as a potential relocation option and staff are seeking a decision on whether to further investigate feasibility of the site. This would involve investigating and reporting back on:

· A negotiated land acquisition of the alternative site through a conditional land swap;

· Consenting and/or rezoning options for the alternative site; and

· The Kart Club’s willingness to accept a buy‑out of its current lease, informed by an updated assessment of relocation costs and available funding.

3.7 Relocation would enable the removal of existing noise mitigation bunds and fences from private land, allow adjoining properties to be fully developed in line with their zoning, and support a more integrated and connected open space network.

3.8 Financial analysis indicates a marginal financial benefit to the Council if the Club is not relocated. However, no wider economic assessment has been undertaken to quantify the potential economic benefits associated with the agglomeration of motorsport activities.

3.9 If the Kart Club remains at Carrs Reserve, Development Contributions collected for the relocation would need to be refunded, estimated at $487,000 to date. This involves assessing approximately 2,500 consents (around 11,000 HUEs) for a refund.

3.10 Staff will report back to the Council on the outcomes of the proposed investigation, including any financial or technical challenges, to inform a subsequent decision on whether to proceed with the relocation. If the investigation finds the relocation to be unviable, the project can be discontinued at that point.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

History

4.1 The Council identified Halswell Wigram as the City’s preferred growth area in 1995. As a transitional measure ahead of future urban development, the Special Purpose (Awatea) Zone was introduced into the Christchurch City Plan in 1999. At the same time, the operating hours for the Christchurch Kart Club were restricted to manage effects during this transition. While the Council approved an extension of the Club’s track at that time, it also directed staff to investigate options for the Club’s long-term relocation.

4.2 Since then, the Council’s consistent intention has been to relocate the Christchurch Kart Club from Carrs Reserve to reduce ongoing noise impacts on residents, enable planned residential development, and allow Carrs Reserve to be redeveloped as a community park. This intent was confirmed when the Awatea area was rezoned for residential development in 2011.

Fig. 1. Aerial photo of Carrs Reserve and surrounds showing the Kart Club in the southern half of the reserve.

4.3 By 2012, a site at McLeans Island was being pursued for relocation of the Kart Club.

4.4 In 2013, the Council resolved to fund the relocation of the Kart Club at its estimated cost of $3.5 million.

4.5 In 2015, when increased cost estimates were reported, the Council resolved to cap capital expenditure for the Kart Club relocation at $3.5 million and provided additional operational funding for consenting costs of $100,000.

4.6 In 2018, staff reported a shortfall in funding for the resource consent process. The Council resolved to continue with the Kart Club relocation process and agreed to provide additional operational funds of up to $70,000 for the consent process.

4.7 The relocation option at that time ultimately did not proceed. However, capital funding has remained on the budget, and the project was added to the Development Contributions Policy in 2021 to be fully funded by Development Contributions.

4.8 Despite the Kart Club remaining on site at Carrs Reserve, substantial residential development has occurred in the surrounding area, enabled through a range of noise mitigation measures such as house specifications, fencing, and high bunds.

4.9 Numerous alternative sites have been investigated over many years but have proven unsuitable for a range of reasons. On 20 November 2024, staff reported on what is considered the final alternative site located on privately owned land. The site (hereafter referred to as the “alternative site”), was outlined in the public excluded section of the November 2024 report (refer to Attachment 1).

4.10 A tied Council vote on continued investigation of the alternative site resulted in no change to the status quo and no clear pathway forward. Staff were subsequently directed to report back on the history of the Council’s previous decisions and to outline the next steps for the project.

Kart Club Requirements

4.11 Increasing minimum kart weights for safety and performance, along with evolving competition requirements, are placing additional pressure on the Club’s ageing track layout and supporting infrastructure. The Club’s operations and its ability to invest in upgrading facilities at Carrs Reserve — such as extending the track to meet national A-grade standards — are constrained by District Plan rules and would likely face considerable consenting challenges and potential community opposition.

4.12 Remaining at Carrs Reserve offers no certainty of a future lease, discourages meaningful investment, and leaves the Club in a prolonged state of uncertainty. In doing so, there is a risk to the long-term viability of karting in Christchurch and the ability of the sport to continue contributing to the city’s recreational and community landscape beyond the expiry of the Club’s current lease in 2054.

Current Situation

4.13 Noise effects from the Kart Club continue to impact residents and approximately 50 residential sections remain unable to be consented and/or developed.

4.14 Visual and physical separation between housing and the reserve persists due to noise mitigation barriers, and redevelopment of Carrs Reserve as a community park is constrained while the Club remains on site.

4.15 Further work undertaken since the 2024 report has increased confidence in consenting of the alternative site. Additional technical assessment indicates that acceptable noise levels can be achieved at neighbouring properties, and that traffic generated by the facility can be accommodated within the surrounding network. Furthermore, it could potentially be included in proposed Plan Change 20 which would ease consenting requirements.

4.16 Updated legal advice has clarified that if the Kart Club is not relocated, the Development Contributions collected for the relocation project, approximately $487,000 so far, would need to be refunded. This would involve assessing around 2,500 consents (approximately 11,000 HUEs) and contacting current property owners to process refunds.

4.17 A clear decision is now required to provide direction and certainty. The Council must determine how it wishes to proceed so it can:

4.17.1 Decide whether continued budget provision for relocation is required.

4.17.2 Determine whether to continue charging Development Contributions or refund those already collected.

4.17.3 Provide long term clarity for the Awatea and wider community regarding land use, recreation opportunities, and open space provision.

4.17.4 Potentially resolve land-use limitations on residentially zoned land, including possible rezoning if development cannot reasonably proceed.

4.17.5 Provide certainty for the Kart Club. The Club’s activities are currently constrained by District Plan rules. If they are to remain at Carrs Reserve, they intend to seek Council approval and support for expansion of their facilities and activities.

4.17.6 Plan for the future development of Carrs Reserve as a community park with or without the Kart Club occupying half of the site.

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

Date	Subject
21 April 2026	Council workshop on the Kart Club relocation
20 November 2024	Council report on Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.19.1 Approve detailed investigation into the feasibility of the alternative site.

4.19.2 Discontinue the Kart Club relocation project.

4.20 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.20.1 Discontinue investigation of the alternative site but retain budget and continue to search for another alternative option. This option has been ruled out as, having conducted an exhaustive search over many years, it is highly unlikely a feasible alternative relocation site will be found.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.21 Preferred Option: Approve detailed investigation into the feasibility of the alternative site.

4.22 Option Description: This option involves staff undertaking further investigation and reporting back to the Council on the technical and financial implications of relocating the Christchurch Kart Club to the privately owned alternative site. This investigation would include consideration of:

· A negotiated land acquisition through a conditional land swap,

· The ability to consent and/or rezoning of the alternative site, and

· The Kart Club’s willingness to accept a buy‑out of its current lease, informed by an updated assessment of relocation costs and available funding. This may also include options for partnerships, sponsorship, and additional funding.

4.22.2 Option Advantages

· Upholds previous Council resolutions to continue pursuing relocation of the Christchurch Kart Club.

· Provides a clear signal to the community, the Kart Club, and developers regarding the Council’s intended direction, subject to satisfactory investigation outcomes.

· Ends the current holding pattern by establishing a defined pathway forward.

· Enables the required information to be gathered to support a fully informed future decision on whether to proceed with relocation.

· Retains flexibility by allowing the project to be discontinued should the investigation demonstrate that relocation is not viable.

4.22.3 Option Disadvantages

· Cost associated with staff time, property valuations, and the preparation of updated construction cost estimates.

4.23 Option 2: Discontinue the Kart Club relocation project.

4.23.1 Option Description: This option involves discontinuing the Kart Club relocation project, removing the associated budget from the Long-Term Plan, and refunding the Development Contributions collected for the Kart Club relocation.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· Provides a small financial benefit to the Council, resulting in an estimated 0.01% reduction in rates between 2027-2034.

· Provides clarity for the community, the Kart Club, developers, and the administration of Development Contributions.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· Awatea’s planned development outcomes would not be fully achieved, resulting in an urban form that retains undevelopable land and permanent acoustic fencing and bunds creating a poor visual environment, weakened park connections, and compromised open space outcomes.

· Approximately 50 residential sections would remain undevelopable, inconsistent with the purpose and expectations of the residential zone.

· Developer and community expectations would not be met, creating reputational risk for the Council.

· Increased likelihood of noise complaints as nearby residential development continues to occur around the existing karting operations.

· Long-term uncertainty for the Christchurch Kart Club, with no clear pathway beyond the expiry of the current lease in 2054 and potential opposition to any future lease renewal.

· Ongoing constraints on the Club’s operations and its ability to invest in, expand, or modernise facilities.

· Constrained redevelopment of Carrs Reserve as a community park and ability to open the reserve to residential areas.

· Lost opportunity to co-locate all motorsport activities in one part of the city, with potential shared facilities, efficiencies, and event-attraction benefits.

· Requirement for the Council to refund Development Contributions collected for the relocation project. Approximately 2,500 consents (11,000 HUEs) have paid Development Contributions for the Club relocation. Identifying, contacting, and refunding current property owners would involve a significant administrative burden, requiring substantial staff time.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.24 Advantages and disadvantages of both options and strategic impacts.

4.25 No contribution to emissions reductions.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Continue investigating relocation project	Option 2 – Discontinue relocation project and budget
Cost to Implement	· Estimated 150 hours of staff time · Property valuation costs of approx. $15,000 - $20,000 · Update design work and construction cost estimates – approx. $30,000 · Planning checks – approx. $30,000 · Economic assessment of benefits – costs TBC	Refund of approx. $487,000 of Development Contributions. Staff time and legal fees involved in refunding Development Contributions are estimated at $50,000 and can be deducted from the amount refunded.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	N/A	N/A
Funding Source	Parks planning opex budget or relevant staff budgets	Development Contributions
Funding Availability	Yes	Yes
Impact on Rates	No new impact as already in opex budgets	No

5.1 The existing relocation capital budget is considered sufficient to deliver a basic fit-for-purpose track at the alternative location. Buildings and other facilities would be an additional cost.

5.2 Financial analysis has been undertaken on the basis of the relocation cost to the Council, being the budgeted capital amount of $3.5m (uninflated). This was the capped payment approved by the Council in 2015 to be paid to the Christchurch Kart Club as a buy-out of their lease.

5.3 Cancelling the relocation of the Christchurch Kart Club from Carrs Reserve offers existing ratepayers a marginally better financial position of approximately 0.01% impact on rates compared to relocating the Christchurch Kart Club. While relocating the Club offers additional development opportunities which will result in the Council collecting a higher amount of Development Contributions, the additional revenue does not offset the cost of borrowing incurred in relocating the Christchurch Kart Club.

5.4 Investigations will confirm the full cost of construction and relocation and whether the Club will accept a lease, buy-out or request additional funding. No wider economic impact assessment has been prepared.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is some risk associated with land acquisition, consenting, new lease approval, and buy out of existing lease. It is likely that the capped budget of $3.5m (uninflated) will be insufficient to cover the full cost of relocation and could be unacceptable to the Kart Club. Staff will work with the Club to explore opportunities for partnerships, sponsorship, and cost savings and report back on any financial implications.

6.2 Should any of these steps prove unfeasible, the Council may decide to discontinue the project.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Council has the relevant delegation to decide whether to proceed with the relocation (i.e. only the Council can determine to cease the relocation project).

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 Cancellation of the relocation project would require refunding the relevant Development Contribution funds already received under the Development Contributions Policy. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to refund Development Contributions collected for a specific project if that project does not provide the reserve that the Development Contributions were collected for (LGA, s 209(1)(d)), or if Reserve Development Contributions are not applied to a reserve purpose within 10 years (LGA, s 210(1)).

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. It contributes to the community outcome of Thriving and Prosperous.

6.5.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the project being of localised interest with significant impact on affected developers and residents, and significant costs.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The District Plan anticipates relocation of the Kart Club.

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

6.7 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.7.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.8 Develop and guide the implementation of spatial plans at a district and local area level to achieve higher order policy direction and Council's community outcomes - Implementation of OCP (2024) including local area planning at an area or corridor level

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

Kart Club Position

6.8 Karting plays an important role in the motorsport participation and development pathway, supporting youth engagement, high-performance progression, and broader community involvement.

6.9 The Club seeks long-term certainty to enable responsible planning and investment in its facilities. While the current site is conveniently located, operational constraints — including noise limits, restricted operating days, and an undersized track — limit the Club’s ability to meet modern facility standards and demand.

6.10 The Club’s facilities also support other clubs and community activities. Relocation would allow these uses to continue within a purpose-designed facility, with opportunities for improved layout, shared infrastructure, and enhanced amenities. Potential co-location with other motorsport activities could deliver operational efficiencies and support the attraction of larger events, generating wider economic and community benefits.

6.11 The Kart Club considers relocation essential to securing its long-term future and enabling growth in both participation and facilities. The Club asks that the Council honour its longstanding commitments to the project, cover all the costs of relocation, and ensure it is treated equitably alongside other sporting codes that receive Council-supported facilities.

6.12 Should relocation not occur, the Club intends to seek Council support to improve its existing facilities at Carrs Reserve and increase the permitted hours of operation.

Community

6.13 Community consultation on land use options for land surrounding Carrs Reserve (including provisions for the relocation of the Kart Club) was undertaken through the development of the South-West Christchurch Area Plan and changes to the Christchurch District Plan (Awatea Plan Change).

6.14 There is pressure from neighbouring developers and landowners around Carrs Reserve to proceed with the relocation or to relax noise mitigation requirements to enable development.

6.15 No community consultation has taken place yet regarding the proposed relocation and details of the alternative private property are to remain confidential at this stage.

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

6.16.1 Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board. The existing track is in Halswell ward, and the private property under consideration is in Hornby ward.

6.17 Community Board views have not been sought on the current proposal.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.18 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.

6.19 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.

6.20 The Council would consult with Ngāi Tūāhuriri Runanga on the project, but no offer back is required as part of the proposed land swap.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.21 The decisions in this report are not likely to:

6.21.1 Contribute to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

6.22 Motorsport is inherently a high-emission activity, and any expansion of their activities and development of a new facility, could lead to increased emissions. By supporting the development of a larger track with potentially expanded use, the Council may be perceived as endorsing the continuation and potential growth of this high-emission activity. This may change in the longer term with improved technology.

6.23 The carbon footprint of the new facility could be minimised by incorporating green technologies and sustainable products wherever possible. Further, redevelopment of Carrs Reserve may provide opportunities for tree planting to offset some carbon emissions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The outcomes of any detailed investigation will be reported back to the Council to inform a subsequent decision on whether to proceed with the relocation. This will be in time for the next Long-Term Plan.

7.2 Detailed investigative work will not proceed if investigation is not supported and the project is cancelled.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Relocation Option Description - Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/2039134
b	Proposed track Layout - Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1380368
c	Indicative Track Cost Estimate - Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1631051
d	Building Estimate for Kartsport Canterbury - Public Excluded (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/1683470

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Sarah Oliver - Team Leader City Planning

Mitchell Shaw - Principal Advisor - Finance

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Head of Parks

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

15. Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/325516
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transport
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a clear direction on the use of vertical traffic calming on collector and arterial roads within the Christchurch City Council (CCC) network.

1.2 This report originates from the need to ensure consistency in decision-making following increased implementation of raised traffic calming devices across the city, feedback from elected members and the community, and alignment with Safe System principles.

1.3 This report excludes traffic calming on neighbourhood and local streets, which are managed through existing Christchurch City Council (CCC) street design standards.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads 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. Directs that, except at high-risk intersections and defined formal priority controlled pedestrian crossings, vertical traffic calming is not permitted on major arterial roads. Alternative Safe System and speed management interventions must be assessed and demonstrated to be insufficient prior to any proposal for raised devices.

4. Directs that vertical traffic calming on minor arterial roads is to be used in targeted locations only, including:

a. Intersections that have an assessed safety risk, where alternative safety improvement tools are not deemed viable in addressing the crash risk.

b. Central City within the Four Avenues, key activity centres, where there are high numbers of people walking, cycling, scooting.

c. Formal priority controlled pedestrian crossings, outside marae, educational facilities and major transport hubs.

5. Directs that vertical traffic calming is not to be implemented as a corridor-wide treatment on minor arterial roads, and that alternative Safe System and speed management interventions must be assessed and demonstrated to be insufficient before any raised devices are proposed.

6. Directs that vertical traffic calming on collector roads is to be used in targeted locations only, including:

a. Intersections that have an assessed safety risk, to address the crash risk.

b. Central City within the Four Avenues, key activity centres, where there are high numbers of people walking, cycling, scooting.

c. Formal priority controlled pedestrian crossings, outside marae, educational facilities and major transport hubs.

7. Notes that, where referred to in Recommendations 3 to 6 above regarding the use of vertical traffic calming:

a. intersections include traffic signal-controlled intersections including any slip lanes, roundabouts, priority intersections (give-way and stop).

b. local and neighbourhood streets are excluded.

8. Notes that where a significant risk is identified through a Post Construction Stage Safety Audit, the implementation of intervention(s) recommended to mitigate that risk is not constrained by Recommendations 3 to 6 above.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report seeks to provide direction for the consistent use of vertical traffic calming on collector and arterial roads within the CCC network.

3.2 Raised safety platforms and vertical traffic calming features are recognised as an effective Safe System tool for reducing impact speeds at defined conflict points, particularly at intersections and pedestrian crossings. Evidence from national guidance (Waka Kotahi Safe System Toolkit and Speed Management Guide), Austroads guidance, and international practice supports their use in targeted high-risk locations.

3.3 Arterial roads perform a strategic movement function. Vertical traffic calming should therefore be applied selectively and in response to identified safety risk, rather than as general feature in projects. This report also covers collector roads, which have a movement function but to a lesser extent than arterial roads.

3.4 The report clarifies that vertical traffic calming, except at high-risk intersections and defined formal priority controlled pedestrian crossings, is not permitted on major arterial roads. Designers must consider all other available options in the safe system toolkit to reduce the risk and improve safety.

3.5 For minor arterial and collector roads, the report clarifies that raised devices can be considered at the following locations:

3.5.1 Intersections that have an assessed safety risk, where alternative safety improvement tools are not deemed viable in addressing the crash risk;

3.5.2 Central City, key activity centres, where there are high numbers of people walking, cycling, scooting;

3.5.3 Formal pedestrian crossings, outside marae, educational facilities and major transport hubs.

3.6 Vertical traffic calming features are generally not supported as part of uncontrolled crossing points, or for general traffic calming of traffic along minor arterial and collector corridors.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Improving safety on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the Christchurch City Council. Providing safe infrastructure is key to ensure people get to where they are going safely irrespective of the mode of travel. Council has a Level of Service to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries from all crashes by 40% in 2030. This is also a goal in the Road Safety Action Plan, which is a collaborative plan between Christchurch City Council, Waka Kotahi, ACC, FENZ and New Zealand Police.

4.2 No one expects a crash, but people make mistakes – including those who are careful and responsible drivers. We need to build a safe road system that is designed for people. This means doing our best to reduce crashes but acknowledging that crashes will continue to happen. We can prevent serious injury or harm through a safe system approach, which incorporates safer road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds and safer infrastructure.

4.3 Under the Safe System, infrastructure must manage impact speeds at conflict points, particularly where pedestrians and cyclists interact with motor vehicles. The tolerable limit (survivable speed) for pedestrians and cyclists is 30 km/h.This shifts the focus from compliance alone to designing roads that achieve survivable operating speeds.

4.4 Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s Safe System Toolkit provides a structured set of infrastructure and speed management interventions aligned to crash types and risk contexts. The toolkit promotes selecting the most effective treatment for the specific risk, rather than applying a single solution across all locations.

4.5 Christchurch arterial and collector roads perform defined functions within the Christchurch District Plan and the One Network Framework (ONF). Under the Christchurch District Plan:

· Arterial Roads are roads whose primary function is to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods between key parts of the city and region. They typically carry higher traffic volumes, including freight and public transport, and connect major destinations and activity centres. There are two types of arterial corridors, major arterial corridors, and minor arterial corridors.

· Collector Roads provide a link between local roads and the arterial network. Their function is to collect and distribute traffic within suburbs and connect neighbourhoods to the wider arterial network, while also accommodating property access and local movement. These provide movement at a more neighbourhood level.

4.6 Major arterial roads therefore serve multiple strategic roles, including freight movement, public transport corridors, emergency access, and access to key destinations. Collector roads balance movement and access functions and may also carry significant traffic volumes.

4.7 At the same time, many arterial and collector roads pass through areas of high pedestrian activity, schools, and activity centres, where there is elevated exposure of vulnerable road users and a higher risk of serious injury crashes.

4.8 The Council has implemented raised safety platforms at a number of high‑risk intersections and crossings as part of its Safe System approach. The purpose of these devices is to reduce both the likelihood and severity of crashes by managing a safe speed at locations with conflicts between different road users or on streets where a lower speed is desired for overall community safety.

4.9 The Safe System Toolkit and related Austroads guidance identify a range of available tools, including:

Intervention Category	Examples of Tools
Vertical Deflection (Primary safe system treatment)	Raised safety platforms, raised intersections, raised crossing tables
Speed Management (Supporting safe system treatment)	Speed limit changes, gateway treatments
Intersection Safety (Supporting safe system treatment)	Roundabout upgrades, protected turn phases, movement bans
Corridor Reallocation (Supporting safe system treatment)	Lane reallocation, cycle facilities, median treatments, visual narrowing
Surface, marking and signs (Supporting safe system treatment)	High-friction surfacing, vehicle activated signs, line marking and delineation
Compliance (Supporting safe system treatment)	Red-light and speed cameras. NZ Transport Agency are responsible for these. Staff continue to advocate for increased deployment at high-risk sites.

4.10 In terms of effectiveness for speed management, self-enforcing physical measures produce the most reliable and sustained reductions in operating speeds. Infrastructure such as vertical deflection, horizontal alignment changes, and lane narrowing physically constrain vehicle movement and reduce speeds regardless of driver intent. By contrast, measures that rely primarily on information or visual cues such as signs, pavement markings, and gateway treatments, typically achieve smaller reductions, often in the order of only a few kilometres per hour, and are less effective in higher-speed environments.

4.11 Measures that rely on signage or markings are dependent on driver awareness and voluntary compliance, resulting in more variable and less predictable speed outcomes. Physical measures, by comparison, provide a consistent operating speed that aligns more closely with Safe System requirements at high-risk locations.

4.12 Vertical traffic calming devices have been installed at a number of intersections across Christchurch. These are described below, with initial evaluation of effectiveness.

Traffic signals

4.13 Traffic signals are not typically identified and promoted as a Safe System solution, primarily due to the angle and impact speed of crashes at signalised intersections. Safe Speed Platforms (Raised Safety Platforms) have been used to reduce the maximum comfortable operating speed for vehicles to Safe System collision speeds. The tolerable limit (survivable speed) for pedestrians and cyclists is 30 km/h.

4.14 Vertical traffic calming either through a full platform or approach only platforms have been installed at eight intersections, as shown in the table below.

Intersection	Treatment Type	Location/context
Barrington/Lincoln/Whiteleigh	Full platform	Entrance to shopping centre and stadium
Briggs/Lake Terrace/Marshland	Approach-only platforms	Big box retail centre / High Risk Intersection
Hills/Shirley/Warrington	Full platform	Shopping Centre / High Risk Intersection
New Brighton/North Parade/Marshland/Shirley	Approach-only platforms	Shopping Centre, Intermediate school / High Risk Intersection
Aldwins/Buckleys/Linwood	Approach-only platforms	Shopping Centre / High Risk Intersection
Aldwins/Ferry/Ensors	Approach-only platforms	Adjacent to Te Aratai High School / High Risk Intersection
Hansons/Riccarton/Waimairi	Approach-only platforms	Shopping Centre / High Risk Intersection
Main South/Riccarton/Yaldhurst	Approach-only platforms + new signals	Shopping Centre / High Risk Intersection

4.15 Preliminary monitoring results from the Crash Analysis System below indicate encouraging reductions in injury crashes following the installation of safe speed platforms. Given that less than two years of post-implementation data are available for most sites, these results should be viewed as indicative only. No other major network changes, speed limit adjustments, or signal phasing modifications were implemented at these locations during the evaluation period.

	Crash period before	Number of crashes (excluding non-injury)			Crash period after	Post-implementation crashes (excluding non-injury)
		F	S	M		F	S	M
Barrington/Lincoln/ Whiteleigh	2017-2022	0	3	4	2023-2025	0	0	0
Briggs/Lake Terrace/Marshland	2018-2023	1	3	8	2024-2025	0	0	0
Hills/Shirley/ Warrington	2019-2024	0	2	6	Mid-2024-2025	0	0	2
New Brighton/North Parade/Marshland/ Shirley	2019-2024	0	0	8	Mid-2024-2025	0	0	1
Aldwins/Buckleys/ Linwood	2019-2024	0	2	11	Mid-2024-2025	0	1	2
Aldwins/Ensors/Ferry	2019-2024	0	2	5	These were constructed in 2025.
Hansons/Riccarton/Waimairi	2019-2024	1	1	6
Main South/Riccarton/ Yaldhurst	2019-2024	0	1	2

4.16 Having raised traffic calming features in the toolkit for these high-risk locations, will provide a safety benefit to the community.

Roundabouts

4.17 Roundabouts are one of the safest intersection forms for vehicle occupants. However, many urban roundabouts in New Zealand do not provide safe access for people walking and cycling despite their proximity to schools, shops, and other destinations. Retrofitting, rather than replacing, these roundabouts offer a resilient and cost-effective approach, making the most of existing infrastructure while meeting evolving community needs. The Council has made low-cost improvements at a number of roundabouts using physical speed management measures, such as Watts profile speed humps and raised platforms, instead of relying solely on regulatory signage or enforcement.

4.18 In addition to speed management measures, the upgrades filled gaps in the pedestrian network, for example, by providing refuge crossings by enlarging the splitter islands or upgrading pedestrian refuges to raised zebra or dual crossings. Sharrows were applied on approaches to guide cyclists into the traffic lane and alert drivers to their presence, while coloured surfacing (red or green) was added around central islands and exit lanes to improve visual cues and reinforce slower-speed behaviour.

Location	Treatment	Project driver
Wilsons / Centaurus / Albert	Approach speed humps, pedestrian refuge improvements, sharrows and green cycle lanes on exits, central island hatching and red surfacing	School safety
Merrin / Withells	Approach speed humps, enlarged splitter islands, sharrows, central island coloured surfacing	School safety
Merrin / Avonhead	Approach speed humps, enlarged splitter islands, sharrows, central island red surfacing, kerb extensions on approaches	School safety
Clyde / Ilam	Approach speed humps, enlarged splitter islands, kerb extensions, removal of two-lane approach sharrows, central island coloured surfacing	School safety
Bower / Travis / Rookwood	Approach and departure speed humps, enlarged and lengthened splitter islands, kerb extensions, sharrows, central island hatching and red surfacing	School safety
Colombo / Cashmere / Dyers Pass	Raised dual crossings on two approaches, approach and departure speed humps, enlarged splitter islands, sharrows, enlarged central island	School safety/High risk intersection
Bridge Street / Estuary Road	Speed humps on each approach/departure, sharrows	Community requests/visibility issue
Richmond Ave / Caulfield Ave	Speed humps on each approach/departure, sharrows	School safety/Fatality
Stanmore Road/Cashel Street	Speed humps on each approach/departure, sharrows	Streetscape upgrade

4.19 Vehicle speed data was obtained from TomTom Traffic Analytics, which provides aggregated GPS-based travel speed data for defined road segments. For each of the top six sites, 85th-percentile speeds were analysed over a three-month period before and after construction to identify changes in approach, circulating and departure speeds through the roundabouts.

4.20 The data shows that the upgraded roundabouts achieved reductions in approach and circulating speeds, particularly where physical devices such as Watts profile humps or raised platforms were installed. Across all sites with approach speed humps, the average reduction in 85th percentile approach speeds was 4 km/h, with several of the approaches achieving 85th percentile speeds of 30 km/h or lower, a critical Safe System threshold. Approaches with raised dual crossings installed achieved an average 8km/h reduction in 85th percentile approach speeds.

4.21 Crash data from CAS for the first six Christchurch roundabouts were analysed to assess early outcomes following the installation of targeted safety treatments between February 2023 and July 2024. Across all sites, the total number of reported injury crashes in the five years prior to treatment ranged from five to twenty, with the majority being non-injury or minor crashes.

Site	Crash period before	Reported crashes pre-implementation					Crash period after	Reported crashes post-implementation
		F	S	M	NI	Total		F	S	M	NI	Total
Wilsons / Centaurus / Albert	2018-22	0	1	3	3	7	2024-25	0	0	0	1	1
Merrin / Withells	2018-22	0	1	3	1	5	2024-25	0	0	0	0	0
Merrin / Avonhead	2018-22	0	0	3	4	7	2024-25	0	0	1	0	1
Clyde / Ilam	2019-23	0	0	4	4	8	2025	0	0	1	0	1
Bower / Travis / Rookwood	2019-23	0	4	5	11	20	2025	0	0	0	0	0
Cashmere / Colombo / Dyers Pass	2019-23	0	3	3	7	13	2025	0	0	1	0	1

4.22 Preliminary analysis indicates a consistent reduction in crash frequency at all sites following treatment installation. While the post-treatment observation period is relatively short, ranging from one to two years, early indications are positive. Several sites show a complete absence of reported crashes since installation, while others have seen noticeable declines in minor injury and non-injury crashes.

4.23 Having raised traffic calming features in the toolkit for these locations, will provide a safety benefit to the community.

Mid-block crossings

4.24 Mid-block crossings on arterial roads present a different risk profile to intersections. While they can provide important connectivity for people walking, they can introduce new conflict points along corridors that are primarily designed to move traffic more efficiently.

4.25 On major arterial roads, uncontrolled or non-priority mid-block crossings combined with vertical traffic calming (such as speed humps or raised tables) are generally not supported. These treatments can create inconsistency in driver and pedestrian expectation and interrupt the strategic movement function of the corridor.

4.26 Examples of locations where mid-block crossings have been installed with vertical traffic calming, or where traffic calming has subsequently been retrofitted, are provided below. These installations were delivered through individual projects responding to site-specific safety issues or community needs.

4.27 The examples illustrate the range of contexts in which treatments have been applied historically and do not necessarily reflect the proposed future direction outlined in this report (for example the Deans Avenue crossing treatment).

Location / Project	Treatment	Road hierarchy	Project driver
Waimairi Road at Bush Inn Mall	Raised signalised crossing	Collector	Shopping centre / customer requests
Stanmore Road	Raised signal crossing	Collector	Avon River Park
Opawa Road	Raised zebra crossing	Collector	School Safety (Opawa School)
Athol/Waimairi	Raised zebra crossing	Collector	School Safety (UoC)
Gayhurst Road	Raised zebra crossing	Collector	Avon River Park
Swanns Road	Raised zebra crossing	Collector	Avon River Park
Waterloo Road	Non priority crossings / Speed humps	Collector	School Safety (Hornby High School and Hornby Primary)
Tennyson Street	Non priority crossings / Speed cushions	Collector	School Safety (Beckenham School)
Deans Avenue (Moorhouse Avenue - Harper Avenue)	Non priority crossing / Speed hump	Major arterial	Establishing new crossing point
Cranford Street (Innes Road - Northern Arterial Extension)	Signalised crossing with platform in advance	Major arterial	Red light running and customer requests for improved safety at the pedestrian crossing
Heaton Street	Raised signalised crossing	Minor arterial	School Safety (Heaton Intermediate)
Ferry Road (Aldwins Road - Humphreys Drive)	Raised signalised crossing	Minor arterial	Woolston Town Centre
Innes Road (Papanui Road - Queen Elizabeth II Drive)	Raised zebra crossing	Minor arterial	School Safety (Mairehau Primary School and St Francis of Assisi School)
Waltham Road (Riverlaw Terrace - Brougham Street)	Raised zebra crossing	Minor arterial	School safety (Waltham School)
Woodham Road (Avonside Drive - Pages Road)	Raised zebra crossing	Minor arterial	School safety (Whitau School)

4.28 Where improved pedestrian connectivity is required on arterial roads, priority should be given to:

· Rationalising crossings to signalised or priority-controlled facilities at appropriate spacings;

· Speed management tools that align with the surrounding speed environment and land-use context.

4.29 Raised platforms may be considered at mid-block locations only where:

· A formal priority-controlled crossing is provided (signalised or zebra);

· A Safe System assessment identifies elevated risk or high pedestrian demand;

· Alternative treatments have been assessed and demonstrated to be insufficient; and

· The location is consistent with a Central City or key activity centre context, or outside a marae or educational establishment.

4.30 Experience from recent projects has demonstrated that mid-block vertical traffic calming on major arterial corridors can generate significant public concern where the treatment is not clearly linked to a defined conflict point, priority-controlled crossing, or activity centre context.

4.31 Non-priority crossings with mid-block speed humps on arterial corridors are generally not supported. While vertical traffic calming may encourage some drivers to slow and yield as a courtesy, this behaviour may not be consistent across both traffic streams. Drivers on the opposing approach may not anticipate or replicate this response, creating uncertainty and increasing risk for people crossing who may expect vehicles to stop.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.32.1 Option 1 – Provide Clear Operational Direction (Preferred). Develop and endorse a formal direction outlining where vertical traffic calming is appropriate on arterial roads.

4.32.2 Option 2 - Continue Case-by-Case Decisions Without Formal Direction. Rely solely on project-level Safe System assessments without additional Council direction.

4.33 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.33.1 Complete Prohibition – Ruled out due to inconsistency with Safe System evidence and improving safety on the Christchurch Transport network.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.34 Preferred Option: Preferred Option: Clear Direction for Targeted Application.

4.34.1 Option Description: Endorse guidance that raised safety platforms on arterial roads are appropriate when:

· Located at high-risk intersections;

· Integrated with formal pedestrian crossings;

· Located in the Central City and within key activity centres; or

· Located outside schools on arterial roads where a formal pedestrian crossing exists and a Safe System assessment demonstrates elevated risk.

4.34.2 Mid-block speed humps at non-priority crossings or corridor-wide vertical deflection on major and minor arterials are not generally supported.

4.34.3 Option Advantages

· Provides clarity and consistency.

· Aligns with Safe System evidence.

· Supports Central City and activity centre place outcomes.

· Maintains arterial movement function.

4.34.4 Option Disadvantages

· May limit flexibility in unusual site-specific situations.

4.35 Option 2: Case-by-Case Without Direction

4.35.1 Option Description: Continue current practice without formal endorsement of consistent application principles.

4.35.2 Option Advantages

· Maximum flexibility.

4.35.3 Option Disadvantages

· Risk of inconsistency.

· Increased political and community debate on individual projects.

· Over-use of treatment on the network.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.36 Options were assessed against:

· Alignment with Safe System principles;

· Effectiveness in reducing death and serious injury risk;

· Consistency with arterial road function; and

· Deliverability and clarity for staff and stakeholders.

4.37 To ensure consistency in application, officers will apply a staged Safe System intervention framework when considering vertical traffic calming on major arterial roads.

4.38 This framework reflects the structured escalation approach embedded within Council’s safety intervention toolkit and aligns with Waka Kotahi Safe System guidance and Austroads infrastructure principles.

4.39 Step 1 – Confirm Risk Context

· Confirm the location is an arterial road.

· Identify documented death and serious injury (DSI) history, speed-related crash patterns, or high exposure of vulnerable road users.

· Determine the Safe System survivable speed required at the specific conflict point.

4.40 Step 2 – Apply Supporting Safety Interventions (Level 1) Before considering vertical deflection, staff must assess lower-order treatments, such as:

· Signal timing optimisation;

· Intersection simplification;

· Pedestrian priority treatments; and

· Speed management tools.

4.41 Step 3 – Targeted Vertical Intervention (Level 2) If target operating speeds cannot be reliably achieved through Level 1 measures, vertical traffic calming may be considered.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 This report does not commit the Council to additional capital expenditure. Individual projects remain subject to separate funding approval.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk 1 – Inconsistent application across projects
Without clear operational direction, vertical traffic calming treatments may be applied inconsistently across arterial corridors, leading to uncertainty for elected members, project teams and the community.

6.2 Risk 2 – Over-application on arterial corridors
There is a risk that raised devices could be implemented as corridor-wide treatments or at isolated mid-block locations not aligned with arterial movement function or the place function. This may create network inefficiencies and generate community concern.

6.3 Risk 3 – Failure to achieve Safe System speed outcomes
If vertical traffic calming is not available as part of the intervention toolkit, some high-risk intersections or pedestrian crossings may not achieve survivable operating speeds (30 km/h for pedestrian conflict).

6.4 Risk 4 – Community perception and acceptance
Previous arterial projects involving vertical traffic calming have generated mixed community feedback. There is a risk that future proposals may attract opposition if not clearly justified. Staff need to apply an evidence-based framework grounded in Safe System principles, risk assessment and crash data. Clear policy direction improves predictability and supports better communication at project level.

6.5 Risk 5 – Misalignment with arterial function under the District Plan and One Network Framework
Arterial roads serve a strategic movement function. Overuse of vertical traffic calming could undermine this role. Differentiating between major arterial, minor arterial and collector roads, reinforces that treatments are to align with corridor function. Vertical deflection is restricted to defined conflict points and activity centre contexts.

6.6 Risk 6 – Legal and duty-of-care exposure
The Council has a statutory responsibility under the Land Transport Act 1998 and Local Government Act 2002 to manage the local road network safely. Failure to address known safety risks may expose the Council to reputational or legal risk. The staged Safe System framework supports good decision-making by ensuring interventions are proportionate, evidence-based and appropriately documented.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.7.1 Christchurch City Council has statutory responsibility for the management and control of the local road network under the Local Government Act 1974 (including section 334 relating to council powers in respect of works undertaken on roads, which places an obligation on Council to consider the effects of vehicular traffic flows), the Local Government Act 2002, and the Land Transport Act 1998. These Acts provide Council with the authority to plan, design and implement road safety and traffic management measures on roads under its control.

6.7.2 Raised platforms and vertical traffic calming devices are expected to moderate vehicle speeds while maintaining through-movement, lane capacity, and property access on the corridor; any delay is limited to vehicles slowing to traverse the platforms and is expected to be minor (typically only a few seconds per device under free-flow conditions), and therefore is not anticipated to unduly impede vehicular traffic using the road.

6.7.3 The adoption of a directional framework in relation to traffic calming measures also addresses the Council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002. Such a framework provides a clear structure against which decisions in relation to traffic calming measures is made, this promoting transparent and consistent decision making by both the Council and Community Boards.

6.8 Other Legal Implications:

6.8.1 There are no specific legal implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Any future infrastructure changes or traffic management measures will be delivered in accordance with relevant legislation and regulatory requirements.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.9 The required decision:

6.9.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Improving the safety of Christchurch’s road network supports the Christchurch City Council Strategic Framework, including the strategic priority to be an inclusive and equitable city and to build trust and confidence by working with our communities. It also contributes to the community outcomes of a collaborative confident city, where people feel safe and connected, and a green, liveable city, where neighbourhoods are accessible and well-connected.

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

6.9.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.

· Alignment with safety goals in Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy.

· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.

· Central City and our Key Activity Centres are poised to be some of the bigger growth areas in the city in coming years and is identified as a priority development area in the Greater Christchurch Spatial Plan. The areas are likely be upzoned to allow high density residential development within a walkable catchment of these centres. This would lead to an increase in the number of people wanting to walk and cross the road to access local services.

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

6.11 Transport

6.11.1 Activity: Transport

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

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

· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <=12 crashes per 100,000 residents

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.12 From all previous consultation regarding proposed transport safety improvements, we know that in general, motorists are much less supportive of vertical traffic calming, and vulnerable road users are more supportive. Motorists generally do not support vertical traffic calming for reasons including impact on travel time, impact on themselves / their vehicle and the perception that the cost of implementation is not justified. Counter to this, vulnerable road users generally support vertical traffic calming for the increase in safety.

6.13 As the decision in this report aims to maintain the safety outcomes for all road users there should be broad community support.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.17 Improving the ability for people to walk, cycle, scoot and catch the bus are a key part of the Council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low emission way for residents to move around the city.

6.18 Improving safety and making the intersection feel safer would address some of the barriers to people making sustainable travel choices. Removing these barriers will lead to reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and consequently emissions from transport.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The direction provided will form part of the Council’s design standards when assessing the appropriate Safe System Tools.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Principal Advisor Transportation Safety

Cory Shaw - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Kathy Graham - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

16. Application to Capital Endowment Fund 2025/26 - Te Tahi Youth
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/303016
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships; Danielle Endacott, Community Development Advisor - Youth
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an application of $200,000 to its 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) from Te Tahi Youth Board toward the tailored fit‑out of their new primary service-delivery base.

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

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Application to Capital Endowment Fund 2025/26 - Te Tahi Youth 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 $200,000 from the 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund to the Te Tahi Youth Board towards the fit-out of their new primary delivery site, conditional on the applicant demonstrating they have sufficient resources to complete the project and the production of a robust project plan demonstrating how the project will be delivered before funds are drawdown.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Te Tahi Youth (TTY) Board has applied to the 2025/26 CEF for support toward the tailored fit‑out of their new primary service-delivery base within The Loft at Eastgate Mall.

· Following a thorough assessment this report will recommend that the Council approve a grant of $200,000.

· This report also presents alternative options for Councillors, enabling them to consider the staff recommendation alongside other courses of action.

3.2 TTY is a long‑established provider of holistic, community‑based support to rangatahi aged 10–24 and is relocating its primary delivery site following the planned demolition of its former premises.

3.3 TTY delivers frontline services to young people facing complex and interconnected challenges, including mental health vulnerabilities, housing insecurity, family and social stress, and disengagement from education, employment.

3.4 Effective delivery of these services requires purpose‑designed, youth‑friendly environments that provide safety, privacy, and accessibility.

3.5 To date, TTY has leased desk space within The Loft for back‑of‑house functions; however, this arrangement does not support delivery of its full range of client‑facing services.

3.6 The project involves fitting out an additional area within The Loft to enable delivery of TTY’s core client‑facing services. The space will support youth engagement, facilitate coordinated referrals within The Loft’s integrated service environment, and ensure privacy and safety.

3.7 The proposed fit‑out includes upgrades such as ventilation, partitioning, lighting, and electrical and plumbing works, creating spaces tailored to TTY’s service delivery needs.

3.8 The area to be fitted out is sub‑leased from The Loft, which holds a six‑year lease with Eastgate Mall and a further six‑year right of renewal, providing medium‑ to long‑term tenure and operational stability.

3.9 Council investment would support community infrastructure that enables early, preventative support for rangatahi and strengthen the city’s youth support ecosystem.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 TTY (formerly 298 Youth Health) is a free “one‑stop shop” providing holistic support to rangatahi aged 10–24. The service recognises rangatahi as complex and “whole” people and delivers integrated health, vocational, wellbeing and mentoring services, alongside referrals where appropriate.

4.2 TTY was required to relocate its primary delivery site after vacating its former premises at Amuri Park, Churchill Street, which was scheduled for demolition. This prompted the organisation to identify a new location capable of supporting its full range of frontline services.

4.3 TTY is establishing The Loft as its primary delivery base. To date, TTY has leased desk space within The Loft to support back‑of‑house functions; however, effective delivery of its frontline services requires purpose‑designed, youth‑friendly environments where rangatahi can engage safely, comfortably and with dignity.

4.4 The proposed fit‑out of an additional area within The Loft will enable TTY to deliver its client‑facing services on site, including the provision of appropriate spaces for confidential conversations, holistic support, and coordinated referrals within a co‑located service environment.

4.5 TTY identified several benefits of co‑location within The Loft, including enhanced collaboration with other social service providers and supports warmer and more timely referrals, improved information‑sharing, and greater continuity of care for rangatahi.

4.6 TTY identified East Christchurch as the most appropriate location for its new base, with service data showing that as of March 2025, 42% of the young people it supports live in the Eastern Suburbs, supporting equitable access to services where demand is highest.

4.7 Many rangatahi who engage with TTY face complex and interconnected challenges, including mental health vulnerabilities, housing insecurity, family stress, and disengagement from education or employment. Youth‑friendly spaces that prioritise safety, accessibility, privacy, and cultural responsiveness help reduce barriers to engagement, build trust, and support positive outcomes. Without fit‑for‑purpose spaces, the ability of services such as TTY to reach and retain young people—particularly those most at risk—is significantly reduced.

4.8 The proposed fit‑out includes upgrades such as ventilation, partitioning, lighting, and electrical and plumbing works to meet safety and accessibility standards, while creating dedicated spaces tailored to TTY’s service delivery needs.

4.9 The area to be fitted out is sub‑leased from The Loft, which holds a six‑year lease with Eastgate Mall and a further six‑year right of renewal. While TTY does not hold the head lease, this arrangement provides a level of medium‑ to long‑term security and enables co‑location within a well‑established, integrated service environment.

4.10 Council support for the development of youth‑friendly service environments demonstrates a commitment to early intervention and preventative, community‑based responses that strengthen wellbeing outcomes for rangatahi.

Capital Endowment Fund

Background

4.11 The project recommended for funding has undergone significant collaboration with relevant advisors to ensure alignment with the fund objectives and broader Council strategic direction, with a detailed assessment matrix (included as Attachment A) examining the broader community benefit.

Eligibility & Assessment

4.12 The allocations from the CEF are split 40% to ‘Civic and Community’, and 60% to ‘Innovation, Economic Development and Environment’. This application fits into the Civic and Community category due to the outcomes sought from the grant.

4.13 To confirm eligibility Council requires:

· Evidence that the application is for a specific project or activity projects. – The application is for a specific project, the TTY tailored fit‑out of their new primary service-delivery base.

· Evidence that the project demonstrates a benefit for the city of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch. – Clear benefits are demonstrated for youth and for the capacity of community organisations helping youth.

· Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and into the future. – Benefits will exist for a minimum of six years.

4.14 In addition to a recommended amount, the application has been graded by assessors as Priority 1. The grading criteria used by staff is as follows:

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

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

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

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

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.15.1 Option 1 (preferred option): Grant the recommended amount of $200,000.

4.15.2 Option 2: Decline the application.

4.15.3 Option 3: Fund the application at a lower amount than recommended.

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

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.16 Option 1 - Preferred Option: Grant the recommended amount of $200,000.

4.16.1 Option Description: Approve a grant of $200,000 from the 2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund to the Te Tahi Youth Board towards the tailored fit-out of their new primary delivery site, conditional on the applicant demonstrating that they have sufficient resources to complete the project and providing a robust project plan outlining how the project will be delivered.

4.16.2 Option Advantages

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

· A grant will help the group progress toward their fundraising target and support the continued delivery of their core public‑facing services at their new central site.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· The area proposed for fit‑out is located within a commercial building (Eastgate Mall) and is being sub‑leased from The Loft rather than owned by TTY. While this arrangement means TTY does not hold the primary lease, it is supported by The Loft’s secure six‑year lease with Eastgate and an additional six‑year right of renewal.

· There would be $200,000 less in the 25/26 CEF fund to support other projects or to re-invest into the capital of the fund.

4.17 Option 2: Decline the application from Te Tahi Youth Board.

4.17.1 Option Description: Decline the application and ask the staff to work with the Te Tahi Youth Board to manage the effects of this decision.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· This option would retain funds in the Capital Endowment Fund, potentially to be utilised for other purposes.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· The applicant would need to rescope and potentially delay the project.

4.18 Option 3: Fund the application at a lower amount than recommended.

4.18.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council makes a partial grant towards the tailored fit-out of their new primary delivery site, conditional on the applicant demonstrating that they have sufficient resources to complete the project and providing a robust project plan outlining how the project will be delivered.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

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

· Reducing the amount allocated can be used to better target grant funding.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· The applicant would need to rescope and potentially delay the project.

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

4.19.1 Option Advantages

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

4.19.2 Option Disadvantages

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

· Staff have sufficient information to provide robust advice to Council.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.20 Analysis criteria include but are not limited to an assessment of the application against the criteria of the CEF, the Council’s strategic goals and the availability of funds. There is often specialist or expert opinion sought, and the provisional recommendations are moderated. A summary of the assessment is attached to this report as attachment A. Generic assessment criteria are summarised below:

· The value of the application is greater than $50,000. – The application is for $200,000

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

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

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

· The application is for something specific and new. – This is a specific new project

· There will not be ongoing Council operational investment required. – No ongoing OPEX required

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

· Benefits will be experienced now and in the future. – There is a minimum 6-year timeframe with a right of renewal for a further six years

· Demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch. – Benefits are city wide, the main focus is the East, benefits are primarily for the youth of Christchurch

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Te Tahi Youth Board	Fit-out of new primary delivery site	$200,000	$200,000
	Total	$200,000	$200,000

5.1 After accounting for all current commitments to the CEF, the unallocated portion for FY2025/26 is $ 1,421,289. If the recommendations in this report are accepted, the remaining available balance for this financial year will be $1,221,289.

5.2 Anticipated applications to the CEF include; Dogwatch Sanctuary Trust, Halswell Tennis Charitable Trust, Sumner Sports Pavillion Incorporated.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Project Delivery Delays:

· This risk is mitigated by the fact that project plans have been reviewed; and that funding drawdown is conditional on sufficient resources and capability to deliver being demonstrated. Council staff keep regular communication with the applicant to monitor project progress.

6.2 Cost Overruns:

· This is mitigated by the one-off nature of CEF grants limiting any future financial liability to the Council. The applicant is expected to have contingency plans and secure co-funding for the project as appropriate.

6.3 Underspend of Funding:

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

6.4 Reputational Risk:

· This risk is mitigated with the application having been assessed transparently against Council-approved criteria, with a detailed staff assessment available at Attachment A.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

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

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

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

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

6.8 Citizens and communities

6.8.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP.

6.10 The decisions affect the following wards/Community Board areas:

· Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood (Te Tahi Youth application)

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The applicant will be contacted shortly after the minutes of this decision are published. Any approved grant funding will be distributed thereafter in accordance with the final allocation agreed by the Council.

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

7.3 If the Council resolves to fund the project, the applicant will be required to submit an accountability report to the Council detailing the success of the project and how the granted funds were spent.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Te Tahi Youth Board_CEF Staff Assessment Matrix	26/717984	229

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Danielle Endacott - Community Development Advisor

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

18. Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/86534
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Kiri Jarden, Principal Advisor Community Arts
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the final draft of Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 for consideration by the Council.

1.2 The draft strategy has been developed in consultation with partners, the local community and arts sector to shape and prioritise activities and programmes supporting the sector and reducing barriers to arts and creativity opportunities.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 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 adoption of the Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 Strategy Attachment A of this report.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Toi Ōtautahi, a strategy for arts and creativity is a partnered strategy with Rātā Foundation, Creative New Zealand, mana whenua and ChristchurchNZ continuing to support implementation through their own programmes, direct funding of Council activity and or in-kind contributions.

3.2 Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 reconfirms a focus on:

3.2.1 Support for local artists, arts and creative organisations,

3.2.2 Recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and relationship with mana whenua, and contribution to our city identity,

3.2.3 Recognition of the value art and creativity for a vibrant, prosperous and connected city, and

3.2.4 Understanding that access to and participation in arts and creativity brings tangible health and wellbeing benefits.

3.3 Toi Ōtautahi is proposed to have a life of ten years noting that delivery can be nuanced and responsive as required by changing priorities and as opportunities allow.

3.4 No additional investment from the Council is sought.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Extensive engagement with community and the creative sector was undertaken in the development of Toi Ōtautahi 2019-2024.

4.2 In 2020 New Zealand’s borders closed and delivery of the strategy went online with Rātā Foundation and Creative New Zealand supporting development of digital platforms and projects; www.toiotautahi.org.nz . In January 2026 the Toi Ōtautahi Instagram was registering around 100,000 views for the month while the Toi Ōtautahi newsletter has high open rates.

4.3 Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) funding investment enabled the Council’s community arts team to develop artists development programmes and contributed towards the opening of Toi Auaha, a community arts space in the central city. Toi Auaha is now home to over 20 artists while there are several regular community arts organisations using the shared spaces.

4.4 The 2021 Council Life in Christchurch Arts, Culture and Heritage survey results showed that arts and creativity remain an important reason why over half of respondents enjoy living in Christchurch. Street art in particular is highly valued by 80% of respondents, who think that it helps to improve the appearance of public spaces. The survey results showed that there was more scope for developing access to and support for ngā toi Māori.

4.5 In 2023 ChristchurchNZ undertook a survey of the creative sector. It found that the Christchurch arts and creative sector employed at least 5690 people and generated approximately $718 million in economic output in 2022, growing at almost double the rate of the city’s overall GDP since 2017.

4.6 MCH research found that the New Zealand creative sector is a major economic driver, contributing $17.5 billion (4.2%) to national GDP as of March 2024, employing roughly 117,912 people. Creative exports were valued at $3.6 billion in 2023, making it the country's fourth-largest export industry, following dairy, meat, and forestry, while outperforming sectors like seafood and wine.

4.7 The Council’s increased investment through multi-year commitments to The Arts Centre and Watch This Space, and with the opening of a new theatre, home to The Court Theatre, movement and circus arts studios at Parakiore and significant performance space at One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, all making a significant contribution to the Council’s aspiration of becoming a Cultural Powerhouse.

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

Date	Subject
12/03/2026	Toi Ōtautahi Strategy Delivery Report 2025

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

Date	Subject
12/03/2026	Council Workshop https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2026/03/ISCC_20260312_MIN_11620_AT_WEB.htm, https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2026/03/ISCC_20260312_MAT_11620.PDF

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.10.1 Option one: Endorse Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036.

4.10.2 Option two: Leave Toi Ōtautahi 2019-2024 in place noting that no significant change, leaving Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 on the table for future consideration.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.11 Preferred Option: Endorse Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036.

4.11.1 Option advantages:

· This option considers feedback from community and sector, noting particular interest in supporting sustainable arts careers, access to opportunities by children and young people, promoting sustainable practices in the sector and ensuring access to diverse spaces.

4.11.2 Option disadvantages:

· No increase in operational funding is proposed which may affect delivery timeframes for any new work streams.

4.12 Option two: Leave Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 on the table till a later date.

4.12.1 Option advantages:

· Toi Ōtautahi 2019-2024 continues to provide guidance on delivery despite the delay in review without impacting Council delivery.

4.12.2 Option disadvantages:

· A review of the Artworks in Public Places Policy is underway and delivery of this would be guided by Toi Ōtautahi. Ensuring the two strategies were consistent in approach would be advantageous to consistent delivery and engagement with artists, sectors and communities. Of note is the reference in Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 to sustainable practices (mindfulness of waste in the production of artworks), sustainable careers for artists and organisations, and importantly, support for capability building and commission opportunities for ringatoi Ngāi Tahu recognising the important contribution of Mana Whenua in enabling unique stories, history, experiences and language to be woven throughout our events, public spaces and reserves.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - <enter text>	Option 3 - <enter text>
Cost to Implement	$0	$0	N/A
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$30,000 (on budget)	$30,000 (on budget)
Funding Source	Rates	Rates
Funding Availability	Operational funds	Operational funds
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

5.1 The strategy requires no further commitment of funds from annual or long-term plans.

5.2 Strategy partners support delivery through in-kind support and through grants to support delivery led by Council Community Arts Advisors.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no risks to delivery identified. Toi Ōtautahi remains a partnered strategy with investment directly to Council to support a range of activities as well as ongoing grant making from partners into the local arts and creative sector.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 As conferred through the Local Government Act 2002.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and aspiration to become a Cultural Powerhouse.

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of affected parties and limited impact on rates.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including the Our Heritage, Our Taonga-Heritage Strategy, Strengthening Communities Together Strategy, Multicultural Strategy, Urban Development Strategy and the Community Events Implementation Plan.

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

6.6 Citizens and communities

6.6.1 Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and Events

· Level of Service: 2.8.6.1 Support community-based organisations to develop, promote and deliver community events and arts in Christchurch - 15,000 hours of staff support per annum

6.7 Recreation, Sports, Events and Arts plan for more people, more active, more often.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 Through review of Toi Ōtautahi the community and sector were able to share their views. These have been generally encouraging of Council delivery and support for arts, creative and cultural activity with an expectation of support, leadership and responsible stewardship.

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 Toi Ōtautahi prioritises ngā toi Māori and engagement with Mana Whenua to ensure creative opportunities and access to creative traditions are nurtured and expression of identity through arts and creativity is supported.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.13 While encouraging more sustainable practices in the creation of artworks is proposed in Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 the scope of work implemented through the strategy will be limited in relation to physical outputs. More consideration would very likely be given through the implementation of a new public art policy.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Following a decision from the Council, staff will be in touch with strategy partners. Community and sector will be informed through various Toi Ōtautahi communication media.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 DRAFT (Under Separate Cover)	26/78362
b	Toi Ōtautahi Strategy Delivery Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	26/57483

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Kiri Jarden - Principal Advisor Community Arts

Lucy Blackmore - Manager Events and Arts

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

Actions Register Ngā Mahinga

When decisions are made at meetings, these are assigned to staff as actions to implement. The following lists detail any actions from this meeting that were:

· Open at the time the agenda was generated.

· Closed since the last ordinary meeting agenda was generated.

Open Actions Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Amendments to the Register of Delegations	17 September 2025	30 April 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Legal Services
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 April 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 April 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	30 April 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
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
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
Notice of Motion - Feasibility of free overnight parking at Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre	16 July 2025	18 May 2026	RS&E	Management
New Footpaths Programme	17 September 2025	20 May 2026	Transport & Waste	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
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
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
Climate Change Portfolio Lead Report	3 July 2024	5 June 2026	SP&R	Coastal Hazards
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
Infrastructure Amendments - Parks	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
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
2025-26 Sustainability Fund Allocation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	SP&R	Coastal Hazards
Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	TW	Management
Hagley Park & Botanic Gardens - No Stopping & Mobility Park Parking Restrictions - Update	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	F&P Unit	Management
International Relations Update	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	OM&CS	Management
Notice of Motion - Parker / Gilberthorpes / Waterloo Intersection Signalisation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve	10 April 2024	8 July 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 July 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
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
Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook	4 February 2026	31 December 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	16 April 2025	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
Councillors' proposed amendments - Infrastructure and Regulation	14 February 2024	1 April 2026	1 April 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 May 2026	30 March 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
Heathcote Express Major Cycleway - Truscotts Road Detailed Traffic Resolutions	20 August 2025	30 March 2026	30 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	30 April 2026	4 April 2026	Regulatory Compliance	Regulatory Compliance
South-East Central Neighbourhood - Speed Limit Change	10 December 2025	11 March 2026	25 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
District Licensing Committee (DLC) Recruitment	21 January 2026	22 April 2026	2 April 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Democratic Services
Burwood & Mairehau intersection improvements	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	25 March 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board: Representation on Committees and External Organisations, 2025–2028	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	15 April 2026	CS&P	CS&P - Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
Bus stop upgrades on Gloucester and St Asaph Streets	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	15 April 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations

[1] Plan Change introducing the Special Purpose (Awatea) Zone

6. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 31 March 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/876788
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly - Team Leader Democratic Services Support and Cathy Harlow – Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

7. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 20 March 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/702118
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ruth Close, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

8. Canterbury Waste Joint Committee Minutes - 10 April 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/762684
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

9. Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 10 April 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/762707
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha McDonnell, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/790698
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/808195
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements	26/516912	123

12. Sumner Tennis Club Proposed Lease: Post Consultation Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/810154
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Little, Manager Residential Red Zone and Rupert Bool, Head of Parks
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

13. Brighton Mall Upgrade
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/717746
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Marcy McCallum, Project Manager, Transport and Waste Unit
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

17. Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/551653
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Julie Pearce – Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

*Organisation*	*Project Name*	*Amount Recommended*
The Gift Collective as the fund holder on behalf of Predator Free NB/Coastal Kaitiaki	Predator Free NB/Coastal Kaitiaki	$10,000

19. 2025 Triennial Elections
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/456689
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jo Daly, Council Governance Advisor / Deputy Electoral Officer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

20. Notification of Revocation of Part of previous Council decision
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/869416
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Corlett, Democratic Services Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

21. Notice of Motion - Ground-based solar generation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/714092
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	The Mayor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

22. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/724152
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

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
14.	Christchurch Kart Club Relocation
	Attachment a - Relocation Option Description - Public Excluded	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The Council acknowledges the public interest in this long-standing issue. However, it does not consider this outweighs the commercial interests involved and the potential commercial prejudice if this were disclosed publicly.	6 May 2027 At the conclusion of investigation work and any negotiations with the private property owner.
	Attachment b - Proposed track Layout - Public Excluded	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The Council acknowledges the public interest in this long-standing issue. However, it does not consider this outweighs the commercial interests involved and the potential commercial prejudice if this were disclosed publicly. Review Date: 6/05/2027 Review Event: At the conclusion of investigation work and any negotiations with the private property owner.	6 May 2027 At the conclusion of investigation works and any negotiations with the private property owner.
	Attachment c - Indicative Track Cost Estimate - Public Excluded	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The Council acknowledges the public interest in this long-standing issue. However, it does not consider this outweighs the commercial interests involved and the potential commercial prejudice if this were disclosed publicly. Review Date: 6/05/2027 Review Event: At the conclusion of investigation work and any negotiations with the private property owner.	6 May 2027 At the conclusion of investigation works and any negtiations with the private property owner.
	Attachment d - Building Estimate for Kartsport Canterbury - Public Excluded	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	The Council acknowledges the public interest in this long-standing issue. However, it does not consider this outweighs the commercial interests involved and the potential commercial prejudice if this were disclosed publicly.	6 May 2027 At the conclusion of investigation work and any negotiations with the private property owner.
24.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 1 April and 22 april 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
25.	Public Excluded Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 20 March 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
26.	Public Excluded Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 10 April 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.