Agenda of Policy and Planning Committee

Policy and Planning Committee

Open Minutes

Date: Wednesday 8 April 2026

Time: 9:31 am

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

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock

Councillor Tyrone Fields

Mayor Phil Mauger

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor David Cartwright

Councillor Pauline Cotter

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

John Higgins

General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Tel: 941 8999

john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

Katie Matheis

Senior Democratic Services Advisor

Tel: 941 5643

katie.matheis@ccc.govt.nz

Website: www.ccc.govt.nz

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

Karakia Tīmatanga

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

Secretarial Note: Item 8 was considered before Item 5.1 and Item 7 to allow the deputation speaker (Item 5.1) who joined via audio/visual link to address technical issues before speaking to Item 7.

Councillor MacDonald joined the meeting at 9.32 am.

Councillor Keown joined the meeting at 9.33 am.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00011

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

Councillor Fields/Councillor Peters Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00012

That the minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 be confirmed.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

8. Extension of the City Vacant Differential Rating

Committee Comment

1. Council Officers Mark Stevenson and Steve Ballard joined the table to present Item 8 and answer questions from elected members. Officers tabled an updated Recommendation 3 to clarify application to the Central City only (refer underlined text).

2. The Mayor Moved and Councillor MacDonald Seconded the updated Officer Recommendations.

3. Councillor Herz Jardine Moved and Councillor Harrison-Hunt Seconded an amendment (refer Recommendation 4). When put to the vote, this was declared lost.

4. The meeting then voted on the Motion as Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor MacDonald. When put to the vote, this was declared carried.

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Extension of the City Vacant Differential Rating 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. Retains the status quo: application of the City Vacant Differential Rating to the City Centre and Central City Mixed Use (South Frame) Zones only.

Motion Moved and Seconded

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Extension of the City Vacant Differential Rating 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. Retains the status quo within the Central City: application of the City Vacant Differential Rating to the City Centre and Central City Mixed Use (South Frame) Zones only.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Moved/Seconded

Amendment Moved and Seconded

4. Requests that staff undertake further work on the alternative of extending the City Vacant Differential (and associated exemptions and remissions) within the Central City to include the Central City Mixed Use zone, in time to inform decisions on the draft Long Term Plan.

Councillor Herz Jardine/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Lost

For	6	Councillor Cotter, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Moore, Councillor Scandrett
Against	8	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Fields, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Peters, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Abstain	0
TOTAL	14
Absent	3	Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor McLellan

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00013

Part C

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Extension of the City Vacant Differential Rating 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. Retains the status quo within the Central City: application of the City Vacant Differential Rating to the City Centre and Central City Mixed Use (South Frame) Zones only.

Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

For	14	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
TOTAL	14

Absent	3	Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor McLellan

Attachments

a Planning Map - Presentation to Council

Councillor McLellan joined the meeting at 10.04 am during consideration of Item 5.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.06 am returned at 10.12 am during consideration of Item 5.

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

5.1 Akaroa Civic Trust

Marie Haley spoke on behalf of the Akaroa Civic Trust regarding Item 7 - Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning: Where to next?

Attachments

a Marie Haley - Presentation to Council

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 10.23 am returned at 10.31 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning: Where to next?

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00014

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning - Where to next? Report.

2. Approves the initiation of the next coastal hazards adaptation planning process in two Adaptation Areas: the Lower Ōpāwaho Heathcote River and the St Andrews Hill to Taylors Mistake area.

3. Agrees to then progress the following sequence of locations for coastal hazards adaptation planning:

a. the remaining areas within Banks Peninsula and the Lower Pūharakekenui Styx River,

followed by

b. the Lower Ōtakaro Avon River and Waimairi to Southshore.

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Scandrett Carried

For	14	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Cotter, 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	15

Absent	2	Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan

9. Programme of Urban Development activities proposed, following transition from ChristchurchNZ

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00015

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Programme of Urban Development activities proposed, following transition from ChristchurchNZ 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. Endorses the programme of activities identified in Attachment C to this report for continuing as part of the Council’s work programmes, associated with the transition of Urban Development functions from ChristchurchNZ.

Mayor/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

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

Absent	2	Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan

10. Draft Council Submission on Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill

Committee Resolved PAPCC/2026/00016

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Draft Council Submission on Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill Report.

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

3. Approves lodging the Draft Council Submission on Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill (Attachment A to this report).

4. Delegates authority to the General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance /CFO to oversee final editorial changes, and to correct any typographical or formatting errors in the submission.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Peters Carried

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

Absent	2	Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 10.54 am.

CONFIRMED THIS 13^TH DAY OF MAY

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock

Chairperson

7. Proposal to Rezone Land - 95 Jack Hinton Drive
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/538659
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Darren Bridgett, Team Leader City Planning Mark Stevenson, Head of Planning and Consents Nigel Cox, Head of Recreation, Sports and Events
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 agreement from the Policy and Planning Committee to request the Minister responsible for Resource Management Act Reform to use powers to rezone the temporary stadium site (Apollo Projects Stadium) at Addington to enable a greater range of future uses, instead of using standard plan change processes under the Resource Management Act.

1.2 On 12 August 2021 the Council discussed the potential disposal of the land at 95 Jack Hinton Drive as a means of offsetting stadium costs and requested that staff have the site valued and provide the Council with a future options report (CNCL/2021/00119). The replacement stadium, One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, became operational in April 2026 and the temporary stadium in Addington is no longer required. The temporary stadium and all temporary infrastructure must be removed from the site.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Proposal to Rezone Land - 95 Jack Hinton Drive Report.

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

3. In relation to 95 Jack Hinton Drive:

a. Requests the Minister Responsible for Resource Management Act Reform to use powers under section 360I of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to modify the operative zoning and associated provisions from Open Space Metropolitan Facilities (OMF) to Mixed Use (MUZ) in the Christchurch District Plan with the introduction of a new permitted activity rule to enable residential activity subject to standards for the Medium Density Residential zone;

AND

b. Directs staff to prepare a development plan (DP), to further guide site outcomes having regard to feedback received through community engagement.

4. Delegates powers to the Head of Planning and Consents to undertake all necessary steps to request the use of the Minister’s powers under s360I of the RMA and to assist the Minister’s officials to the extent required.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The temporary stadium site has a long history of sporting activity, particularly as the former home-base for Canterbury Rugby League (CRL). Following the 2011 earthquake, the stadium sustained significant damage and the stands were demolished. Apollo Projects Stadium was redeveloped as a temporary sports and events facility, established under section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011.

3.2 The site became the alternative venue for the Canterbury Rugby Football Union until a replacement for the damaged AMI Stadium at Lancaster Park was constructed. CRL surrendered its lease to the site and relocated to the new Rugby League permanent base at Ngā Puna Wai.

3.3 The replacement stadium, One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, became operational in April 2026 and the temporary stadium in Addington is no longer required. The temporary stadium and all temporary infrastructure must be removed from the site in accordance with the District Plan_{_[1]}. This process will include considering whether to repurpose, sell or dispose of the temporary infrastructure. An Expression of Interest and tender documentation for decommissioning will be released in mid-2026.

3.4 The site comprises two titles, totalling 4.93ha at 95 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington. The site is zoned Open Space Metropolitan Facilities (OMF) under the Christchurch District Plan, with no underlying zone, i.e. to which the site could automatically revert upon its stadium function ceasing or not being required for activities otherwise enabled under the OMF rules.

3.5 For a use to be established which is not provided for by the OMF zone, the site would need to be rezoned or be subject to a site/use specific resource consent. It is recommended that the site is zoned Mixed Use. This would enable flexibility in the activities enabled on the site and further engagement on the possible outcomes for the site, including uses and development.

3.6 The recommendation for the introduction of a rule that enables residential activity, subject to standards for the Medium Density Residential zone, also recognises that residential activity is not enabled to the extent that may be appropriate in the Mixed-Use zone and affords flexibility for a residential and/or mixed-use development. Notwithstanding this, residential development of the site would be integrated with the environment to the east and south of the site as well as being consistent with the underlying residential zoning of the Addington Raceway. Land/asset value can also be better secured through rezoning, the values depending on the ultimate outcomes decided for the site.

3.7 Rezoning can be achieved by a standard plan change process, streamlined planning process, or by the Minister using powers under section 360I of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to make a change which is not subject to either of those processes. Timing of these options varies, as does the nature of consultation. Officers recommend asking the Minister to use s360I powers because it will expedite the process of rezoning the land to enable development beyond what is anticipated in the OMF zone, saving time and costs associated with a standard plan change process. Notwithstanding this, there remains the opportunity through a subsequent process for community input to inform the outcomes for the site.

3.8 Using powers under 360I is dependent on processes required by the Act and administratively within central government, which can affect the timing of any change. The November 2026 general election potentially provides an endpoint to that process dependent on any subsequent priorities of government. It is also noted that development of a development plan is likely beyond the practical application of 360I due to the likely high level of community interest in a public asset that has a long history in the city, meaning that it would be better developed through an iterative process involving the public. That can happen after and separately from the rezoning.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Christchurch stadium is a temporary sports and entertainment facility established under section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. The site was zoned Open Space Metropolitan Facilities (Temporary Christchurch Stadium) under the Christchurch District Plan, with specific rules for the temporary stadium (Rule 18.5.4 Area-specific rules). There is no underlying zone.

4.2 Under the area-specific rules, the temporary stadium will cease operating under the permitted activity standards or any resource consent on 31 December 2027 or such earlier date that a replacement venue is fully operational. The temporary stadium and all temporary infrastructure must also be removed from the site by the earlier of these dates.

4.3 The temporary stadium has hosted numerous sporting events, as well as several social and cultural events for Christchurch. There have been several naming rights assigned to it and it is currently known as Apollo Projects Stadium.

4.4 One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha, the permanent stadium, began operating in April 2026, with the final event at Apollo Projects Stadium held on 19 April 2026.

Location

4.5 The temporary stadium is situated at 95 Jack Hinton Drive in Addington, within a cultural and sports hub which also accommodates Addington Raceway and Wolfbrook Arena. In the immediate vicinity there are offices, motels, a retirement village, the Vision College Campus, and residential properties. There is relatively easy access to the Central City and the Addington office area, accessed off Show Place (the second biggest commercial area in Christchurch) and has easy access to transport links.

4.6 It comprises two fee simple titles held and managed by the Council, totalling 4.93 hectares in area, with a rateable value of $6.6 million:

Legal Description	Certificate of Title	Area (hectares)
Lot 1 DP 320558	81495	4.0789
Lot 2 DP 320558	81496	0.8485

Historical Canterbury Rugby League and Canterbury Rugby Football Union use of the site

4.7 The site at 95 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington was first used as the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral (A&P) Showgrounds from 1898 until 1997. The A&P Show relocated to the purpose-built Christchurch Agricultural Park in 1998.

4.8 The temporary stadium site was first used as a sports ground in 1913 and has hosted many club, Canterbury and NZ Rugby League fixtures, including the NZ Kiwi internationals in the 50s through to the 1990s. The site was then known as Rugby League Park.

4.9 In 1993 the site was purchased from Canterbury A&P. Joint ownership was between Canterbury Rugby League (CRL) and the Council. The total cost to purchase and develop was $2.4m (including a CRL contribution of $250,000 and a $150,000 grant from Lotteries).

4.10 In 2002 ownership and maintenance issues relating to Rugby League Park were resolved with full ownership reverting to the Council. A new lease for Rugby League Park with CRL was signed in 2005. It remained the base for CRL until it sustained significant damage during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and was closed until 24 March 2012. After the earthquake, the stands had to be demolished.

4.11 In May 2011 the Council was approached by Canterbury Rugby Football Union (CRFU) to assist in finding an alternative rugby venue to the damaged AMI Stadium at Lancaster Park until a permanent replacement was constructed. On 22 September 2011 the Council agreed to make Rugby League Park available, with the intention that the temporary stadium would be removed at the end of its life. Central government took over from CRFU as the lead agency and formed a trust (Christchurch Stadium Trust) as the vehicle to own and operate the temporary stadium.

4.12 In January 2012 CRL agreed to partially surrender its lease from December 2011 – April 2016 for the operation of a temporary stadium. There were two further surrenders of lease to extend the use to April 2018, and then a final expiry date of April 2019.^{^[2]} The Council paid CRL $30,000 per annum, with two opportunities each year for CRL to utilise the temporary stadium, and other grants from the Council.

4.13 On 25 September 2014 the Council agreed to loan the Christchurch Stadium Trust $2 million to purchase leased temporary seating in order to secure the operation of the temporary stadium for an extended period up to 31 December 2022.

4.14 In 2014, an investigation was completed by the Council for the home of Rugby League to be at Canterbury Agricultural Park within the oval, with a scope developed by CRL and costed at $26.7m. Further work continued to seek a more appropriate and affordable home ground. In 2017 a decision was made by CRL for Ngā Puna Wai to be the new home of Rugby League.

4.15 In March 2019 CRL relocated to Ngā Puna Wai. In December 2019 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board approved a full surrender of the lease.

4.16 In September 2020 legal ownership of the temporary stadium assets was transferred from the Christchurch Stadium Trust to the Council. Operational responsibility was transferred to Venues Ōtautahi and the Council Parks Unit.

4.17 On 28 March 2024 the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association (CAPA) agreed that it did not wish to reacquire the stadium land from the Council. As part of this agreement the Council is not required to offer to sell the land to CAPA, pursuant to section 40(2) of the Public Works Act 1981.

5. Temporary Stadium Infrastructure

5.1 The infrastructure that has been used at the stadium includes temporary structures and portable facilities, including grandstands, seats, Portacoms, toilet units, light towers, turf covers, equipment and signage, etc. The value of the current assets is approximately $1.5 million. The replacement value of the built assets is approximately $25 million.

5.2 As the District Plan area-specific rule requires the removal of the temporary infrastructure, the Council will need to decommission and dismantle the structures and consider whether to sell, retain for use on alternative sites or dispose of it. An Expression of Interest and tender documentation for decommissioning will be released in mid-2026.

5.3 There is also a lease with the Fencing Institute at the temporary stadium site. Staff are working through relocation options with the Institute.

6. Proposal to rezone the site

6.1 Staff propose requesting the Minister responsible for Resource Management Act Reform to use special regulatory powers to rezone the site and then proceeding with the preparation of a development plan for the site, informed by engagement with the community and secured through methods that enable delivery of the plan. The site is zoned OMF, with no underlying zone i.e. to which the site could automatically revert upon its stadium function ceasing or not being required for activities otherwise enabled under the OMF rules. The site also does not have a reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977. Therefore, once the Temporary Christchurch Stadium area-specific rules cease applying, the general OMF rules will apply to the site, providing for those activities enabled under its current zoning.

6.2 Activities not anticipated by the OMF rules would need a resource consent. These would fall into the category of being a discretionary activity where not otherwise listed in the rules for the OMF zone. For any resource consent process, this would enable discretion to consider any effects of land use/ development and the conditions imposed.

6.3 The alternative approach is to change the zoning in the District Plan, which provides for a range of potential outcomes in terms of use and development anticipated by the zone, unlike a resource consent for a specific use/ development.

6.4 Following rezoning of the land, the Council could engage on future options for use and development of the land consistent with the new zoning, which can be secured by a development plan (DP) with input through wider community engagement. Land/asset value can also be better secured through rezoning. This would provide certainty ahead of any disposal process that a resource consent application might not. For example, providing an opportunity for redevelopment of the area for housing, which could provide a higher revenue of approximately $26m (2021 market valuation based on rezoning to MRZ).

6.5 Rezoning can be achieved by one of the following methods:

6.5.1 standard plan change process (RMA, Schedule 1, Part 1);

6.5.2 streamlined planning process (RMA, Schedule 1, Part 5); or

6.5.3 by the Minister using powers under section 360I of the RMA to make a change which is not subject to either of those processes.

6.6 Depending on the method used, the time taken could be relatively limited. The regulatory powers in section 360I were inserted in the RMA in August 2025 so are relatively untested. As a consequence, there are uncertainties about how long it might take. It is possible that it could take approximately six months dependent on processes required by the Act and administratively within central government. A standard plan change takes up to 24 months following notification (the statutory time period in the RMA).

6.7 Also, for consideration by Council is deciding what zoning to seek, which are evaluated in Attachment A together with an overview of the activities enabled under the following zones:

6.7.1 Medium Density Residential (MRZ)

6.7.2 High Density Residential (HRZ) – enables a high-density form of residential development

6.7.3 Mixed Use (MUZ) – Enables a greater range and scale of activities with limitations on commercial uses.

6.8 Typically, the zoning of a site is considered in the context of the zoning in the surrounds. In this context, there is –

6.8.1 Medium Density Residential (MRZ) to the north-east and south-east,

6.8.2 Commercial Office (CO) zone to the north,

6.8.3 Neighbourhood Centre zone (NCZ) to the south-east, and

6.8.4 Open Space Metropolitan Facilities Zone (OMF) to the west (with underlying zoning of Residential Suburban Density Transition (RSDT)).

6.9 The recommended zoning of the site is Mixed Use on the basis that it provides the scope and flexibility for a range of uses, with the introduction of a new rule to enable residential activity on the site. This would support different outcomes for the site that could be later tested through community engagement and secured through a development plan. The effect would be that it facilitates an open conversation with the community with no commitment to a predominately residential and/or mixed-use development at this time.

6.10 In this context, Mixed Use zoning is a starting point while recognising the mix of activities, development and zoning of the surrounding environment. The Council could sell the two lots as a whole or subdivide further.

Development Plan (DP)

6.11 After zoning the land, a development plan is intended to guide development outcomes for the site and add value. It is a necessary step to ensure quality of place and supporting integration with the surrounding environment and community.

6.12 Specific outcomes for the site, including land uses and the scale and form of any development could be later defined through a Development Plan after community feedback and further technical work.

6.13 Following rezoning and while still in the ownership of the Council, officers propose preparing a Development Plan, which would also be informed by feedback on the future of the site e.g. consultation on whether to dispose of the land, which in turn would be used to secure site outcomes as identified through that process.

6.14 The combined approach of an expedited process for rezoning the site and subsequent Development Plan would satisfy time and land value imperatives, as well as addressing likely community expectations that they be involved in deciding the future of this land. This process should follow rezoning.

6.15 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting. Feedback from these workshops included plan change options for disposal with rezoning; the potential to request the Minister to fast track the rezoning, planning opportunities to retain greenspace and engagement with the community:

Date	Subject
25 November 2025	Council PX workshop – Future of Council Land
26 February 2026	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere- Heathcote Community Board - PX workshop Future of Council Land
15 April 2026	Council PX workshop – Future of Council Land

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

6.16 The following reasonably practicable process options are considered and assessed in this report:

6.16.1 request the Minister to use powers under section 360I RMA to rezone

6.16.2 standard plan change process

6.16.3 streamlined planning process (RMA, Schedule 1, Part 5)

6.16.4 do not rezone at this time

6.17 Attachment A also includes consideration and assessment of the following zoning options:

6.17.1 Medium Density Residential (MRZ)

6.17.2 High Density Residential (HRZ)

6.17.3 Mixed Use zone (MUZ) - Recommended

6.17.4 Commercial zoning

6.17.5 Industrial zoning.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.18 Preferred Option: request the Minister to use powers under section 360I RMA to rezone.

6.18.1 Option Description: under this option the Council will request Ministerial intervention under 360I of the RMA. The Minister investigates whether rezoning meets the criteria in the RMA and provides a report to Council, following which the Council responds. The Minister consults affected parties and if satisfied with the proposal, arranges a Regulation that changes the District Plan without going through the standard RMA process.

6.18.2 Option Advantages

· Expedites the rezoning of the site and offers immediate certainty – likely a six-month process.

· Subject to logistics, could seek change before 2026 election.

· Opportunity for feedback by those likely to be affected under s360L of the RMA.

· Little financial impact to the Council relative to the other options.

· Reduced staff resourcing to implement the change.

· Enables testing by the Minister and for any decision-making according to Cabinet rules.

· Retains the opportunity for community input to the future outcomes of the site to inform a Development Plan for the site.

· No appeal rights as provided for under standard plan change process.

6.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· The November 2026 general election potentially provides an endpoint to that process dependent on any subsequent priorities of government, noting that the s360I powers are temporary. The section will no longer exist after December 2027.

· The Development Plan will not be decided at the same time as the rezoning.

· Wider public involvement likely to be limited.

· Limited involvement of experts to ensure an evidential basis for decision-making.

· Removal of Council’s decision-making over the appropriate zone – the Minister might decide that a different zone is better.

· No appeal rights by the Council or other stakeholders.

6.19 Option 2: Standard plan change process

6.19.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would initiate a plan change using standard processes under Schedule 1, Part 1 of the RMA. Staff would include this site in the Council’s proposed Plan Change 20/PC Rezoning exemption application which is subject to a separate decision of Council.

6.19.2 This option would be dependent on the Minister approving an exemption for the plan change to progress.

6.19.3 Option Advantages

· The Council could develop the ODP and any specific rules for inclusion in the plan change for rezoning the site to MRZ, enabling integration with existing District Plan rules.

· Consultation with the public is undertaken as part of the statutory process by way of submissions and participation at a hearing.

· The merits of the change and ODP are robustly tested as part of a statutory process.

· The Council is the decision-maker on notification of the plan change and final form of the provisions, within the constraints arising from use of an independent hearings panel.

6.19.4 Option Disadvantages

· Longest process – can take up to 24 months (two years) following notification (the maximum statutory time period in the RMA).

· Financial costs to the Council, including costs of any appeal.

6.20 Option 3: Streamlined planning process

6.20.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would initiate a plan change using the streamlined processes under Schedule 1, Part 5 of the RMA.

6.20.2 This option would be dependent on the Minister approving a streamlined planning process for the plan change to progress.

6.20.3 Option Advantages

· Faster process than Option 2 (Standard plan change process).

· The Council could develop the ODP and any specific rules for inclusion in the plan change for rezoning the site to MUZ.

· The scope and nature of process as defined by the Minister (subject to minimum requirements), provides a streamlined pathway to achieving the zoning.

· Likely reduced financial cost to the Council compared with Option 2 (Standard Plan Change process).

6.20.4 Option Disadvantages

· Streamlined process enables a slightly faster rezoning process – between 12 and 18 months.

· Removal of the Council’s decision-making powers.

6.21 Option 4: Do not rezone at this time

6.21.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would not progress a plan change to rezone the site at this time.

6.21.2 Option Advantages

· The community could be consulted on preferred options for the future use of the site before any rezoning decisions are made.

6.21.3 Option Disadvantages

· Timeframes to consult would restrict the request for the Minister to use powers under s360I of the RMA, due to the upcoming general election.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

6.22 In determining the appropriateness of the options, consideration was given to:

6.22.1 The timeframe for the process of rezoning the site.

6.22.2 Costs of the process for the Council.

6.22.3 The opportunity for community input to inform outcomes for the site.

6.22.4 Robustness of the process of rezoning the site.

6.22.5 The Council’s role in the process of rezoning.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option Request use of 360I	Option 2 – Standard PC process	Option 3 – Streamlined Planning Process	Option 4 – Do not rezone
Cost to Implement	Staff time - Low	Staff time + Consultants, Commissioner(s)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Planning & Strategic Transport budget
Funding Availability	Within existing budget for Plan Change programme
Impact on Rates	No additional impact on rates beyond existing

7.1 Cost to implement – The cost to implement the proposed plan change of rezoning the site and development of a Development Plan is anticipated and within the existing programme of plan changes.

7.2 Rezoning will enable a greater range of options for future uses of the site. Financial details for those options will be brought to the Council at a later date.

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 There is a risk that the Minister ultimately decides on an outcome different to what is requested by the Council that is not aligned with the outcomes sought. This could be managed through clearly defining what the Council is seeking and for feedback to the Minister on his investigation.

8.2 There is also a risk that the time period for a decision by the Minister is longer than anticipated due to other priorities emerging for the Minister/ Parliament. If delayed and not decided on before the November elections, any use of the Minister’s powers under s360I will be dependent on priorities of the incoming government.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.3.1 The Minister has the ability under section 360I of the RMA to arrange a regulation to change the District Plan. The Council has the ability to ask the Minister to use that power.

8.4 Other Legal Implications:

8.4.1 The comparison of the legal routes to change the District Plan is in this report.

8.4.2 The criteria in the RMA for the Minister deciding to change the District Plan using s360I are that the Minister must be:

(a) Satisfied that the provisions do not have a negative impact on economic growth, development capacity, or employment; and

(b) Satisfied that the following criteria are met:

(i) the provisions have not been included in a policy statement or plan in recognition of an obligation or a right under a Treaty settlement, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Act 2019, or a Mana Whakahono a Rohe or joint management agreement; and

(ii)the modification or removal of the provisions of the policy statement or plan does not prevent the policy statement or plan from giving effect to a national policy statement; and

(iii)the modification or removal of the provisions of the plan does not make the plan inconsistent with a national environmental standard.

8.4.3 Nothing in the RMA requires the Minister to do anything in response to the Council’s request that he use that power. It is wholly at the Minsiter’s discretion whether to even investigate it.

8.4.4 If the Minister does decide to investigate it and create a report, there is no statutory timeframe for doing so. The Minister must publicly notify the report and invite the Council to provide comments on it. The Minister is required to consult with people (how widely is at the Minister’s discretion).

8.4.5 As the power in the RMA is new, there is little guidance available on whether or how the Minister will use it.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.5 The required decisions:

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

8.5.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the proposed plan change processes to enable future uses of the site, public interest in a high-profile site, and the temporary stadium no longer being required.

8.5.3 Are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular, the District Plan.

8.6 This report does not supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 The Minister’s use of powers under s360I is subject to consultation with those parties likely to be affected by the change. Beyond the rezoning, there is the opportunity for consultation with the wider public to inform a Development Plan that defines outcomes for the site, reflecting the high level of community interest in a public asset that has a long history in the city. This could follow the rezoning as it is within the Council’s ability to do with a level of control while it retains ownership of the land.

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

8.8.1 Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board. The temporary stadium is located in the Spreydon Ward.

8.9 The Community Board view is for the community to have a say on the outcomes for the future development of the site, which can be done through a subsequent process including preparation of a Development Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

8.11 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. Any future public consultation will provide an opportunity for mana whenua to provide input.

8.12 The land was owned by CAPA prior to the Council taking ownership. Therefore, there is no right of first refusal to Ngāi Tahu. This has been confirmed by Ngāi Tahu legal advisors in 2021.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. The decisions in this report relate to process. The climate change implications of any land use decisions in future reports will be considered at that time.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 If the Committee agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will draft a letter to send to the Minister requesting that he investigates amending the zoning of the Addington stadium site to Mixed Use in the Christchurch District Plan.

9.2 Staff will continue work to inform a Development Plan for the site, guided by the Committee’s decision on zoning of the land and wider consultation with the public.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Evaluation of zoning options and overview of activities enabled	26/882718	30

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Darren Bridgett - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

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

8. Approval to Notify Plan Change 21 - Central City Noise
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/474430
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Darren Bridgett, Team Leader City Planning Liz White, Consultant Planner
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to publicly notify Plan Change 21 – Central City Noise (PC21).

1.2 This follows on from the Council’s resolution in April 2023 to commence a plan change process to the District Plan, including an evaluation of options for managing the effects of noise in the Central City. This was in response to concerns over conflicts arising between new residential activities and established music venues, and subsequent informal engagement on identified options.

1.3 Following public notification of the plan change, submissions are invited and a hearings panel hears and considers those submissions and other evidence. Recommendations from the panel are then considered by the Council. If adopted by the Council, the plan change becomes part of the Christchurch District Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Approval to Notify Plan Change 21 - Central City Noise Report.

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

3. Approves the public notification of Plan Change 21 – Central City Noise and its associated Section 32 evaluation report, pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 5 of the Resource Management Act, as provided in Attachments A and B of this report.

4. Authorises the Head of Planning and Consents to make any necessary corrections or amendments to Proposed Plan Change 21 or to the evaluation report and appendices, until the date of notification.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Plan Change 21 – Central City Noise is intended to address issues that have arisen in relation to the management of noise in the Central City. In particular, it seeks to provide for a noise management framework that reflects a vibrant inner-city environment, filled with a diverse range of activities. This requires a careful and balanced approach to be taken to providing for music and hospitality venues, which by their nature generate higher levels of noise, while continuing to provide increased opportunities for residential living, which can be sensitive to noise.

3.2 The current approach is based on 3 precincts (Categories 1, 2 and 3) within which there are different permitted noise levels, with the highest in Category 1. There are also acoustic insultation requirements in some areas for new sensitive activities, depending on zoning and location. A ‘preferred approach’ was consulted on between 25 June to 3 August 2025, which proposed to significantly expand the Category 1 & 2 precinct boundaries to essentially align the boundaries with existing insulation requirements, and increase noise limits for music and hospitality venues in both these precincts, relative to the insulation levels required.

3.3 Feedback was received from 1,429 parties (33 organisations and 1,396 individuals). The majority of feedback (87%) supported the proposed plan change overall.

3.4 As a result of this feedback, and further consideration of the zoning outcomes sought within the Central City, Council Officers now recommend amendments to the draft Plan Change to reduce how far Category 1 and Category 2 precincts are expanded in some areas, particularly in established residential neighbourhoods. These are detailed further at paragraphs 4.9 – 4.12 of this report, but generally seek to minimise impacts on established residential neighbourhoods, reflect practical limitations, and ensure noise limits align with the current level of noise insulation required.

3.5 The Category precincts recommended are shown in the map in Attachment C, and the changes recommended from the previous preferred approach are shown in the map in Attachment D. In order to assist the Committee in understanding how the changes impact on venues and residential activities, a summary table is also provided in Attachment E. This sets out some example areas, the current noise management regime applying, the recommended approach, and alternate options that have been considered. This is essentially a high-level summary of the s32 evaluation report, using specific example areas.

3.6 Other aspects of the preferred approach are recommended to be retained in proposed Plan Change 21, including the proposed increases to noise limits in Category 1 and 2 precincts, along with rationalising the approach to noise insulation requirements and adding a requirement for mechanical ventilation where noise insulation is required within the Central City.

3.7 During the engagement period, the government announced its intention to introduce legislation to require councils to stop work on most plan changes. The Council has received an exemption allowing PC21 to progress to notification. This will allow for further testing of the proposed approach through the formal submission and hearing process.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council resolved in April 2023 to commence preparation of a plan change to the District Plan, including an evaluation of options for managing the effects of noise in the Central City. This followed on from concerns being raised with the Council over conflicts arising between new residential activities and established music venues as well as various petitions and surveys indicating a level of support for increasing noise limits, particularly in relation to live music and hospitality venues.

4.2 Key issues identified by staff included conflicts arising (including the potential for reverse sensitivity effects) regarding noisy activities and residential activities in the Central City, particularly in mixed use zones; noise limits being too restrictive for music venues established in locations outside of Category 1 and 2 precincts, (being defined spatial areas where respectively higher levels of noise are permitted), requiring costly acoustic insulation and/or limiting their hours of operation; and some noise sensitive activities not having sufficient noise insulation to adequately mitigate higher noise levels.

4.3 During 2023 and 2024, City Planning staff were heavily involved in Plan Change 14, Housing and Business Choice, which was prioritised over the Central City noise plan change. On 27 May 2025, staff presented plan change options to the Council to address the key issues, including a preferred option. Of the various options identified and considered, the recommended approach was to:

4.3.1 Retain the current category-based precinct approach to managing noise, while also:

· expanding the precinct areas (Category 1 and Category 2) where higher limits are provided, and

· increasing the noise limit for music and hospitality venues in these categories (respective to each category).

4.3.2 Retain the existing noise insulation requirements for activities sensitive to noise in these areas, with the precinct boundaries and noise limits generally aligned to these existing requirements.

4.4 Following the presentation of options to Council, a drop-in session for councillors was held on 4 June 2025. As a result of the feedback received (outlined in a memo circulated to elected members on 12 June 2025), the preferred option for engagement was adjusted to include additional areas in St Asaph Street and adjacent to Fitzgerald Avenue within the orange Category 1 precinct.

4.5 Informal public engagement on the options took place between June and August 2025. Consultation feedback was presented to the Council at a workshop on 9 September 2025. At a high level, this included:

Question	Yes	Somewhat	No	Don’t Know / Not Sure
Overall, do you support the proposed Plan Change?	87%	5%	7%	1%
Do you think we've got the category locations right?	86%	7%	6%
Do you think we've got the noise limits and insulation requirements right?	81%	9%	9%

4.6 While there was overwhelming support for the direction of the draft proposal, key reasons that some submitters opposed the draft proposal or aspects of it, were:

· The noise limits are too low/should be increased further (107)

· It will affect the quality of life/comfort of central city residents (62)

· Residents were there first and/or should be prioritised (40)

· Increased noise will affect the health of central city residents (29)

· It could have negative impacts on existing live music venues (the rules aren’t enabling enough, confusion about the current rules in place, the cost of soundproofing for venues etc) (23)

· Perception that increased noise leads to more antisocial behaviour (20)

4.7 Various additional areas were requested to be added to the Category 1 (or Category 2) precinct, but the majority of these are located outside the Central City and therefore outside the scope of the area the Plan Change relates to. Excluding these, additional requests included:

· Including all areas within the Four Avenues in either Category 1 or having no noise limit (8)

· St Asaph Street (5)

4.8 The most common responses that submitters suggested should not be included in the Category 1 or 2 precinct were:

· The area around Victoria Street (31) including Salisbury, Beveridge, Conference, Peacock, Peterborough, Dublin Streets

· The residential East Frame neighbourhoods (6)

· St Asaph Street (4) and Welles Street (2)

4.9 Changes to the proposal in response to engagement

4.9.1 Following the feedback received from engagement on the preferred approach, Council Officers recommend the following refinements to boundaries of the Category 1 and Category 2 precincts to better consider zonings and existing residential activities. These are as follows, and are also shown in the map in Attachment D:

4.9.2 Change 1: Retaining the current Categories in the Victoria Street area (generally being Category 2 for the City Centre Zone (CCZ) and Category 3 for the High Density Residential Zone (HRZ) and Residential Visitor Accommodation Zone (RVAZ) areas), but applying Category 2 to those areas adjoining the current Category 2 zone which are zoned CCZ or Central City Mixed Use (CCMUZ).The previous preferred approach was to apply Category 1 to the current Category 2 areas; and Category 2 to areas within 75m of this; and

4.9.3 Change 2: Retaining the current Category 3 (rather than Category 1) applying to the areas zoned HRZ and RVAZ which are located within the Canterbury Multi Use Arena Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas; and

4.9.4 Change 3: Applying Category 2 (rather than Category 1) to a buffer area to the northeast of the stadium (generally being the Barbadoes/Hereford/Cashel/ Fitzgerald and Cashel/Clarkson/Lichfield blocks within the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas which is currently Category 3); and

4.9.5 Change 4: Applying Category 2 (rather than Category 1) to the East Frame area (being the current Category 3 area located within the CMUA Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas which is between Madras and Manchester Streets); and

4.9.6 Change 5: Not including the additional areas in St Asaph Street and out towards Fitzgerald Avenue in Category 1, but in Category 2 (noting they are currently Category 3).

4.10 The reasons for these changes are:

4.10.1 Change 1: Victoria Street area:

· It responds to submitter concerns that increased noise limits in that area would negatively affect established residential activities. Further, it takes into account the high volume of noise sensitive activities established in this area before noise insulation requirements applied, which would not be adequately protected from higher noise levels; and

· It better reflects that entertainment activities are not permitted in the HRZ and RVAZ, and therefore unlike in other zones, a higher noise limit would do little to provide for these activities in these zones; and

· It reflects that applying Category 1 to the ‘spine’ of Victoria Street would be unlikely, in practice, to allow for higher noise levels, because of the need for venues in this narrow area to meet the lower noise limits applying at the boundary with adjoining HRZ/RVAZ sites.

4.10.2 Change 2: Applying Category 3 to the areas zoned HRZ or RVAZ within the CMUA Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas:

· It better considers the high volume of noise sensitive activities established in this area before noise insulation requirements applied which would not be adequately protected from higher noise levels; and

4.10.3 Change 3: Applying Category 2 to the Barbadoes/ Hereford/ Cashel/ Fitzgerald and the Cashel/ Clarkson/ Lichfield/ Fitzgerald blocks within the CMUA Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas:

· It better considers that there are a number of noise sensitive activities which established in this area before noise insulation requirements applied which would not be adequately protected from higher noise levels; and

· It provides a buffer or transition between the Category 1 and Category 3 areas in this location.

4.10.4 Change 4: Applying Category 2 to the east frame area between Madras and Manchester Streets within the CMUA Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas:

· It reflects that there is a high concentration of residential activities in this area, and many have only been required to insulate to adequately mitigate noise of up to 60 dB L_Aeq(i.e. they were established before the CMUA noise insulation areas were put in place); and

· Given the recently established uses in this area, there is less likelihood or opportunity for new venues (which might benefit from the higher noise limits) to establish in this area; and

4.10.5 Change 5: Applying Category 2 (not Category 1) to areas in St Asaph Street and Fitzgerald Avenue that are outside the CMUA Inner and Outer Noise Insulation Areas:

· Noise sensitive activities established in this area have not been required to insulate to a level that would provide an adequate environment for sleep at a higher (Category 1) noise limit of 65 dB LAeq.

· Applying Category 1 to this area is unlikely, in practice, to allow for higher noise levels, because of the need for venues in this narrow area to meet the lower noise limits applying at the boundary with adjoining Category 2 sites.

· As these areas are currently included in Category 3, the permitted night-time noise limit (as recommended) would still increase substantially from 45 dB L_Aeq to 60 dB L_Aeq, which is comparable to limits applying in other main cities in New Zealand Aotearoa.

4.11 The advantages of the overall approach, including the changes recommended above, are:

4.11.1 The expansion of Category 1 and 2 areas precincts will provide flexibility for locations for new venues. Although in some cases the extent of Category 1 and 2 areas precincts would decrease from those put forward in engagement, they will still be increased substantially from the current boundaries.

4.11.2 Increased noise limits in Category 1 and 2 areas precincts will better provide for new and existing music venues and in turn better support a vibrant night-time economy. The recommended 60 dB LAeq limit in the Category 2 precinct is a substantial increase from the 45 dB LAeq applying to venues currently located in a Category 3 precinct, and comparable to limits applying in other main cities in New Zealand Aotearoa. The recommended 65 dB LAeq limit in Category 1 provides an even more permissive approach.

4.11.3 Areas with higher concentrations of noise sensitive activities established before the noise insulation requirements came into force will be protected from higher noise levels that would unreasonably affect sleep. This is demonstrated in the map in Attachment F.

4.11.4 The precinct boundaries better align with the outcomes sought by the underlying zoning of areas. In particular, areas intended to be predominantly residential in nature will be included in the Category 3 precinct. This is demonstrated in the map in Attachment G.

4.11.5 The changes to precinct boundaries are targeted to areas where insulation is already required. The areas where noise insulation is required does not increase.

4.11.6 The approach is considered to provide a balance between enabling music venues to operate and continuing to encourage residential activities in the central city.

4.12 The disadvantages of the overall approach, including the changes recommended above, are:

4.12.1 Noise sensitive activities established before the noise insulation requirements came into force could be subject to increased noise levels that are not mitigated through insulation. However, under the recommended option, the areas with the greatest concentration of noise sensitive activities would be removed from Category 1 or 2 precincts to reduce these effects.

4.12.2 Existing venues located in the Victoria Street spine, St Asaph Street area or between the CMUA Outer Noise Insulation Area and Fitzgerald Avenue will have a lower noise limit than venues in the Category 1 precinct. However, the recommended application of the Category 2 precinct to these areas, with a 60 dB LAeq limit, is still significantly higher than the limit currently applying in these areas (with the exception of Victoria Street, which is currently Category 2).

4.12.3 The increased noise limits will still require some noise mitigation measures to be put in place by venues (which might include entry lobbies, mechanical ventilation systems and acoustic upgrades to windows, doors and ceiling elements), but the planner’s assessment in the section 32 report (Attachment B) considers that this is reasonable and less than what would be required under the current noise limits. The Category 2 noise limits are equivalent to those applying in other central city areas (Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Queenstown) and higher in Category 1 meaning the costs are likely to be similar to those that would arise for venues in other cities. If venues cannot install those noise mitigation measures - due to costs or other reasons – they will not be able to take advantage of the maximum permitted noise rules and will still need to reduce volumes to comply.

4.12.4 Conflict may still arise where music venues and noise sensitive activities are located in proximity to each other, despite the planner in the section 32 report (Attachment B) considering that noise levels are appropriately matched to insulation requirements.

4.13 The following related memos/information was circulated to meeting members:

Date	Subject
12/6/2025	Memo to elected members following 27 May 2025 presentation and 4 June 2025 drop-in session

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

Date	Subject
27/5/25	Presentation of options for amendments to the District Plan
9/9/25	Workshop on feedback from consultation

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.15 Proposed Plan Change 21 is accompanied by a detailed evaluation report (at Attachment B) prepared under s32 of the RMA, which includes the consideration of reasonably practicable alternatives. Those evaluations assess the efficiency and effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed provisions for the District Plan. They conclude that the plan change provisions as recommended by staff (as set out in Attachment A) are the most appropriate.

4.16 In relation to the plan change process, the following options for PC21 have been considered:

4.16.1 Proceed with the notification of PC21 as recommended by Council Officers, and as set out in Attachments A and B).

4.16.2 Do not proceed with the notification of PC21.

4.16.3 Proceed with the notification of PC21, with changes to what is recommended by Council Officers.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.17 Preferred Option: Proceed with the notification of PC21 as recommended by Council Officers, and as set out in Attachments A and B.

4.17.1 Option Description: The changes to the District Plan and supporting s32 evaluation report would be adopted by the Committee, for formal notification under the RMA. PC21 would then proceed through the submissions and hearing process.

4.17.2 Option Advantages

· The proposed changes are aimed at addressing issues that have been identified with the current noise management regime in the Central City.

§ There is strong community support for the changes proposed in PC21.

· The changes have been evaluated by Council Officers as being appropriate, taking into account supporting technical evaluations.

§ Allowing PC21 to proceed through the submissions and hearing process enables the proposed changes to be further tested and, where appropriate, amended.

4.17.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are costs associated with the notification and hearings process, which have been budgeted for.

4.18 Option 2: Do not proceed with the notification of PC21

4.18.1 Option Description: The current noise precinct boundaries and noise limits would remain as per the current District Plan provisions.

4.18.2 Option Advantages

· No additional costs arising from the notification and hearings process would be incurred.

4.18.3 Option Disadvantages

· The issues that have been identified with the current noise management regime in the Central City would remain unaddressed.

· This approach would not be consistent with the majority of feedback received from public engagement on this matter.

4.19 Option 3: Proceed with the notification of PC21, with changes to what is recommended by Council Officers.

4.19.1 Option Description: The changes to the District Plan and supporting s32 evaluation report would be adopted by the Policy and Planning Committee, for formal notification under the RMA, with any modifications made by the Committee. For example, this could include changes to where the Category 1 and 2 precincts are applied, including reverting back to those proposed in the public engagement (in some or all cases). PC21 would then proceed through the submission and hearing process.

4.19.2 Option Advantages

· It is anticipated that any changes made to PC21 would still be aimed at addressing issues that have been identified with the current noise management regime in the Central City.

· Provided the changes are not substantive, this option would still generally align with the general community support for the changes proposed in PC21.

· The progressing of PC21 through the submissions and hearing process allows for any proposed changes to be further tested and, where appropriate, amended.

4.19.3 Option Disadvantages

· Changes made to the plan change may not be supported by technical experts.

· The changes may not align with the s32 evaluation that has been undertaken, which has considered the costs and benefits, and efficiency and effectiveness of various options at achieving the objectives in the District Plan and within the plan change itself. This includes consideration of the spatial extent of the noise precincts.

· There are costs associated with the notification and hearing process, which have been budgeted for.

4.20 If Option 3 is chosen, reasoning will need to be provided for the changes, which would then be included in the s32 evaluation.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option - notify	Option 2 – do not notify	Option 3 – notify with amendments
Cost to Implement	Within existing budget for Planning and Consents	No additional costs	Within existing budget for Planning and Consents
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Operational budget for Planning and Consents	N/A	Operational budget for Planning and Consents
Funding Availability	Funded in LTP	N/A	Funded in LTP
Impact on Rates	No additional impact beyond LTP	N/A	No additional impact beyond LTP

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are evidential risks and possible cost implications for the Council if it was to notify proposed District Plan provisions that are not supported by technical advice. There is a greater risk that such changes (if challenged through the submission process) will not be accepted by the hearings panel for PC21.

6.2 There is a risk in any plan change processes that the notified provisions and approach do not stand up to scrutiny and evidence is presented by other parties that the hearings panel favours. This has been mitigated by the technical evidence, consideration of options, and the high level of community engagement on this topic.

6.3 Council staff and consultants presenting evidence to the hearings panel are also not bound by the Council’s decision at notification, noting that those giving evidence must be objective and give their professional opinion to assist the Panel. This is a risk for any plan change process.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 This report has been reviewed by the Council’s Legal Services. The legal considerations are described throughout the report.

6.5 As noted in the section 32 report (Attachment B, at 3.1.8), compliance with the maximum permitted noise rules may not end complaints, and there may still be directions from enforcement officers that venues reduce noise. Enforcement officers can issue excessive noise directions under s327 of the RMA. These direct people to reduce noise to a reasonable level if the noise is of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person. This is a subjective assessment. An enforcement officer can issue an excessive noise direction for noise that complies with the District Plan; however, as context is relevant to whether noise is “excessive” and to what is a “reasonable level”, the Plan’s anticipated environment for the location should be relevant to the enforcement officer’s assessment. As such, the noise limits in the District Plan are likely to have some relevance to assessment of noise complaints.

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. It will contribute to the ‘collaborative confident city’; ‘cultural powerhouse city’ and ‘thriving prosperous city’ community outcomes, by improving opportunities for investment in venues which in turn contribute to the cultural and social well-being of the city, while still supporting residential life.

6.6.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. PC21 has been of high interest to the community and continuing to progress this work is a priority for the Council.

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

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

6.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.8.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The decision affects the Central Ward area and the following Community Board:

6.9.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.10 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board and community organisations in their area have not been directly consulted on this decision. However, PC21 was open to the public for informal engagement, and over 1,429 responses were received, including from community organisations.

6.11 Officers also directly consulted the Inner City West Neighbourhood (ICON) association during informal engagement, noting concerns relating to the proposed noise categorisation of the Victoria Street precinct.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

6.14 Whitiora were approached as part of the development of the plan change and indicated that they did not need to be consulted further on the specific details of the plan change. However, they noted that individual mana whenua may be affected as landowners and may comment as they see fit, which can occur through the formal submission process.

6.15 Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or to emissions reductions.

6.16 This is because the changes proposed in PC21 are unrelated to emissions or to climate change matters more broadly.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Policy and Planning Committee approves the public notification of Proposed Plan Change 21, this will proceed as soon as reasonably practicable. Once notified, the formal submission period runs for 20 working days. Following a summary of those submissions being notified, a further 10 working day period is provided for parties to make further submissions on the original submissions. A hearing will then be held to consider all submissions.

7.2 Engagement over the formal submission period will be similar to that undertaken during the informal engagement, and is likely to include an updated webpage, a Newsline story, letters to affected central city businesses and residents, Facebook posts and direct emails to any party who has opted into updates on the PC21 process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 21 Proposed Provisions	26/850837	46
b	Section 32 report with appendices (Under Separate Cover)	26/854757
c ⇩	PC21 Proposals with venues	26/854711	63
d ⇩	Engagement Map with Alterations Highlighted	26/854724	64
e ⇩	Example areas - comparison of current and recommended approaches	26/854738	65
f ⇩	Categories with residential building age	26/854728	68
g ⇩	Categories with zones	26/854732	69

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Glenda Dixon - Senior Policy Planner

Darren Bridgett - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

9. Review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1495980
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tracey Weston, Head of Regulatory Compliance and Steve Tunley, Principal Advisor Compliance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to set out the review of the Council’s Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018, and to seek the Policy & Planning Committee’s approval of the draft amended policy for consultation using a Special Consultative Procedure.

1.2 The report is staff generated, noting the legislative requirement to review this policy.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018 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 proposed changes to the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (Attachment A to this report) for public consultation.

4. Adopts the Statement of Proposal and the summary of information (Attachment C to this report) and agrees to commence a special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This report and its attachments constitute the review of the Council’s Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018. The Council is legislatively required to carry out this review.

3.2 Staff recommend minor amendments to the current policy to keep up with changes to legislation, the Council’s strategic direction and current best practice; as well as to provide clarity and update any outdated terminology and references. In accordance with the Building Act 2004, section 132(2), a special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act must be carried out to amend this policy.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Building Act 2004 (the Act) requires the Council to adopt a policy on dangerous and insanitary buildings. Council has had a policy in place since 2006. The Council’s current policy is the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018.

4.2 The Council keeps a register of dangerous and insanitary buildings. At present, there are 7 buildings on the register listed as ‘on-going’.

Scope of the policy

4.3 The Council has a responsibility to ensure people are protected against the risks unsafe buildings can pose.

4.4 The policy outlines how the Council will undertake its responsibilities under the Act in relation to dangerous and insanitary buildings. This includes how the Council will work with building owners to prevent buildings from remaining dangerous or insanitary, particularly where a dangerous building is affecting, or potentially affecting, another building.

4.5 A dangerous building is one which is likely to cause injury or death, or damage to other property in the ordinary course of events.

4.6 A building can be declared insanitary if it:

4.6.1 is offensive, or likely to be injurious to health because of how it is constructed, or because it is in a state of disrepair.

4.6.2 has insufficient or defective provisions against moisture penetration.

4.6.3 has inadequate sanitary facilities or potable water supply.

4.7 Earthquake-prone buildings are no longer covered by this policy. A change to the legislation on 1 July 2017 means they are now covered directly by sections 133AA-133AY of the Act.

4.8 Buildings which are abandoned or derelict, are not necessarily ‘dangerous’ or ‘insanitary’. There is a high legal threshold to determine a building as dangerous or insanitary, and any building which does not meet this threshold is outside the scope of this policy, and outside of the powers the Council has under the Building Act 2004.

4.8.1 For context, the Council received 84 complaints regarding possible dangerous or insanitary buildings between 1 July 2024 and 30 April 2025 - 16 meet the threshold of ‘dangerous’.

Other avenues for enforcement action / limited powers for derelict buildings

4.9 The Health Act 1956^{^[3]}, the Litter Act 1979^{^[4]} and the Resource Management Act 1991^{^[5]} also provide enforcement options in some circumstances (for example, a hoarding situation may be better dealt with under the Health Act). The tools available to the Council are limited and invariably there are properties which are abandoned or derelict but do not amount to a breach of relevant legislation. In these circumstances, the Council has no power to require or take action.

Policy review

4.10 The Act requires that the policy is regularly reviewed once adopted, at intervals of no more than 5 years. The current policy is overdue for review, however the policy does not cease to have effect because it is due for review or is being reviewed^{^[6]}.

4.11 Staff have reviewed the current 2018 policy and have found that it is largely still fit for purpose.

4.12 Staff recommend minor amendments to the current policy to:

· improve clarity, including on matters the Council may consider when assessing a building under this policy.

· align with recent changes to legislation, the Council’s strategic direction and current best practice.

· update outdated terminology and references to other documents.

· ensure the format of the policy is consistent with the standard Council policy template.

4.13 The proposed amendments to the policy are itemised and set out in Attachment B.

4.14 The Council may only amend or replace the policy in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

4.15 The Statement of Proposal, including the consultation summary, is set out in (Attachment C).

Further background information

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

Date

Subject

19 August 2025

Dangerous, Insanitary and Derelict Buildings (an overview of the legislation, Council powers, the process and examples of site investigations):

https://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/meeting/19-08-25-council-workshop/19-08-25-item-2-dangerous-and-derelict-buildings/

21 April 2026

Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy Review

Agenda (item 3): https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2026/04/ISCC_20260421_AGN_11026_AT_WEB.htm

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.17.1 Option 1: Amend the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (preferred option).

4.17.2 Option 2: Continue the current Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

4.18 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.18.1 Option 3: Do not review the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

· This option was ruled out because it is a legislative requirement for the Council to have this policy, and to review it in accordance with sections 131 and 132 of the Act.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.19 Preferred Option: Amend the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (Option 1)

Option Description: Undertake the legislatively required review of the policy and amend the policy to ensure it is up to date with current best practice and recent changes to legislation, as well as making any general improvements for clarity.

4.19.1 Option Advantages

· complies with legislative requirements.

· will ensure the policy is up to date and fit for purpose.

· the policy can be improved to address issues that have been identified since 2018.

· consultation will enable the Council to check in with stakeholders and communities to see if there are any further issues that need to be addressed.

4.19.2 Option Disadvantages

· None.

4.20 Option 2: Continue the current Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Option Description: Undertake the legislatively required review of the policy and recommend the current version of the policy is retained for up to a further 5 years.

4.20.1 A Special Consultative Procedure is not explicitly required under this option. However, the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 apply, meaning an assessment of compliance with those decision-making provisions would need to be undertaken to determine whether any consultation is required, and the extent of that consultation (if any).

4.20.2 Option Advantages

· does not require resource to undertake a Special Consultative Procedure.

· any consultation undertaken (if deemed necessary), would be limited or more targeted.

4.20.3 Option Disadvantages

· does not address the emerging issues that have been identified.

· misses the opportunity to make improvements to the policy, including alignment with current best practice, changes to provide clarity and updated references and terminology.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.21 Analysis criteria to assess the options included:

4.21.1 legislative obligations.

4.21.2 how the policy is currently working.

4.21.3 the operational ability to implement the policy.

4.21.4 the needs of the community.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 There are no additional funding requirements, as the proposal is for a ‘business as usual’ approach. Investigations required under this policy are covered by operational budgets.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is potential that the scope of the policy, or where it can be applied might be misunderstood however clear communication will help mitigate any potential risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council has the power to make, amend or replace a policy on Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings in accordance with the Act (sections 131 and 132) and the special consultative procedure requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (section 83). In accordance with section 131 of the Building Act 2004, this policy states the approach the Council will take in performing its functions and exercising its powers in relation to dangerous, affected, and insanitary buildings.

The policy outlines the Council’s priorities in performing those functions and explains how the policy will be applied to heritage buildings, having regard to safety, public interest, and statutory obligations.

6.2.2 For the purposes of this policy, a dangerous building is defined in section 121 of the Building Act 2004, and an insanitary building is described in section 123 of the Act. These definitions are discussed in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 above. Section 121A of the Act further defines an affected building as a building that is adjacent to, adjoining, or nearby a dangerous building or a dangerous dam.

6.2.3 The powers available to a territorial authority in relation to dangerous, affected, and insanitary buildings are set out in Subpart 6 of the Act (sections 123B–130). These powers include (s124):

· taking immediate action where necessary to remove or reduce danger (including erecting hoardings or fences to prevent access).

· issuing notices requiring specified work to be carried out to remove or reduce danger or to prevent a building from remaining insanitary.

· issuing notices restricting or prohibiting entry to a building where appropriate.

6.2.4 In exercising these powers, the Council must act consistently with this policy and be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that a building is dangerous, affected, or insanitary before taking action under Subpart 6 of the Act. The Council’s response should be proportionate to the level of risk to people or property and will take into account the circumstances of the building, including any heritage values recognised under relevant planning or statutory instruments.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The question has arisen as to whether the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy could be expanded to include consideration of buildings that are derelict. It is worth noting that there is no legislative definition for the term derelict.

6.3.2 The scope of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings policy is limited by the Building Act 2004, under which it is made. The purpose of the policy is to set out how the Council will perform its statutory functions in relation to buildings that meet the Act’s defined thresholds of being dangerous, affected or insanitary. The thresholds for meeting these definitions are defined in the Act, and therefore the policy cannot lawfully create new triggers or extend conditions—such as to dereliction, vacancy, or neglect—that do not, in and of themselves, establish that there is an identifiable risk to the health or safety of people or property as a result. Expanding the policy beyond those statutory limits would risk implying powers that the Council has not been given and would therefore be inconsistent with the purpose of the Act.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the specific impacts of the policy amendments on both affected property owners and the wider community. As the changes proposed are minor, it is considered there are no significant impacts for the stakeholder groups considered.

6.4.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:

· Our Heritage, Our Taonga – Heritage Strategy 2019-2029.

· The Council’s Compliance Strategy, which sets out a high-level approach to regulatory compliance activities. The policy’s enforcement approach aligns with this.

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

6.6 Regulatory and Compliance

6.6.1 Activity: Regulatory Compliance and Licensing

· Level of Service: 9.0.3.1 All investigations of dangerous building reports are initiated, and identified hazards secured, within 24 hours, 7 days a week - 1 .

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 This report recommends public consultation on the proposed amended Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy. Stakeholder and community views will be sought through the special consultative procedure.

6.8 The decision affects all wards and Community Board areas.

6.9 Community Board views will be sought as part of the consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.11 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

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

6.13 The policy outlines how the Council will undertake its responsibilities under the Act in relation to dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Committee accepts the recommendations of this report, staff will proceed with undertaking a special consultative procedure to seek feedback on the proposed amendments to the policy. Consultation is scheduled to commence in May 2026.

7.2 Submitters will be offered the opportunity to present their views to the Council. Either the Policy and Planning Committee, or a Hearings Panel will hear submissions.

7.3 The final decision on the adoption of the policy is made by the Policy and Planning Committee.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2026- proposed amendments tracked	26/763027	78
b ⇩	Itemised proposed changes to Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy	26/754207	90
c ⇩	Statement of proposal for Dangerous and Insanitary Policy	26/868833	114

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Steve Tunley - Principal Advisor Compliance

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Amy Rice - Engagement Advisor

Andrew Campbell - Associate Legal Council

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

10. Gambling and TAB Venues Policy Review
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/576317
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sharna O’Neil, Policy Analyst Strategic Policy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Policy and Planning Committee’s approval of the next steps of the 2026 review of the Council’s Gambling and TAB Venues Policy.

1.2 Councils are required to have a policy on class 4 and TAB venues under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020. The policy must be reviewed every three years and cannot be changed without a special consultative procedure (SCP).

1.3 During the 2024 review of the policy, the Council resolved to retain the existing policy without amendment for a further two years. The Council agreed to next review the policy in 2026 and include an SCP (CNCL/2024/00159).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy Review 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. Directs staff to undertake early engagement and complete an issues and options analysis of the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy to support a Council workshop on policy options in July 2026.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council is required to have a policy on class 4 gambling (pokies outside of a casino) and TAB venues under the Gambling Act and Racing Industry Act. The policy must be reviewed every three years. The policy cannot be changed without a special consultative procedure (SCP) being undertaken.

3.2 The Council has a combined class 4 Gambling and TAB Venues Policy that has been in place since 2004, and an SCP has not been undertaken on the policy since 2006.

3.3 The policy was last reviewed and retained without amendment by the Council in 2024. During the 2024 review the Council resolved to next review the policy in 2026 and include an SCP (CNCL/2024/00159).

3.4 Based on the Council decision during the 2024 review, this report proposes the Committee direct staff to undertake early engagement and complete an issues and options analysis to support a Council workshop on policy options in July.

3.5 Alternatively, the Policy and Planning Committee has the option for a procedural report to go to the Council to approve the delay of the policy review until the statutory review period (due 16 October 2027). This option would first require the Council to revoke its 2024 resolution and thus must be addressed by the body that made the existing resolution.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Gambling Act (s102) and Racing Industry Act (s97) require territorial authorities to have a policy on class 4 gambling venues and standalone TAB venues. The policy must be reviewed at least every three years and cannot be amended without undertaking a SCP.

4.2 This policy must specify whether new class 4 gambling and TAB venues can establish in the city, and if so, where they may be located. In addition, a class 4 venues policy may also include limits on the maximum number of gaming machines that can be operated at a new venue (within default limits set in the Gambling Act) and may include a relocation policy. The policy cannot force venues to close or relocate.

4.3 The Council’s Gambling and TAB Venues Policy is a combined policy document. It takes a ‘sinking lid’ approach to new class 4 venues and machines, meaning the Council will not allow an increase in class 4 gaming venues or machine numbers. If a venue closes, another venue cannot be established which reduces pokie machine numbers over time. The policy allows new standalone TAB venues to establish, subject to statutory requirements. The current policy provisions have been in place since 2004. An SCP has not been undertaken since 2006.

4.4 The primary intent of the policy is to reduce gambling accessibility to prevent and minimise harm. It should be noted that since the policy has been in place the Council has not consented any new pokie venues or additional machines. All venues and machines in place in the Christchurch district now were in place prior to the Council’s first policy.

4.5 The policy was last reviewed and retained without amendment by the Council in October 2024. The Council resolved for the policy to be reviewed in 2026 and for a SCP to be undertaken (CNCL/2024/00159).

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

Date

Subject

Wednesday 15 April 2026

Council Workshop: Gambling and TAB Venues Policy Review – https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2026/04/ISCC_20260415_AGN_11650_AT.PDF

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2026/04/ISCC_20260415_MIN_11650_AT.PDF

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.7.1 Direct staff to undertake early engagement and complete an issues and options analysis to support a Council workshop on policy options in July.

4.7.2 Agrees for a procedural report to go to Council to approve the delay of the policy review until the statutory review period (due 16 October 2027), revoking the previous Council resolution of 16 October 2024 (CNCL/2024/00159).

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.8 Preferred Option: Direct staff to undertake early engagement and complete an issues and options analysis to support a Council workshop on policy options in July. Staff will present their findings and workshop policy options with the Council in July. Following that workshop a Council decision will be sought in August on next steps for the policy review.

4.8.1 Option Description: During previous reviews of the policy, a decision has not been sought from the Council on the policy until staff have completed policy analysis and presented the Council with policy issues and options. This has provided advice to support the Council taking a decision on the policy settings.

4.8.2 Option Advantages

· The Council’s decision on whether to make changes to the policy settings is informed by the policy analysis and staff advice.

· The policy review would be consistent with statutory requirements and previous reviews of the policy.

4.8.3 Option Disadvantages

· None identified.

4.9 Option 2: Agrees to send a procedural report to Council to approve the delay of the policy review until the statutory review period (due 16 October 2027), revoking the previous Council resolution of 16 October 2024 (CNCL/2024/00159).

4.9.1 Option Description: The policy review would be paused and would not begin until late 2026, so that it could be completed by the statutory deadline.

4.9.2 Option Advantages

· Staff would be able to allocate resource to other projects.

· The policy review would be consistent with statutory requirements.

4.9.3 Option Disadvantages

· Given the policy review usually takes a year, staff would only be deferring work on this review until December 2026.

· Delaying the review may impact other projects commencing in 2027 where staff and Council resource is also required.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.10 The review meeting the policy’s statutory requirements.

4.11 The Council’s previous resolution to review the policy in 2026 and include an SCP.

4.12 The impact this policy review has on staff and Council time and resources, and other projects.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Delay review
Cost to Implement	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.
Funding Source	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.
Funding Availability	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.
Impact on Rates	Existing operational budgets.	Existing operational budgets.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 While the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy is legislatively required to be reviewed every three years, the policy settings can be re-considered at any time.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020 to have a policy on class 4 gambling and TAB venues, respectively.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.3.2 This report has been reviewed by Legal.

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. The primary aim of the Gambling and TAB Venues Policy is to minimise problem gambling and gambling related harm in the Christchurch community, noting the detrimental impact problem gambling has – not just on the gambler, but on their friends, family and wider community.

6.4.2 Is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. While decisions on the policy are of medium significance because the policy is of considerable interest to some organisations and groups, the decision in this report is on the policy review process rather than the policy itself.

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

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision affects all Community Board areas.

6.8 If the Committee decides to proceed with the next stage of this review, a memo will be provided to Community Boards on the policy. They will have the opportunity to request an Information Session with staff on the policy and will be encouraged to participate in the early engagement process.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value

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

6.11 Māori are overrepresented in problem gambling and gambling-related harm statistics. Problem gambling service providers continue to put significant effort into addressing the disproportionate burden of gambling harm experienced by Māori.

6.12 Staff are working with the Treaty Relationships Team as part of this policy review.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Committee decides to proceed with the next stage of this policy review, staff will then spend the next few months gathering an evidence base to inform policy options for Councillors. This will involve data collection and early engagement with stakeholders and the community which inform an assessment of the social impact of gambling and relevant policy options.

7.2 Staff will then come back to the Council in July to workshop policy options.

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

Marina Nicola - Legal Counsel

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Thomas Lee - Principal Policy Advisor

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

[1] The temporary Christchurch Stadium, including but not limited to all temporary structures and portable facilities shall be removed from the site not later than 3 months from 31 December 2027 or such earlier date as a replacement venue is fully operational, under rule 18.5.4 of the District Plan unless permitted pursuant to the rules of the underlying Open Space Metropolitan Facilities Zone or authorised by resource consent.

[6] See the Building Act 2004, section 132(2).

Chair	Councillor Henstock
Deputy Chair	Councillor Fields
Membership	The Mayor and all the councillors are members of this committee.
Quorum	Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting Cycle	Monthly
Reports to	Council

11. Notice of Motion - Letter to Central Government - Short Stay Regulation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/499376
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Herz Jardine
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Approval for Utilities Easement for Orion for an upgraded substation located in part of North Hagley Park	11 March 2026	10 June 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Approval for Utilities Easement over Reserve - Hagley Oval	11 March 2026	10 June 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Derelict Buildings Trial – New Brighton: Report Back	11 March 2026	10 June 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning - Where to next?	8 April 2026	8 July 2026	SP&R	Coastal Hazards
Draft Council Submission on Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill	8 April 2026	8 July 2026	Executive Office	Executive Office

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	DUE DATE	ACTION CLOSURE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Extension of the City Vacant Differential Rating	8 April 2026	8 July 2026	24 April 2026	Planning & Consents	Management
Programme of Urban Development activities proposed, following transition from ChristchurchNZ	8 April 2026	8 July 2026	24 April 2026	Planning & Consents	Management